ecological crisis it was oil crises there was the damned bretton woods system there was there was a time when western or the concept of the west was formed and those countries taking over responsibility and speaking for the entire population. would like trying to pursue some of the policies and propose them to the to the the other nations of the world we know that the g. seven is only the first summit that is that is up in the next couple of days we also have the u.s. north korea summit which will take place in singapore the u.s. president leaving the g eight summit seven summit to head there. air what do you think we can see coming out of that. i think the expectations are not that high anymore it will be a very pristine just photo op so to say. but in terms of results we're not going to see too much in my opinion. north korea is not going to leave their nuclear program. and still this will be a success on on a diplomatic level for president ok so a bit of pessimism there in terms of potential progress there we thank you so much for joining us with that analysis eva jobs historian an ex

bretton woods and these kinds of institutions are there's a there's a interesting. literature about the world beyond the west or parallel to the west is this something you would see because there is a hedge i'm on in the west it's the united states but if we look at the you're asian space would there be a hedge a man would be actually more democratic in a way go ahead. first of all i would like to cut big to two points i believe so it's a question of confidence and trust is something where we should be i believe white objective and say this changed to virtuous change and i believe that it would be good coming big to what we have seen is a basis into a world where we need a strong confidence between us i believe she says changed dramatically i believe so . it's it does today europe is to take in a very short time frame a major decision about what it stands for our. europe of twenty seven is used to europe between france germany italy spain it if you will as was or what will be a future of europe it's easy. question if we can see some parallel ities between what we he

that he loathes the liberal international order that has been created since the establishment of bretton woods through the uni polar moment and so on because he does see it as not as damaging the us as transferring wealth and the us overplaying the role of defense when it doesn't need to around the world he sees a stance of all u.s. allies like the e.u. as rivals as economic rivals because he's a businessman and that's the way that he views the world on business terms and he sees the ins and outs at an imbalance particularly with europe and he faults europe as having worse trade policies for the u.s. than china jeffrey goldberg in the atlantic this week did it in article he's famous for giving this softball interview he's the one i. apologise where obama told him that his former. policy was simply don't do stupid stuff stuff yes show we did it. well a jumper goldberg got three different characterizations supposedly from three different anonymous officials within the trump administration of how to define the trump foreign policy the first one was this no friends no enemies which is a very reali

that he loathes the liberal international order that has been created since the establishment of bretton woods through the uni polar moment and so on because he does see it as not as damaging the us as transferring wealth and the us overplaying the role of defense when it doesn't need to around the world he sees a stance of the u.s. allies like the e.u. as rivals as economic rivals because he's a businessman and that's the way that he views the world on business terms and he sees ins and outs at an imbalance particularly with europe and he faults europe as having worse trade policies for the u.s. than china jeffrey goldberg and the atlantic this week did it in article he's famous for giving this softball interview he was the one i. apologise where obama told him that his four. policy was simply don't do stupid stuff stuff yes she did it. well a jumper goldberg got three different characterizations supposedly from three different officials within the trumpet ministration of how to define the trump foreign policy the first one was this no friends no enemies which is a very real it's the interpre

bretton woods and these kinds of institutions are there's a there's a interesting literature about the world beyond the west or parallel to the west is this something you would see because there is a hedge of mine in the west it's the united states but if we look at the you're asian space would there be a hedge a man would be actually more democratic in a way go ahead. per. person i would like to cut back to two points i believe so it's a question of confidence and trust is something where we should be i believe quite objective and say it's who has changed so world has changed and i believe that with good coming big to what we have seen is a basis in where we have a strong confidence between us i believe he says changed dramatically i believe that it's indicated a europe is to take in a very short time frame a major decision about what it stands for our is is a europe of twenty seven is a europe between france germany italy spain it has most of what will be future of europe it's easily as well as rizieq which question if we can see some parallel ities between what we hear from chieftai

that you're going to see the united states which really was the driver as people will recall of bretton woods which helped set up the world bank and the international monetary fund actually leaving this group however we're now a year and a half into the trumpet ministration and it's really really impossible to say that a u.s. departure from the g seven couldn't actually happen i think it's probably less likely than a russia being reinstated because of the ongoing efforts by the european countries to try to hold it accountable for its interference not just in ukrainian affairs but in its interference in issues in the middle east as well could you get your thoughts on this. from washington d.c. . still to come on this al-jazeera news out of baghdad where house holding voting papers from last month's contested iraqi election goes up in flames human rights groups say saudi arabia has arrested two more female activists who campaigned for the right to drive and in sports sunday near plays host to one of the closest finishes in world rally championship history. another flow of modern the ash from th

the bretton woods conference the did currency balancing general agreement on tariffs and trade gap were part of the post-war accommodation of the allies setting up the world for thenext many generations in slope there would never be laike theobal conflict 20th at ravaged the century. because of that the world became interconnected. world ossible to look at war two and say could we do that again, could we ramp up in a a million tons to 15 million tons in a couple of years? well -- evin was concern is some component parts would have to come from overseas that create an uncomfortable dependency but it dependency. in a way that contributes to the unlikelyhood that there will be nother global conflagration involving 72 belligerent nations at war with one another at the same time. bother me. i'm still confident that america resiliency to c emerges.risis when it i guess i will stop with that. than the mererned fact that many of our weapon ystems have goods that are not domestically produced implies a dependency and perhaps a i think is not accurate. won't remember pretty tough. i like to tell

