Leighton Smith Podcast - Best Of: Ramesh Thakur - January 22nd 2025

Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2024.

Ramesh Thakur is well known to this audience; he has appeared on the Leighton Smith Podcast more than once.

There was much to catch up on.

His views on the world and its various parts are substantiated by life experience. He taught at a number of universities including Otago and ANU Canberra and Rector at the U.N. University. He was also an assistant Sec-Gen of the U.N.

As a result his commentary on world issues is superb.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the now the Leighton
Smith Podcast coward by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome to the best of the Latensmith Podcast for the
twenty second of January twenty twenty five. Now, occasionally I
feel like making an introduction is unnecessary, or some people
feel a bit like furniture in the studio, if you
get what I mean. Ramesh the Kher is one of those.
He is well known to all of you. He has

(00:50):
appeared on the Laateon Smith podcast many times and it's
fairly obvious why now. There was much to catch up
on in this podcast, which was a podcast two forty eight.
Ramesh's views on the world and its various parts are
substantiated by life experience. He taught at a number of universities,

(01:10):
including a Tigo, the Australian National University in Canberra, and
he was rector at the un University United Nations. He
was also an Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations.
As a result, his commentary on world issues is nothing
short of superb So this is an informative and enjoyable discussion.

(01:34):
I trust that you will enjoy it. Let me remind
you we shall return with fresh content starting on February five,
so that's a couple of weeks away from here. Until then,
enjoy Ramesh Khur that he'll join us right after a break.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
Layton Smith.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverix relieves hey fever in skin, allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
decongestent action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty

(02:23):
four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levers is an
antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into
the pharmacy and ask for Leverrex lv Rix Levrix and

(02:45):
always read the label. Takes directed and if symptoms persist,
see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. Rameshtha Kerr is
emeritus Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at
the Australian National University. He's a Fellow of the Austradian

(03:08):
Institute of International Affairs and Brownstone Institute's Senior Scotlar. He's
doing brilliant work with Brownstone. He was a Senior Vice
rector at the United Nations University and Assistant Secretary General
of the United Nations. Educated in India and Canada, he
was a professor of International Relations at the University of Otago,

(03:29):
a professor and head of the Peace Research Center the
Australian National University, and Foundation director of the Balsilly School
of International Affairs at Waterloo, Ontario. He's also served as
a consultant advisor to the Australian, New Zealand and Norwegian
governments on arms control, disarmament and international security issues. And
he was commissioner and one of the principal authors of

(03:51):
The Responsibility to Protect in two thousand and one, and
Senior Adviser on Reforms and principal writer of the United
Nations Secretary General KOFE. NaN's Second Reform Report in two
thousand and two. He's been on this podcast on more
than two occasions, and it's a great pleasure to welcome

(04:12):
in back.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
Ramsha. I hope you're good. Good, Thank you. Laden.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
I noticed that we hadn't spoken this year at all,
and that disturbed me, and it was it was even
it was about nine months ago. I think that we
that we actually did on ours interview. And I can't
understand that except that this year has.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
Been a little bit. Time flies.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
This year has been a little different to a lot
of a lot of others. Are you yes, you've just
come back from Japan too? What was the cause?

Speaker 3 (04:42):
I was in Hiroshima.

Speaker 4 (04:44):
Every year since twenty thirteen, the Governor of Hiroshima, which
is an elected position, has convened a small group of
international experts on a team called the Hiroshima Around Table.
We look at the year that has gone by and
look forward to the year that's coming with respect to

(05:05):
the threats and attempts to reduce the it's from nuclear weapons.
And we've done it every year except for two years
when we couldn't because of the travel restrictions in relation
to COVID?

Speaker 3 (05:17):
Is it what you announced this? Sorry?

Speaker 4 (05:19):
Just one last thing, well, I'm on that subject I
announced to the group this year that this will be
my last meeting. Excuse me, I'm getting a bit too
old to engage in long distance travel.

Speaker 3 (05:30):
Your body rebuilt.

Speaker 4 (05:33):
I'll keep going to New Zealand and to family in India,
and beyond that that's unlikely.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, there are people, it is really important or interesting.
There are people in New Zealand who will see you
as often as you like.

Speaker 4 (05:45):
Now.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
You you've also published a book last year, our enemy,
the government. I want to talk to you about the book,
and I thought it appropriate to raise it at the beginning.
But before we do the book, I want to ask
you about your thoughts on American politics at this moment,
with the last couple of weeks in mind, because there

(06:06):
has been well what can I say, there has been
an earthquake. Politically of course.

Speaker 4 (06:12):
Yes, yes, Well it's in a sense part of the
ongoing sense of in Churchill's words, the gathering storm once
again internationally. But of course the United States has a
uniquely important influence in shaping the contours of world affairs

(06:35):
and geopolitics as well. So what's happening that is important
for all of us, particularly all of us in the
Western democratic world. If you like, And we began the
year with the thought that surely the United States can
do better than presenting us with the same two choices.
But in fact, there has been remarkable developments with respect

(06:57):
to both of them within the past two to three weeks,
including today as we speak, or overnight as we speak,
with respect to President by then finally bowing to reality,
the political reality which is caused by his increasingly obvious

(07:17):
health reality. So yes, there's all sorts of convulsions is
probably the best word. In the meantime with the attempted
assassination on Trump, there's another whole slew of questions and
reflections in relation to that.

Speaker 3 (07:35):
I mean, I think we're all going to be watching.

Speaker 4 (07:37):
That particular photo endlessly from now in November, and I
suspect periodically after that. I'm not sure what photos you
can compare that to. It's certainly visually, very reminiscent of
the famous photograph on Yuojima as the Americans raised the
American flag, except that was obviously more consequential in terms

(08:01):
of the Pacific War theater of the Second World War,
but it was staged, whereas the Trump thing was reality
and technical for everyone who was watching it live or
unless they've been hiding themselves under rock. Watched the news
since then, and it recreates a myth of Trump which

(08:23):
is in a sense sharper than and different from his
previous perceived for sooner.

Speaker 3 (08:29):
So that's one side of it.

Speaker 4 (08:31):
And that followed the disastrous debate performance by Joe Biden,
which performed the reality that he's mentally aged a lot,
even in the past four years, almost on a monthly basis,
and essentially, to be blunt about it, the Democratic Party
and the press by and large have light to the

(08:52):
public about just how bad he's been and until it
became just too obvious and they had to backtrack, and
now he's had to leave.

Speaker 3 (09:01):
Where does that leave us? We don't know.

Speaker 4 (09:03):
But the fact remains that the election in November will
be except consequential for the United States and for the world.
And there's a number of themes that call us around that.
So that's on how much you want to unpack. But
you know, the just political stupidity, but the worrying implications

(09:23):
for democracy of the vay in which they have weaponized
lawfare against Trump, adding to the way they made it
impossible for him to govern in his first term. How
much of that has he learned from? Will he from
the first stay onwards to use his phrase, try to
drain the swamp, except with more efficiency and determination, perhaps

(09:46):
more success this time. Because that erosion of democratic freedom,
civil liberties, election integrity, the institutions, the slide from democratic
self governing republics and monarchies for that matter, to the
administrative administrative state where the technocratic elites are in charge,

(10:11):
aligned with international elites, technocratic elits and organizations, and in
collision with the big media, big tech, et cetera. The
transformation of democratic politics as we've known it in terms
of political partisanship and social pievage, in the sense that
democrats in the US, labor parties on the UK, Australia

(10:35):
and New Zealand have changed from have evolved and changed
qua dramatically from their roots and workers and working class
people into representing the elites. And it's the conservative parties
now that are increasingly aligning with the workers.

