are we witnessing the end of globalization as we have known it for about the last half century? it would certainly seem so. the west ability to shape the world in its own image also appears to be on the way. as a result, should we expect new regional and block lobel is ation. the cross talk in globalization, i'm joined by my guess arthur quiero in toronto. he's at liberty advocate in our freelance editor in washington. we have thomas power. he is founder of the economics democratic and open societies project. and in bristol, we cross to jointly brower. she is a spokesperson for the world anti imperialist form, as well as the author of dr to war against russia in china. i cross cross and effect, that means you can jump anytime you want, and i always appreciate it. are there, let me go to you 1st year. we didn't get a lot of coverage in western media, but there was a really big meeting between the chinese leader and in re odd with the saudi

leader. and if you compare and contrast with what it looked like compared to bite and bite and got a, you know, a bump shake and the red carpet came out for the chinese leader. huge deal to being made. energy deals, infrastructure deals that works here. this is very indicative of how the world is changing. wouldn't you say? absolutely, absolutely. sometimes i worry that the western world is so caught up in its own way, for lack of a better term. noticing what's going on around the world. i know we're better for the last 10 years, not more as been and expanding was i colonial power and it's projecting more and more of that power and world, including in, in the western world. you're in canada, united states and elsewhere. yeah. it's absolutely. thomas, i can go to you, i mean, the globalization, when it was 1st conceived,

it was quite popular and people were quite supportive of it because it will make the world like the west. well, that's not really panning out the way they thought it would. it is a matter of fact, there's a lot of dissolution with it, even in the west. i mean, the us seems to be moving away from it and creating its own block that hence what i had to say at the end of my introduction, you have a eurasian block, an american block that is subjugate in europe. we're seeing it, we're seeing it falling apart. fragment. go ahead, thomas. well, let me just backtrack a little. what author just said, i don't see china as a colonial power at all. i see china looking after its national interest and it has a national interest in having access to energy. it has a national interest in secure c lanes. it has a national interest because it's a massive, massive manufacturing power and being able to trade. and i see that is really what is driving china's global engagement. of course, it also has

a national interest in as, as a regional superpower, immediately in the south china sea. and of course, as, as a major, powerful nation as having a respected position in the global system. and i suppose that that's really the tension between the united states and china, the united states is trying to deny china all of that. as regards saudi, the saudi visit. yes, this is very interesting because saudi arabia has been the linchpin of u. s. power in the middle east. and i think one of the interesting things, i think you can begin to connect some of the dots here. some of the stuff that the u. s. has done over the last 15 years, just beginning to backfire now, particularly regarding using its power to bully other countries. and of course,

you know, we've seen this in the russia, ukraine conflict, the, the, the way that the u. s confiscated, russia foreign reserves, the attempt by the western powers to under cut russian, russia economy. most recently by this oil cap machination saudi arabia reads all these things as well. and it seems that these same tools can be applied against it in india, that modi is seeing the same. i, latin america, i suspect all the latin american leaders are seeing the same. everyone begins to connect the dots, except the folks in the us who are imperial masika, you're absolutely right. it's back. just let me go to you. i mean, it's more pernicious than that because if you don't want to play our game, we're going to punish you. we will even punish so called allies. ok. this is very interesting as well. and there's the pushback that we have seen maybe not from

allies, but for the rest of the world is d dollarization. now once that happens then global hegemony comes to an end. chelsea go ahead will definitely what we're seeing is the, the waning of u. s. global hegemony, which let's face it really. i took on a new aspect with the collapse of the soviet union and with the collapse of the soviet union that the but the sort of balancing act between the socialist world at no capitalist, imperialist world kind of collapsed. and we had this ramp and imperialism which was like, right, we can lose everywhere. we can wade war against everyone who stands against us. every body better get in line or will be invading you and stealing your wealth. and people felt that they had to countries that they had to get in line. they weren't strong enough to stand alone against u. s. bullying. you know, look how difficult it's been for countries like north korea, q by iran hooper, under sanctions regimes for decades. you know, without much relief and how hard it was for them, particularly in the period after the collapse of the soviet union. so this kind of

expansion of the aggressiveness and, and, and kind of rampant looting of the globe, of the imperialist after the collapse of the soviet union. you know, it lasted a certain amount of time, but it couldn't last, ever, it hasn't lasted forever. and now we're seeing the rise of the independent world. and world countries are finding is the key to their independence is getting together. the only way you can stand up against the power of the u. s. it's, and it's armies. you know, it's economy is, it's, it, allies is to stand together and that's the attraction now of the, of blocks like the brakes and the s c o that they're offering the ability to trade in atlanta. but they're taking away this dynamic of service and master. you know, you know, arthur, it's, it's very interesting. we had the german chancellor couple new cycles ago saying that after the conflict is over and ukraine and russia loses, he's saying this,

