this is the hello and welcome to all the parts that we want you to forecast and steer global development in. it's fair for has long been one of the west main competitive advantages, allowing you to ride the wave of ever increasing influence until 2009. when the global financial crisis push the united states to set up to 20, to split the damage and let the brakes leaders to come together for the 1st time to advance the common good. 15 years on which of these 24 months looks more viable or more attractive to the rest of the world. or to describe that i'm now joined by

paul and the gira, a brazilian economist, and former executive director of the international monetary fund. mr. gary, it's good to senior again, thank you very much for your time. i thank you for having me here. now you've had a very interesting career having served in the old style that is western dominated financial institutions like they are math and also being associated with the new age group. things like breaks and new development bank. i wonder if you find the item that's experienced in any way helpful to sort of observing what's happening with the brakes these days. in many ways. yes. what if i were to select one thing that i learned from the my experience of 8 years in, in washington, in the math. it is that the current, international monetary and financial system dominated by the united states and its allies. it's henri farmable. the system is rigid,

it's originally controlled. it has to be, um, when i see the system, i mean the mass, the world bank, the federal reserve, the dollar itself, the swift payment system. all of this has become a set of bullet geopolitical instruments that the west uses routinely and aggressively to intimidate, restrict, and, you know, dominate other countries. so this, this is my experience on the front i, i felt a lot for to reform the fund i spent using. he is doing that. and my, we did a to some things in the context of what you just mentioned, the financial crisis, when the west was weak, it's sort of made some concessions, but since 2010, since it's 14 years, the whole structure of the fund has been for pros and actually, oh, how do you understand that? because you've written a lot about the us about the weaponized ation of this institutions heard the

reputation and ultimately comes back to by the west itself. because the west has use this tool support to its own advantage. how do you understand the logical of doing these mutually exclusive things? variety is you put it well. i mean, this is, i believe a symptom of the decay of the west. the west has to have a bottle, of course, hedge, a monic, but it is a declining force and the declining force. misuse is the answer is it has, i would say that if we want to change things, we have at least one important ally. if we want to change with all the system, this in fort ally is the united states because it continuously undermines its own currency who is using it to yeah, a lot of people are joking about it, but it undermines it in a very sort of unconscious way i mean, doing a lot of damage, but the big question is whether there's any good to any one coming from that,

including the united states itself. and when there is no good one, the power is, you know, destroying for the sake of destroying that's, that's pretty dangerous. isn't it? a declining superpower is always dangerous, especially with this, this declining supervisor, the united states, has a mindset deep in grain mindset. that it has to be the leader that it has to the 1st uh, give orders as it has to be the dominant player. and because there's a big difference between being elaina and doing borders by the way. and then in fact the same thing right? us as a self proclaimed leader, nobody asked them to do play that role of at least not, not the major countries, but it has played that goal since world war 2. and it's, it has been facing us. i think it's quite clear that it has been facing increasingly difficult, the increasing difficulties and sustaining that superpower now. so we were going to need to, we are living through very turbulent times. witness,

which is going on in ukraine. what is going on in the middle east? these are symptoms of, of the aggressive power of destruction, of a super power that is in decline and fuse the supply. and now i'm just the imap um they are demonstration of where your work still goes by the word international. and to some extent, you know, it's reflected in structure. uh, so you writing and one of your articles that although virtually all sort and states are formally represented, the i'm us government structure, a small call forth of western nation states representing 15 percent of the global population calls all the shots. and i was thinking about it in the context of the american elections when almost everybody gets too bullied, but only it's, you know, a few debt to wield real influence. i wonder if that's actually the sort of the root of the problem that the americans truly see that as democratic when you have

a representative but not participatory a governance system that they, they're pushing on pretty much the rest of all of us with my indian colleagues in the executive board used to say that the international monetary fund is a misnomer. it should because it should be named the north atlantic monetary funds . because really, it's an alliance between the us and it's, you're being allies, the guns of the fund as the same goes the whole. so the world bank, we used to hope some of us used to hope that overtime the us and you would be, i'm open to change, would come to realize that the institutions they created and control would only be viable if it becomes a more participated participatory structure but what i saw there is a deep resent that a deep resistance and it's upon the metal change. we can make some changes in the fund and the will bank best possible,

because medic or no mistake has medic. but only to the extent that these changes do not challenge the control, the centralized zation of decision making in the small committee, which used to call itself the international community that says just a 15 percent or less of the total population in the world. and it behaves as though it's going to lead to it used to do it easily or last centuries. but now this time is gone times fast and you'd be ends and especially the americans do not want to recognize this. they want to hold on to, to the power to the privilege default to the title of power. but uh, i get the sense that they don't actually want to be sort of is burdened with the actual work of leading and governing. because it takes a lot of time and effort as far as i understand. yeah, they want to dictate, they don't want to really have a dialogue. is alanna, that's so see what the dialogue,