Speaker 3 (10:53):
You see that vigaide devance.

Speaker 4 (10:56):
You know, if you look, well, Kamala Harris another likely
to be the new presidential candidate. But if you look
at these two together, it's a good conjunction because between
them is the one who has white trash origins, if
I mean to use that phrase in this context, from Middletown,

(11:17):
Ohio and overcame that complete dysfunction, completely dysfunctional family, poor boy,
come good, worked on self discipline, used education, joined the Marines.
Then use the gi will leverage that background to enroll
in Ohio State University, graduated, went to Yale Law School,

(11:41):
graduated from there, became a venture capitalist of businessman, entrepreneur,
and then entered politics. And his book, I assuming you've
read it, Hillbilly Elergy. I read it some years ago
now when it came out. It's quite a gripping account
of this heart scrabble backstory that he has. And he

(12:01):
represents one, shall we say, a leg of the great
American dream of overcoming your origin is working hard and
achieving success and financial rewards. But just as importantly, and
I think at this point has to be made as well,
his wife, Usha Chili Huri Evans. Now she is from

(12:24):
middle class, comfortable background for immigrant parents, and represents the
dream that immigrants have when they come to the West
of working hard, being rewarded for it, and a belief
in the rule of law, where no one is either
above the law or below the law. In other words,
they are subject to the law and bound by it.
But they also are protected by the law against excesses

(12:45):
and arbitrary excess as a power. So all those things
are just being complete that in one sentenday. On the
other side, surprisingly, by contrast, Kamla Harris is the child
of privilege and as an adult, the beneficiary of political patrileage.
And yet in terms of racial identity, you think it

(13:07):
should be they around. So it's a strange world, but
it's a world in transformation.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
In the middle of chaos, with hope it's creative rather
than destructive. Girls, Well, I'd very much like to think
that you're that you're right when you when you said
something about the two of them, were you talking about
about JD and his wife or were you referring to
him alone?

Speaker 4 (13:32):
When I started off as referring to j Evans comparison
to Kamala Harris, well, then of course I did segive
into the two.

Speaker 3 (13:38):
Of them in terms of the Vans and Vans.

Speaker 2 (13:41):
So what about the combination of Trump and Vance? How
does that sit with you? It's an interesting choice. I
was very pleased with that, and we don't will. I
guess we might find out in due course if his
choice might have been different. Oh, he was leaning in
a different way before the attempt on his life. But

(14:03):
what happens after that is very interesting if you think
it through from his point of view. Firstly, I suspect
it confirms in his mind that he's going to win
this year, that that attempt and his survival and the
way he reacted in a sense, is the deed. If
that's the case, he doesn't need to worry so much
about a running mate who brings other state or other.

Speaker 3 (14:27):
Votes to the elected college to add to his.

Speaker 4 (14:31):
He now takes that for granted and thinks, okay, if
I win, I want my revolution to be institutionalized within
the party, and I want someone who will carry on
my legacy. Now, if you think of his first administration
and the chaos and his senior appointments and the Turner
were in the senior appointments, the vice president is the

(14:53):
one person he can't sack elected on the ticket. All
the other cabinet appointees he can sack. So he needs
someone that he thinks believes in his vision and in
his wo and in what he's trying to do, and secondly,
has the strength of character to withstand the attacks that

(15:15):
will come his way as well. So if you're going
to embed your legacy, none of the other potential choices
would have matched what Vance has to offer, whereas some
of the others would have been better in terms of
winning State A or State B as well. So there's
that consideration. Vance is trump Ism without the Trump character flaws.

(15:39):
He's articulate, he's personable, he's accomplished, he has a stable family.
He is clearly a devoted a husband and father, and
he seems to give higher priority to that than to
anything else, which is an understandable give in his own background.
Then at the convention he introduces his mother, and I

(16:01):
certainly haven't realized since reading the book that the mother
has been on the mend and has been and sob
as you put it, for more than nine years, almost
ten years or ten years will be completed in January.
So it's quite a compelling story. And I thought he
spoke very well, and his wife did a good job
introducing him as well, and I think that will build

(16:23):
and the two of them together should make an effective
set of campaigners. So for those reasons. I was actually
quite pleased with the choice. I think in terms of
what he's trying to do. You know, Brands is not
going to have the crude vulgarity that is an inevitable
part of the baggage of the package that comes with Trump.

(16:44):
But I think and also both of them are more
pragmatic conservatives rather than ideological conservatives, and so I think
they may balance out quite nicely. Vance is supposed to
be an excellent debater as well, and we've seen glimpses
of that.

Speaker 3 (17:03):
So it will be interesting.

Speaker 4 (17:04):
Now the course, the focus will turn to who's going
to be come Harris is running mate, and of course
on the final products. And now as someone who's Indian,
you've got a bit of Indian as a presidential candidate
now and one half of the advanced package as an
Indian background as well. So it's appearing to see us

(17:26):
in our community doing well.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
The Indians are coming.

Speaker 3 (17:32):
Indians, I hear it all, don't mind.

Speaker 4 (17:36):
I don't think seemed like did very well as Rhyme
Minister in the UK, but acta at least, you know,
the good about the UK if if I'm against richtrad
is that Indians. He was just as he should have been,
all alone on his performance, not on the color of
his skin. And it's too has everlasting credit that he
has not blamed any of the results on racial discrimination

(17:57):
or Presidente and the same with Chilikuri. It's the family
that relied on hard work and application, not some claims
to favoritism. So I think if you look at the
Indian overseas Indian community, including in New Zealand, they seem
to reflect the thing that I argued in relation to
the voice to be here, and that is that I

(18:19):
do not seek any privilege or rights is not available
to every other Australian, but I do want to claim
rights all the rights that are available to any other Australian.
So just as on our merits and work, not on
our inherited characteristics. And that's I'm pleased to see that
that's a more widespread phenomena as far as the overseas

(18:40):
Indian community is concerned.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
Now you may mention of the Democrat Party ed its henchman,
and in the same breath the media and how they
have deceived, which.

Speaker 4 (18:57):
Deceived, dessembled protected Democrats tried to undermine that Trump first
administration and his candidacy since then.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
So, yes, there are stills for the Democratic Party.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yes, So the question, the question becomes, is that rectifiable
or is it? I mean, they're already back into the game,
and I'm talking I'm talking specifically the media. Now, I
mean they have switched sides on two or three occasions,
the media that we're talking about, the so called legacy media,

(19:27):
And it's only it's only taken a word from somebody
like a Bama or to to encourage that and effect
that switch, so that you know, within the twenty four
hour period, they're they're they're backing, they're backing Biden. Then
all of a sudden, they're not backing Biden, and then
then they were again, at least some of them were.

(19:48):
And so the inconsistency wallet, now that's the wrong thing
to say, because they're very consistent in their in their approach,
even though even though there's a large slice of the
population here as well that realizes that they are dishonest

(20:08):
and even criminal in some quarters. But it doesn't seem
to penetrate the bulk of the Democrat Party.

Speaker 3 (20:18):
No, but it has affected the reputation of the media
and reach.

