brick knots, where is the part i had the hello and welcome to walter park. that'd be what you tube forecast and steer global development. and 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 2 former looks more viable or more attractive to the rest of the world,

or to 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 see you again. thank you very much for your time. a thank you for having me here. smell. 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 just 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 assist dominated by the united states and its

allies, its unreformed level. the system is rigid, its originally controlled. it has become 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 full a do political instruments. but the west uses routine, the, and aggressively to intimidate, restrict, and you know, dominate other countries. so this, this is my experience in the front i've, i've, i felt a lot for to reform the fund i spend use and 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, the whole structure of the fund has been for pros and actually, oh because 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 day 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 all of a system this and forth allies 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 if the, if this deadlines to the following, the united states has a mindset, deep in grain mindset, that it has to be the leader that it has to, gives 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, i named it. yeah. and so i got the same thing right us as a self proclaimed leader. nobody asked them to do play that role with 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 fused as to the client. now and you have the imap um, they were condensation 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 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 implants, 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 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 world bank. that's possible,

because medic or no mistake has medic but only to the extent that these changes do not challenge the control. the centralized ational decision making in the small committee which used to call itself the international community. it says just a 15 percent or less of the total population in the world and it behaves as though it's born to lead to it. we used to do it easily over the 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 assault, to the title of power. but uh, i get the sense that they don't actually want to be sort of a 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 lots of so 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 for 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 norm, this amount of money with little conditions attached. so it's double standard is all the time to the americans and the beams, 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 model? northern rectory, but in practice and actually what 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 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 our own path. 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 as what i say we are not add to west. we never say we, i to west of course, as you never find the government officials saying what i'm going to say now that 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 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 are math world 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 into 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 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'm in russia 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, 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, humanistic 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, you know, attrition, even i'm talking outside 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 that support. they don't need alliances. they need, they need fast, self 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, cannot say that, but the balloon government and boosted in officials and resilience in general. know this from experience. how difficult it is to, to negotiate that to deal with the 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 russian states never as tired as i'm one of the most sense community best. most all sense and up the sooner the better the speed, the one else holes. question about this, even though we will van in the european union, the kremlin media mission, the state on rochester routing and split the ortiz full neck, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for the question, did you say steven twist, which is the

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, mr. mcguire, as we've been discussing before, the break there, there's the west a at one poll, but it's a developmental model. and then on the other side, they're large countries like russia, china, india, the and 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 the 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 others still in some way bonded to the sources of either financing or website 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 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 look at, but not only china, but south east asia that they did not follow the neo liberal ends and 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 the system. they seemed 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 be 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 the 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 science. yes. and relative to the demographic terms. yes. but they're still very powerful. they're declining from a very high stage of development and fallen. so when i say, why am i saying this is because if you look at the political economy of the countries in the below, so called global south, most of them, perhaps all of them are vulnerable to actions taken by the united states and their allies and its allies, so just give you an example. recently,

donald trump said that he would or 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 aggressive 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 and economy and the political c, media. universities which i deeply attached to the united states. they look up to the us and the act in, in symphony with the u. s. when things become difficult. so. so

it's, it's not the easy for, for a country for even a government to be you know, has that is 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 matic 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 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 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, over, overlooked. last year he and involved by this point came up, inserted interventions by the russians present in the meeting even by president, 14 themselves. 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 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 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 russian 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 or 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 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 it was really 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 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 goods, 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 associate 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, wheelchair. the brakes next to your resume will be the chair of the vix. has said his statement to cousin 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 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 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 on see the dollar. united states has power to influence backstage in 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? 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 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 the economy, the united states and other high income countries 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 brakes, i believe we do. on the other hand, we know, you know, the bricks 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 to different the different levels of the dollar 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 the common good really is. i mean, what you are therefore apart from talking. but it's not only an understanding of common 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 a, in the age of this very vulnerable to us, precious, precious 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 g 20 it doesn't look like brakes has made some real progress forward compared let's say to the to 20 because it seems to be more of a talking shop or the g 20. i also participated in the g $0.20 and became

a leaders form back in 2008. the last relevant to 20 presidency was the french one into our 2011. 0, it's 3 stages, but it's 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 has us. and you have, on the other hand, russian, china and the, the western countries boy caught 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 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. god bless a pleasure. thank you. thank you. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on once a part the

the headline stories this hour. so vakio warrens, it will cause a to ukraine. a lot of mirrors and landscape doesn't present in the transfer a russian gas changer up. also coming off preparations for the meeting between the us president elect a number of pollutants are under way. that's according to trump's team. with a supplement of the things complex set to top the agenda on south africa's ruling parts and you would shape the country's fight for independence celebrates it's other bursary we hear from some a in the see leaders about what pretoria is. priorities are for 2025, the.