they will have to re assess trade with russia. but if that is such an arrogant point of view, i mean, maybe the russians don't want to deal with you anymore. ok. i mean, again, it's, it's kind of this imperial mindset is that you want to be with us. you want to be like us and you want to hold our values. but every, with every passing day, every single one of those propositions is false. arthur. well, i think, i think what that points to similar to what has been mentioned by the last 2 to speakers here as well, is that there's this universe that has come with power. and i like, for example, with united states and it's, and it's introduction of certain values around the world in the beginning, i believe that actually did start with some, some measure of genuine attempts to do good. you know, how people have democracy, help them have better lives, that sort of thing. but i think that that very quickly, especially post soviet union became

a point where power corrected and power is corrupting. absolutely. and for, for europe and united states, and i guess the western robin general, they underlined themselves at home. they run themselves abroad. and yet somehow at certain levels, they still see themselves master of the world. and in canada there's, there's a famous hockey player who made his reputation off of skating, where the pack was going be kinder than where it was or where it is. and it feels like those families are weighing where wiser is rather than where it's going be that's, that's an interesting way of looking at thomas. you know, i think we need this, this whole mindset about western globalization is reflected in joseph burrell. blogs, you know, where europe is the garden and everywhere else is the jungle. i mean, if that isn't the neo colonial outlook, i don't know what is commerce?

no, you, peter, peter, you're absolutely right. there is a, i like the expression that the previous author just used hubris, pride goes before a fall, and i'm not that has sort of what has happened to the u. s. project which i agree initially. initially, there was some good intentions, but the united states has been captured. i mean on both sides about political aisle . by this neil con view that the u. s. has to be globally hedge, a monic. i'm that is community looking at it. we don't want to be to definitive about these things. who's good, who's bad? they don't. all sides is always a mix, but it violates the most fundamental principle of the global order that made all else possible. and that goes back to the west trillion principle from the 1648 korea westphalia, that other countries don't interfere in the lives of others. and for all its

screaming about russia and china intervening in the affairs of the united states, the u. s. is the global champion of interference and, and now it's actually pushing it to the point of belligerence and war. and this is the, the root cause of the problem. the u. s. agent insistent on being globally hedge, a monic not allowing space for other countries to develop. they are going to develop along their own particular pods, both politically and economically. we should be the best thing we can do to encourage these values of democracy and human rights is to help these countries. not yeah, but i mean, i mean, not, but thomas, you know, in democracy in human rights, if i go to jesse right now, that's just a political cudgel. i don't, they don't believe in it. they don't believe in democracy in their own countries. go ahead and no, i think i think it's more complicated. we'll get we'll get it in the 2nd half of the program. just want to feel that. i mean,

i think you're upset. you right peter. the imperialist words have always differ greatly from their deeds. they say these, these words to make a veneer, they took about civilization, culture, human rights, democracy. they've been talking like that for 200 years. you know, many countries have suffered, nevertheless, from their domination and control. you know, over the last century, many of them fall back against that, you know, but in recent decades it's been honda because as i said, the collect the ussr shifted the balance of forces in the world. but the fact is that imperialism seeks domination, not democracy, doesn't matter what it says, look at what it does, you know, and we have to, we have to recognize that, let's not forget, that this whole notion of a rule based order was invented when the imperialist decided to launch their aggressive illegal war against yugoslavia, i hold that thought, hold out that we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on globalization state with

ah, ah, ah ah, need to come to russian state total narrative. i've stayed as i phone and the most landscape div jingles equal in 50 battle defeat. okay, so ninety's to pharmacy. anyone else with we will ban in the european union. the kremlin. yup. machine. the state on russia

today and split ortiz spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all band on you to share with me ah ah

a linda, monica with

it. ah, welcome back across stock where all things are considered on peter labelle to remind you we're discussing globalization. okay, so back to arthur in, in toronto, the lynchburg, the listener, the linchpin of the west vision of globalization is through financial institutions . now that you know, you, you have been, is wayllace gold frozen, stolen from it, rushes foreign reserve stolen from it. i mean, what kind of rules based order is that, i mean, you know, what about the rule of law? this is why is just he pointed out in the 1st part of the program, other countries are getting together and saying, we don't need their institutions, we can have our own institutions, we can go round them. okay. and they use the west uses it's financial institutions as a cudgel. well, if you can get around it,