Speaker 4 (20:24):
If again, the polls have documented in country after country
declining trust in pretty much all the major institutions, and
in most places the reputation of the media is almost
the same as that of governments now, in other words,
very low. This is the legacy media, and so more

(20:45):
and more people are getting the information from other sources.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Now.

Speaker 4 (20:48):
Having said that, I do have some sympathy for the
legacy media in that clearly.

Speaker 3 (20:55):
There have been under.

Speaker 4 (20:56):
Great pressure and stress, even from the revolutions in technology
that has destroyed the old model of if not a
generous profitability, at least viable profitability. And they're losing money.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
And you saw that.

Speaker 4 (21:15):
I forget the huge amount that the Washington Post has
been losing, for example, and the owner came and said,
you know, you're losing this much per day. The people
are not interested in reading what you're writing. So that
message will sooner or later I have to either get
through or the leading examplars of legacy media will die

(21:39):
whither are on the vine, and the next to come
under stress will be the publicly funded broadcasters. I don't
think those models are viable either. I just I think
they'll go to subscription model and will have to be
forced to survive. And of course it's not true that
it's not necessarily the case that the case for publicly

(22:00):
funded broadcasting is as valid today as it was when
they were first set up.

Speaker 2 (22:06):
Well, there's plenty of discussion about it from time to time,
when when a crisis arises and you find that the
investment that the population is putting into into the government
owned benches simply isn't isn't going anywhere and not achieving
anything now, and and so we we should we should

(22:28):
move on. I was going to ask you anyway, We've
we've already discussed a fair bit of politics, but the
state of the world in general. You with your experience,
and we've emphasized that on numerous occasions, but your your
United Nations experience and what came from it, What is

(22:49):
your interpretation of where the world is at at the
moment out leaving America aside.

Speaker 4 (22:56):
Well, there's several things. On the one hand, there's little well,
different theaters of the gathering storm and tensions that seem
to keep ratsetting up. Ukraine is still a problem in Europe.
The Middle East is getting worse rather than better, and
it certainly looks as though with the Gaza situation under

(23:20):
control by Israel.

Speaker 3 (23:22):
From Israel's point of view, the.

Speaker 4 (23:25):
Tension might be resting up on the northern border with
regard to his vola in Lebanon. So there's that, and
then of course the unresolved issue with Iran.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
We keep.

Speaker 4 (23:38):
There's no reason to feel any less worried about what's
happening in East Asia around the South China Sea and
Taiwan issue Korean Peninsula. I don't think it's any worse,
but it's not got any easier either. I think the
subcontinent at the moment, with the exception of what's volatility

(23:58):
domestic volatility in Bangladesh, at least in international politics of continent,
is perhaps a bit less volatile. And I was actually
please with the outcome of the election in India in
terms of putting a check on the authority intendencies of
the government without necessarily throwing them out to plunge Inja
into instability. And I think across the Western world in

(24:23):
the meantime, the thing that vories me in terms of
the centralization of power, firstly in the central government and
then in the office of the Prime Minister, and the
growth of the power of the state at the expense
of the freedoms and liberties of citizens that remains of concern,

(24:45):
certainly in the UK. I think the indication that the
Starmer government is going in for a massive emputy, rapid
expansion of the techno bureaucratic pongocratic if there is such
a word state as well rather than and that will
have the inevitable effect of producing freedom. And I think
the international trends again reflect the centralization of power and

(25:12):
influence in the global alliance of the technocratic elite. So
I think at some stage this disconnect between what the
people are prepared to tolerate. You see the pushback in Europe,
and I think it's going to come here as well.
And I don't mind not about New Zealand now, but

(25:34):
the pushback as the individual costs of the net zero
green agenda become obvious, people are saying, no, we are
not going to we are not prepared to pay that price,
and we don't see that, you know, but if you
look at the health infrastructure, for example, we don't see

(25:55):
why you should prioritize the health of the planet against
the alleged threat of global warming over the needs of
our health today. And yet you've got the WHO expanding
sentacles to embrace climate change as a health threat. You've

(26:17):
got medical counsels in various places doing the same thing.
So those things are on top of the geopolitical tensions,
and you just get the same sense that at some
point some thing's got to give, which was in a sense,
in a strange way, if you know what I mean.
I think that was also the case with the assassination

(26:38):
attempt on Trump. The qualification, the abuse was getting to
extreme youth against sense that something had to give, and
that happened. So there's some release point of pressure, some
valve that will release the pressure that's going to Europe
somewhere or other, is my sense.

Speaker 2 (26:56):
So the existing institutions of global governors meant to manage
all this peaceably smoothly.

Speaker 3 (27:05):
They're proving less and less fit.

Speaker 4 (27:06):
For purpose, and that gap between the institutions of governance,
both nationally and internationally and the people's needs and desires
and expectations, that gap is putting stress both on national
government systems and global government systems which are more Which
is a more abstract way of making the same argument.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
There's so many tangents we could spike off on from
from what you've just said, But I'm intrigued with your
one word of thought dis goes against the grain of
your your background in the United Nations, especially as a
as a.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
Sorry what's the word assistant secretary general, assistance general.

Speaker 2 (27:53):
Yeah, well, let me let me just let me spit
this out. I'm see you and I travel. I've discovered
in the same boat on numerous issues, and climate climate
change is one of them. I'm looking at a headline
and I can't even tell you where I got it
from because I printed it and it's got no reference

(28:15):
to it. But the headline is climate change and man
made co to the biggest con in history. I know
that it's from a legitimate site, but I can't recall
which one because I've had it for a while. But
at the very last paragraph, humans attempting to eliminate CO
two from the atmosphere is equivalent to some evil, fictional

(28:36):
plant demon attending to eliminate attempting to eliminate oxygen from
the atmosphere, causing the mass asphyxiation of the entire human race.
Just as eliminating oxygen is genocide against humans, eliminating carbon
dioxide is genocide against plants. Now, do you get the
feeling that this is starting to make progress and sink

(29:00):
through some rather thick brains.

Speaker 3 (29:03):
I think so.

Speaker 4 (29:04):
And it's getting through the governments as well, not certainly
not the most ye at the moment, but you know,
this year the opposition party has at least committed to
reopening the domestic nuclear energy debate. So there is that progress,
and there I think of reading the room in the

(29:24):
global level and the States and in in Europe, and
you had the commitment from I think on this board
ban Vat, who let's say, said other like more likely
winners at this stage in November, they are committed to
reversing the green agenda completely and very urgently. In fact,

(29:48):
Trump and his acceptance speech went back to his drill, Baby, drill,
and Vance made a reference to that as well. So
I think that is getting through. But the problem is
there's been so much indoctrination, brainwashing that I'd be surprised

(30:12):
if a majority of young people realize that carbon dioxide
is absolutely essential to plant life. And I don't think
most of them would would know or would even believe
you if you told them that there has been actually
a greening of the world with increased warmth, nor would

(30:36):
they know that all the evidence, all the available research
shows that in relation to extreme weather conditions, ten times
as many people in the world die from extreme cold
as from extreme heat. When has there been a time
when climate has not changed? And in relation to what
you're thinking about the United Nations, I don't think it

(30:58):
helps anyone for the Second General to start using the
hyperbolic language of we have moved on from climate, from
global warming to global boiling. Just irresponsible, extremist language. We're
all interested, I think, to know from your perspective when
the un changed. Can I say as dramatically as it

(31:19):
seems to have over over over a period of time,
but it when, when did it start?

