Slovenia’s Ambassador Pulls Back the Curtain on a Surprise Act at the UN

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to the Delegates Lounge.
Pull up a chair.
I'm Alex Tarquinio, ajournalist based at the United
Nations here in New York Cityand your emcee for this podcast
featuring some of the mostinfluential minds in the world
today.
Settle in for some rivetingtete-a-tete, available wherever
you listen to podcasts.

(00:41):
But, you're either going to makea deal or we're out, and if
we're out, you'll fight it out.
I don't think it's going to bepretty Welcome back.
Without question, this has beenan historic week, as the world
has watched a tragedy in threeacts unfold.
Our conversation in thisepisode, recorded on Wednesday,

(01:05):
with the Slovenian ambassador tothe United Nations, samuel
Zbogar, will be well worth yourtime.
His role is a critical one, ashis country is currently among
the elected members of the UNSecurity Council.
The ambassador pulls back thecurtain on a surprise act that
played the UN earlier in theweek, when the United States
voted with Russia and urged thenations of the world to vote

(01:28):
against essential elements ofthe UN charter.
In ordinary times, recastingthe United States in the role of
Russia's supporting actor wouldhave been enough to steal the
show, but further plot twistsrevealed the drama at the UN was
merely a prologue.
At times, the second act seemedto drag.
Several of the well-rehearsedlines fell flat and the promo

(01:51):
videos for social media weretruly bizarre.
But it all came together in thefinal act, staged in the Oval
Office with the bronze bust ofWinston Churchill scowling over
President Trump's shoulder.
At this point, I should tellnew listeners that I'm a
journalist based at the UnitedNations.
Ironically, some diplomats saythe United States was initially

(02:12):
supportive of a draft resolutionprepared by Ukraine called
Advancing a Comprehensive, justand Lasting Peace in Ukraine.
Friday we started hearing mixedmessages involving the US
support for Ukraine's draftresolution.
American diplomats produced acompeting draft on late Friday,
dubbed the path to peace, whichessentially stripped away all of

(02:34):
the meat from Ukraine'sresolution.
It was really three phrasesthat might have been scribbled
on the back of a cocktail napkin.
Ukraine's allies spent theweekend furiously lobbying to
reinsert some key phrases intothe US draft and, when the
United States refused,ultimately proposed those as
amendments.
On Sunday, the US mission tothe United Nations circulated a

(02:56):
diplomatic note to theircounterparts at the other UN
missions urging them toco-sponsor and vote in favor of
the US draft resolution and voteno on any other resolution or
amendments presented on Monday.
In other words, the US missionlobbied the world to vote
against Ukraine and its allieson the third anniversary of the

(03:19):
Russian invasion.
I should clarify at this pointthat I didn't discuss this
diplomatic note with Slovenia'sUN ambassador for this episode
and didn't receive the note fromSlovenia, though I did receive
it on Sunday from a diplomaticsource from another country.
I started reaching out tosources last week, as the
growing bellicosity of Trump'srhetoric towards Ukraine,

(03:41):
calling Zelensky a dictator, wasmaking it increasingly hard to
imagine that the White Housewould support Ukraine on the
anniversary.
On Thursday, february 20th, Icontacted the State Department
for comment.
After being passed betweenvarious public information
officers, I received an answeron Sunday referring me to
Secretary Rubio's statement thatthe conflict was awful and the

(04:01):
UN can help end it.
Rubio issued that statement onFriday, the same day that US
diplomats began circulatingtheir UN resolution.
But enough of the prelude.
Returning to the opening act onMonday, listeners will know by
now that Ukraine's resolutionhad more than 50 sponsors and
handily won the General Assemblyvote with the support of 93

(04:22):
countries, far more than the 18that voted against it, which
included the United States,israel, russia, belarus, north
Korea and Sudan.
Even Iran abstained, as did 65countries.
In all, the US resolution waspresented without a single
co-sponsor.
No one had answered the call.
In Sunday's diplomatic note,there were three proposed

(04:46):
amendments.
The first of those replaced thewords the Russia-Ukraine
conflict with the full-scaleinvasion of Ukraine by the
Russian Federation.
The second added language fromprevious resolutions reaffirming
the commitment to Ukraine'ssovereignty and territorial
integrity.
The third and crucial amendmentspecifically referred to the UN

