more 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 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, indiana math. it is that the current, international monetary and financial assist dominated by the united states and its

allies, its henri farmable, 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, routine, the, 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, e is the whole structure of the fund has been for pros. and now 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 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 be off, of course, hedge a monic, but it is a declining force. and the declining force. misuse is the instruments that 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 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? declining super bowers, 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 because there's a big difference between being elaina and during borders by the way and then it yeah. 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 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? 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, um 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, 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, with 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 colleague in the executive board used to say that the international monetary fund is a misnomer. it should be kind of, 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 has 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, any fund 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 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 kyra. but uh, i get the sense that they don't actually want to be sort of a burden 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 lots of 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 of 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 long 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 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 moto, northern rhetoric? but in practice and actually what 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. 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 own fast. 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. and so i say we are not add to west, we never say we, i 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 independent of the west. god, we're getting back as soon as we're not hostile to us, 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 i mass flow bang the united states likes to talk about the brakes also talks about it that 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 the 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 russia showing? rushes showing that the west cannot defeated military because of pressure is huge. i mean, frustrated is in 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 something to be investigated more deeply now, why the u. s. pays in that way, but why? i mean the, that's a trip to for change to do that. how do you understand this ultimate motive to come and, and pull some conditions on the country that i 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 so for example, the data data data to 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 feeding 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 president govern. can i say that with the business and government, and boosted in officials and resilience in general. know this from experience. how difficult it is to, to negotiate and to deal with the 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 russian states never as tight as i'm one of the most sense community best. in most all sense, i'm up the, in the 65, the keys 195 and speed you one else calls question about this, even though we will ben in the european union the kremlin mission, the state on russia to day and split the ortiz full neck even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services for the question, did you say stephen twist, which is the,

[000:00:00;00] the welcome back to wells, the parts with follow and the gira, a brazilian economist on form executive director of the international monetary fund . now i'm assuming the gear, 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, the 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 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 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 and that's going on. and africa, and latin america. it's a mixed bag. what do you have the same, the same situation in asia least asian countries are developing at a very past base look at with not only china, but se, asia that 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, and yet they somehow lack the agency or the political will to or for, you know,

the own solution. so to chart their own course, they end up continuing relying on be a piece of system and indirectly supporting it. what's the shortest way out of this? somewhat side of them is accused the correlation ship 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 and 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 globe circle 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 elite is 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 and economy and the political see media in 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 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 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 corporate this. china with india even with ration for example, settle, you know, that transactions and by electrical 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 there will come a time when they would have to set up not a common reserve current. so, but they've come in 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 to you. he and involved by this point came up in certain dimensions by the russians present in the meeting, even by president food team himself. i got the impression that some people think that settling transacting and national currencies 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, as 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 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 occurrence, who 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 they may be reluctant to open certain sectors of its economy to, for an investment. so originally drive 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, what feeling quite commercial do 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. who would that be?

i mean the china in india with the perhaps have some know i was thinking of a central assistant 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, correct. 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 and the progress is halted at some point. i hope, you know, present blue chair. the brakes next to you is what we, the chair of the bricks 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 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 and see the dollar. united states has power to

influence backstage and fund stage countries that 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? 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, the american national data 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 it occurring 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 depths. that'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 and believe we do. on the other hand, we know, you know, the brutes have a tent, they have a long entrenched tradition of work. and 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 and understanding of collin good. it's a political economy issue and give you an example. egypt is now full member of the brakes. you did this under 9 math program. so in, in the age of this very vulnerable to us pressures, the pressures in the execution of it's now 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 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 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 even 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 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 drive. 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 originally 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. cause a pleasure. thank you. thank you. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on once

a part the to take a fresh look around as a life kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real live indians. fixtures, design to simplify will confuse really once a better wills and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented as fast can you see through their illusion going on the ground?

can the slovakia wardens that will cause a to crane a lot of years and then speed doesn't increase the transfer of russian gas to europe. also ahead in our program this our south africa's ruling party ship. the country's fight for independence celebrates it's all of our street. we hear from some of the amc leaders of adults. their priorities are 4 to 2020. i mean, you'd controversial between par as and africa as president metronome criticized as a consequence for not showing proper recognition of the french policies in the