Speaker 3 (31:28):
It's been well, it's been gradual, I suppose, And I
think you'd have to tie to what I was saying earlier,
as the functions that the core functions of government.

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Are delegated from the legislature and the executive to the
administrative state and the technocrats. That has become reflected in
the international organizations as well, because it's the same technocratic
elite that moves society base back and forth. And so
if we were to retake the agenda and vest the

(32:10):
real powers of the functioning of government back in the
parliament and back in the executive and take it away
from the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Then I think you
see that reflected in the United Nations as well. The
United Nations is not an independent actor. It is still
subject to control and ownership by governments, and so if

(32:35):
the politicians took childs of it more, then I think
you see that transferred.

Speaker 3 (32:41):
Across to the United Nations as well.

Speaker 4 (32:43):
So I think we have to be careful not to
blame the United Nations directly.

Speaker 3 (32:49):
As such, it does what Member states want.

Speaker 4 (32:52):
Policy is set by the Member States, not by the
International Secretariat even the Secretary General and call for things,
but he doesn't get to vote on these issues.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
What about the influence that the show we say the
darker nations have and I don't mean color, I mean
in outlook on things, and I'm and I'm thinking of
I'm thinking of the dictatorial countries specifically. Why is why
they don't they don't they don't have so much power

(33:27):
in the human system. It's it's mainly in the Security Council,
is the Western powers in the General Assembly that there's
they don't have a.

Speaker 3 (33:35):
Such a huge block. It's on Israel.

Speaker 4 (33:41):
For example, the agenda is driven by the Middle East
and Islamic countries, not not by the digitarorial countries so
much or not Similarly on other issues is different coalitions.
And there are some countries that are influential swing states,
and that includes India. It used to include Sweden, for example,
Canada used to be, but it's not at the moment.

(34:04):
Of the five permanent members, three are Western Democratic UK France.
You say, I think we need to remember that the
most of the UN agenda is still under the West
control and the workers them that comes from the West
and is driven by the West.

Speaker 2 (34:20):
Okay, you you mentioned Israel. Momentarily what to quote you?
As the liberal international order fades, institutions that were created
as part of the euphoria of liberal internationalism are becoming
unmoored from foundational.

Speaker 3 (34:35):
Values as rather than context of the ICC.

Speaker 4 (34:38):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
Yeah, As relative power is ceded to newly powerful but
illiberal countries, Western powers that designed, created and provided stewardship
stewardship in the post forty five order losing their controlling
grip of the institutions of that order. Speaking of Israel
and this you wrote this, of course of the opening
paragraph of the ICC's legitimacy and integrity the important word epicits.

(35:05):
So what is your take then on Israel's performance to
date in the wars?

Speaker 4 (35:18):
Firstly, that general argument that I was making there is
a continuation of the argument that I've been making since
my book on the UN and back in two thousand
and six, So it's not actually new, but the trend
has continued and has intensified. And I was raising these
issues then already, and I remember writing, for example, in

(35:40):
relation to the death penalty, by what technocratic grace or
by what legitimacy does the United Nations claim a state
of grace above and beyond that of its member states
when it comes to the death penalty. So it's those
the general questions. And I was raising the same issue
in relation to the piece efforts in these.

Speaker 3 (36:01):
Teamor And.

Speaker 4 (36:04):
You know that when they were deciding that they would
disband the not to pursue criminal justice against the previous
regime in relation to each timor and the new government
and Indonesia and that agreement of predecision, that these are
issues that were raised in relation to trying to and
conflicts in Africa.

Speaker 3 (36:22):
So all that was there, but it has intensified.

Speaker 4 (36:27):
The difficulty is now since then the rise of China
has become more obvious, and inevitably the major powers of
the era will seek and will gain commensurate influence in
the institutions of governance of the time. And the fact

(36:48):
that for the first time in history, we're going to
have a global hedgemon that's not English speaking, that's not liberal,
that's not democratic, that's not capitalist, and doesn't engage in
international diplomacy in the English language. All that's creating a
lot of discomfort for us as bound to and as
it should.

Speaker 3 (37:07):
So that's the issue now.

Speaker 4 (37:09):
In relation to Israel and the United Nations and the ICJ,
the World Court and the International Criminal Court, You've.

Speaker 3 (37:17):
Got a peculiar situation where.

Speaker 4 (37:20):
Different parts of the UN system either defer excessively to
Israel or focus excessively on it and condemn it excessively
disproportionate to compare to others. So the Human Rights Council,
for example, puts Israel in the talk more than any
other country, and that clearly cannot be justified on any

(37:40):
objective basis.

Speaker 3 (37:42):
On the other hand, in the Security Council.

Speaker 4 (37:45):
Israel has got away with defiance of United Nations or
resolutions more than any other single country. The World Court
has ruled on the legality of Israeli occupation.

Speaker 3 (37:57):
In terms of international law. I think the World Court
is right.

Speaker 4 (38:00):
At the International Criminal Court, the prosecutor has sought a restaurance,
but the judges have not yet granted that. I hope
they don't give it. If they do, it creates different
set of difficulties. But now you relate that to what
my basic argument has been for two to three decades
now in relation to these issues, and that is the

(38:22):
international level, you have a development of legal institutions and
criminal justice institutions that stand by themselves without the supporting
infrastructure of a legislature, a bureaucracy, an executive, and that
reverses the historical trend.

Speaker 3 (38:41):
Domestically.

Speaker 4 (38:43):
A functioning legal system apart from the legislature and the
executive comes at the end of establishment of institutions of governments,
not at the very start. They don't, for example, have
enforcement capabilities themselves.

Speaker 3 (39:01):
And it's when the.

Speaker 4 (39:03):
Basic first auto political questions are settled and the purpose
of the state reflected in our constitutional constitutional arrangement of
government parts, whether in written constitution or what convention, then
you can start having separation of judiciary from the others.

Speaker 3 (39:24):
But at the moment we don't have that internationally.

Speaker 4 (39:26):
And should the Prime Minister of Israel be welcome in
Australia or New Zealand, or the UK or India. Should
the President of Suddam be welcome in South Africa or
in India? These at the moment are not principally legal
questions to be addressed, announswered with a legal analysis and

(39:48):
passing of what things are. They are primarily political questions
and for us they are foreign policy questions. And I
don't think it works to subordinate every other calculation to
the determination of the law and the criminal law as
judged by Democrats sitting in the Hague. And that was
a mistake that was made, and it's coming home the

(40:12):
implications of that. How can you reconcile the fact that
the United States and Russia and China are not members
of the International Criminal Court, have not subjected themselves to
the discipline and authority of the Criminal Court, have not
signed the wrong statute, and yet have a vote in
the Security Council on matters that come up in relation

(40:34):
to the criminal Court. India has not signed the NPT,
doesn't get a vote on it. United States has not
signed the Convention of the Law of the Sea, doesn't
have a vote on it or any role in it.
So there are all these compromises that we thought, well,
we'll just keep quite about it because we want progress
on this. But the result is it's creating political difficulties.

(40:58):
And I think it was a British Prime Minister Rishisunakhu
said in relationship to the ICC request for the arrest
warrant by the prosecutor. This doesn't advance any of the
political agendas. It doesn't help to seek relief of the hostages.
In fact, it delete it. They delays it. It will
impede and obstruct a set negotiating a compromise, and it

(41:20):
doesn't help in a relation to the S two test
to state solution as an ultimate objective of these negotiations
either And here's right on the practical side, all the
three parts agender were obstructed rather than facilitated by that.
But of course the legal answer to that is well,
that's not our concerned. You're only looking at the law

(41:43):
and that's what I'm saying, the separation from law of
law from politics doesn't work under existing international conditions we
wanted domestically, and we see the consequences of not having
it with the weaponization of lawfare against Trump. But again,
the political impact has been has.

