curry c, so this is our sharing in a 2nd wave of boulevard in ism that represents a lot of hope in decades, the centuries of resistance across the atmosphere. daniel shall now it's a sunday visit to the world to parts to do it next year. and our t catch up on guess the column is shakita was around right ahead. i'll see you again. ah, ah, a ah,

with welcome to was a part of the end of colonialism is usually celebrate as one of the few silver linings of the 2nd world war which may be explicit economic and political subjugation of one, peopled by another. not only logistically challenging, but also morally reprehensible. and yet if we look at the countries, the ability to pursue their own paths and make decisions truly in the interests of the people, have we authentically departed from the pith helmet. well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by sure, he does that as a professor at the institute of business management in karachi, pakistan professor is great to talk to you and great to welcome you in law school, because we don't get too many foreign visitors then. now you come from pakistan,

which recently went through the change of leadership that some, including former prime minister attributed to your country's intention to win itself of western influence. is that something that you buy the explanation that you buy and do you think that's still the intention of pakistan both it's leadership is current leadership. i'm the people when i think this is board, the former prime minister has been saying, but i also feel that he had the 3 and a half years when he was the prime minister. i think he should have used that dime very effectively to forge closer relationship with the russian federation and read the people's republic of china and other regional countries. but unfortunately, i was not really happy with the piece of progress that was going on with the relationship between these countries. i, for myself, while being, you know, for the last, almost 30 years i have been you know,

are trying to suggest that pakistan belongs to the region. and that pakistan should develop her greater economic and strategic relationships with the russian federation with the people's republic of china and understand and eat on in all these, you know, or turkey or so i think that her, i like her, the former prime minister's narrative her. but i'm not sure whether he's actually whether, you know, he actually grab used it to when he was so sort of for losing power. so he used it politically. i'm not sure. now are many people have argued that pakistan and others need to sort of free themselves for western guardianship. but i think he, you, in your writing went far more radical. you've been actually suggesting that many countries in asia, in the middle east, in africa,

i still under the yoke of colonialism which is a pretty strong statement. them very hard statement for any particularly minded person to accept on to being too harsh. no, i think the death of fact, at least in pakistan and many other countries as well. for example, in pakistan i'm, we are ro, an independent country 6 supposedly i'm a, but in spite of that, are, you know, the, a lot to for important positions are, say, a, you know, appointed by our booth. he was he and you get our prime minister and her other ministers, all the economic managers grant from the international financial institutions. and then if you look at our policies, whether it is economic policies or whether it is strategic, this is a political state also made in the u. s. and you get a saw, i posted, you feel that term we are independent though. oh it, you know, i mean,

like we like to celebrate independence and people like to think that they are independent. but i personally feel that, that we are independent only, you know, oh, in name. you know, for example, the colonial trash was that used to take place when pakistan in all these other countries were, are in the colonial mode. i feel that they're still continuing in some form. sometimes they are given more respectable. and so it's interesting that you mentioned that because in one of the interviews that you sat, for example, that pakistan got no sing for the american use of the infrastructure during the so called war on terror. and despite the fact that you're not only lost and turn a lot of in terms of resources, but also, you know, tens of thousands of lives, of your, of your people. and that's a fascinating fact that you have sacrificed them provided so much without what? well, what actually did you, did you get in return and you're actually, you know,

there was this collision support fund and that the united states used to be us be nuts for the use of our infrastructure. and all i, it was such a good job, you know, destroyed because of the use of, you know, those vehicles and things. and for a few days for 11 days, when parker signed, refused to give its facilities because of the incident atlanta. at that time, some sets, while central asian republic made billions of dollars, i heard you saying another into your that the pakistani political forces, regardless of their ideology, may sound very patriotic when they are in opposition. but once they come to power, they tend to become quite compliant with, with foreign interest. and i wonder if it's in a way, logical because if you look around there, very, very few countries, if any, that can afford to be fully insulated from foreign influences. if you look it back,

hasanti governments particularly him. if you look at the last government, i mean i or the prime minister had made so many commitments and he had such omitted things. but i think her, after he came to bar i'm, he had said that he will get himself rather than go to the i m f and then really came to par. he went to the i, m f. and then there was this. so did he have a choice? do you think he realistically had a choice in his economic policies to pursue some other booth i you see a lot of people used to say that there is no alternative and that does that only alternative to go to the i m f and i being an economist, every time there was a change in government, i used to write an article and sent it to the, you know, the potential, you know, pragmatist, et cetera. and i should tell them that this is a do alternative. and that they should not go to the i m f. but every time, even all the governments that came to par, they used to be criticizing the sitting. gov went that went to the i'm if,