the bretton woods conference that is balancing the agreement on tariffs and trade. it was a part of the postwar combination of the allies setting up the world for the next many generations in the hope that there would never be another global conflict like the two that has ravaged the 20th century. because of that, the world became interconnected. it is possible to look at world war ii and say, could we ever do that again? could we ramp up in a crisis like that from one million tons to 15 million tons in just a couple years? the concern was, some of those parts would have to come from overseas and doesn't that create an uncomfortable dependency? but it is a global interdependency. that contributes to the unlikelihood that there ever will be another global conflagration involving 72 nations. it does not bother me. i am still confident that america has the economic resilience to meet a crisis when it emerges. i guess i'm going to stop with that. i am less concerned than the mere fact that many of our weapon systems have goods that are not mystically produced implies a

everything the allies did after ward war two at bretton woods and the creation of these institutions,he world bank, the imf, et cetera, all of it was organized against russia. everything the alliance did after the fall of the berlin wall where they expanded nato and set up missile systems was against russia. his dream is to have an american president who will unravel the western world order which he sees as a conspiracy against vosh the return on his investment for supporting donald trump is high. >> why do we have a debate about whether or not donald trump is in the pocket of vladimir putin. he's already achieved his aims as susan reports in this excellent piece, he's got america separate. we were a strong and important and dare i say vital part of that alliance. putin has won. is the president aware of that? >> the question remains. putin got what he wanted. but did he hand those pages to donald trump and say read those words? >> how do we know he didn't? >> we don't. that's what bob mueller and others are investigating but whether he's doing this at putin's bidding remains to be se

people who have not benefited atoll from this period of globalization from the seventy years of bretton woods and so perhaps it is time for it to be shaken up. well i i think there is some merit to that but i'm not certain that you want to knock over the whole system and think that you're going to get a better outcome especially for those who haven't seen benefits over a period of largely peaceful global economic growth i mean if you didn't have economic benefits during seventy years of peaceful economic growth then i don't see how you're going to get economic benefits from a period of economic nationalism that rarely works out in people's favor so this is the challenge i think one of the consequences of an america first strategy is that america will find that there are costs to be paid from putting america first and one of those costs is that other countries will seize the initiative and start setting rules that are less favorable to the u.s. more favorable perhaps for other countries and other regions and certainly here in asia there is multiple efforts underway to try to write new rules fo

people who have not benefited atoll from this period of globalization from the seventy years of bretton woods and so perhaps it is time for it to be shaken up. well i i think there is some merit to that but i'm not certain that you want to knock over the whole system and think that you're going to get a better outcome especially for those who haven't seen benefits over a period of largely peaceful global economic growth i mean if you didn't have economic benefits during seventy years of peaceful economic growth then i don't see how you're going to get economic benefits from a period of economic nationalism that rarely works out in people's favor so this is the challenge i think one of the consequences of an america first strategy is that america will find that there are costs to be paid from putting america first and one of those costs is that other countries will seize the initiative and start setting rules that are less favorable to the u.s. more favorable perhaps for other countries and other regions and certainly here in asia there is multiple efforts underway to try to write new rules fo

they should go into history and emerge in the 1970s in the wake of the breakdown of bretton woods financial agreement. to get rich capitalist countries together to do things. aside from beating us up on trade, the other topics for climate change in gender equality. this does not justify the massive expense to do these things. maria: i mean, do you agree that he stabbed the u.s. in the back? >> absolutely. negotiated in bad faith and signaling that maybe we can reach an agreement. frankly the canadians have been negotiating in bad faith. they know that we want changes to nafta dragging their feet. also common. into the white house that they are engaged in a lobbying campaign. lobbying our governors. dagen: i want to point out that peter navarra and broder phrase from madeleine albright. that was the first thing that made my ears burned. again, words matter. >> words do matter. i'm interested to see how people react to sleep. a lot of people are very favorable to the president, hopeful things will getone and will really fight for the american worker. on the other hand, i'm not sure some of th

people who have not benefited atoll from this period of globalization from the seventy years of bretton woodsand so perhaps it is time for it to be shaken up. well i i think there is some merit to that but i'm not certain that you want to knock over the whole system and think that you're going to get a better outcome especially for those who haven't seen benefits over a period of largely peaceful global economic growth i mean if you didn't have economic benefits during seventy years of peaceful economic growth then i don't see how you're going to get economic benefits from a period of economic nationalism that rarely works out in people's favor so this is the challenge i think one of the consequences of an america first strategy is that america will find that there are costs to be paid from putting america first and one of those costs is that other countries will seize the initiative and start setting rules that are less favorable to the u.s. more favorable perhaps for other countries and other regions and certainly here in asia there is multiple efforts underway to try to write new rules for