(05:07):
Charter's principles ofsovereign equality and
territorial integrity.
The United States voted againstthose amendments and, once they
had passed it, abstained fromits own resolution.
The permanent members of theSecurity Council Britain, china,
france, russia and the UnitedStates don't have veto power in
the General Assembly Once theact should move down the hall to

(05:29):
the Security Council chamber.
Russia used its veto to preventthose amendments to the US
resolution.
That's when UN watchers, whohad anticipated this turn of
events, wondered if we might beon the verge of a major plot
twist.
London and Paris take pride innot having used their vetoes in
decades, but observers reckonedthat the timing might be awkward

(05:50):
, as French President EmmanuelMacron was scheduled to meet
with Trump at the White House onTuesday and British Prime
Minister Keir Starmer wasmeeting with him on Thursday.
This carefully orchestratedperformance seems to have left
nothing to chance.
Could it be that this parade oflast-minute state visits to the
White House was lined up todiscourage the French and

(06:10):
British capitals from anexceptionally rare European veto
?
The United States is without apermanent representative to the
United Nations.
Elise Stefanik, the Republicancongresswoman from upstate New
York has cleared the Senatecommittee but is being held back
for approval by the full Senate.
Rumor has it that Trump wantsto stay in the House of
Representatives because he needsher vote in a closely divided

(06:32):
Congress to push through hisbudget priorities.
The US mission isn't sure nowwhen she'll arrive.
Chargé d'affaires ad interimDorothy Shea said the amendments
, and I quote, pursue a war ofwords.
Well, words have meaning indiplomacy and guess what?

(06:52):
The UN Charter is composed ofwords.
On Monday night, after themeetings of the General Assembly
and the Security Council, frankand I attended the display of
an Iranian Shahid drone at theMillennium Hotel, across the
street from the UN headquarters.
Iranian presidents and foreignministers are said to favor
these same meeting rooms whenthey attend UN Week each

(07:13):
September.
Stick around until the end ofour conversation with the
ambassador for a brief finalsegment from this event with
remarks by Polish ForeignMinister Sikorski.
What was remarkable about thisevent is the mental gymnastics
that some Trump supporters mustgo through to criticize Iran for
providing Russia with drones tostrike Ukraine, while papering
over the Kremlin's aggression.

(07:35):
Moving on to the second act,which was difficult to follow as
it rested heavily on anunreliable narrator.
It opened on Tuesday with theannouncement that the White
House would handpick reportersallowed to cover the
presidential events.
The scene in the Oval Officetoday wasn't even the first
diplomatic snub of a Europeanally by the Trump administration
.
This week, us Secretary ofState Marco Rubio abruptly

(07:59):
canceled a scheduled meetingwith European Union foreign
policy chief Kaya Kalas onWednesday, citing scheduling
issues.
All of this was a prelude toUkrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky's visit on Friday,ostensibly to sign a minerals
deal.
The third act began with theUkrainian president's motorcade
sitting on the driveway while hewaited several minutes for

(08:20):
Trump to emerge a classicbusiness negotiating tactic to
put the other guy on the backfoot.
Needless to say, the mineralsdeal was not signed.
It's tough to know whetherthere was a serious deal on the
table.
During the press conference, itseemed like the two sides were
talking about radicallydifferent deals.
Zelensky said there would needto be security guarantees and

(08:42):
Trump said the guarantee wouldbe Americans digging and digging
and digging and taking theearth to make a lot of great
products in his country.
Typically, before any bilateralsummit, and certainly one where
they expect to sign a deal, allof the details would have been
worked out in advance.
It quickly became clear why theTrump administration had taken
control of the press pool.
Reuters and the AssociatedPress were excluded from the

(09:06):
press conference, but a reporterfor the Russian state media
outlet TASS got into the OvalOffice.
Once it was pointed out, theWhite House said that TASS had
not been one of the handpickedmedia outlets.
Listen, I covered Macron'sstate visit during the Biden
presidency as a member ofMacron's traveling press.
That's a story for anotherepisode.

(09:26):
But I can tell you firsthandthat just getting into the White
House involves a long wait andpassport check, and then you
have to be checked and escortedanytime you move around the
White House.
After the carefully orchestratedstate visit dissolved into the
president and vice president ofthe United States berating
Zelensky in front of televisioncameras, former Trump UN

(09:49):
ambassador, now turned Trumpcritic, john Bolton, told the
BBC you have to wonder if it wasplanned in advance and
withdrawal from NATO is now amere formality.
Withdrawal from NATO is now amere formality.
And now let's turn to our guestin this episode.
We are very honored to hostSlovenia's UN ambassador, samuel

(10:13):
Zbogar.
Slovenia joined the UnitedNations in 1992, shortly after
declaring its independence fromYugoslavia.
It joined the Security Councilfor an elected two-year term
last year which runs throughDecember.
No-transcript.

