[000:00:00;00] ah ah ah 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 peer helmet. well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by sure, he the 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. they do. 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 what the former prime minister has been saying. but i also feel that he had these 3 and a half years when he was the prime minister. i think he should have used their dime really 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 are happy with the piece or structures 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 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 any darn in all these, you know, or turkey or so i think that her i like her the former prime ministers narrative. oh, 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 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 countries looks supposedly, i'm a, but in spite of that, or 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 are the 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 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, oh, in name. you know, for example,

the colonial class was that used to take place when pakistan and all these other countries were, are in the colonial mode. i feel that they're still continuing in some form. sometimes they are given respectable name. 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 them 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 of 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, ran back, assigned, refused to give its facilities because of the incident. a challenge at that time. some small central ation republic made billions of dollars. i heard you saying another into your, 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 of fanny that can afford to be fully insulated from foreign influences. if you look at pakistan, he governments particularly him, if you look at the last government, i mean her or the prime minister had made so many commitments. and he had said so many 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 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 other vote 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 sent it to the, you know, the potential, you know, prime minister to address and i should tell them that this is served, 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 government that went to the i m f. but dave, the moment they came to buy, they would themselves go to the i'm if so i give them an alternative. and i publicized my alternative, and i gave seminars on the alternative and i gave conferences and i said the could 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 imminent. 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. giblin. there is any middle path that would allow the country to go its way, protect yourself 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 sir, dismantled, and

a very important executive committee was dismantled and all the powers were transferred to one person due to the governor. now if you are really making the state bank autonomous, then you should be strengthened its institutions and its committees and you know, boards, but then to what happened, 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 as not with making it sorta 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. sure, almost 2 to 3 people that constituted the court. 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 medical them. 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 there was a clause, it would been the presidential elections were taking place both. grant hon and melinda moody had gone to the us to muster support for her on the surface though

they're bad thing. i'm in there, but we are so used to pakistan in india, arguing that the if made for the good video. and yeah, but you see the problem is that when joe biden became the president, i think you got offended. he thought that her and they were totally weird stramp, and i think for some reason, ah, because india is a big country, joe biden couldn't afford to continue with this antagonism towards woody. but i think he started ignoring pakistani prime minister, and he was doing all the business widget over there, 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 around hon. if he had picked up the survey. 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 of state bank autonomy or i miss her coming so much to the i'm if or on cash leave or, and of understanding. i would have been very supportive of her brown. but i feel

that earlier when it came to pakistani national issues in been on hand, gave in completely. and so did generally by dra, what of them did a, but i think are 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 this by the western county, especially the united states, n a u. k. they're taking, the developing was back to the colonial order to the 19 fortify water. 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 99. and after that attack had 20 years of land resources and all the, you know, determine here you, danny, was taken out of

a plan this time. and then it up, or i was attacked this for the 2nd time in 2002 feet for and also i think her difficulties being faced by sealant guy and pakistan and turkey. so fagin, all these countries are standing in a queue and they've been hit one by one. and if you look at what's happening is that this guy brushed order is being dismantled and data sources are being taken out and did it. and for example, i see a big just of it aki, you know, a good results being taken out by us and you get 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 ah,

so 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, often very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down and talk ah

ah welcome back to when is appointments checking that he's 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're now in a sort of

a 3rd world war hybrid war. but the war on the last g thing 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 or 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 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 will leave living to finally collapse of the system. i think both are going to be used at to a big down established order in developing countries and then and then obviously which means that these countries within, oh, 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 cuts ruffled countries with come over and kicked 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 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 here. how do you look at it? do you think it was inevitable? g, a thing? russia realistically have perhaps a more humane and better and more efficient option to deal with. it's concerned. i think it's really unfortunate loss of life when you create 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 so many problems and both of them. so not normally you get bogged down 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 be sort of poster neo colonial aspirations of certain western powers. because i know that many academics lead 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 are 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 crane, 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, 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 no, no, some dead point of view. it's a, it is a big, qualitative change because after the 2nd world war, ah, what d'oeuvre? western countries are said to have decided was duma war because they were 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 bridge or

interviews of people eob, eob, western countries, european and american. i mean, they say that the things they say it's quite offensive. they said that, you know, people like us or if 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 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 something like this happens in europe, then it's very see this thing for data. i think i find video fans can i also ask you a couple of questions on 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 this child that 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, ah, pakistan had been trying very hard to develop the country now using a head from the international financial institutions. we 1st got some, you know, a project rabinski pending for our, our infrastructure for our, you know, the 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 hostile for direct and he had the best of both worlds. you can't exactly well fellow, but what happened was that m o. o, especially when the of 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 deemed to stylization of the advanced risk in 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 things the change to even the goods in for the international financial institutions. instead of giving a 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 reducing 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 cranks increase. please do you think that's intentional or is it just the lack of foresight? i mean 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 west and i said that there was this feeling that there was in the 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 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 that didn't do you think these 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, initializing 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 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 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 latso 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 to serve, 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 cheap. ag. now when we had the seabeck, there was a lot of antagonism from a by india, from us and u. k. and 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 give it 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 have some strength, have the knowledge, are honest, then they can negotiate better. but 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 term and you think god technological vents, the division of technological range 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 error before investor. depends on how well you are able to negotiate. and 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, the chinese never look for celebrities with careers math. 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 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 has in job it and i wrote a, did you ok? ok. i've written other books, but this book is written by a former but you still 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 the, like the odds, always think the chinese are very wise people. i think chinese are using their wisdom 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 do that a lot of falling. but i think chinese sir, look for substance. they look for now they had discussed the confusion from 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, 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 on the walls of mars. ah,

with ah, with ah, ukraine's military has suffered heavy losses after failing and it's offensive in the country south. that's according to russia's defense ministry. days before and i e, a inspection here pushes that broad year. one step closer to nuclear disaster by again showing a radioactive fuel storage building at the local nuclear power plant also ahead. hm . at least 20 people die in hundreds are injured and back data flashes erupt after