ah ah ah ah ah, ah, welcome towards the part, 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. this 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 exploitative arrangement. well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by some jaya barrow. distinguish tallow at the united service institution of india. mr. baron, 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 think i once heard from a prominent european politician that it doesn't matter whether our funds are fighting or making law the grass underneath them. yes, tremples. and if we extend that metaphor to the geopolitical situation in to well today, not just the grad underneath them to get the fact that it's valleys and villages apart miles away. jean russia, a fully aware of the,

of the kind of damage that confrontation is visiting up upon 3rd party. well, i'm pretty sure they understand. the question is, what are they doing about? the fact is that the don't looking one has been a dealing with a very difficult 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 new system dominated by the west after the 2nd world war is traditionally dominated also by the rest. but even in multilateral organizations, are dominated by major problems. 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 groups. 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. it has a 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 does. this is, it's out 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. it does have different names used to call it

non alignment. then we talk about started to go to me, but essentially the quarter in policy towards the rest of the work is to have an independent or policy of decisions based on, on interest and, and understanding that we are a nation that india like china, like russia, like a, europe of mainland europe, and many others who to introduce in latin america of the population. we had a civilizational entity, and we have seen our films as a country that has a message based on the longest pre authorization, 5000, you know, history of us in addition. and the 4th of it deeply for a no identity that we have to have an independent voice. and whether it was in the past or be able to watch by my mom. we 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 the 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 it is in the, in these multi lateral 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 engine 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 are bothered about certificates. i don't think that's a political issue. you're talking about indian media indian is very diverse. issue for us has always been 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 several languages and english remains are linked to the word. so there isn't much greater influence of the 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 kingdom are those trade center. and so they're all in the media. you will see that biased, 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 ob, issues with, with russia on, with china, on united states or indeed with other countries like japan, germany, france on the basis of 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 have centered its independence. when you're just seen recently on the water, the un security council, india has taken a real office on. it does not bandwagon with anybody else. now, you mentioned a moment ago and he 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 it's like

substantial expand, do they do that though in equal measure, do you think they could be compared in terms of that impact? well, i was so difficult question. i'm not looking to receive my job, but the fact is that the nation global inflation triggered by that i, you know, price, you're good by that i was in full price. and then with the, the disconnect in the financial system. if we can all make sanctions imposed by the united states and the nature of ours, all of them together are certainly back to us when we are, we in india read that no looking would have been at the receiving end of the combined effect of all of and you know, you can get into a blame game who's to blame with the rest is to man. but i think the fact is that you in the history of this conflict,

i would argue both sides. and i think i'm leaning in gleaning is irrelevant than geopolitics. 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 when we all understand that this is the worst possible outcome. the question is whether there was any alternative to that. but i think there's a perception in the international community that sanctions 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 a contained 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. well, you know, you're right, and that's what i, with some of my columns which are published or to go back to march april this year . beginning of all, still it is that sanctions supposed to wall out of blood instrument. they do not distinguish the targets. you'll see the impact of one example us sanctions on the on and everybody has been impacted by that india and the receiving end office transactions for a long time. so sanctions on a blunt instrument. and i think it is to say that a conflict between 2 countries scrubbing can bend within those 2 countries, which is how can many other cases cost but the minute ground global sanctions. and that to sanctions, which in some is 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 one was the bank of international study runs in switzerland. never sanction. be nice friends. the german central bank. no, i believe you close to the german banks were not sanctioned. so you know, better than discrimination. and i think fracturing central bank certainly is, is something which has hurt us. and most importantly, you know, the pressure in the market to try and fist on them saying one by russian on my list and i sent all of this her don't think i'm to so many of us in india, i've been right now. this is our, this is a fascinating question for me. how that was applies it's pressure because on 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 pat, making a decision to lower it's oil production despite very happy and very african

american loan being, it's clear that americans scope of influence even with, 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 masses of pressure have changed in any way? well, i'm stuck in the sense that there's much greater willingness now to use a financial sector as an instrument of pressure. i've been asked to do it and i'm with nomics. you see that the instruments on sanctions? i wonder what time the bus central banks were never sent, but now that is happening. so the financial sector, that's a concern. but more importantly, i think the change that has happened in the last 20 years compared to before that

particularly for india is the global, original body. and in some ways you see that even with china, dependence on chinese companies on the market, for example, the dependence of our company. so the change in the global system economics is 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 destination of the states of gum. i mean, we talk about opec. opec is an organization of government, so and when it comes to stand by national interest, when it comes to private companies, you know, a corporate boards, a understandable to some extent, mr. bar, we have to take a very short break right now, but it will be back in just a few moments station. ah

ah ah ah ah a ah

ah welcome back to well, the parts with sunshine barrel 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 at 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, you know, 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 government has non slaughters are on a central line india, which is essentially a lend to reduce our dependence, particularly for could you go to a chips, you know, food and other artificial, you don't know that you that much to reduce our dependence on other countries and become much more so i, i joke with my friends in the got a ruling party which is about to get them up on that movie is not like, got a lot of this was the policy of metal in the 50s, of building

a sensor. and i do based on the list of capacity and get it. and now once again, we have next phase where because of the challenge of globalization, because of the global take slowing down. because w too much, that training 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 direction that you read in debt. 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 i states role, especially in bigger countries, that can challenge the united states whenever safe role is increased. and that's