but dave, the moment they came to pass, they would themselves go to the i'm if so i give them an alternative. and i publicize my alternative, and i give seminars on the alternative and i give conferences. and i said the could, this is the alternative, and this is my alternative. is a foss, repeated alternative to the i'm if well, let me ask her specifically about the issue of the central bank and telling me, because i know that you criticized around very vocally for that one on the surface . it seems that giving the autonomy to a central bank as a way to secure it from corrupt local interest with you, in fact, argued that it is a way of delivering the country directly to the i m f. do you believe there is any middle path that would allow the country to go its way, protect itself from vested interest from vested interest, both inside and outside? actually i, i feel that if the state bank was actually being made autonomous,

then all the institutions in the state bank, you know, the committees and the boards should have been strengthened. but that didn't not happen. actually, the, many of the know the executive board was a dismantled and to a very important executive committee was dismantled and all the powers were transferred to one person due to the governor. now if you are daily making the state bank autonomous, then you should be strengthened its institutions and its committees and you know, boards. but that did not happen. all the powers were transferred to one person governor who was in. i am every employee. so strengthening you means a, you mean diversifying the influence, you know, a pre introducing many stakeholders who would influence the policy rather than making it so. centralized is it not making its source interlaced because you see everything depends on one person. and for example, earlier there was this board and the board had its own, you know, a lot of members and there was the column. but what they did was that the column

consisted only of the governor and one deputy governor. so was 2 to 3 people that constituted the quorum. so with the result that if they were given any orders from washington, they would comply with those orders because they would just treat people who met the courtroom. i heard you say that the premature departure from around home from office was do not so much to the differences in policy between pakistan in the united states, but to the personal relationship between enron hahn and joe biden, that they had some sort of a falling out if that was indeed the case, isn't that even worse than the colonial is because there seems that you know, they, the entire fate of the 220000000 people is dependent on the personal relationship between 2 man act. actually, what happened was prior to joe biden, coming to bar, trump had a very close relationship with her in round hon. and with ge, bought his johnson and with moody, they had formed some sort of a,

you know triangle. and they were very close. it would been the presidential elections were taking place, both grant higher end, and in that movie had gone to the u. s. to muster so old fall, oh, on the surface. no than bad thing. i'm in there, but we are so used to pakistan in india, arguing that the may for a good video. yeah. but you see the problem is that when jim bigler became the president, i think he got offended. he thought that they were totally with dram. and i think for some reason, rob, because india is a big country, joe biden, couldn't afford to continue with this antagonism towards woody. but i think he started ignoring back as i knew, prime minister, and he was doing all the business widget, or whether, you know, general badge were. so i think that irritated him brown hand. and now i feel that i would have been totally supporting him. brown hon. if he had picked up this, so then you see the narrative was very good. i am for all out for the narrative

because if he had taken up this sort of fight her own account of state bank autonomy or i miss her coming so much to the i'm if or on cash leave or an honest. and then i would have been very supportive of her brandon, but i feel that it, when it came to pakistani national issues and mankind gave in completely. and so did general boswell, what of them did a but i think pakistan and other developing countries need to get out of this colonial more. and i think what is writing to me is, um, i recently written article in which i said that actually what's happening is that, um, that nist by the western country, especially the united states, n a u. k. they're taking, the developing was back to the colonial order to the 19 fortify ward up. and i think this started happening immediately after 911. and that is why a lot of people have seen that a 911 was actually

a staged thing. and i think that that is why, you know, the 1st attack was on of lancaster. and after that your deck had 20 years of laundry sources. and although, you know, determined you, danny, i was taken out of a plan this time and then it up when i was attacked for the 2nd time in 2002. and also i think the difficulties being faced by accident guy and budget on turkey. so it looks like it, all these countries are standing in a queue and they're being hit one by one. and if you look at what's happening is that there stablished order is being dismantled and data sources are being taken out of it. and for example, i ship bitches of iraqi, you know, good results being taken out by us and you can national so well a professor is that we have to take a very short break right now. but we will be back in just a few moments stating,

ah, mm mm hm . with ah, welcome back to me as a parent with stretching that, these are at the professor at the institute of business management in karachi, pakistan, professor. and just before the break, we were talking about in a very developing countries are suffering through war through sometimes economic

aggression. nowadays through our many sanctions. because you know that the fuel and food prices are rising because of the crisis in ukraine. and many of the countries that have already very little resources have to pay a lot. now i mentioned in the beginning of our program that the 2nd world war, formerly at least, led to the end of colonialism. and i hear many experts here in russia suggest that we are now in a sort of a 3rd world war hybrid war. but the war on the last, do you think that war may change to any significant change in the way things are both economically and geopolitically in the world? absolutely. i think that, you know, in many countries, like you said, because of the war in ukraine, there are lots of problems for many countries, not just developing countries, but for even such a big country like the russian federation, and also other countries,