Speaker 3 (42:02):
Backfired on Democrats. I'm glad you made you don't think.

Speaker 2 (42:05):
Yeah, I'm I'm glad you mentioned Trump again, just momentarily
because I was going to go back there off the
but off the back of what you've been saying, Can
you give me a good reason why there are, as
far as I know, three Trump X advisors or staff

(42:25):
members who are in jail at the moment for declining
to accept a subpoena to appear before a House committee.

Speaker 3 (42:34):
And it's just been released.

Speaker 4 (42:36):
I think who has one of them has been released
to served his term?

Speaker 2 (42:41):
Yeah, okay, but but he served his term. And at
the same time, the present Attorney general also declined to
accept his invitations to appear before before the other House
committee just refused basic basically stuck his nose in the
air and told him what they could do with it. Now,

(43:04):
where's the jail term for him? That's this is only
one one single example of so many of similar situations.
But I'm just wondering your thoughts.

Speaker 4 (43:14):
Well, it goes back to the things which is the
enforcement arm is the Department of Justice. So for that
to happen, you need a change of administration, and that
becomes a problem. I think it is an inconsistency, but
it's not as bad really as a prosecutor who campaigns

(43:34):
on getting Trump and then bends and twists the law
into a complete pretzel to pursue Trump, and that whole
thing is just absolutely ridiculous, and I think it is
a backside big time.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
Got a little while to wait to see that, but
I'm looking forward to you being right.

Speaker 4 (43:55):
I don't think Trump would have had an easy ride
to nomination of the Department Party if they had not
pursued him so recklessly and so relentlessly. And they have
proven his assertion that they're coming after him with everything
they've got. They vilified him, they slandered him, they made

(44:16):
it impossible for him to govern as a duly elected president,
and the shoot path saying he doesn't accept election results.
You have intelligence officers lie to the American public Before
the last election, the fifteen intelligence officers seenior intellience offices.

Speaker 3 (44:32):
In relation to the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Speaker 4 (44:35):
Then they have tried to bankrupt him, they have tried
to imprison him, and in the recent times they even
had a shot at him. I mean, I'm using their
in the general sense there, because we don't know what
Car's motivation was. But all that progressively, a lot of
independents who would have found Trump too distasteful to vote
for him have been angered enough and incensed enough at

(45:01):
this overt politicization and weaponization of the justice system that
they see that as a greater threat to demo ste
than Trumps.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
And there's lots of poor evidence to back that up.

Speaker 2 (45:14):
There is, so bringing it back to the to the
to the present, and another matter, we all we all
agreed that speech, free speech is very important. You can't
have democracy without free speech. It's it's not possible. So
there was somebody who was in a crossover consistency. I

(45:36):
suppose there was somebody who spent a long time either
either penned up or in jail who has very recently
been released, of course, and that is Julian Assange.

Speaker 3 (45:50):
And and you wrote on.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
You called the column defending Assange. Ah, I started out
if I may. I started out years ago thinking he
was guilty and deserved what he got. But as time
went by and I found out or in the end,
came to a to a different conclusion. Now I have
I have family members who have been US military people

(46:19):
in the States, and so if I said this even today,
I'd get my head torn off because because they haven't
changed their minds. But my final word to people who say, well,
why do you think so, is because he has been
He has spent his time being behind bars and inhibited

(46:44):
from from doing anything outside of.

Speaker 3 (46:46):
Four walls for a long long time, so he's paid
the price anyway. M h you say, well again, I
mean at the same page in the story, now you
are I. But it mostly began differently because from the

(47:09):
start I didn't think he should have interested if for
another reasons. Firstly, he's an Australian citizen.

Speaker 4 (47:18):
If you and I break an American law, they can
arrest us if you're in the United States. I don't
see what their law should apply extraterritorially to us here.
So that's the first thing to remember, and of course
that makes it worse when they start talking about treason.
Well you con'try. You can't be guilty of treason against

(47:41):
another country. It has to be your country. So I
think second this convention of releasing information that you have
that may cause embarrassment discomfort to governments, if you do it.

Speaker 3 (48:03):
Responsibly as media.

Speaker 4 (48:06):
And withhold information should rather than publish it that, in
your judgment, is going to endanger lives, then that has
a long and distinguished history, which as far as press
freedom is concerned, I don't have any problem with the
media cooperating the authorities not to put lives at risk.

(48:28):
And so in that article I did say, if in
fact the disclosures did lead to jeopardizing the lives of soldiers,
then identify that and prosecute those individually rather than a
blanket back. And what he was doing was he was
publishing information that showed illegal and possibly criminal activities by

(48:55):
our own governments, and that should never be punishable under aurbus.
If you've got to the rule of law and the
freedom of the press, I think that is exactly what
the super production laws are needed for and have evolved
over time because we recognize that. So the comparison to

(49:16):
the Pentagon papers, I think is very direct, and that
example I gave of Australia's agencies snooping on the East
timor rees is a pretty well we condemned these actions
when the Chinese and the Russians and the Iranians do it,
and I think we should condemn the persecution of people

(49:37):
on those lines as well. So yes, if Asciance disclosed
anything that led to identifiable threats against people far by
all means prosecute them.

Speaker 1 (49:46):
For that.

Speaker 4 (49:48):
Is No, I am not aware of a single case
where it has actually put someone's laugh at risk now
and for my point is the single best example of
why I think I have been supporting is that video
that I refort to. Have you seen that video from
Baghdad in around two thousand and four where a helicopter gunship.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
Kills some people.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
Yes, yes I did, because I gave the link to
that that's still up on the let because I used
to show that in my lecture on human rights in
my classes, I would show that slip and says, you know,
this is why the rest of the world reacts so
cynically to the rhetoric of Western countries.

Speaker 4 (50:34):
They have no credibility in saying they're committed to human rights.
You're talking to the US military. As I was living
next to a serving US Air Force kernel when I
was in Tokyo, and after the pictures of our grave
and things like that came out, he just came home
and there says for the first time in his life
he feels the shame wearing the uniform for the American military.

(50:56):
So I think you know the same argument we use
about the police. If you close ranks and you protect
the one bad apple, you condemn the whole barrel of apples.
If you're going to protect the honor and reputation of
the mility as you should, then I think you have

(51:16):
to call out the UK bad person and punish them.
H Being in mind that they make difficult choices in
the fog before, that's one thing. But if they make
deliberate choices to engage in activities that under own laws
are prohibited and a criminal may be criminal.

Speaker 3 (51:37):
It goes back to how do you accept gain a
function research being funded and then overseas jurisdiction because it's
banned in your own country. I think it's just as bad.
So should doctor Faci be in in He should be
in the dock. I was thinking beyond the dock. He

(51:58):
he No, he isn't aituled to the new process. Oh sure,
but I'm not sure. But I didn't mean. I didn't
that would escape proceed but I won't procedure to take Well.

Speaker 4 (52:10):
That's what I mean. He should be in the dog.
He should be charged and he should be made to
answer for that.

