oh, ah ah, i welcome to the east west power struggle accentuated by the war in your brain and rising tensions over taiwan has temporarily leaves. and now the axis of swelling is balances and potential troubles . the time between the global north and the global south. given how dearly developing countries have been paying for the decisions made in the sub will develop world isn't the time right to break this exploited arrangement. well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by some jaya barrow distinguish tallow at the united service

institution of india. mr. barrow, it's great pleasure, great honor for me to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure to be on the show. now. thank you. i once heard from a prominent european politician that it doesn't matter whether elephants are fighting or making law, the grass underneath them, get trampled. and if we expand that metaphor to the geopolitical situation in the world today, not just the grad underneath them to the fact that it's the valleys and the village is a part of miles away. do you think russia a fully aware of the, of the kind of damage that our confrontation is visiting up upon 3rd party? well, i'm pretty sure the, the question is, what i've been doing about the fact is that the don't looking one that has been

dealing with a very difficult to global environment for a long time. i would say for 300 years, i think we have been a colony of the british for a long time. and then we had a little system dominated by the rest after the 2nd world war is traditionally dominated, also by the list. but even in multilateral organization, so dominated by major ups. so what is now called the global sound, which is essentially a, don't a big countries on it used to be called card world and all it is you're good of them but has not been in a good position for a long time. and it's only in the last couple of decades with globalization and new opportunities for growth that, you know, countries like china and india, many other countries in latin america and africa experienced. i think the current crisis, international crisis, both the water ukraine, but more importantly,

all the policy kind of decisions taken as a consequence of the war on hunting us. india hasn't very interesting sense here because both the east and the west, both russia and the united states. i trying to of course, it to that side. but it positions itself as a leader for having the leader of the global south. one gas mean for india is foreign policy stands in practical terms, was possible in practical terms in doing all this had an independence on. but see, i've been trying to time it became a republican one to talk to someone, a different names used to call it non alignment. then we talk about strategic autonomy. but essentially, the quarter in policy towards the rest of the work is to have an independent policy decisions based on that interest and, and understanding that we are the foolish nation. that india, like china,

like russia, like a europe of mainland europe, and many others who are still interested in latin america. the box mission. we had a civilizational entity, and we have seen our films as a country that has a message based on the long history, authorization, 5000, you know, history of us, in addition, and the for somebody deeply for an identity that we have to have an independent voice and whether it was in the past or be able to watch by on to the, to my well, everyone has had an independent wasn't international affairs. well, but i think there is definitely a independence in the rhetoric of many engine leaders. but you, by the way, yourself wrote that despite all washington's efforts to have in your daily conscripted to so called rules based, i'm a product order. it has

a vital interest in upholding a different set of rules. those that would support broader economic development and prosperity. but how ground is in these multilateral view. i mean, how free it is from the can taishan all fine, you know, getting some credentials of a democratic state from washington. you mentioned the very long history of your civilization. but when i watch indian media, i also see that it's very important for many people to sort of feel themselves to be in the good graces of the west, because supposedly the west issues, those, you know, good democracy certificates. well, i don't think we're well known about certificates. i don't think that's a political issue. you're talking about indian media. indian media is very diverse issue for us as long as being the fact that because of our colonial history and

english is the most important language in this country. so kind of integrating language because in the, as a country off a summer languages and english remains are linked to the word. so there's a much greater influence of the english speaking word on the maybe think what we read, etc. plus the people to people contact. i mean, if you look at the numbers of indians living around the world, most of them out of the united states, united a central and so they're all in the media. you will see that by us. but i think we must distinguish between the rhetoric of the media and will be in the media and the use of the gun. but i think government and india successively including the present have taken an independent position. we have tried to little issues with this with russia on, with china, on united states or indeed with other countries like japan, germany, france on the basis on national. and it's not as if you're not going to pressure

from time to time come under pressure. and i can talk about innovative incentives that come under pressure one each time you come under pressure. i think it is a good fortune that we have how the national leadership does a centered its independence. when we have just seen recently on the water in the un security council in the us taking a real fix on, it does not bandwagon with anybody else. now, like you mentioned a moment ago and you wrote about that before that both the humanitarian consequences of russia's military operation in ukraine and western economic sanctions that were intended to punish russia without hurting the global community . and you could stick substantial expand. do they do that though in equal measure? do you think they could be compared in terms of that impact? well, i would have some difficult question. i'm not looking to do sequence measure,