(10:37):
He shed a lot of insights onthe maneuvers at the UN over the
last week.
Here's our conversation.
Welcome, mr Ambassador.
Welcome to the Delicous Loungeand thank you so much for making

(10:57):
time for us, especially in sucha busy week.

Speaker 4 (11:00):
No, thank you very much.
It's a pleasure and an honor,thank you.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
Oh, thank you, the honor is ours.
It is quite a week and I'mcertain that your week started
early.
On Monday we had the two bigvotes in the General Assembly
and the Security Council onUkraine.
I want to start a little bitwith the lead up to that.
I know that at the beginning ofthe Security Council meeting
the UK tried to postpone thevote a day and said that there

(11:28):
had not been enough consultationand the US then countered that
there had been consultation.
I know you can't get into theheart of the consultations, but
can you talk a little bit aboutwhat led up to that meeting, the
process that went into it?

Speaker 4 (11:40):
Yeah, I think with pleasure.
I think I even have a nicestory, because the mandate
didn't start on Monday.
The Monday actually started theweek earlier.
You know, we were working onthe resolution for the General
Assembly EU and Ukrainian onefor quite some time, for weeks.
So last week, like midweek, wethought everything is going well

(12:06):
, we're getting very nicesupport, huge support again for
Ukraine in the General Assembly.
So on Friday I took the day offand we wanted to go with my
wife to the Staten Island, themuseum there.
And just before boarding theboat, dorothy, the Chergé of the
US, called me and she said look, we have a draft solution, we

(12:32):
are asking you to withdraw yours.
So I boarded the boat.

Speaker 1 (12:34):
Excuse me, that was on a Friday.

Speaker 4 (12:35):
That was on a Friday.

Speaker 1 (12:36):
For listeners.
That's the ad interim.

Speaker 4 (12:40):
Chergé the US, Chergé the US Treasury here in town.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
President Biden's ambassador has finished her term
and President Trump'sambassador has not yet started,
so this is the ad interim,dorothy.
So she called you on the Fridayright as you were getting on
the boat to Staten Island.

Speaker 4 (12:55):
Yes, she's deputy ambassador and now she's taking
over at the interim.
So I boarded the boat in StatenIsland and turned the other
boat and I came back.
Did you leave?

Speaker 1 (13:08):
your wife on staff.

Speaker 4 (13:09):
Yes, I did.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
Have an RSA.

Speaker 4 (13:12):
We had tickets for the Anyway.
So that's how we started, andthen the whole weekend we were
on the phone with the US missionamong the EU ambassadors.
We had a meeting of the EUambassadors Friday in the
evening, saturday in the evening.
We had a meeting of the EUambassadors Friday evening,
saturday evening.
There was a lot of consultationamong us what to do.
We even went to the US withsome amendments which were not

(13:35):
taken on board.
So we believe, well, we feltthat we needed more time also to
discuss with the US and maybeconvince them that a small
tweaks in the resolution wouldmake it easier for the EU to
vote for it.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Were these the same amendments that were then voted
on and Russia vetoed in themeeting, or were they?

Speaker 4 (13:59):
the same amendments.
These were the three amendmentsthat we proposed to the US
during the weekend.
France and UK were in the leadon that, so they talked directly
with the US and proposed thesethree amendments.
The US didn't accept thembecause they wanted to have a
lean resolution, as they'resaying, and that's how we

(14:20):
officially introduced theamendments on Saturday evening.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Well, I know you can't speak for other countries,
but perhaps the UK and the USwere talking about something
different.
It sounded like the UK wassaying that the US had proposed
this resolution on Fridaywithout consultations, meaning
there were no consultationsbefore Friday.
It came as a surprise to theother Security Council members.
Is that correct?
Absolutely surprised, right.
So that's what.
Perhaps it sounds like what shesaid, which was introduced on

(14:46):
Friday without consultations.
There were consultations overthe weekend, but the Europeans
at least felt that you take onboard the concerns of the region
involved.

