coffee anon for example on the issue of iraq but generally people who are. known as strong leaders like myself. are probably a little bit threatened particularly when they're women because strength and women assume a little bit differently from strength of men but having said all that i have no regrets i think it's important that many women ran the majority of candidates were women from what i know it was the u.k. that supported your candidacy i am. one hundred percent sure that it was only due to your professional qualities and not the change of commonwealth solidarity. the u.k. always simply thought it was time for women secondly he also were on the record as saying they were looking for leadership qualities so i wasn't the only person they supported they would have supported all those as well but certainly they were very open to me you said you were very well qualified for the job of former prime

minister your. largest you're an agency but other people also have pretty much what similar characteristics i mean i'm tony harris and had almost an identical resume you sound a little bit like a maybe the impression i get from how you describe it is that temperamentally he had and that over you that. the member states didn't feel like they wanted somebody very forthright in that position isn't there a logic to that because the state relations are very troubled in this day and age and perhaps they they don't want somebody who will want rattle the boat even more willow is also known as someone who was always reasonable and had good relationships across the range of of member states but you know look the made that choice and tony good to. has been known to me for

a very long time we were social democratic prime ministers at the same do you think he was a good leader will he has all the attributes of a good leader he'd be in a prime minister he'd lead the un refugee agency successfully so of course he was highly qualified for the job as you say his resume i was a sense the same as mine the difference was was jim was that the sudden difference there's also a difference of temperament because he is much more. i would say so spokane person than you are and i'm not sure that there's so much a gender attribute as a personal attribute. i'm not known as someone who shouts or rages. but you know and as somebody who is pretty i asserted if i was a man but you know depending on the role you have you calibrate to that now two thousand and sixteen was a year when another very accomplished and ambitious woman lost her beat to president i'm talking about hillary clinton and in her book she i thought was

a little bit bitter and put it all on massaging me while clearly there were also are there things to consider do you think a woman when she gets so high up in the system can she really. call it john their cart at the end the point when she saw accomplished. she was a highly qualified candidate to be president of the united states absolutely. and i'm the only thing that you see it is hard for someone from the same party to see the seed and then come from that party and so that was always going to be an issue would a democrat president follow democrat president is think think back over the years in recent times you had george bush sr succeed ronald reagan but it's not so common the pinch of them does swing so probably always it was more of an uphill battle than perhaps would have been a pair you mentioned her formal. but clearly she also had

a fairly controversial professional track record because for example. state she was very active pushing for policy which in your own words turned into a how on earth. with so many militias controlling its capital in a state of anarchy i hope you're not saying that there is a more current in consideration than something like this i mean she objectively was a leader whose policies were questioned then whose policies produced a destructive result in some places in my experience anyone's hold a leadership position is going to come under attack for for something and. we all come under the but sure there would be things that hillary clinton wouldn't agree with but on balance i think she was a very well qualified person to be but when you talk about qualifications and it is

as if you're talking about the resume the bullet points on their resume but we also have to consider the outcome and the impact of the position that the person had things she would have been losing the presidency on that particular issue i think if you look back over the many many years that both hillary and bill clinton been in public life they have come under each time hillary was running for president. and up. proved to be extremely difficult now going back to the u.n. leadership you talked in previous interviews. about how the current structure of the u.s. doesn't allow the secretary general to be a fact if you said that he and it's usually he. up until now it's been a he he is constrained by member states micromanaging things you said that you

believe it would be a bad idea to limit the mandate to one term and in increase the secretary's discretion one that make it even harder for member states to have any faith in neutrality because that's the main consideration as far as. i know that's from the russian point of view that's the main consideration in choosing a person who would lead this organism the main consideration i think is that the person needs to be fair but i think in these very troubled times in which we live that is also a need for leadership in the major organizations and the general and the secretariat micro-managed. it's. the u.n. organizations enjoy far greater scope to run our organizations in the secure general does with the secretariat so i think that's something the member states should reflect on. i also heard you say that the secretary general should be prepared and should have