but the fact is that the inflation global inflation triggered by the rising price goodbye, that i was in full price. and then we did the, the disconnect in the financial system of the various we cannot make sanctions imposed by united states and the nature of ours. all of them together are certainly back to us. and we are, we in india read that no looking would have been of the receiving end of the combined effect of all of and you know, you can get into a blend game whose name was our 1st name on the west, just to man. but i think the fact is that you, in the history of this conflict, i would argue both sides and believing in gleaming is irrelevant in geo politics because they kind of do anything with that. but the reason why, why i'm asking this question is because i think we will like nobody would think twice before condemning of what we all understand,

that this is the worst possible outcome. the question is whether there was any alternative to that, but i think there is a perception in the international community that sanctions are somehow and more moral and more ecological means of doing politics. even though if you look at the number of people who are affected by the decisions, i think they're much larger than the number of people contacted by the direct conflict. so i think it's a, it's also very important point to sort of look at the motivations contain to war for, for the concrete interest, various versus essentially a how the culture style action that affects everybody. and very, very little consideration for, you know, 3rd parties will have nothing to do with struggle. but, you know, you're right. and that's what i was doing. some of my columns was for publish to to go back to march april this year, beginning of the facilities that sanctions supposed to wall out of blood instrument

. they do not distinguish the targets. you'll see the impact of what example us sanctions on iran and how, you know, everybody has been impacted by that really india and the receiving end office transactions for a long time. so sanctions auto blunt instrument and i think it is to say that a conflict between 2 countries scrubbing can bend within those 2 countries, which has happened in many other cases. but the minute ground global sanctions. and that to sanctions huge in summers, each thing to national system. i mean, you take, for example, the sanctioning of the russian center back. i was reading somewhere that, you know, right to the 2nd world war. the bank of international studies runs in switzerland. never sanction the dice grant the german central bank for a hitler dumping the german banks will not sanction. so you know,

better than discrimination. and i think fracturing central bank certainly is something which has hundreds and most importantly, you know, the pressure on market to try and just on them saved on by russian, on my list. and i sent all of these her don't look in countries and you know, many of us in india i've been right now. let's have our, this is a fascinating question for me. how that was applies. it's pressure because of the one hand, it has many indirect ways of sabotaging its own direct commitments. but on the other hand, if we look at the news about old pack making, a decision to lower is oil production despite very heavy and very african american low being. it's clear that americans scope of influence, even with its own allies, is somewhat limited. how do you assess western capacity of getting out what

washington once at this point of time, do you think the pressure have changed in any way? well possible, but that's up to in the sense that there's much greater willingness now to use the financial sector as an instrumental pressure. i've been asked to kind of do it and i'm with you. it makes you see that the instruments on sanctions. i wonder what time, as i said in the past of central banks will never change, but now that is happening. so the financial sector coming to the no spotlight that's part of sanctioned. but more importantly, i think the change that has happened in the last year compared to before that what you're going to put on india is the global i regional body. and in some ways, you see that in the china and dependence of chinese companies on the market. so it depends a lot of companies. so the change in the global system, you can all make says government trading. that was, it has the full change,

the way in which sanctions are being used to kind of sanction techniques of being device. but i want to still make a distinction between the of the states of government. i mean, we talked about opec is an organization of government. so and when it comes to doug with you stand by national interest, when it comes to private companies, you know, a corporate boards, a understandable to some extent mr. barton, we have to take a very short break right now, but it will be back in just a few moments station, a a, a with

ah welcome back to one support with sunshine, our distinguished fellow at the united service institution of india, mr. botto, before the break, we're talking about this somewhat a diversion stands on national governments may have on politics and doing business internationally and private companies. and yet, at the same time, i think, perhaps you would agree with me that the, the globalization, as we knew it only, you know, 5 or even 10 years ago. it's not there anymore. and the united states