the casa smiling. and so usually what was going to happen is that i think the strategy is different for different countries. now some countries are going to be facing economic meltdowns. and that is going to result in dismantling their established order. and i think some countries might actually be facing the actual war. so i think that bought, you know, for example, war, actual war and economic meltdown leading to civil strife and economic turmoil living to a, you know, instability in the country believe leaving to find in the collapse of the system. i think both are going to be used at to break down established order and developing countries and then, and then obviously which means that the, these countries within, i will not be able to protect themselves. so i think that they're the established

order, and i mean, other countries will come over by will got profit. countries will come over and kick their resources. now, i think there is one thing in common when comes to security between russia and pakistan is that we, we both were sort of seduced by security promises. you weren't given sudden promises when it comes to the war on terror. we were given certain promises when it comes to indivisible, security in europe. i think both of our countries are more insecure as a result of believing in those promises. but russia came to a point where it is now waging and military operation against its neighbor. as honest as you can afford yourself to be, how do you look at it? do you think it was inevitable? do you think russia realistically have perhaps a more humane and better and more efficient option to deal with its concerns? i think it's really unfortunate loss of life and you korean,

and russia is very unfortunate because this is no human lives. so, i mean, i would feel sympathetic to would, to the loss of russian life as well as ukrainian lives. i don't know much about it because i've been concentrating there so many problems at button. so normally you get above done in your own problems. what to actually i would hope that, you know, did the ukrainian conflict would be resolved peacefully and they both parties would try and try to resolve the problems. like i would also hope that pakistan in india would try to dissolve the crush me problem. but is, is that, do you think that's in line with what we have discussed previously, the sort of poster neo colonial aspirations of certain western powers. because i know that many academics, let's say in india, or even in pakistan, believe that one of the reasons this, this cultural has been going on for so long is because it's in the interest of the

u. k. and then you have to see those 2 neighbors fighting. and there are many people here in russia who, including president putin who said the other day that he believes that although supplies of western armed to grain, i'm motivated by one goal only to prolong the conflict. and to have the russians and the ukrainians are continued to fight. do you think that's all part of the strategy or of the same strategy or am i stretching it too far? i think it good really will be because you see the fight. you know that a conflict, i mean the war in ukraine. i think it's after a long time that there's been a conflict in europe. and i think that no, no, from that point of view, it's a, there's a big quantitative change. because after the 2nd world war, ah, what do western countries are said to have decided was no more war? because there was so devastated by the horrors of war that this had normal war. but

i think what the western world actually said was normal war in the western word, because after the 2nd world war, all the wars were exported to the eastern countries or to the developing countries . now if you look at the present a situation or you find that there is stalker conflict, and it looks like that all the developing countries have been turned into a water heater. but from that point of view, this is a very big qualitative change that there is a war in europe and irv ivr, a interviews of people, eob eob, question, countries, european and america. i mean, they said that the thing they say it's quite offensive. they said that, you know, people like us are getting killed. i mean, they don't realize that the wars that have been taking place in the developing countries that are human beings getting killed there as well. but it looks like enemy williams. in fact, yes, but it looks like they were just, you know, like

a vaccine mouse that they were getting killed and they were being bombed it a. but when something like this happens in europe, then it's really see this thing for data. i think i find video fans, and i also ask you a couple of questions and china because i know you're, you're written a book on china specifically on what lessons can pakistan, perhaps a lot of countries draw from i, china's economic, our success, los russia and pakistan have strong ties with this nation, and i guess one can argue that we are essentially trading one dependence in the dependency on the west for another independence in, in this case, dependency on china. how is being partners miss china and differs from being partners for the united states and you? good christian, i think you see if you look at pakistan for the last 7 to 5 years, ah, pakistan had been trying very hard to develop the country. now using her head from the international financial institutions. we 1st got some, you know,

a project based training for our, our infrastructure for our, you know, dance that bit our game in monk ladamme. and i think the, the same time, ah, because the soviet union was there and the americans were there. i think this was the best time for developing countries to develop because the environment was not who stayed for divided. he had the best of both worlds. you can get yourself alone . but what happened was that term, especially window for ition tigers became industrialized. and the late coming asian tigers became industrialized, then there was this so feeling of the rest that the interest elevation of the developing world was responsible for the da da, stella's asian of the advanced restaurant countries. because a lot of industries were closing down in england and other western countries saw what happened was that there are a lot of thank the change to even the goods in for the international financial