in reality would do. what you see in the international organizations. they no longer multilateral accept a name, they become as tools. i'll give you an example. the fund needs to support that countries and difficulties if the country and difficulty is seen as uncooperative by the west. it obtains no support or support in very harsh conditions in terms of us to everything. but if the country is friendly, was too politically important to the west. it can receive a norm with the amount of money with little conditions attached. so it's double standard is all the time to the americans and the dns, they feel they need to hold on, tied to these structures, they have and they're not waiting to open space for, for the rest of the world. well, uh the rest of the world doesn't have to ask for their permission to open a new space. and i mean, bricks is one of the examples of that. i mean,

it wasn't created as a revolutionary force. it's not there to combat western influence, at least initially it was there to, you know, mind its own business and to create better conditions for the member states. but whenever you try to set up a business in that and monopolist the environment, you are likely to be seen as a threat. this is what i want to ask you about. do you see breaks as a, as a challenge or to the western model? northern rhetoric, but in practice and action or you see we always use the language of cooperation, peaceful negotiations. but in we the brits would never had been created. i can tell you that if we had not sense the fact that the west was unwilling to have a 2 dialogue with us initially as a say, we were more inclined to work together. zeal rushing to china and the latest very practical non political way. it's more practically working. i participated in that

working for the reform of the i math and the will back. we managed to obtain some results and then the thing got frozen. so after 2014, after 2012, in reality, we realized that we needed to build our own back. so we started constructing a new development back. steroids and shy, we constructed a monetary fund of the brakes calls continued reserve arrangements. so we started doing practical things together and now we're on, on the, on our way, i hope to building alternatives to the monetary system as well. and so i say we are not add to west, we never say we, i to west of course, that you never find the government officials saying what i'm going to say now. but in fact, we, uh, we sense the fact that we need to build something independence of the west. god, we're getting back as soon as the word not hostile to us, but it's a counter hedge, a monic force alternative alternative for us. right now is,

can i ask you something because development is one of the words that pops up in many of those documents are math world bang to the united states likes to talk about. the brakes also talks about it a lot. and what does development even me and then the current geo political context? because i can remember a number of countries that had a fairly solid standing by the un millennium development goals, likely been, or syria, which were declared price states and pretty much destroyed supposedly for the benefit of the people. so what is development? in the current circumstance, i believe development in the current circumstance needs to be independent from western structures. because west instructors have shown you quoted to stock examples, syria and libya, have many others. what does this show that you cannot develop if you don't have your own independent means economic, but also military. what is the rush?

wind rush is showing that in the west and not defeated the military because of pressure is huge. i mean, frustrated and large country. so large countries like russia, china, brazil, india, can play a role in building, let's say, an umbrella, where countries can develop peacefully and protected from the sort of destructive impulses that the west has. especially the united states. it's, it's something to be investigated more deeply. now why the u. s. pays and that way . what, why? i mean, uh, that's a trip to for change to do that. how do you understand this ultimate motive to come and impulse? some conditions on the country that do not only facilitate the actual, you know, human mystic development, but also oftentimes do not produce the results desired by the west itself. us as a militaristic society, as, as a militaristic mindset. and to for example,

they did a dye they did, they live in washington dc was very unpleasant. all sort of electrician, even i'm talking outside the, the math in the math. one thing i noticed, which amazing me even when brazil had agreement to the us on certain positions i agreement was difficult to work with them because they always think that they don't need the support. they don't need alliances. they need, they need fast health dating satellites. that's the way they they think, unfortunately. so cooperation with them is become, i would say practically impossible. of course the governments, the president obama cannot say that. but the business and government, and boosted in officials and resilience in general know this from experience. how difficult it is to, to negotiate a deal with united states because of the an intrinsic attitude towards other countries. well, mr. in a day or we have to take a short break right now,

but we will be back in just a few moments station. the, during world war 2, the germans with the help of the ship. the creation revolutionary movement that the independent state of croatia transported hundreds of people have no way to work in force, labor camps. the germans wanted the work force to build roads and the infrastructure in norway. so when they couldn't get enough prisoners from serbia, they contacted who was social and the install of these camps to you had the death rate up to 82 percent each which is actually higher done in the ultimate among the with dozens of children. boy did the georgia evo, but not the not clear below. go to the coast to this and the roads. debts are the