a while trying to punish some of its enemies is undermining these various systems. so let's say the horizon of 5 or 10 years going forward. which policies, state oriented policies are state oriented, intention or private oriented intention of each of them prevail? well, i think suddenly if you're looking at a 5 year term on 10 year period, so in the state, we already have seen a shift in the last 5 years a month, and then the movie got one. as last one is called a century line, india, which is essentially a lend to reduce our dependence. particularly for could you going to do something from the chips, you know, food and other artificial with technology to reduce our

dependence on other countries and become much more simpler. i joke with my friends in the got a ruling party which is a party that movie is now like, got a lot of this was a policy of metal in the fifty's of building a sensor. and i do based on the list of capacity and get it. and now once again, we have to pay is where because of the challenge of globalization. because of the global trade slowing down. because the one thing that trading system is no longer looking because of tax on sanctions. i think for all these reasons and also from an indian point of view because of the pressure from china's, we're trying to reduce our dependence externally dependence and become more center . and i think that's the next next weekend. now you speak about self reliance, our bigger involvement of state and the economy, anonymous, things,

things that are related to each other. and i think there is a very strong narrative in the way that whenever states role, especially in bigger countries, that can challenge the united states whenever safe role is increased. and that's a way to i talk christy or to tell in parent isn't but think we are coming to this very interesting point in history where self sufficiency are so when you are becoming a means of achieving democracy, am i wrong here in because if it sounds like a paradox, but if more countries are pursuing their own self interest, the democratic system internationally seems to be improving well doable democracy. i don't know when you're said one is certainly doing is to bring the focus back to solve it. i think what you saw during the globalization was

reduced emphasis on something and the idea that the one to slap thomas friedman on the book on the, on equal trading on equal terms better than long the digits. and therefore nations audits. and that is actually a fax, that's fine. i don't know what kind of system 2nd the one of the longest, different types of them and they continue to be. so i don't think, you know, the united states are going to decide what to democracy and what isn't, isn't that? well, i mean, i understand what democracy working on a domestic level essentially means that every member of the society or every group has a certain input. it's treated fairly in proportion to its size within the society that everybody's interests are accounted for. and when we translate that to

the international system, it seems to be working. it could be working in the same profession. so countries big and small, it doesn't mean that they have the same amount of influence, but it's leaves our interests would be taking into account and the global processes could be structures in a way not to penalize or ostracize one or the other. in this answer, do you think global democracy as a way of taking into account various interests and trying to integrate them into the decision making? isn't it possible? and we already and moving toward in that direction. i'm afraid moment. now, your system is a power based system. we talk about, you know, you want to state the united nations was constructed on the principle of equality. but even in constructively missions, we need to un security council of which we have 2 other members. and the more powerful and the less possible. and even within the next organizations,

organizations like the july bank, the big economies are bigger wides. so in the international system, we have never really factors dom office cloud based system and will always have that. so i don't think that is going to change much. in fact, if anything, what we are now see is a real personal rather than in the session office, no democratic way of dealing with issues. now one of the most interesting discussions in post i circles today is about neo colonial is indeed an effort to reassert your power as a way of preserving your someone say, unfair privileges. i think the russians are really trying to frame that struggle with the west than those tribes. they presented as both the own client for political and economic sovereignty, but also as an effort to create a more fairly more affair and international system. what do you

think about that? do you think western had you want to conditions a colonial and they're very core? well, it's not just the last i said, when i sit in india and look at a china seeking to be an issue. and that is why i said that, you know, we are in the one with our is the currency. and we're in the sun equal was now looking countries, and she's a global solve our speaking space for them. so i think that is the way i would look at the world today that the west has always been dominant for the last 200 years. but other countries have made this all of major on the soviet union, which is no longer there. but russia, in its own area, is a dominant china initial 6 to be a dominant. some accused of being a dominant,

bought and sold, there should be like big brother to our smaller neighbors. it's in the nature of international emissions that the currency is all, and therefore the, the, the weak. sure all this, again, is the strong. and when you look at the long run systems which continue, i'm done. so benign market back says in terms of when i looked at one of these in terms of the assumption of intellectual property, right, which maintain service, you know, double inequality. that is or developing one was fighting against. let me talk about a new address. you can only go to the 19th eighty's and ninety's and, and many of us in the big 112, changes in the global system. we want to do much want to quit to one system. but in order to that struggle continues. but if you look at the level of this down is that exist today, it's pretty clear that they are hurting the powerful chase constant more even than

