the the, the hello and welcome to, well, the part that we want you to forecast and steer global development in its temper. 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 unless 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 wealth of the discount 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 experience 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, its unreformed level. the system is rigid,

its originally controlled. it has because 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 t 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, a 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,

but the weaponized ation of this institutions hurts 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 logic 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 be off, of course, hedge a monic, but it is a declining force, and the declining force miss uses the instruments that have i would say that if we want to change things, we have at least one important ally. if we want to change with the other 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 is 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 and green mindset that it has to be the leader that it has to. a flag is orders as it has to be the dominant player and the 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 to 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, and you have 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 a government structure, a small call, 4th 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 to vote. but only it's, you know, a few debt to wield real influence. i wonder if that's actually the sort of big 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 colleague 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 goal is to hold for 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 centralization 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 is used to do it easily or last centuries, but now this time is gone times best 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 kyra. 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 that a lot of 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 countries and difficulties if the country and difficulty is seen is uncooperative. by the west. it obtains no support or support in very harsh conditions in terms of the to everything. but if the country is friendly, was too politically important to the west. it can receive a norm, this amount of money with little conditions attached. so it's double standard is all the time, or the americans and the dns, they feel they need to hold on, tied to the 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 was 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 monopolistic 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 modem? not in rhetoric, but in practice and actually what you see uh 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 in the world 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 on fat. so we started constructing a new development back. steroids and shy we constructed the 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 as what i say we are not add to west. we never say we are to west of course, i 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 to the force right now is,

can i ask you something because development is one of the words that pops up in many of those documents. i mass flow bang 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 to a political context. because i can remember a number of countries that had a fairly solid standing by the un millennium development goals, likely being 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 lead them. how 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 curb 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,

the data dine data, the 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 that 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 present government cannot say that. but the business and government and visiting officials and resilience in general notice from experience how difficult it is to, to negotiate and to deal with united states because of the or intrinsic attitude towards other countries. well, mr. day or we have to take a short break right now,

but we will be back in just a few moments station. the, there's no end in sight over how you're going to continue to destroy the earth. is the case for the mess. most of the people i tried to go to the gym, but i'm certainly not ready to fight russia. this is also a soon. this is the 3rd world lunacy re washington as well. so the funder line likes to say, we have the tools while we just start with stability and business deal, some of the living will not have very close propaganda. you know, price here in new york. i think we don't know the aftermath any time that you're not allowed to ask questions, you should ask all of the questions. some more questions ask a better. the answer is will be the

welcome back to wells. the parts were following the gator, a brazilian economist, and form executive director of the international monetary fund. now, mr. mcguire, as we've been discussing before, the break there, there's the west, a at one poll, whether it's a developmental mode out and down 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 well 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 do seeing now a 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. very, very much satellites. and now, 15 years later i see the move, but that's going on. and 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 se, asia. they did not follow the neo liberal agenda. they never followed this. do you know, the sense that i get is that they are a lot of countries who are truly dissatisfied with, with the system they seemed as unfair. they often times see it as abusive. they like to criticize it. and yeah, they somehow lack the agency or the political will to offer, you know, their own solution. so to try their own course. and they found up continuing relying on the abuse of system and indirectly supporting it. what's the shortest way out of this? somewhat sad them as a q stick relationship that is still quite common in the national system. you put it well, i agree with the way you summarize. to me just tell you that we cannot underestimate the united states and the west in general. they are declining and relative in let's

yes and relative economic size. yes. and relative to the demographic terms. yes. but they're still very powerful. they are declining from a very high stage of development invalid. so when i say, why am i saying this is because if you look at the political economy of the countries in the globe circle and global south, most of them, perhaps all of them are vulnerable to actions taken by the united states and their allies and his allies just give you an example. recently, donald trump said that he would of what it was, she was not, i agree at all with any attempt to unseat the dollar as the result of courtesy of the world and even threaten countries that would try to do this with punitive terrace of up to 100 was on everything the import and export to the united states. now of course, you may say, well donald trump is an outlier terms of bluffs and aggressive statements,

but i think we should make no mistake. united states that leads is deeply hostile to any attempt to and see the dollar and just to speak in 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 and universities, which i deeply attached to the united states. they look up to the us to and they act in, in symphony with us when things become difficult. so let's say 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 to magic ways of operating the ways that to be learnt 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 ration for example, settle, you know, that transactions in biological purposes. 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 current. so, but the com 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 in certain dimensions by the russians present in the meeting even by president, 14 himself. 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 surpluses. and you can't have that if you don't have, as either you can call it a reference currency or reserve courtesy. 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 in india. the transact mostly in national goods, is 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 rubies. because a currency the india is not convertible. it's perhaps strong to instability. so what can russian 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 it 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 quick and ready to do a 3rd possibility which hasn't been used is to, to a triangle operation with countries. 3rd, countries that have interest in receiving a 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, sits 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 current, it's not like

a euro with a comedy central bank, that's not what's in being discussed. it would be a barrel 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 the rhetoric of police told 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 um the progress is halted at some point. hope your present blue chair. the brakes next to you is what we the chair of the bricks has said in his statement to cause him because i'm sad that he 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 he said that quickly, he said that quite clearly 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 and see the dollar. united states has power to influence backstage and fund 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,

some incentives offered by the united states itself because if the system is not only abuse, if it's also deeply sick, the american national debt is approaching $36.00 trillion dollars as we speak. do you see any treatment reasonable treatment to that problem? that's one of the reasons why we need an alternate assist, the dollar you see occurring, so you can only be trusted if the economy that issues that currency is also trustworthy. and these economy, the united states and other high income countries, is it is largely unstable fiscal depth. it's for, for the foreseeable future high and go in depth and the tendency to misuse this, the instruments as, as political weapons. so on the one hand we, we realize this, we bricks, i believe we do. on the other hand, we know, you know, the bricks have a tent, they have a long tranche 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 to different the different levels of color levels of different interest. and they want the sensitivities and special concerns to be taken 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 collin good, it's a political economy issue and give you an example. egypt is now full member of the, the breaks you did this under 9 math 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 and getting risk smith at the end of the day if we try to sum up daily 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 website to the g 20 because it seems to be the talking shop or the g 20. i 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 a 2011. 0, it's 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 you the deep 7 in fact is much more effective because it's a small how much in his group under us leadership, the brakes i, 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 coalition 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 drive. so let's construct a coalition of willing countries and move forward. the others can join later. my my cuz i know it's difficult. my concern is if we stick to consensus rigidly with the expanding group, we may not get anywhere. well, if we stick,

or if the bricks country stick to a 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 the

take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse really one say better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented as 1st. can you see through their allusions, going underground can.