then fine. okay. and then you have not just, you know, tray, but you have free trade where everyone benefits from it. okay. that, that the west is destroying itself. and its own institutions. arthur? yeah, there's a, a great book called exit voice and loyalty that covers a lot of the personal dynamics that go on with this sort of thing. but really, if you can't set up a set of rules and then go back on it whenever you want, it's finished that's being faced domestically in most of the western world as well . where there's an expectation of certain rule of law in a way that things are done by the pending on your politics. depending of it's in favor or not. you get different treatment and robbie, seeing that in a world stage as well. there's, you know, if they're going the wrong way, they all that's their off. we can change the rules number one and you have have a stable rules based system that way. but tom thomas basically the same question to you, because the, if these institutions work against the national interests of other countries,

they have every incentive to walk away from it and they can because new institutions are being created here. and as i started out with the example with saudi arabia, i mean, they were in the pocket of the american since $900.00 thirties. and to have this happen right now they, they want to have control of their sovereignty. and it's sending a message to other countries in the world as well, is that you don't need western institutions. the problem is, is that, as just these pointed out, the west will use its own military institutions if you defy them, go ahead thomas. oh that's, that's all true. i can't argue with that. i agree with what you've said and what the other speakers said, the major challenges. so i don't think it's as easy as you make it out. it's the one can put in place new currencies or new mechanisms for exchange, but countries will be looking to have, how do they store value if you want to balance of payments surplus, you need to be able to park that finance somewhere for

a while and then have access to, again in future. and so that's going to be a political problem for countries like china, russia, et cetera, how to build competence in their own systems. and that's why i was saying how, how complicated this issue is. the west is overreaching. china and russia are going to have challenges of their own to build confidence in their systems and, and, and that's something that i would like to hear more of from russia and china. how they're going to do that, i think would be very well actually. i think they are doing it right now. and when we're jolting, when russia was thrown out of the swift system, there, there, there was a, a burgeoning one here, one already existing and china. and it is, it is, it's expanding now. it's going to take a long time. but it's already happening in these making it, it, these things are yes, they're difficult. but if you put time and effort into them resources they will work and there's an incentive to make them work for sure. go ahead and brazil agreed. there's absolutely incentive to make them work because what people are realizing is, there is no way to co exist on terms of mutual respect with imperialist powers.

they will total subordination or, or, you know, or it's war and there isn't an in between. so they, what people have learned to understand is there is no rules based, ordered as the law of the jungle. and the law of the jungle is the law of might is right. you know? and so that's why they say people have been making these moves to stand together economically as well as militarily, it's the only chance of retaining independence and self determination. there is no other way to do it. you know, these moves that usa has got used to be able to dictate to everyone. it didn't stop to think about the consequences of its actions. it can't really, it's, it is impelled by its, its own, you know, a logic. but those moves towards financial warfare against russia and china over the last decade. have as you rightly pointed out, pete, i have forced those countries to slowly and steadily start to reduce their vulnerabilities to us by natural control. because they knew if they didn't, they were going to be destroyed. yeah, i mean, arthur,

i think future historians will marvel at how the europeans have surrendered their sovereignty. i'm rid even rejected their own national interest. i mean, again, what trade with russia? well, maybe russia doesn't want to trade with europe anymore. they're unreliable partners, they don't keep their deals, these. the somebody blew up those pipeline. somebody did, and there's no, but nobody in the west is particularly interested in. and why would russia, china, any other major power want to deal with people that don't keep their word? they're just simply dishonest. when it comes to exchange arthur? well, this is a massive strategic blunder that the west has, has not, it's just, it's, it's a little bit baffling. trying to understand why there's, there's this time over the last few years where there was an opportunity to bring russia into the fault here, strategically against some of the rising hours from a western perspective. and instead of that, it's like we enter the new century and new way of doing things so many other ways.

but f r strategy from the cold war. and obviously there's complexity you this, but it's, it's baffling me why this is the case for both europe and united states. yeah. but a bit, thomas, i think it's idea logically driven because meal liberalism doesn't like to compromise. you know, i mean, i kind of grew up. no, i'm okay. you're okay. i'm going to do my thing. you're going to do your thing and will manage it. new liberalism doesn't work that way you must submit. that is the problem here. yes, it's an uncompromising ideology. i do think that western europe is really the key here, is baffling. what has happened to the central positions in, in western europe? i was think of western europe and russia as being an economic marriage made in heaven. russia has resources and needs capital. russia has some technology, western western europe has capital and technology needs resources. this is the

really the basis for a true economic alliance. but that's what, that's what washington didn't. why? yeah, that was just the point i was going to get to that washington has never wanted that to happen. and that's indeed why they, even though they paid lip service to gorbachev's vision, they were never going to allow gorbachev position to happen. now the, the question is why has western europe, what's in europe, ian politicians failed. so comprehensively here. and by the way, in the course of failing, i think they've said western europe for a tremendous amount of economic and political trouble in the coming decade. my fear is that the center will collapse in western europe and then you will have a choice between left and the right. i would prefer that we would go in the left direction, but my fear is the wife is going to win out. and that would be a terrible step back now. for russia and china,

