oh, 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 we have, if we look at the countries, the ability to pursue their own paths and make decisions. surely in the interests of the people have we authentically departed from the peers helmet. well,

to discuss that, i'm now joined by a professor at the institute of business management in karachi. pakistan professor is great to talk to you. i'm 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 off. 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, it's current leadership and the people. when i think this is what 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 a dime really effectively to forge closer relationship with the russian federation and read the people's republic of diana and other these 2 countries. but

unfortunately, i was not very happy with the piece of progress that was going on with the, the relationship between these countries. i, for myself, i've been, you know, for the last, almost 30 years. i have been, um, you know, are trying to suggest that pakistan belongs to the region and that pakistan should develop the greater economic and strategic relationships with the russian federation with the people's republic of china and understand they need on in all these, you know, a 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 a sort of for losing power. so he used a politically, i'm not sure. now, many people have argued that pakistan and others need to sort of free themselves

from 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 and very hard statement for any particularly minded person to talk sent on to being too harsh. no, i think that that's a 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 bug in spite of that. or, you know, the, a lot of our important positions are, say, a, you know, appointed by our booth. he was he and you get a prime minister and her other ministers, all the economic managers grant from the international financial institutions. and then you to look at our policies,

whether it is economic policies or whether it is strategic policies or political. they're also made in the us 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 job that we are independent only, you know, in name. you know, for example, the colonial transfers 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 lynch. so it's interesting that you mentioned that because in one of the interviews, are you sad, for example, that are 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 in term,

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 and provided so lunch without what? well, what actually did you, did you get in return or yeah, actually, you know, there was this condition 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 god or 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, a tele, at that time. some small central ation republic made billions of dollars. i heard you saying are an other interview 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 at biker sandy governments, particularly him, if you look at the last government, i mean, the prime minister had made so many commitments, and he had situated things. but i think her, after he came to bar i'm, he said that he will get himself rather than go to the i m f and then really came to bar. he went to the i, m f. and then there was this. so did he have a choice? do you think he realistically had the choice in his economic policies to pursue some other boot or you see a lot of people used to say that there is no alternative and that, that, that only alternative with 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 send it to the, you know, the potential, you know,

pragmatist, et cetera. and i should tell them that this is sir, 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 by they would themselves go to the i am if so i gave them an alternative and i publicized 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. i'm very vocally for that. i'm 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 woods 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 barbers 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 there did not happen. all the powers were transferred to one person governor who was in. i am a for 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 with making your 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 were just 3 people who met the court. m. 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 and the united states. but to the personal relationship between enron han 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 ron hahn 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 and grant hon and no linda moody had gone to the u . s. to muster so old for oh, on the surface though, the bad thing i'm in that we are so used to pakistan in india, arguing that they'd be made for a good video. and yeah, but you see, the problem is that when you buy do begin the president. i think you got offended. he thought that they were totally woods tramp. 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 was. so i think that irritated him brown hand. and now i feel that i would have been totally supporting him. brown han, if he had picked up the serve, then you see the narrative was very good. i am talk all out for the narrative because if he had taken up this sort of fight her own account off state bank autonomy or i miss her coming so much to the i'm if or on cash leave or on of understand. and i would have been very supportive for brandon, but i feel that it, when it came to pakistani national issues and mankind gave in completely. and so did general bi dwaa. both of them did a, but i think pakistan and other developing countries need to get out of this colonial more than i think what is wanting 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 way, 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 ramstein. and after that your deck had 20 years of laundry sources. and although, you know, the chairman. yeah, you, danny, i was taken out of a plan to stand and then it up or i was a get this for the 2nd time in 2002. and also, i think the difficulties being faced by she didn't go and pakistan and turkey, so close legged. 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 the established order is being dismantled. and data sources are being taken out and dead. and for example i, she implement pictures of it aki,

you know, good results being taken out by us. and you can national her while a present misery. we have to take a very short break right now. but we will be back in just a few moments stating, ah ah, ah, ah ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, welcome back to with 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, you know, various developing countries suffering through war through sometimes economic aggression nowadays through our many sanctions. because the, you know, 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, formally 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 and on the last, do you think that war may change to any significant change in the way things are both economically and geopolitical 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 you see what was going to happen is that i think the strategy is different for different countries. now some countries i'm going to be

facing economic meltdowns, and that is going to result in dismantling their stablished 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 will leave 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 it which means that these countries within arm will not be able to protect themselves. so i think that they're the established order, and i mean, other countries will come over it by will got profit. countries will come over and

kick their resources. now, i think there is one thing in common when it comes to security between russia and pakistan is that we, we both were sort of seduced by security promises. you weren't given certain 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 now waging and military operation against its neighbour, 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, you know, human lives. so, i mean, i would feel sympathetic to would, to the laws of russian life as well as ukrainian lives. i don't know much about it

because i've been concentrating. there's so many problems and buses done. so normally you get above done in your own problems. what you're actually, i would hope that you 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 country has been going on for so long is because it's in the interest of the u . k. and the u. s. to see those to 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 crane,