owners school. that'd be good to this as a goodness specialist. and it would not say that they had the horrible conditions except from the t lease. many people died from surveys, a hunger as diseases, very few made it back home. well, let's just move it to the true knowledge of grove, day or night, mostly. but at yale and that both of us and this as well as the non unable 0 the welcome back to wells. the parts were following the gara, a brazilian economist and former executive director of the international monetary fund. now mister mcguire, as we've been discussing before, the break there,

there's the west, a at one poll with it's a developmental model. and then on the other side, they're large countries like russia, china, india, that i believe cannot be developed according to western specifications. it's not only that they don't want to that, but that it's not simply realistic because that would be impossible without losing not just national identity, but national substance because they're too large for the west to even offer them anything you know workable. but there are lots of countries in the middle juicing. now it is a good historical moment for those mid sized countries to try to charge their own developmental course by themselves. or are they still in some way bonded to the sources of either financing or let's say technology. things are changing it to look at the world. now you see a lot of middle size or even small countries that are, that are moving away from the west and see,

look at what's happening in french speaking africa. a lot of countries are rebelling, expelling french forces, questioning french models of, of international relations. and i can tell you, from my experience, the french speaking african countries used to be very disciplined with respect to facts, a very, very much satellites. and now, 15 years later, i see the move, but that's going on in africa. in latin america, it's a mixed bag. we do have the same. the same situation in asia least asian countries are developing at a very past base. looked at what, not only china, but southeast asia. they did not follow the neo liberal ends and they never fall. and, you know, the sense that i get is that there are a lot of countries who are truly dissatisfied with, with the system they seed as unfair. they often times see it as abusive. they like

to criticize it. and yet they somehow lack the agency or the political will to offer, you know, their own solution. so to chart their own course and they found up continuing relying on be a piece of system and indirectly supporting it. what's the shortest way out? it would be somewhat sad them as a cue stick relationship that is still quite common in the international system. you put it well, i agree with the way you summarize that. let me just tell you that we cannot underestimate the united states in the west. in general. they are declining and relative influence. yes. and relative economic size. yes. and relative to the demographic terms. yes. but they're still very powerful. they're declining from a very high stage of development in falling. so when i say, why am i saying this is because if you look at the political economy of the countries in the blow of so called global south, most of them,

perhaps all of them are vulnerable to actions taken by the united states and the allies and his allies just give you an example. recently donald trump said that he would as of what it was, she was not. i agree at all with any attempt to unseat the dollar as the result of the courtesy of the world and even threaten countries that would try to do this with punitive terrace of up to $100.00 was on everything the import and export to united states. now of course you may say, well donald trump is an outlier in terms of bluffs and the rest of statements, but i think we should make no mistake. united states elite is deeply hostile to any attempt to unseat the dollar. and if it does to speak of my own country, i don't want to speak about other countries. brazil has a lot of sectors of it, society and economy and the political c, media universities,

which i deeply attached to the united states. they look up to the us, the and the act in, in symphony with us when things become difficult. so it's a, it's not easy for, for a country, for even a government to be, you know, has 30, say a psychology and it's interest. there is an interesting parallel there that instruct times we always are sort of referred to to them not dramatic ways of operating the ways that to be learned during trauma. but in good times we can afford to advance some more productive ways. and i understand that brazil to what you know, at certain points can, at certain times, can cooperate with china with india, even with russia. and for example, settle, you know, that transactions and biological premises. but i heard you say that while the countries, many countries are doing that on the biological basis, there is a limit to this sort of policy. because sooner or later, they will come

a time when they would have to set up not a common reserve currency, but they've come and the reference currency. why would that be needed? and what's the difference between a reference and reserve currencies? i'm glad you asked that because this point is often misunderstood or overlooked. last to him, involved by this point came up, inserted interventions by the russians present in the meeting even by president, 14 themselves. and i got the impression that some people think that settling transacting and national courtesies would be sufficient, would need that go beyond that. but actually that works poorly. why? because countries need to have a system where they can incur in deficit, sense surfaces. and you can't have that if you don't have either you can call it a reference currency or reserve currency. the point is that it needs to be a safe asset where you can park part of your reserves at least take, for example, the case of russia and india. the transact mostly in national goods this. now

russia has a surplus quite large with india. so it's accumulating, rubies, now the central bank of russia may not want to hold onto these rupees because occurrence to the india is not convertible. it's perhaps strong to instability. so what can russia do? it has some alternatives. none of them are good. none of them are perfect. let's put it this way. you can seek investment opportunities in india, for example, using the rubies to invest in india. but that may be useful and they may be reluctant to open certain sectors of its economy to, for an investment. so originally try alternatively to increase this effort to imports from, from india within services and into and it may run into difficulties because it may want to protect certain sectors of the russian economy against inputs of goods and services. so what it was really quite commercial do. a 3rd possibility which hasn't been used is to, to a tiny little operation with countries. 3rd,