institutions. instead of giving dodging miss lending, they devoted to policy based lending. and the point that i'm trying to make is that with policy based lending, i take the example of pakistan. i mean, we have devastated our economies through trying to get money for budgetary support . and when you go, you go to the i am, if their policies are very contract nitty. if you end up with reducing your output growth, your employment growth, you increase your rate of inflation, you increase the, the ask units and the distribution of income. and you increase poverty, and then you also invite the social crisis because when poverty level is increasing, so much crimes increase people. interesting. that's intentional or isn't just the lack of foresight. i mean the policy is that because the way you are describing in it, it gives you a lot of trouble for very little benefit. do you think that was designed or do you

think it's just, you know, the economic dogma that the west wants to hear. you know, when i was talking about the waste and i said that there was this feeling that there was and industrialization and the developing countries was responsible for the di installation and the advanced countries western countries. so that way they went around changing the rules. and then the, they had the counter revolution. the counter revolution was actually a reaction to the keynesian revolution. and account of evolution. actually, you know, it resulted in the implementation of new liberal policies. and those same policies were adopted by the international financial institutions when they were giving it to developing countries that didn't do you think those policies are they ultimately serving the developing countries or, and they are designed when they developed world and mine. they were designed with a view to d n, disallow sing, developing countries. for example, if you look at pakistan, our industries have, we have lost,

a lot of the industries have closed down and several, like people have been dead unemployed. so this wouldn't have been, i mean the couldn't be, it's not that their economics are so poor that they have those ph. d. 's in economic sitting there. and bringing in policies with would lead to such massive unemployment, massive dejection and outward growth. so obviously they have formulated the policies in such a way that this developing countries are faced with c, his problems. when they joined to the i m f saw this was in contact with china and trying to connect to china. so, i mean, we had this problem with nasa into 5 years that we did not get development, although we went to the i miss so many times and our governments went and ended up destroying our economy. and then we had the sir, you know, the chinese came with this service or one bed one road project and part of the in pakistan the part of the project is she peck. now when we had the seabeck,

there was a lot of antagonism from a bi or india from u. s. and u k. in other western countries. also, it looked like that they will do one to let us develop through going to the i m f. but the, and equally adamant not to let us develop through getting, you know, seabag too, because said that countries were usa, u k, were openly, ah, you know, denouncing seabag. i feel that this is the 1st time that pakistan was able to get some development. i'm having said that, i also feel that if we have governments, that term has some strength, have the knowledge, are honest, then they can negotiate better with the chinese. because and china did his ged trojans for corruption at the highest level. so chinese governments are very honest, even did dealing with other countries. and if other countries, governments that equally honest, then deacon bought, you know,

what do you think god technological vents, the division of technological events between the host country and the investing country. so i think it all depends how much would able to get out of any error for investor depends on how well you are able to negotiate. and can i very quickly ask you one question about chinese leadership? because in your book you, you pay a lot of attention to confusion qualities and you're saying that the chinese never look for celebrities with careers. my. instead, their philosophy enjoins upon them to look for substance and it seems like such an obvious and necessary orientation for any country in this day and age. but why do you think it hasn't succeeded anywhere beyond china? because at the end of the day, we are all paying a lot of attention to you know, careers, man, political statements are not so much to the actual facts on the ground. can he just make one correction? yeah, that i haven't written this book. this book was written of by ambassador hasn't

jargon, and i wrote a review of again, ok, i've written other books, but this book is written by a former, but you're still a agree with this as i agree with this. absolutely. because i feel that, you know, did is this thing about chinese wisdom. i think that has something to do with it. like the old or the think the chinese are very wise people. i think chinese i'd using diverse them for the benefit of their country. and for example, other countries where waters go and watch and they just, you know, look at a personality and the 3 that the post actually is good looking, dashing and did there. there is a lot of falling. but i think chinese sir, look for substance. they look for now the discuss the confusion from confucius qualities for leadership. and i think that's really the way to go about it. because again, more a person is honest. the person has the knowledge, the person is the, you know, he to make a good leader. he has leadership qualities, so i put,

put dr. the believe that this is quality. well, we have to live there. thank you very much for your with them today. thank you very much for having me. thank you for watching hope to see her again on the walls of my ah with ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offense, bearing dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how

that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk a see they owe to the roof over their heads to neo nazi. they shared food with neo nazi. a very peculiar b o's, an arcade cru finds document stating that neo nazi fundraise from the ukranian army unit were planting landmines in civilian areas of the don baba in 2016 with european security, grouping b, o. s. e. seemingly aware of that information. also in the story that shape awaken yet court issued death sentences for 3 foreign fighters captured during the siege. mario called the men to brit.