they don't really care who wins out. they would have liked to have dealt with the sensible center, but once the sensible center sheets on them and turns against them aggressively, then they'll deal with whoever they have to. so i think western europe is going to be the most interesting point of political and economic conflict in the coming decade. just isn't it interesting, you know where the west says that projects, prosperity and security and itself now is the, the, the poor region of the world. ok. it's going in the wrong direction, while most of the other parts of the world are going, advancing, working together, as you pointed out. the thing is, the rest of the world working together is precisely what's undermining europe. western europe, the imperialist, europe's ability to have their stability and prosperity. why one rested on the other. you know, why was europe complicit with the usa for so long? because it's so it's best interests as being a junior partner in this hegemonic rule of the world, than in, you know, trying to,

to trade separately as it was, wasn't strong enough after world war 2, the european powers to be, to be a power on their own you know, the idea of them making a partnership with russia did always, always make the usa nervous. because that's a potential ability then for a power to be strong enough to question, then threat dominance of the usa. but the problem for the western europeans is they want to rush that was subservient not to partner. that, that's, that, that's the how imperialism works. they wanted rushes resources, they wanted it, military power, it's technological base. it's agriculture. but they wanted to just take it, they didn't want to do to join and share the spoils, share the lute. there's too many russians to, should you know, to, to cheryl that out with a fundamentally, i think, you know, that's where they've been, they've been sort of led by the usa, by the nose, you know, into the situation. but it's all actually driven by the fact that the capitalist

economy in the world is in crisis. this is desperate drive to, to sure up again, money to find profits at the expense of other people. and europe right now is suffering a boomerang effect from the huge grist with which it went into the economic war against russia. they thought they would bring russia to its knees in a few weeks. they failed and, and arthur is a resolved the saying, the sanctions that have come out of western capital it is at the end of sanctioned their own people. okay. i lived here in moscow. we don't feel the sanctions, the way western medium claims. it's not true. it's simply not true difficulties. yes, but that's too difficult. this great challenge is a new solutions and i, and that's what i want. i want, i want russia to be cut off from the west completely. okay. because that's where the problems of the world are. arthur, bears, ace. you also address what was, what was said about imperialism there. i think more the point. the problem for the

west right now is we had this slice sank west ideological possession in all our institutions. anyone speaks our stance against that possession is cold, yet meaning that we have a very monolithic way of looking at things. and it's not a very good one. when it's prosperity came very much from the ability to open up markets to have certain amounts of freedom to stick with a certain wall of law, as we discussed earlier. and in the vein of the scientology. now we are just bring all of that, produce some sort of utopia. now every time i've seen that sort of new token vision or read about that sort of utopian vision in the past, it's never ended well. and we can see all ready for the west. it's going badly, very bad. well, i mean, arthur isn't, it really isn't really curious. it's the west. that's the most the idea, logical part of the world. the rest of the world is figured out that pragmatism is the best way forward,

but not the west. and that's why their whole ideology is short circuiting against them and makes them very dangerous for the rest of us. i'm sorry everybody. that's all the time we have. i want to thank my guests and watched in ritual and in toronto, and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here. are to see you next time. remember, prosper. the the ah, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safer? i selection whole community. are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere? direct? what is true?

what is great? in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. only 41 percent of us. it does have enough savings to cover a $1000.00 emergency. we have record numbers of americans who are on the verge of having their cars repossess more than a 137000000 americans are facing financial hardship because of medical debt. in america. we do have a well 1st system in place to help people who are struggling financially, but it's a conditional system. you have to prove to the government that you truly need help . the simplest way, like explain the basic income, is that it's like social security for the rest of us. a basic income would be

a monthly payments that would go to everyone, just a $1000.00 a month. no strings attached. i will. i mean, i don't know. i just won't go crazy. the reason that i am a fan of guaranteed income because it is this idea that everybody is deserve it. and just that virtue of your being here a school. if you look on the initial, be welcome to get a used by you when you do do or change. but you also still listed on those a,

but i see the student bosses though group you lation says a ah, the u. s. u, the summit with african countries to criticize washington chinese activities in the region, while washington shift from africa to keep it plums by china's foreign ministry. and i don't think africa is not going to re enough a big public games, let alone the target of all the treat prussia from any country. old person. washington should respect the will the african people belgrade, accused of the self proclaimed public, of course about the thing a majority said center and the regions north to 1000 to christina officially apply for a.