countries that have interest in receiving robust to use in their relations with indian. who would that be? i mean, the china in india with the perhaps have some know i was thinking of a central script that apple of the gulf countries. and we have a lot of close proximity to india need rubies. but while i say is this, by this example, shuts a show that as a system based purely on national currencies is a good step. yes, but it's not sufficient. so we need to reference chris and another common misunderstanding the reference. chris is not a unified, correct. it's not like a euro with a common central bank, that's not what's in being discussed. it would be a palo currency for international transactions and for to serve as a safe reserve asset for the participating countries. now what would it take to come up with something like this? because in rhetoric, at least old,

the brakes members and many of their associated partners are ready explore alternative ways of doing business. and they believe that it's that suffering right to trade with one another. and yet for some reason the progress is halted at some point. i hope your present lulu, chair, the brakes next to your resume will be the chair of the bricks. has said in his statement to cause and because on some of the said quite clearly we need an alternative means of payment not to replace our currencies, but to construct a financial system, a new financial system for the multiple world orders that we, we want to achieve so you said that quickly he said that quite clearly in producing present little a has enough. um, lets say political courage to actually put his words into you know, some action. yeah, that's a good question that let's see. let's see. he formulated clearly and correctly. but there is a problem, a problem is,

i go back going back to what i said before the united states resist any attempt to see the dollar. united states has power to influence backstage and funds stage countries that the me seeking alternative to the dollar. so you knew you need to muster political will and technical capacity. what have we seen in the discussions among bricks? countries are reluctant to move forward. russian made a very good proposal for a new settlement system as an alternative to swift. countries agreed to explore the issue, but they did not go beyond that. well, there may be some investment in some incentives offered by the united states itself, because if the system is not only abuse, if it's also deeply sick and the american national debt is approaching $36.00 trillion dollars as we speak. do you see any treatment? reasonable treatment to that's the problem. that's one of the reasons why we need

an alternate to assist the dollar. you see it occurs so you can only be trusted if the economy that issues that currency is also trustworthy. and these economies, united states and other high income countries is, is it is largely unstable fiscal deficits for, for the foreseeable future, high and growing debts and the tendency to misuse this, the instruments as, as political weapons. so on the one hand we, we realize this, we bricks and believe we do. on the other hand, we know, you know, the brakes have a tent, they have a long french tradition of working by consensus. this may be a trap for us. i believe it's difficult to move away from this tradition because countries are so different, the different levels of income and levels of different interest, and they want their sensitivities and special concerns to be taking into account. so consensus has a lot of support. but what if we know, are we,

we're used to be 5 countries now we're 9 and maybe more in the future. now, how can we work on the basis consensus with a large number of countries diverse and vulnerable? well, i, you can work on the basis of consensus if you understand what the common good really is. i mean, what you are therefore apart from talking. but it's not only in understanding of common good, it's a political economy issue and give you an example. egypt is now full member of the, the brakes. egypt is under 9 last program. so in india, it age at this very vulnerable to us pressures, the pressures in the execution of it's how if it is, if it's not cooperative with the west, it may face troubles in dc in the am a full life is always challenging your house. competing with divisions in getting risks, but at the end of the day, if we try to some of the, the last 15 years so far breaks development compared to,

let's say g 20 it doesn't that look like bricks has made some real progress forward compared let's say to the g 20 because it seems to be more of a talking shop or the g 20. it also participated in a d 20 since it became a leaders form and back in 2008. the last relevant to 20 presidency was the french one into our 2011. 0, about 3 stages, but not very effective. but as i say, it's more talk shop and a talk shop that has become a sort of difficult because you have all the key, the countries that are at loggerheads and the other one add us. and you have, on the other hand, russian, china and the, the western countries boycott anything that involves the russia. so the g 20 is broken. it's much less effective than the brakes can be or even the deep 7 in fact is much more effective because it's a small home,

a genius group under us leadership. the breaks out, i hope we don't actually continue expanding very quickly. and i hope we realize that consensus cannot be a golden rule. we need to, you know, build a correlation of willing countries. let's say you want to move forward on the base of the russian proposal for an alternative payment system. maybe not all countries would be willing to join. so let's construct a coalition of willing countries and move forward. the others can join me later. my my, cuz i know it's difficult. my concern is if we stick to consensus rigidly with a expanding group, we may not get anywhere. well, if we stick, or if the bricks country stick to consensus, they would become as formalistic as the west. and perhaps they should learn from the west as well, from its own mistakes within a day, or we have to leave it there. but it's been pure delight talking to you again. thank you very much. cause a pleasure. thank you. thank you and thank you for watching hope to see her again on once

a part the good.