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 could really rel b because you see the fight, you know, the 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, some dead point of view. it's a, there's a big quantitative change because after the 2nd world war, ah, what d'oeuvre? western countries are said to have decided was no more war because they were so devastated by the horrors of war that this head normal war. but i think what the western world actually said was normal war in the western world. because after the 2nd world war, all the wars were exported to be used in 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, director interviews of people, eob, eob, western countries, european and american. i mean, they say that the tooth, this he is 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 of 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. but when i something like this happens in europe, then it's a 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 success. los russia and pakistan have strong ties with this nation . and i guess one can argue that we're essentially trading one dependency in the dependency on the west for another independence in, in this case, dependency on china. how is being partners miss china differs from being partners in the united states. and you good question. i think you see, if you look at pakistan for the last 75 years, are 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 obisky ending for our, our infrastructure for our, you know, a dance that bit our diamond monk ladamme. and i think they're the same time. ah,

because the soviet union was there and americans were there. i think this was the best time for developing countries to develop because the environment was not hostile for david, and he had the best of both worlds. you can't hear from them. but what happened was that m o, o, especially window for isn't i just became industrialized. and the late coming asian tigers became industrialized. then there was this so feeling in the west that the, in the salvation of the developing world was responsible for the da da stylization of the advanced risk in countries. because a lot of industries were closing down in england and other western countries. saw what happened was that there a lot of thank the change, the, even the goods indoor for the international financial institutions, instead of giving dodging miss lending devoted to policy based lending. and her, the point that i'm trying to make is that with policy based lending,

i take the example of pakistan. i mean, we have, we're devastated our economies through trying to get money for budgetary support. and wherever you go, you go to the i am, if their policies are very contract nitty. if you end up deducing your output growth to your employment growth, you increase your rate of inflation. you increase the, the ask unit in the distribution of income and you increase poverty. and then you also invite the social crisis because in poverty level is increasing so much crimes increase he point, do you think that's intentional or is it just the lack of foresight? i'm in the policy, is that because they way here and describing in it, it gives you a lot of trouble for very little benefit. do you think that was and 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 rest and i said that there was this feeling that there was and industrialization and the developing countries was responsible for the dean

distillation 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 evolution. and the count 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. what 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 the view to d into soliciting developing countries. for example, if you look at pakistan, industries have we have lost, a lot of the industries have closed down and several let people have been dead unemployed. so i just couldn'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 deduction and outward growth. so obviously they have formulated the policies in such a way that this developing countries are faced with. see his problems have indic joined to the i m f. saw this was in contact with china trying to connect to china . so, i mean, we had this problem with that. so in the 5 years that we did not had development, although the went to the i missed so many times and our governments went and had ended up destroying our economy. and then we had the sir, you know, the chinese game with this service or one bed, one good 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 us and u. k. and other western countries also should look like that. they will do one to

let us develop through going to the i m f. but they're equally adamant not to let us develop through getting general seabag too, because said that countries were us and you kill openly, 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 that knowledge are honest, then they can negotiate better with the chinese. because in china did his ged trojans for corruption at the highest level. so chinese government are very honest into dealing with other countries and if other countries, governments are equally honest, then deacon bought, you know, what do you think god, technology convinced the division of technological ranks between the host country and the investing country. so i think it all depends how much you are able to get

out of a any l for our for investor, depends on how whether you are able to negotiate. so can i very quickly ask you one question about chinese leadership? because any a book you pay a lot of attention to confusion qualities and you're saying that the, 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 in 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 you just make one correction? yeah, that i haven't written this book. this book was written by ambassador has in job id, and i wrote a review of, okay, i've written other books, but this book is written by a former, but you still agree with this as i agree with this. absolutely. because i feel that,

you know, that is the thing about chinese wisdom. i think that has something to do with, like the old, almost think the chinese are very wise people. i think chinese are using diverse them for the benefit of their country. and for example, other countries where what does go and watch, and they just, you know, look at a personality and the 3 that the bus actually is good looking, dashing and did. they did a lot of forwarding, but i think chinese, so look for substance. they look for now the discuss the confusion on confucius qualities for leadership. and i think that's really the way to go about it because then you know that the person is honest. the person has the knowledge, the person is that you know, he'll make a good leader. he has leadership qualities. so i posted but totally believe that in there, you know, the says quality, well, we have to even there. thank you very much for your with them today. thank you very much for having me. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the walls

of my ah with ah, ah, ah, ah, poor fatigue and the blame game has begun. rosemont looking good for ukraine,

outsized propaganda is completely at odds with the military reality on the ground. and to this, the unintended consequences of had on western economies who if anyone will be held accountable. ah, for the 1st time in history, an entire country's culture has been trashed with a very modern weapon. cancel culture, daily desert one. lucille might have so little door in one body of frog yet just me sitting though i know that would preclude the phrase now, particularly refers to canceling russian culture from yet and know what secret of see what was the zip code when you miles folks who are 20. well we own that is china mozilla. that's always the most alyssa bridge haven't m e de moines ward. russia has created over the past 1200 years is now questioned. partially.