missouri, 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 and need 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 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 accept 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're ro, an independent countries looks supposedly m a. but 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 or other ministers. all the economic managers come from the international financial institutions. and then if you look at our policies, whether it is you can amik bought as he is 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 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 burst into fees that job, that we are independent only, you know, 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 inch. so it's interesting that you mentioned that because in one of the interviews, are you sad, 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 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 collision support fund and that the united states used to be us be nuts for the use of our infrastructure. and all i had for 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, a tele, at that time. some small central ation republic made billions of dollars. i heard you saying another 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 a,

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 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 the 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, that, 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 send 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 f, but dave, the moment they came to pod, they would themselves go to the i'm 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 group, this is the alternative, and this is my alternative, is a foster 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. giblin. 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 board 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 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 says 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 all 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 courtroom. i heard you say that the premature departure from rand howard 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 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. 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 june, by doing became the president, i think he got offended. he thought that they were totally red stramp. 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 hand,

if he had picked up this so then you see the narrative was very good. i am to put 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 an honest and then i would have been very supportive of her brand plan. but i feel that it, when it came to pakistani national issues and when on hand 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 than 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 ramstein. and after that your tag had 20 years of laundry sources. and although, you know, determined, yeah, you, danny, i was taken out of a plan this time and then it up or i was attacked for the 2nd time in 2002. and also, i think the difficulties being faced by should be longer in 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 there stablished order is being dismantled and data sources are being taken out. and there are, for example, i sample pictures of it aki, you know, good results being taken out by us. and you can national. so while

a professor missouri, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments stating, ah, for i'm with your ah

ah, mm. who is the aggressor today? i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. and um, but as constantly growing, i think, you know, which of my, when was the cosigner as we speak on the bill in your senior, mostly mine the shuttle were banding all in ports of russian oil and gas, new g i g o calls

with lower with info with joe biden, imposing these sanctions on russia. jo has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang. ah ah ah ah, welcome back to his appointment, checking that he's our professor at the institute of business management in karachi, pakistan, professor. and just before the break, we were talking about there is developing countries suffering through war through sometimes economic aggression nowadays through our many sanctions.

because the, you know, the fuel and food process 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're now in a sort of a 3rd world war hybrid war. but the war and on the last g. things that were made 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 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 believe leaving to find in the collapse of the system. i think both are going to be used at to big down established order and developing countries and then, and then obviously it which means that 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 land 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 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 it'll 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's so many problems at button. so normally you get bogged down in your own problems. what to actually i would hope that you know, that 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 jason, that's in line with what we have discussed previously, be 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 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 continue 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 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, oh, no, from that point of view it's a, it is a big, quantitative change. because after the 2nd world war, ah, what do western countries are said to have decided was do 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 letter interviews of people, eob eob, question, countries, european and american. i mean they say that the thing they say it's quite offensive . they said that, you know, people like us is 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. but

when, or something like this happens in europe, then it's really see this thing for data. i think i find video fence and i also ask you a couple of questions and china because i know 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 training one dependence 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 christian, 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 based training for our, our infrastructure for our, you know,

dance that mailer daemon, mont 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 who stayed for david. and 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 in the west that the, in the celebration of the developing world was responsible for the deed distillation of the advanced restaurant countries. because a lot of industries were closing down in england and other western countries. so 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 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'm, if their policies are very contract nitty. if you end up with reducing your output growth to your employment growth, you increase your rate of inflation. you increase the, the ask unit and 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 plays chasing. 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 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 industrialization and the developing countries was responsible for the d industrialization 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 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 at 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 and to 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 in this 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 are formulated the policies in such a way that this developing countries are faced with c. his problems. when dick 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 russia into 5 years that we did not red development, although the went to the i missed so many times and our governments went and ended up destroying our economy. and then we had the sir, you know, the chinese game with this service or one bed one group 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 year india, from us 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 they're equally adamant not to let us develop through getting, you know, see back to, because said that countries were usa, you kill openly, you know, denouncing c back. 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 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 dickon 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 you are able to get out of a any l for our before investor. depends on how well you are able to negotiate. so can i very quickly ask you one question about chinese leadership? because any a 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 disdain. age, but why do you think it hasn't succeeded anywhere beyond china? because and 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 connection? yeah, that i haven't written this book. this book was written by ambassador has in job it, and i wrote a review of, okay, i've written other books,

but this book is written by a former, but you still a agree with this? i agree with this. absolutely. because i feel that, you know, there is this thing about chinese wisdom. i think that has something to do with it . like this. we all always 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 what, and they just, you know, look at a personality and the 3 that the bus actually is good looking, dashing and then there are a lot of falling. but i think chinese sir, look for substance. they look for now they had discussed 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 the, you know, he'll make a good leader. he has leadership qualities. so i posted but totally believe that in there you know, the so quality, well we have to,

we were 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. was a part ah with ah, a human where to pull you with

that you for that look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such short or is it conflict with the 1st law? show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. at the point, obviously is to create trust rather than fear a very job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot most protective phone existence, with a,

with full civilians. a wounded emily toll pull off to watch. local authorities claim is a terrorist attack by ukrainian forces against their own citizens. this is the percent of the ukrainian forces, just outside of the nets can from there they can well, they can shoot and shell in all directions. mid 5th flushes on the front lines. i'll see reports from a battlefield near the ukrainian army stronghold on the outskirts of done yet. a leading italian newspaper identified individuals who it says are involved in so called russian propaganda. we have 4 minutes tell the photographer who is outraged to find himself on the list. i am being accused of pro russian political propaganda, but what.