a way to, to i talk christy or to tell in parent isn't, but i think we are coming to the very interesting point in history of our self sufficiency or someone t i becoming a means of achieving democracy. am i wrong here? is it because it sounds like a paradox, but if more countries are pursuing their own self interest, the democratic system internationally seems to be improving one over the walker see, i don't know, understand why because no one is certainly doing is to bring the focus back to solve it, i think what you saw doing the at all globalization reduced emphasis on and the idea that you know the one to slap as informal screen one on board to select the trading on the well, along with the kids. and therefore, missions on a certain yes,

that is that's part of the don't democrat systems like on the one to log with a different direction. and therefore that i don't think, you know, the united states are going to decide what is the democracy in one month. but it isn't that i understand what it did. democracy, working on a domestic level, essentially means that every member of the society or every group has a certain input. and it's treated fairly and proportion to its size within the society that everybody's interests are accounted for. and when we translate that to the international system, it will be working, it would be working in the same sort of fashion. so a country is big and small. it doesn't mean that they have the same amount of influence, but at least that interest would be taking into account then the global process could be structured in

a way not to penalize or ostracize one or the other in this sense. or 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 i'm, we all ready and moving to in that direction. i don't read on now the system is of our system of talk about, you know, you, one of your states of the united nations was constructed on that principle of equality. what do you want in constructively good missions with the un security council of which you have to know them? and the more often the less often, and even within medical that organizations with july on the big economy. so big awards. so in the international system we have no, it really factors dom office, it's a fall based system and a list of i have. so i don't think you know,

that is going to change much effective anything. what we are now see is a real question of a social offer, no democratic way of dealing with issues. now one of the most interesting discussions in polish i circles today is about neil colonialism and indeed an effort to reassert your power as a way of preserving your some would say unfair privileges. i think the russians are really trying to frame that. i struggle with the west and those tribes, they presented as both their own life for political and economic sovereignty, but also as an effort to create a more fairly, a fair and international system. what do you think about that? do you think weston had demonic ambitions? a colonial and they're very form. well, so just the last i said when i sit in india and look at

a neighbor of china seeking to be an issue. and that is why i said that, you know, we are in the one where our is the currency and in this on 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, and i'm the one today that the west has always been dominant for the last few 100 years. but other countries have this all of the major part of the soviet union, which is no longer there. but russia in arizona is a dominant china initial seems to be a dominant of some make use of being a dominant, a big brother to our smaller neighbors. it's in the nature of international relations that the currency is all, and therefore the, the, the weak shown on this fight against the strong. and when you look at the long run

systems which continue, i'm done so benign market back says in terms of the quantities, in terms of functional intellectual property, right, which you maintain service, you know, global inequality. that is one of the big one was fighting against when we talked about a new international economic already, the eighty's and ninety's, and many of us. and the other thing was, wanted changes in the global system. we wanted of much want to put one system. but in order to that struggle continues, but if you look at the global does down that exist today, it's pretty clear that they are hurting the powerful chase and 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 one in time. because, you know, having your neighbor or your who even, and me get something that it's once ultimately serves you as well because it creates a more predictable expectation. don't you think that the time itself is calling for 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 more diplomatic system. i think, you know, the saw unit on what you saw, my point on what the direction in which we're moving and that was sent to you on the didn't go to the leadership and i believe was probably the real version to 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 or, i mean, it may not be

a perfect democracy. you know, a smaller country, let's say like more abuse. and they're going to see may not have the same was and because it's contribution to the global common good is smaller, i mean, our is proportionate to what you bring to the table. yeah. so the, the direction in which, you know, moving in my judgement is a multiple us system and the current crisis will accentuate that process. and i think the, the west, particularly united states, i think in europe has come to terms with it. but example, even the french have talked 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 reading on monday. so i believe family are going to come to

a started you initially see come to the center or what's on the home. we are moving towards the most people in our system and whether the foster slow depends on the rent or like what we're seeing 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 and 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 gives them 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 less powerful gods, but they are all important than they all make the big county on. i wonder if the pulling, the stick ontology could be more conductive to the multiple. and one that we've been talking about, especially in the view that is said to assume the leadership, the presidency of both g 20 and the some high corporation organization is here. a very fascinating question. i think it's also very important question because that was the me, me look at that since in the last 75 years that we have been to the public that we are multicultural, multi, just multilingual. in many ways, many of the mission. and therefore we bring plurality block thinking, 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

a session or not my daughter did it. and i think that some domestic politics, that is what was happening in the country when all of us will be in the started the list that you know, the slogan has to be unity in diversity down to the foundation of a city. but construct our unity based on our bible. i think that's the message of the dinner public, and i hope that but it's not a deal media as a nation remain. so that the rest of the world, we have a message. i mean, i used to be just for dr. munoz prime minister and he repeatedly make this part that india plural nation is a nation of diversity and the whole brings to the world and you were 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 you hope to hear you again. well, the part a a ah, with what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, 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 difficult time. time to sit down and talk with breaking news from nepal, where it doesn't have reportedly being killed in a plane crash near the countries international airports. the russian defense ministry claims here is preparing a provocation. tableau apology. ronnie, re, to accused moscow of disrupting the great deal. and in this week's help stories moscow confirmed this military has taken control of the strategic town of colored dog in the done yes. republic. that's after months of intense fighting. ah, in a state of emergency.