Speaker 4 (15:09):
So we refused to say that that was enough
consultations.
We talked but we didn't reallyconsult.

Speaker 1 (15:16):
It felt a bit one-sided.
And was Ukraine, which isobviously not a Security Council
member, but is the interestedparty?
Was Ukraine a part of theseconsultations at all?
Or was it only their friendsand partners and allies on the
Security Council?

Speaker 4 (15:30):
I mean, we have two resolutions, one in GA and one
in Security Council, but the USresolution was the same.
So actually, yes, this was atthe end, security Council
resolution in its pure form, butof course we discussed with
Ukraine as well, and I think USdiscussed with Ukraine as well
over the weekend because it wasGA resolution as well.

Speaker 1 (15:51):
So because the US brought the same resolution to
the General Assembly.

Speaker 4 (15:54):
Yeah, it was the same text that was brought as a
General Assembly resolution andSecurity Council resolution,
which is pretty unique actually,but it's possible.

Speaker 1 (16:05):
Obviously, Ukraine's and the European Union's
amendments were not made.
Do you believe therecommendations were noted by
the US or did you feel that yourcase wasn't really heard?

Speaker 4 (16:16):
I think the US understood what we want.
They just felt I don't want tospeak for them and for their
arguments.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
But all of this was premised on the fact that you
can't speak for other countries.
It's more how you felt as amember of the Security Council
at the time.

Speaker 4 (16:29):
Well, we felt that because we had three amendments
For us.
It's different for each country, but for us, as Slovenia, one
was especially important andthat was the third amendment,
which was that when you call forpeace, for the end of conflict
and we call for peace in Ukraine, that it is in line with the

(16:50):
principles of the UN Charter.
This, for us, was really thekey amendment and in the General
Assembly it came in and even inthe Security Council, two
thirds of the members 10, 11members voted in favor of this
amendment.
However, Russia introduced aveto, so this amendment was not

(17:10):
accepted.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
This was almost a textbook case of, obviously, the
differences now between theveto on the Security Council and
the General Assembly, and itgets to the heart of the veto in
that these amendments did passin the General Assembly, where
there is no veto, but Russia wasable to veto them on the
Security Council.
I mean, obviously, securityCouncil reform is a bigger topic

(17:33):
, but does this really shine aspotlight on?

Speaker 4 (17:36):
all the issues, I think this veto on the amendment
speaking about the UN Charter.
I think it will be discussed,of course, in the General
Assembly within the next 10 days.
And it is a requirement thatevery veto needs to be explained
to the general membership, butit doesn't seem that the
permanent members have a problemwith those explanations.

(17:58):
I don't think that is really anobstacle to cast a veto an
obstacle to cast a veto.
But this veto really is, as yousaid, a shining example of how
one should not use veto.
I understand that the veto wasintroduced back then.
It made sense in order to keepthe big powers within the

(18:20):
organization and until it'schanged, it's there within the
organization and until it'schanged it's there.
But one would hope that it'sused for really crucial,
important issues, not to blockthe reference to the UN Charter
in the resolution.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
I mean there are layers and layers of irony,
because the very beginning ofthe UN Charter refers to
sovereign equality andterritorial integrity, and
that's what you were trying toget at this.
So you have them using theirveto to essentially veto the UN
Charter.
I mean, what does that meanlonger term?
Obviously it's too cumbersometo completely revise the Charter

(18:53):
, but does this advance thatmovement to revise the Security
Council?

Speaker 4 (18:59):
Of course the working group will discuss the veto and
this would be a very goodexample why there is a problem
with veto.
But we have to accept that aslong as it's there, it will be
there and it will be used.
So we have to think in theGeneral Assembly how to make it
harder for permanent members touse veto.

(19:21):
One is that they have toexplain it in the General
Assembly.
So what else can be done tomake it more difficult?
There was a French and Mexicaninitiative in the past that the
veto should use only in times ofhorrible crimes.
What is the reason, maybe, thatyou use it, that it cannot be
used when there is an issue ofhumanitarian catastrophes and so

(19:45):
on.
So I think we'll have toreflect how to get to the
permanent members that oneshould not use veto for the UN
Charter.
I mean, this is really.
It's absurd.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
It's very self-referential, I mean if you
were looking at it from aliterary term.
And then there's also somequestion beforehand if the UK or
France would veto if theamendments did not pass.
They did not.
They're both I think it's nottoo much to say very proud of
not having vetoed since 1989.
And I think that is part of it.
They want to stand on thatprinciple of not using the veto,

(20:21):
so they did not use it in thiscase.