a mandates you engage with troubled or trouble some later it's like bashar al assad moammar gadhafi or i think what's more that relevant for today nicolas maduro what are the chances of the u.k. or the united states signing up for that. who in the charter of the specific reference to the good offices of the secure general and i think he could be used. actually didn't work out all those very pleased to see him turn you personally go to tripoli couldn't couldn't have been with a more difficult time and he went to he didn't gauge with all this including general have to so he put himself out there and i think that's important now my question and the next question may be a bias but i think it's not controversial to say anymore that the united nations is often used not to prevent conflicts but to flame them. when that doesn't happen

members of the p five sometimes goal their own way and enact their own vision on the ground wouldn't a more empowered secretary general or run interference for adopt. i don't think the u.n. ever inflames conflict exists to try to resolve conflict at the moment i mean the member states to try to subvert it for him alone agenda and we can all think of examples involving great powers with longer sarkozy of the security council also and. on all sides so again in a case i think for reflection of the major powers they have that from the charter that have the hell you use that can either. or or diminish it who wants of the minutest we need a un small i think a lot of powers would say that they want diminished. i mean those powers who

conduct the policy i'm not very supportive of so here's where i have to raise the flag for all the small states because most member states are small states and with international rule of law you have nothing small states have no might. the power of the voice of the vote they very much depend on the international rules based order and that's what countries like mine and other such countries will always work for now i want to ask you a few questions about syria i heard you say in one of the interviews that syria was very authoritarian but it had schools and health care and people productively employed and as a russian i have to say i think it's very bold of you to have that bought because usually much of the discussion again in the west if it stops at. characterizing your regime as authoritarian and everything else is kind of. you

know. very important do you face any rational act for that but because it's quite controversial because throughout my life as a leader had to interact on behalf might come true. with the. i disposable range of political systems and i have in the course of that scene here in systems whose hue people's human development is very low but i've also seen authoritarian systems where human development is high and rising so you need to give credit for that but i do think that what makes for sustainable human development in the long term is where people can express their opinions i mean the truth is democracy is a bit of a safety of people can vent but doesn't fall over and my concern is that the certain people to get a chance to have a say about with they want the country to go in a peaceful way but since you run a major development agency i think probably you also understand that democracy is

a process of development this is not something that you can have on very night you actually sometimes invent years if not decades into. riving at that place the security council and the un in general have often been criticized for allowing syria the state it is today to be part of the u.n. family do you think that was a mistake that's what it was that an example of the u.n. system failing or was that something that actually could be counted as an achievement of the united nations that syria is still a u.n. recognized member state the u.n. has no practice of throwing out. a member state because of issues like that and i think that's a good thing because at least it keeps the basis for the dialogue. and bester is still able to go to the u.n. and make the case with whether one agrees with anything he says or not that's the

right of a member state madam clark we have to take a very short break now but we will be back in just a few moments stay tuned. what is a bit coy and big point is the magic of a new type of digital currency decentralized digital scarcity chancellor i'm bringing a second chance i'm bringing a second bailout for a bank that's called that got us a lot for a reason to coin a civil disobedience a source of optimism because i can control my own financial definitely it's just a new way of coming to consensus it's a game changer it is human history this is columbus discovering a new world this paradigm shifting knowledge that transforms economics and find it hard to apollo eleven landing on to the.

drug where her cocaine were for books with the under fifty. everybody use cocaine. cocaine you can smoke it this is worth. thirty. twenty. score came to this is about a fifteen dollar big people smoke this one go figure so. you can find these drugs in any city in the united states that you want i. want to get it about to. make money. and that's what i did every day. my body told me that i belong with the poor but my thoughts my mind with that

i'm along with the girls. to be a very popular. football person dr. i was born a male had a sex change when i was thirty years old. i've now been living as a woman for twenty eight years and i fully regret this. should have gone away from by now but they hadn't so these surgeries are nothing more than plastic surgery i've had several female to male friends and you look at it and you just go god you paid for that it's horrible nobody can change genders it's impossible. is delusional it's a mental illness. this isn't one of mine from flesh or from my flesh she shall be called woman because she was teaching me.