Speaker 3 (52:15):
And he's and he's not alone either.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
Look, if I may, if I may, there's a couple
of other a couple of other areas that I would
like to touch with you last last time.

Speaker 3 (52:25):
Just let me just turn the back on you.

Speaker 4 (52:27):
So if if, if Faulty is approving that, but the
money comes from Defense Department because they're engaged in the
effort to develop defensive defenses against use of biological weapons.
Do we see someone who releases that then is a
criminal and should be charged. I mean it's the same

(52:47):
arguments some stage. If activities are being done that are illegal,
and they're burning done by our side, then we do
need mechanisms to find out about that, And I don't
think we should persecute in this case people release that information.

Speaker 3 (53:02):
Well, no, I'd agree with that. Whistleblowers generally serve, serve
them are doing public service generally.

Speaker 4 (53:10):
Yeah, but I do I do maintain that other thing.
If in fact some of that information did cause identifiable
harm to individuals, then go after him.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
That's fine, I have no problem. That good.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
The events that took place place last Friday, in the
middle of all the other stuff with this global outage,
the crowd strike global outage.

Speaker 4 (53:34):
Yeah, I think the anti virus software company say that again,
the anti virus software company. Ah, it shows the dangers
of centralized reliance on technology.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
Well, that's exactly my point. It was the first thing
that I said to to this is a producer, to
my wife that there's an there's there's a prime example.
It's the best one I've seen for a long time,
prime example of why cash should be maintained forever, well
certainly for the foreseeable future. And the replacement of cash

(54:07):
to withdraw of cash, in my understanding, Tell me if
I'm wrong, because if somebody only told me this a
couple of days ago from from Sydney, is that they've
announced the government's announced that cash will be gone in two.

Speaker 3 (54:18):
Years in Australia. I haven't seen that. Yeah. Well, I've
got I've got I've got.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
A feeling this particular person's got it mixed up just slightly,
but they're certainly heading everywhere.

Speaker 4 (54:31):
Not necessarily if you're having that way, and I'm in
the past couple of years, I've constantly begun to use
cash more and more. Well, I think you're just putting
ourselves at risk of complete social credit system and government control.

Speaker 3 (54:47):
And that's the collusion with a big tech that's that's
the that's the end of the game, exactly.

Speaker 4 (54:54):
So so I am actually using cash a lot more now,
drawing cash and using it, so obviously for a lot
of things you can't. But yeah, central bank. And on
that Friday, by the way, that's when I came back,
I was lucky that I escape, that I have traveled.

Speaker 2 (55:11):
I have I have a friend who will be listening
to this at some stage who was caught caught in
Los Angeles with his son, young son, and I'm yet
to get the picture, but I believe he's got a
good story to tell. So the danger of centralized digital

(55:31):
wealth central bank digital currencies is there. Is there the
possibility in your mind that they could exist in conjunction
with the current system, or do you think that the
introduction of cbdc's will just provide leverage for for removing cash.

Speaker 3 (55:52):
We've seen two things.

Speaker 4 (55:56):
One is governments of different political persuasions have discovered that
they share.

Speaker 3 (56:02):
A common interest.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
In gaining hold over technology that allows them to exit
more and more control over their own citizens.

Speaker 3 (56:12):
And so.

Speaker 4 (56:14):
Justin Todau in Canada had no compunction in the banking
and the financializing people associated with the Freedom Convoy of truckers,
and that included people who were giving ten dollars twenty
dollars more donations as well and freezing their assets. Now
mister Mordy looks at that and he says, what a

(56:35):
good idea. And weeks before the Indian election, the opposition
Congress party has its assets frozen under some alleged violation
of some laws or that he sees the weaponization of
the justice system and jailing of opponents in the United States,
and he says, well, if the world's most powerful democracy
can do that, so it can be. And I think

(56:57):
there were three incumbent chief ministers at state level who
were put in jail the head of the general election
and their ability to campaign was impeded. That's one side
that governments have a shared interest in expanding their power
to control their citizens' activities and monitor the citizens' citizens

(57:19):
financial transactions, and they're moving in that direction.

Speaker 3 (57:22):
So there's that site.

Speaker 4 (57:24):
The second thing is the elements of the private sector
discovering they have a shared interest with governments being able
to monitor and surveil what we are doing in terms
of what by very by, and being able to nudge
our preferences towards particular products or to towards particular ideologies

(57:49):
and political parties. So that double centralization is all at
the expense of our liberties and freedom of action and
freedom from being monitored and put under surveillance, whether it's
for our commercial activities, purchasing history, or where there it's
for our political leanings and tendencies. So yes, it goes

(58:14):
back into that broader theme that varies me more and
more that we are moving into a world of big Brother,
in which big Brother is a combined national and global behemoth.
And you see that with the legacy media in terms
of news God and this and that and then garm

(58:36):
whatever the thing calls for, where where they're trying to
remove from the public public sphere essentially people whose values
or opinions they disagree with it MM, and that's happening
more and more, so it does worry me.

Speaker 3 (58:54):
Well, is happening in Australia. Yes, we have the.

Speaker 4 (58:58):
Safety Commissioner whose goes after the opinions of people. And
do you remember this, she's an American important she took
on a fight with the OWSK on some things, so
there you know. This was this. She asked a couple
of things. One was the famous one where she wanted

(59:20):
footage of the stabbing of the archbishop. Yes, taken off
not just in Australia but globally. So the e Safety Commissioner,
one individual with her staff, asserted the right to decide
what other people from in other countries can and cannot watch.

(59:41):
And it wasn't the case of misinformation because this was
an actual event that had happened. She was saying, well,
this may not be wasted. At the same time, other
things that were worse from a physical violence point of
view was still available.

Speaker 3 (59:55):
So there's that.

Speaker 4 (59:56):
But there's something else on in respect of gender ideology
that she was trying the same thing in Australia. But
it's the same phenomenal that that bureaucrats and technocrats decide
what we should think, what we should say, what we
should believe in what we should buy, who should produce what,
under what ours. So it's that assertion of government control

(01:00:17):
over all aspects of our daily activities that we witnessed
under COVID.

Speaker 3 (01:00:23):
Now the effort has.

Speaker 4 (01:00:25):
Been yet to institutionalize and embed that as a permanent feature,
which is exactly what we were saying at the time.
But if you comply now, don't be surprised you start
to expand and repeat this in other sectors.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
Yes, and there's still still much to be said about
the COVID era.

Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
Yeah, but it's the same.

Speaker 4 (01:00:45):
You know, why why should the government decide that we
have to switch to electric vehicles?

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
I'll just say to the planet, Yeah, sure, but surely
you know that.

Speaker 4 (01:00:58):
But you know, when different forms of transport come along
and they have obvious benefits and conveniences and advantages, people switch.

Speaker 3 (01:01:05):
Well, I think it's started.

Speaker 4 (01:01:06):
The government's speaking winners with the to you know, you
you have to use renewables, you have to do electric vehicles.
And again the calculations that they don't they don't add
up when you actually go through it as well. So
governments are no better at picking winners today. In fact,
they might be worse than they will have historically been, well, you've.