Speaker 4 (20:23):
Yeah, I think it's good that they didn't use veto,
for several reasons.
First, of course, as you said,they are proud that they haven't
been using veto for 30 yearsnow.
Second, this was a solutionabout peace.
I don't think it's good to useveto for a solution that speaks
about peace.
Then, this is the firstresolution about war in Ukraine,
so, even if it's not a perfectone, the aim was a good one.

(20:46):
We accept that the aim ofresolution is a good one to
start talking about peace, tostart talking about the peace
between Russia and Ukraine andstop the war.
We accept the aim.
It's positive and it's changingdynamics, but this element was
missing.
I think that it's not up to me,but I think they made the right

(21:06):
choice France and UK not to beto it, and we don't want to go
into confrontation with theUnited States and Ukraine.
We want to work together as aregion where this war is.
We want to work with the US,russia, ukraine to find a
solution for this war.

Speaker 1 (21:25):
That's very clear.
And the consensus building.
Now there's typically moreconsensus building in the
General Assembly and there wasobviously amazing support a few
years ago with those votes of143 and 141 for Ukraine.
I know some people thought thatit was a bit risky to bring the
Ukraine resolution to theGeneral Assembly.

(21:45):
This time it still won, butwith fewer votes.
Does that matter in the end?
I mean there were morecountries that abstained and it
certainly revealed changes inalliances, a real realignment.
I mean I guess that's part ofthe point away, but is it worth
it to reveal that?

Speaker 4 (22:06):
that's part of the point away, but is it worth it
to reveal that when, together,ukraine and EU went into this
resolution, we didn't imaginethat there would be another
resolution proposed by our ally.
We were working on thisresolution with the United
States.
They were supposed to come as aco-sponsor of our resolution,
so this really really happenedovernight and was a huge

(22:26):
surprise.
So when we were reflecting, andof course, we left it to
Ukraine and they felt that theyneed to reconfirm the support
for their fight and we reallyreached out to all countries
engaged and that's why we wereconfident we were going to get
not 140 as maybe two years ago,but not that much less.

(22:51):
Now we got 93 votes, but thisis because we had two
resolutions and over the weekend, this new one, competing
resolutions.

Speaker 1 (23:02):
I had heard until then that all the partners, all
of Ukraine's partners, have beenworking on this, which implied
that it was the US.
And then, just over the weekend, we started to hear we meaning
those of us in the press poolwho aren't obviously on the
first round of emails in theSecurity Council that there was
a competing resolution.
I mean, were theredisagreements on the text of the

(23:25):
original draft that caused thissort of split and obviously
would have gotten more supportif the US and others had been
involved?
What were the disagreementsover?
You mean with the US?
Yeah, I mean.
Why did they not?
support this and come up with analternative which was very
stripped down.

Speaker 4 (23:43):
Yeah, because they have a different view now on the
whole crisis and they believethat our resolution is looking
back.
I think what Sergei Daffer wassaying in the General Assembly
our resolution is looking back,but their resolution American
resolution is looking aheadtoward peace, is looking ahead
toward peace.
The problem with thatresolution was for the US that

(24:06):
it condemns the Russian invasioninto Ukraine.
I think probably that was themain big problem that it pointed
figures to who is to be blamedand who started the war.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
And discusses the UN and sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

Speaker 4 (24:22):
Yes, Now, you know, because this happened over the
weekend, there were a lot ofcountries who didn't know what
to do and what is happening.
So the vote was on Monday.
And you know, when you don'tknow what's going on and it's
not your region, it's the safestis that you abstain.
That's why we got so manyabstentions and that's why I
think the support dropped to 93.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
Ah, that's interesting.
So some countries that youthought would vote for.
Perhaps they had voted twoyears ago and we should mention
there was no vote the two-yearanniversary last year because it
was right at the height of theGaza war.

Speaker 4 (24:56):
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (24:57):
So the countries that had supported it two years ago.
You expected this time upstateand you think it was simply
because of the two competingresolutions.
If that hadn't been the case,they would have voted again.

Speaker 4 (25:07):
We would have.
We've heard many more.
Yes, because it's prettylogical.
It was not enough time tounderstand to consult the
capitals.
This was vote in the morning,immediately at 10 on Monday.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
Right, so they didn't even have Monday morning.