welcome back to worlds apart with clark former prime minister of the land of war my administrator of the u.n. development program madam clark in one of your interviews you made an interesting point that the u.n. has three parts to its mandate development humanitarian work human rights and conflict resolution and it is the last one on the beach it is being charged wouldn't it be more able to do. good stuff if that conflict resolution part was taking out of its mandate altogether because it paralyzes so much of its other work . will the let's remember why the u.n. was set up was set up after a devastating war devastating two to russia. to my country which

contributed troops and so on and people said never again that said never again when the league of nations was set up but that didn't work on so conflict resolution peaceful resolution to speed has always been the heart of the man that has to stay that we have to work for a world where this is possible it's always been paid lip service to but in terms of actual practice it hasn't been that successful and if we take syria again there were numerous efforts by the un by other bodies you have and you go to that conflict at least at three times throughout the. course of that war and it was always rejected by some members of the u.n. security council so clearly everybody praises that aspect but it seems to be hampering things that the u.n. can do i think we need to take a broader view firstly there hasn't been

a major war since the u.n. was formed and even in this syria that you've done syria even in the bleakest done is of the cold war there was no war there was still a platform for dialogue at the un now the nature of conflict has changed by and large we're not looking between countries we're looking at civil wars and we're looking at the role of non-state actors like prices for us and we're also looking at proxy wars as we long hair and so the issue i think for the un the member states has to reflect on held the organization could be more effective with these kinds of wars because it's not no preventing one hopes. nuclear war world war two it's really about these conflicts which begin with within one country some good instrumental. some don't but they cause protracted misery to this and a great deal of this there are many political and cultural differences among the

permanent members of the security council but for me personally the fundamental one is. their risk tolerance i think both russia and china are much more risk averse they tend to be status quo power is the western. of the p five they're far more. prone to taking risks in the name of making the world a better place i'm going to ask you as a former administrator which of these two approaches conservative status quo or more liberal is conducive to development and sustainable development. when you. came to the role he talked about making prevention his his key objective and prevention is of course development and so the security council has been open to broaden its discussions around the underpinnings of the sustainable and peaceful society. we could

observe there's always money to fight wars but often not so much money for. and i think my plea would be too. small to really look at the hell they can support peaceful inclusive sustainable development because they're in the end is the answer of the time an issue security killed the country's other going over the cliff or as close to going over and then it can take decades to get picked even to where you were many of the arguments heated arguments at the u.n. security council is about are about the nature of political system what it whether it's democracy or whether it's authoritarian systems and if you look at countries like russia and china and consider their standing on let's say poverty you can see that there has been a significant progress in both of the states if you look at the western. where power is here was a marginal issue

a decade or two days decades ago. those countries and not doing that while i may have it we keep hearing that they. set a framework of development is the most is the best is the most beneficial one. do you think time has. so you perhaps reckon sitter how countries can develop there are many routes of development the way in which globalization has proceeded in recent days has seen a growth of inequality in western societies and also concerns about inequality in china not so familiar with the debate in your your own country because inequality high levels over the very corrosive societies and in the end will get the political backlash but i guess the reason why i am asking this question is because at this conference and many others you hear a lot of questions being asked about chinese development model and the main argument again is political that the chinese political system is such that we don't

want. the western world are threatened by its spread around the world do you think development could be ideologically free or ideological neutral or you have to always look at the sort of the political underpinnings of the money and the construction projects that there are different issues on play i mean quarter development is to lift people out of poverty quarter development is every child's school adults should have that and the most important thing these are very important underpinnings but. would be that as countries begin to get these things right they also create a desire for a voice particularly within the merging middle class organize workers and that my value system says that there's often a voice needs to be accommodated for gains to be lost in. i think that may

be a good segue to ask here about new zealand because ultimately it's a question of leadership what leadership is like your country has been in the headlines a lot of the kind of leadership it's been demonstrating. i'm talking about the prime minister just are there and. judging from here to me are fitted. she makes you pretty proud doesn't she yes i'm very proud of new zealand electing just very proud of the way she is performing as leave as she worked for me when she was younger she helped prepare material for me as a young researcher and in. my office also supported the coleman in the united kingdom and she came back to new zealand with a lot of experience of knowing her as a young leader of the youth wing of my party so she's really stepped up making if it's somebody as the world can see on the tragedy that couldn't cross change when