Speaker 2 (01:01:26):
Got you've got media companies still refusing to entertain any
alternative viewpoint when it comes to matters climate and saving
the planet, et cetera. And we've got them. We've got
them here, and they are disgrace because of it. But
I'm hoping that sooner or later something will happen. There's

(01:01:50):
one other thing I wanted to mention with regard with
regard to privacy, and that it is directly linked to
cb DCS et cetera. Privacy we got. We have people
in positions of influence, including one retired prime minister in
the country, who have said any time that something comes

(01:02:13):
up about privacy and people not knowing what you're doing, etc.
Has said, well, have you got nothing to hide, You've
got nothing to fear. Now, I know how old that
that saying is, and I have the excital contempt for it.
But the question is why are they I've had nobody
can explain this to me yet. Why are there intelligent

(01:02:33):
people that simply can't see the light.

Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
Well, that's a deep philosophical question. I think the short answer,
my short answer would be that the share of the population.
So you're not talking to absolute numbers, but the proportion
of the population that habitually engages in independent critical thinking

(01:03:00):
has declined quite dramatically and reflects the switch from education
to indoctrination from early childhood all the way through school
and university and spread into all sectors of society. Who
would have thought thirty forty years ago that big corporates

(01:03:22):
would think they have any business telling us what we
should think, or what values we should adopt, or what
positions on controversial social and or contested not controversial, necessarily
contested social, political, economic, and even scientific issues, that they
have some comparative advantage in knowing what the quote unquote

(01:03:46):
truth is the truth is, and telling us their views
and we should do what they tell us. And again
on that there're certainly in Australia there has been a
pushback and a recognition by the media boardrooms that maybe
they should pull back from this because they've discovered that
a majority of even their employees, shareholders, and certainly their

(01:04:12):
consumers do not align with their views and it actually
affects the bottom line. And when I go into a supermarket,
I want fresh produce and quality products at most affordable prices.
I have absolutely no interest in learning about what the

(01:04:32):
view of their CEO might be in relation to any
social low political issue. Same with celebrities. And yet they
think that the echo chamber of the elites in the
different sectors of life has an position of virtuous enlightenment

(01:04:52):
that everyone else should be made to follow.

Speaker 3 (01:04:55):
Well, you know you want to do that, go ahead
and do it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:58):
So the World Economic Forum is at what point of
its existence and influence.

Speaker 3 (01:05:02):
Now hopefully terminal? I might become a believer in God.

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Yet ah, I read, I read what you had to
say about religion. I was I was intrigued. But that
could be true that I respect other people's religion. Yes
you do, yeah, and that's of all fits.

Speaker 4 (01:05:24):
But I have problems myself and that left religion a
long time ago, and no desire to go back. Well,
it's a free world, yeap, free will feeble, So I
think we can continue with a free society.

Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
Just one one other thing that I would like to include.
Why leave it out? It's your white guilt, not my
white privilege. It's a headline from another of yours. That's
a problem. That's the that's a problem, that's right. Yeah,
the problem is your white guilt, not my white privilege.
But white guilt and colonization two things that go hand

(01:06:02):
in hand at the moment and seem to be motoring
along fairly powerfully. Are they both in US strata and
New Zealand and the US and Canada? So what's the answer? Well,
it's puzzled me obviously. I mean, look, which major country,

(01:06:23):
or which even middland country can you point out to
me today whose borders do not reflect the use of force?

Speaker 3 (01:06:32):
Perhaps repeatedly in his history.

Speaker 4 (01:06:35):
It's been a part of history, and it's been a
part of the natural world as well, and I suspect
it will stay the case for a long time yet.
So if you're going to go back to the equivalent
of trying to trace the original sin, we're going to
lead to the most massive upheaval we've ever known, and

(01:06:56):
volatility and fighting all over again. So how do we
reconcile existing borders with present day values? Well, we don't
do that by reversing history. One second. I think the
net contribution of Western civilizations to global human welfare on

(01:07:18):
prosperity and education and longevity has been greater than that
of any other civilization and culture. And that's not such
a hard thing to document in terms of the aspirations
that pretty much people so all over the world now

(01:07:39):
have two emulating the lifestyles and the benefits, the material
benefits and the intellectual benefits of that. And even with
respect to slavery, for example, the slave trade, again I
think it's not that difficult to document that. Probably the
biggest contribution to ending the slave trade, and some of

(01:08:02):
the highest costs that were made that were paid in
that effort that came from Britain, and the biggest guilty
parties in the origins and volume of the slave trade
would include the Arabs and the Africans. So why this

(01:08:25):
focus on the sense of guilt And if that sense
of guilt was real, and I'm sure I've said this,
if not to you then to some other interview in
New Zealand, if that sense of guilt was real, I mean,
if that sense of moral censure was real and genuine, authentic,
then huge numbers of people from the non Western countries

(01:08:51):
would not still be fighting to get into the West.
And it seems to be a confected outrage at the
historical role that some Western countries have had to play.
I don't think anyone denies that. I'm all in favor
of having an honest accounting in our history books, but
the honesty can'ting goes both ways as well. I think

(01:09:11):
there were benefits that were brought to millions of people
around the world by Western civilization, and there were costs
steps were brought and in some cases resulting in genocide
or neo genocide of indigenous populations, But that is part
of history, and I think we should study history and
learn from that, but not engaged in an endless self vagulation,

(01:09:35):
which is unmerited and self destructive. I think in one
of the articles that they'd say it's like Western societies
are bent on feeding the fuel into the fire that
is consuming them, which I find very puzzling. So the
net contribution of Western civilization I think has been positive

(01:09:56):
rather than negative. Other countries have also had stayed pasts,
and we acknowledge that we don't necessarily condone that. We
certainly don't want to have that society today, but I
think we should just insist on treating everyone who's lawfully
in our country and is a citizen the same, without

(01:10:19):
distinction on grounds of race or religion or whatever else.
Inherited treat so I don't understand the white guilt part,
and if it does exist, I don't see why I,
who have not been part of that, should be made
to suffer for that either. So it goes back to
where we started off and the general attitude almost the

(01:10:40):
overseas Indians as well, that what we want is to
be left alone and given the same opportunities. And maybe
if we should end that it's equality of opportunity not
equality of outcomes. So I still prefer the phrase equality
of opportunity rather than equity because that tries to look
at it in terms of outcomes. And you've seen that,

(01:11:03):
you know the decision from the US Supreme Court late
last year whenever it was on the Harvard admissions case.

Speaker 2 (01:11:12):
Japanese none of the Asian Americans who would have taken
the case too in the court system, But weren't there
weren't there a lot of Japanese students who were involved
in it. No, it was Chinese and Indians more than Japanese.

Speaker 4 (01:11:30):
It's but the Asian Americans were amongst the highest academic
scores and the lowest rates of admission. I think you
needed to be if an Asian American, it's you needed
to be in the ninetieth persentile, and your chances were
still lower than a black in the fortieth persentile, a

(01:11:54):
Hispanic in the sixtieth persentile, and a white in the
eightieth personile. So the four groups, the Asian Americans had
to be the most competitive, and in medical schools, in
the different studies. Short this is the American Enterprise Institute.
I think for medical schools, you on the same score,

(01:12:18):
a Black American had more than ten times a prospect
of getting admitted to medical school compared to an Asian American.
And again then it was the Hispanics the second most
advantage and the words third, and the Asians were at
the bottom.

Speaker 3 (01:12:31):
So that was what they had taken it. It's very
easy to demonstrate statistically.

Speaker 4 (01:12:37):
And finally the Supreme Court said racial criteria were illegal.

Speaker 3 (01:12:42):
So it goes back to the same thing.