smaller countries. because the united states is no longer capable of maintaining its alliances. and, you know, investing in them to an extent that it used to do that before. i wonder if a more fair distribution is that not only is that of an ideological or moral, but the necessity of what in time. because, you know, having your neighbor or your who even, and me get something that is once ultimately serves you as well because it creates a more predictable transportation. don't you think that the time itself is calling for a more and more fair distribution of both resources and power? well, i think that is why many of us, if you simply, i do believe that the global system is evolving towards what we call a my diplomatic system. i think, you know, be a saw unit on what you saw,

my point on what the direction in which we're moving and that is sent to you on the indian political leadership. and i believe is probably the real to do that. you're moving in the direction of a more money to call, no one to reach a larger number of countries play a bigger. i mean, it may not be a perfect democracy. you know, a small country, let's say like more abuse. and that it can see may not have the same was as india, it's contribution to the global common good is smaller. i mean, the power is proportional to what you bring to the table. yeah. so the direction in which you're moving, in my judgement, these are multiple us and the current crisis will ex, since we're in that process. and i think the, the west a, i think europe has come to what example in the french of talk about the multiple of system. if you see the speech of french a long day that they,

then they don't follow through on that on that talk. no. is good to begin with the books, a talk about being a monday. so i can found we are going to come to a started to go home initially see frontier with the home. we are moving towards the most people in our system and whether we foster slow depends on the rents, you know, like what we're seeing right now. right? now let me ask you one last question and this is something that political analyst i rarely ask, that i think is absolutely essential to understanding the design, the spirit of the times. i think both russia and the west until logically, i'm born and most basic worldview where there's only one, you know, gone, and one devil, which i think, give that rivalry such an intensity and such

a high school for demonizing, why each other? india, on the other hand, is this the culture which i assume comes with a different understanding of diversity. the, the sort of the structure of diversity, the practical value of diversity, as well as the practical value of power distribution. because within your pantheon of god, you know they're stronger, god, they're no less powerful gods, but they are all important than they all make the big county on. i wonder if he's pulling the stick ontology could be more conductive to the, to multiple. and one that we've been talking about, especially in the new that is that to the leadership, the presidency of both d 20 and the some high corporation organization this year. a very fascinating question. i think it's also very important question because that was the me in the me look at our sense in the last 75 years that we have been to the public that we are multicultural, multi, really just multilingual. in many ways,

very many of the mission and therefore we bring plurality blog. not just about ourselves, what i want to work. unfortunately in india we now have already done debate between this pluralist tradition and a growing assertion or not majority is. and i think that some domestic on that is what was happening within the country when all of us will be in the list that, you know, the slogan used to be unity in diversity, none of the foundations of india and that a city, but construct our unity based on our diversity, i think that's the message of the indian republican i hope that that personality of india as a nation remain. so that the rest of the world, we have a message. i mean, i used to be just a newer prime minister and he repeatedly make this part that india plural mission

is a nation of diversity and therefore brings to the world and you, well looking at things and that is our son, and i hope we preserve that character our mission, that's only your strength, but i think that's something that the world is very desperately needing right now. mr. baron, been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for your time. thank you. thank you for having me and thank you for watching hope to 3 again. well, the part a with ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation.

let it be in arms. race is on very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time time to sit down and talk with a manager, keep what you might look and you live. most schools. if you look on the initial be welcome not to get a post on a diaz can use the put body when you do do or change. but you also still with the done those a similar to like once i'm done with

what i see the student both use the little gear motivation says do you do it on bob? ah, 2 people are killed. then 14 injury. does ukraine attack settling in russia belgrade? region causing civilian infrastructure to catch fire. a knocking on water and power in the area she gin paying is reelected as a chinese communist party leader for on this story. 3rd term, raising the efforts of the nations, people in building a, quote, prosperous society. and adding that the country should be vigilant looking ahead also coming up this one.