we talked about him before and i think with prime minister are there in particular there is a very strong temptation to categorize her as a female leader as a millennial leader as a young leader as a mother in chief whatever is that still necessary or. how we come to a point when she is just a leader without any qualifiers and that's what she. is good i'll just be judged on what i do we're not the yes and we're not the because women lead to still quite quite worrying. i remember going to the un as a young prime minister and we had a meeting of women leaders them into three or four of those being present and it's a bit of that now but not know them ainsley so as long as women continue to be in such a minority and leadership i think these comments will continue to be made now you mentioned the tragedy in christ church and i think she was celebrated there around

the world for her seemingly very authentic rate and not very pre-planned reaction she was a cause of fascination before because of giving birth to a baby in office and i think what's even more important taking as a maternity leave while still being on the job. there is a issues of politics but not so much of governance and i wonder whether governance has changed as much as politics has changed because in politics it's all about engaging voters social media etc but the task of doing that job is it really defend these days as it was let's say in your well i think governance has changed quite a lot in new zealand in the last thirty five years people are used to leaders being much more transparent the nature of government is very open it's much more consultation about policy and and legislation and of course we have. in this

media so yet that has all had an impact on governance and opening it up so because a different set of leadership skills you look back to some of the politicians of the thing would they have made it in the sky but. i think you still mean the. keeping them interested very much but i think i mean the job of governance also involves a lot of pretty mundane pretty boring tasks that somebody can tell you no no it doesn't really involve anything bourg it's always exciting in the least and in my country but it does require you to be very you have to engage with your colleagues for the parliament with the many as you can gauge with the public very transparent so the politicians they present in the future are going to be extroverts they will have to be axed her or i think so i think the. people didn't look people there's no point. another big personality is the current president of the united states donald

trump and i think he's the last person to compare the current new zealand prime minister and yet i think they have something in common and that is that they're engaging voters in a very visceral way she's doing that in the positive way he's doing some would say . in a negative way but both of them i think have capitalized on some degree of protest vote do you think that offer us anything about any lessons about how we can leverage the populist weight wave that we're seeing around the world because most of the commentators say extremely alarmed by it but i think the example of your prime minister shows that you can actually. deal with that in a different way and the results are very different there's obviously a difference between populist of being popular and populous she is popular popularity doesn't. relied on the many tools that for example donald trump relied

on in. she was an effective communicator she was brought in by her political party seven weeks before the election because they weren't doing so well and she just took off because people are ready for change i think obviously many things are said about donald trump but he is a community he does. and he's effective communicator how do you thing. leaders like this are going to be doing in the future is that a breed of politicians that is going to become more and more popular or do you think this is something that is just i think it's a cycle but i think it's a cycle and cycle swing. watch american politics we see the swing from bill clinton the george w. we see this when george w. barack obama we see the swing. we'll see a swing that's the way we do anything is going to be on the. of the next where many contenders we don't know with in this position the pendulum will come back again to

. someone who is not a disruptor and actually think the president from would probably would complement we call that the next to throw everything up in the air and then. well madame park it's always a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for your time and sharing your prospect. and i encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and i hope to see you again same place same time here on worlds apart.

so when i say assets on their books very very frank says bonds with a price of one hundred cents on the dollar but don't have a sale value in the market greater than maybe one penny on the dollar so again that's the portrait of dorian gray economy all these quote assets on the central bank balance sheets if you added up all of i think the central banks have something like fifty to fifty five trillion dollars of what they call assets that might be worth of mcdonald's hamburger when they have no collateral value whatsoever they're worthless that's a fact. we put themselves on the line. to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president. but you going to be close to what before three of them or ten people. i'm interested in the water.

question. list in france and turn their anger on the country super rich for pledging vast sums of money to rebuild the notre dame cathedral college knowing the plight of struggling citizens. to react to the long awaited report in the u.s. the russian embassy in washington issues a one hundred twenty one page report debunking allegations of election meddling. presidential hopefuls bernie sanders and joe biden go head to head for the democratic nomination and driving

a wedge through the party. for latest on the story you can.