Speaker 4 (01:12:44):
You believe in merit, you believe in the quality of opportunity,
and you believe in rewarding hard work. Then you get
a different student profile in universities and med schools and stuff.
Then if you start talking about equity and diversity, and
by the way, we've seen going back to the pushback argument,
a lot of companies are now starting to dismantle the

(01:13:05):
DEI elements of their.

Speaker 3 (01:13:08):
Bureaucracy, and so they should yep. And well you see that,
you saw the results of that.

Speaker 4 (01:13:15):
Well, now there are allegations that that is partly to
explain the security failures with regard to the assassination attent
on Trump. Yes, with the Secret Service being interested in
these efforts more than in basic competence. And you'd think, well,
it shouldn't affect universities, until suddenly it I mean the

(01:13:38):
consequence of the of that agenda, Until suddenly it did.
When the three famous university presidents could not answer a
basic question under congressional testimony as to where the calls
to engage in expl ethnic aspulsion of Jews or whatever

(01:13:58):
genesida Jews was to be prohibited. You remember how they
were completely unable to answer the simple moral question. Yes,
comes back and happened to be women presidents that and
the Harvard one was clearly a diversity higher, clearly or
what diversity higher?

Speaker 3 (01:14:18):
I think for that phrase.

Speaker 4 (01:14:21):
That phrase has become a presorative term now and they're
saying that the chief of the Secret Service is a
diversity higher.

Speaker 2 (01:14:27):
And you see the results. Well, it was there was
there was she mean not survive tomorrow's hearing it in
congress on Sorry, there was. There was a similar similar
lineup and they were all males, roughly around the same time.
Asked us being asked in in the in the house
inquiry how much how much CO two was there in

(01:14:51):
the atmosphere? Few of them, none of them knew, not one.
I had no idea and.

Speaker 3 (01:15:02):
It was hilarious.

Speaker 2 (01:15:03):
We started this long but excellent conversation with a quick
mention of your book our enemy the government.

Speaker 3 (01:15:11):
Let's conclude on it.

Speaker 2 (01:15:13):
Why the title, Well, if you have a commitment to
human rights, you face attention. The worst breaches of human
rights and violations of human rights occur in conditions of anarchy,

(01:15:33):
and you need the machinery of government and the legislative,
executive and judicial frameworks to enforce.

Speaker 4 (01:15:42):
Human rights laws and values, to legislate and enforce them.
At the same time, if you do have stable, effective
function government, then potentially the biggest threat to your human
rights comes from governments. And these are the powerful entrance
toutalitarian states with their government machinery. In countries like Nazi Germany,

(01:16:08):
COMMUNSS China, like com Soviet Union as it was, so
that tension is an ongoing.

Speaker 3 (01:16:16):
Reality and we need to navigate that.

Speaker 4 (01:16:20):
And part many parts of what we've been talking about
for the past hour or whatever it has been, has
been in relation to the growing threats to our freedom
and civiluities that comes from over centralization and over expansion
of the state into spheres of social and personal activity

(01:16:41):
that hitherto were separate and considered sacrosanct and none of
the state's business, like telling us which type of car
we should buy or which type of car manufacturers should
make and produce, and punishing dealers if they don't sell
x percentage of a particular type of vehicle. Governments should
stay out of these source of activities. In that sense,

(01:17:05):
our common enemy, just as governments have a common interest
in expanding the power at the expense of citizens, see
the people's share a common interest in limiting the powers
of governments.

Speaker 2 (01:17:17):
Hence our enemy the government. And it's a very good book,
and I recommend it. One other thing that I want
to recommend, Ramesh is the transcript of the interview that
you did with Epic TV or Epoch TV, whichever, with

(01:17:38):
someone from American thought Leaders, and it runs eighteen pages
and it's full of great information, great commentary, and I
was actually sort of a bit envious when I when
I read it that I hadn't done it. But nevertheless,
it's it's superb. Yes, I didn't know how to pronounce

(01:18:01):
his name, but it's it's it's You'll find it under
Ramesh's name on the on the round Stone site. You
just you just have to dig it out, do a
search the new Biosecurity State, and you'll get even more
from that than on top of what we've discussed in
the last in the last eighty minutes, so you see

(01:18:26):
time flies when you're enjoying yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:18:28):
I want to thank you add one thing so that
don't leave a wrong impression.

Speaker 4 (01:18:32):
Going back to the Secret Servicing, when the assassination on Trump, sure,
I think I would like to acknowledge that the courage
of the individual members of the Immediate Protective Unit, including
the women, was no less than that of the men
when they all threw themselves and formed a protective shield
around Trump. So that wasn't a comment on you know,

(01:18:53):
I wasn't trying to demonize or not technoledge contributions to
individual members, but the factorymains that the women members were
not the size and height of the male members and
therefore they could not completely form that human sheet when
he woke them and he stood up again.

Speaker 3 (01:19:10):
That's the point.

Speaker 2 (01:19:11):
Yeah, that's the point that has been made. And I
have been in the same position that you have and
had to had to say that it wasn't it wasn't
the fact that they were women. And you may you've
made me do something that I reached across and picked
up a book and I bought this book for my
one of one of the girls. And it's by an

(01:19:36):
ex Secret Service agent whose name is Ivy Pomperass. And
there's two things I would observe. When Carolyn saw the
picture of her, she said, Wow, she's beautiful. I couldn't

(01:19:59):
say anything. But if I'd said that, you know what,
what do you think she's beautiful for?

Speaker 3 (01:20:04):
She's a woman? The point being.

Speaker 2 (01:20:07):
The book is called Becoming Bulletproof Life Lessons from a
Secret Service Agent, former former protective detail for three Presidents
and recipient of the of the Medal.

Speaker 3 (01:20:18):
Of Valor Award.

Speaker 2 (01:20:20):
And I can't swear to this, but I'm pretty sure
she's five foot two mm five foot two which was
probably shorter than those those women the other the other
the other day. But she was was patently very successful

(01:20:41):
as a secret service agent. M And on that note,
I want to thank you, very very very sincerely for
a marathon effort. I'll leave you alone for a little while,
but your opinions are valuable, worthwhile and to be heard
by as many as possible.

Speaker 3 (01:21:01):
Thanks. Listen. Now, I'm doing it a little differently this year.

Speaker 2 (01:21:24):
At the end of the replay, I usually have a
few words to say, and every year I have to
struggle to think up what the appropriate thing is to
put in this particular plot. So I've decided to give
myself a break and do one that covers all of them.
So if you've heard this before, you can turn it
off because you've heard it, because it's going to be

(01:21:46):
the same one for each of the seven replays. Now,
if this is the first one, then I trust that
you're having a wonderful holiday. If you're not on holiday yet,
your time will come.

Speaker 3 (01:21:57):
Rest assured.

Speaker 2 (01:21:58):
I have enjoyed doing these because re listening to them myself,
I get more out of them, and I see things,
or I should say, I hear things that I might
have got slightly wrong or I could have done better,
so it's a learning curve as well. Anyway, we will
be back for the next one a week from this

(01:22:18):
particular release, unless, of course it's the last one, which
is on the twenty ninth of January, and that'll be
the end of this replay series. Add on February five,
we shall return with fresh content in the meantime at
any stage, drop us, drop us on notes if you've
got comment that you'd like to make later at Newstalks
AB dot co dot Enzen and Caroline at NEWSTALKSB dot

(01:22:41):
co dot enz and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:22:53):
Thank you for more from News Talks at B Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio.