experience of 8 years in, in washington, in the mess. it is that the current, international monetary and financial system dominated by the united states and its allies, its, and re farmable. the system is rigid. this originally controlled. it has to be, um, when i say this is, i mean, the mass, the world bank, the federal reserve, the dollar itself, the swift payment system. all this has become a set of pull a geo political 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 fund i, i followed a lot for to reform the fund. i spend use and 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 cons. you understand that because you've written a lot about the us. but the weaponized ation of this institutions hurts their 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 have a bottle, of course, hedge, a monic, but it is a declining force. and the declining force miss uses the instruments 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 the all of a system this in fort allies, the united states because it continuously undermines its own goods. she's missed

using it just 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 anyone 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 superpower, the united states, has a mindset, deep and green mindset. that it has to be the leader that it has to. it gives orders that it has to be the dominant player and because there is a big difference between being elaina and during borders, by the way, i named it. yeah. and so i got 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 super ballinger. 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? the, the symptoms of, of the aggressive power of destruction, of a super power that is in decline and few is the client now and you have the imap um, they are conversation 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 southern states are formally represented at the, i'm us government structure. a small coal 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, if you get to, we'll, we'll 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 colleague in the executive board used to say that the international monetary fund is a misnomer should because they 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 or 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 is to fund the metal change. we can make some changes in the fund and the will bank best possible, because medic or no mistake of 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. it says is 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 longer, that's of access to see what the dialogue, in reality would do. what you see in the international organizations. they no longer multilateral accept the name they've become as tools. i'll give you an example. the fund needs to support big 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 state or anything. but if the country is friendly, was too politically important to the west. it can receive a lot of this amount of money with little conditions attached. so it's double standard is all the time to the americans and the b and they feel they need to hold on tight 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'm in the 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, it's, 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 moto, northern rectory, but in practice, inaction? well, you see, we always use the language of cooperation, peaceful negotiations. but in we the brits would never have 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 because we were 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 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 our own path. so we started constructing a new development back steroids and shine guy. we constructed the monetary fund of the bricks, 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 are to west. of course, 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 independent of the west. god,

we're getting back as soon as we're not hostile to west, but it's a counter hedge, a monic force alternative to force right now is, can i ask you something because development is one of the words that pops up in many of those documents. a 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 jewel 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 syrian lead the 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 is 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 this militaristic mindset and to, for example, the data dine data, things live in washington dc was very unpleasant. all sort of, you know, attrition, even i'm talking outside of the, the math in the math. one thing i noticed, which amazing me even when brazil had agreement with 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 has become, i would say practically impossible. of course, the governments, the visits govern cannot say that with the business and government and visiting officials and brazilians 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. mcgee, or we have to take a short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments station. the the the

the the

welcome back to wells. the parts were following the gira, 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 the one pole with its 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 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 dressing

. 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 website technology? things are changing. if you 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 that that's going on in africa in latin america, it's

a mixed bag, but do have the same. the same situation in asia least east asian countries are developing at a very past base. look at what, not only china, but southeast asia. they did not follow the neo liberal agenda. they never fall on 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 seed as unfair. they often times see it as abusive. they like to criticize it. i mean, yeah, they somehow lack the agency or the political will to offer, you know, their own solution. so to chart their own course and they end up continuing relying on the a piece of system and indirectly supporting it. what's the shortest way out of this? somewhat settlements, i q stick relationship that is still quite common in the national 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 are declining from a very high stage of development in volume. so when i say, why am i saying this is because if you look at the political economy of the countries in the below of so called 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 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 it leads as deeply hostile to any attempt to unseat 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 of any kind of the and the political c, media and universities, which i deeply attached to the united states. they look up to the us and they act in, in symphony with us when things become difficult. so. so let's say it's not easy for, for a country, for even a government, what would be, you know, it has better say a psychology and its 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, 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 corporate this. china with india, even with ration for example, settle, you know that transactions and by electrical currents is, 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, over, overlooked. last year he and involved by this point came up, inserted into veterans 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 for lee. 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 a highly, 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 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 rupees because occurrences, 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 drive alternatively to increase its 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 was the quote conversion to a 3rd possibility which hasn't been used is to do a tiny little operation with countries. 3rd, countries that have interest in receiving a robust to use in their relations with indian. what would that be? i mean, the china and india with the perhaps have some know i was thinking of a centralized, okay. 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, shirts to show that a system based purely on national guarantees 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, so it's not like a euro with a common 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 rhetoric, at least all the breaks 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, you know, present blue wheelchair. the brakes next to your resume will be the chair of the vix. has said his statement to cousin, because i'm sending it to you 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 front stage countries that the may seek an 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? the 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 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 occurred 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 depth. it's. and so for the foreseeable future, high and glowing debts and the tendency to misuse this, the instruments as, as political weapons. so on the one hand we, we realize this, we brakes, i believe we do. on the other hand, we know, you know, the brits have

a tent, they have a long trench 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 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 well 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 they call them. good really is. i mean, what you are therefore i from talking, but it's not only an understanding of common good. it's a political economy issue and give an example. egypt is now full member of the brakes. you did this under 9 math program. so in india,

at the age of 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 evasions and getting risks, but at the end of the day if we try to sum up the the last 15 years so far breaks development compared to, let's say the 20000 that looked like breaks 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 energy to any extensive became a it is for me, it back in 2008. the last relevant she 20 presidency was the french one into our 2011 for the 3 stages, but not very effective. but as i say, it's more talk shop and a talk shop that is become

a sort of difficult because you have all the key, the countries that are at loggerheads and the other one to have us. and you know, the 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 a. how about genius 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 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 winning 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 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. god bless a pleasure. thank you. thank you. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on once a part the force it near wash. lots of stuff is a lot going out of the key at the board. she must not submit a sports and she wasn't able to deal with the story. unfortunately, a or a studio and i see for sure option that this be so for ship off, we started last week and you want to do it was a school in your welski territory. so this could save the natural logos of it. so

formally ship portion or the already me talk about a football i still knew about chavo in gold and on my side as close i you as a category stores go to a solution. i continue to go out and i get bully now. probably not sure. the south pieces don't see about so those sort of you can do so full, so comfortable develop, bruised and discovery. smith gosh, careful which was coming out on the bus, which is still going to me. so i'm on the portion of your stomach. i thought maybe waiting in go are you still not on talk about some of what you get to talk about as there's dorski a whole bunch bundle of g, circa, comfortable companies. you don't want some about on they're not. i mean, yeah, the, the stuff i dropped off some, some of the stuff, some of the

the we are in the center of good rock about this easy and surprisingly, ease almost entirely. in fact, the spot about who the wage for a month p o o t becomes the 1st, it's a national news network to report from a don't yet with public. the district helps us being taken by russian scripts, the american dream guns in los angeles, killing at least 16 people in destroying molding 12000 building for president and 5 and defend to california is governor of the 5th public bond. i ask you, we've got to deal with this list information. i think you get a bad rap. i know you get a bad rap about these far.