the other one is that they had about 9 to $10 billion - of foreign currency reserves, i and what countries generally do with that is they use it to manage the value of their own currency. and international markets. that has been frozen, - and what that can do is send currencies into freefall and you get hyperinflation, - now we have seen a bit of that, but not as much as we thought. the question for the international community now is exactly - economically do you approachj the new taliban government? if you play hardball. and risk this, you risk a humanitarian crisis. if you don t, you riskj anyway economically legitimising and recognising the government in place. i so they do have some leverage. how you play it is an incredibly difficult diplomatic position, i which i don t think countries around the world, there is any consensus about that yet. indeed, and what are you hearing about this, mina? because if you don t release these assets, it is the general population that will suffer,
that there is a need to negotiate, at least at this point. so again when we look at the aid issue this is the time to say, local entities on the ground, the regional, domestic different governance, give them a bit more autonomy by having aid delivered there. if that is possible, that could be a way to get back to some sort of negotiation process, but also enable some of the local actors there and give them a bit more agency. simon, very briefly, if the leverage with the assets doesn t work, the americans are already talking about drone strikes if terrorism starts to flare up again? that is the unknown question. the taliban have said i they are not going to be a place, a tent under which terrorist - organisations can gather. obviously the invasion in the first place was i because al-qaeda found succour and shelter within taliban controlled afghanistan. we just don t know. that is all we have time for this week. our thanks to polly toynbee, mina al 0raibi and simonjack. do join us again
which is the highest for many decades, as mina has. pointed out, but actually the reality is we have got our own currency and can print as much money as we like and the bank of england l is actually tacitly - funding the government, so this is a false choice. that is one point of views which is quite prevalent. at the moment. the treasury would say that is not the case and you have to pretend you have a plan - for public finances just to keep international investors, - who by the wavelength of the uk government this money, - you have got to keep on believing that you still believe in fiscal rectitude and cutting - across according to your means. the c word again confidence. today we have just had figures showing that growth is practically flatlining. the danger is that by tightening the belt now, by the treasury winning out in this argument and cutting most of the spending in most departments, you do great harm to the economy, it s exactly what george osborne did after the great
can i just say this one quick thought? you said the narco gangster state we could deal with that very quickly, but if you had a simple non prohibition attitude towards. inaudible in the west, you could cut that immediately. inaudible we are struggling to hear you a little bit. i am hoping the picture and sound will settle down, so we can hearfrom you again in a moment. mina, in terms of the concerns about proxy conflicts within afghanistan, regional powers, neighbours looking into the country and thinking that they could use the chaos to their own advantage, how big a concern is that? it is a very big concern, but ijust want to go back to the point about russia and china. russia and china decided to keep their embassies open. russia and china have already continued talks with the taliban, but so has the united states in terms of continuing talks with the taliban.
different governance, give them a bit more autonomy by having aid delivered there. if that is possible, that could be a way to get back to some sort of negotiation process, but also enable some of the local actors there and give them a bit more agency. simon, very briefly, if the leverage with the assets doesn t work, the americans are already talking about drone strikes if terrorism starts to flare up again? that is the unknown question. the taliban have said they are not going to be a place, a tent under which terrorist organisations can gather. l obviously the invasion in the first place was because al-qaeda - found succour and shelter within taliban controlledl afghanistan. we just don t know. that is all we have time for this week. our thanks to polly toynbee, mina al 0raibi and simonjack. do join us again next week, same time same place. it will be me again, i think. thank you for watching and goodbye.