Speaker 4 (25:22):
I mean, they couldn't even have their coffee and
discuss it over coffee in themorning with their team, and
then they saw that there is theUS draft and, of course, many
countries want to have goodrelations with the United States
and they saw that there is anissue, a problem.
You don't know exactly what'sgoing on, so you abstain and
you're safe.
I think that's what's happeningwith many countries.

(25:42):
That's why we are very happywith that.
We got 93 votes nevertheless.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
Oh, it's still a very strong showing because the
percentage is counted as thosepresident voting, so the
abstentions are sort of to theside.
It's still 93 to 18 is a prettypowerful showing.
Yeah, you know the same day andI don't believe you were there,
but I also attended an eventwhere there was a display of an
Iranian Shahid drone.
Of course, iran is denied howmuch this drone has played a

(26:10):
role in the Ukraine war, but itmade me think.
You know, russia made a recordnumber of drone strikes on
Ukraine on the war anniversary.
It also flew a drone into acontainment module at Chernobyl
at the start of the MunichSecurity Conference.
So do you feel that Russia isnow using these drone strikes
almost as much as a politicalstatement, as much as the damage

(26:33):
that they cause, that they'rechoosing these significant
anniversaries?

Speaker 4 (26:37):
It's obvious that Russia wants to increase the
pressure on Ukraine now when thenegotiations are about to start
.
I think this is also,psychologically, war on Ukraine,
demonstrating that they can bemuch more forceful than they
were in the past years.
We have seen, in the week ofthe anniversary, the largest

(26:59):
number of drone strikes in Idon't know how long.
I think the last year theattacks on even civilian
infrastructure was much higherthan the year before.
So yes, I think that they areincreasing the pressure so that
Ukraine is really becoming underpressure to start negotiating
and to come to the negotiatingtable as the weaker partner.

(27:23):
I think that's the aim of allthese strikes, apart from all
the damage that they're doing.

Speaker 1 (27:28):
I did want to ask you about the peace negotiations.
Obviously, Ukraine had beentrying to pursue its own track.
We're not really hearing aboutthat, the 10-point plan.
It seems to have moved toone-on-one negotiations between
the Trump administration andPutin.
I guess, both as a member ofthe Security Council and as a
European, what do you thinkabout the fact that so far

(27:50):
Ukraine, and certainly the EU,the UN, doesn't seem to be a
part of that negotiation track?

Speaker 4 (27:58):
That's how it started .
We don't believe this is how itcan continue.
This is the war in Europe.
It will be up to European Unionmostly European Union, of
course, and UK and otherEuropean countries to live with
the consequences of the war, torebuild Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to become amember of European Union.

(28:19):
European Union puts sanctionson Russia.
If there is any deal, probablywould want sanctions to be
lifted.
So we don't see other optionthan to be part of the
discussions.
And Ukraine, of course.
You cannot discuss the destinyof Ukraine without Ukraine
sitting at the table.
So our understanding is yes,maybe it started between Russia

(28:42):
and US.
Other topics might have beeninvolved as well in those
discussions, but at a laterstage I'm pretty sure it will
have to be discussions witheverybody involved.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
Well, actually you mentioned European sanctions.
There were a number of Europeanleaders who were just in Kiev
for the anniversary and aretalking about stepping up
sanctions on Russia at the sametime that the Trump
administration seems to berelieving or at least talking
about relieving some of thepressure on Russia, letting them

(29:13):
into the G7 and whatnot atleast discussing bringing that
as a talking point.
Is Europe trying to positionitself as counter to the US,
like if the Trump administrationrelieves some of the pressure
on Russia, brussels is going toincrease their pressure.

Speaker 4 (29:30):
I don't think we want to counter US.
We have our interests and wehave our view how this war
should end.
We want to continue to supportUkraine.
We just adopted an additionalpackage of sanctions on Monday,
I think they started talkingabout new package.
As long as there is noceasefire and serious talk about
end of the war, there is noreason for European Union to

(29:55):
lift the sanctions or to stopsupporting Ukraine.
So we believe that the twosides have to come to an
agreement.
So we believe that the twosides have to come to an
agreement and there is nosolution in Ukraine.
Surrendering to Russia A manconvinced against his will is
against you still, and thatapplies.

(30:16):
You cannot enforce a solutionto a nation against their will.
They fought for three years andthey lost ten thousands of
people, civilians and military.
You cannot force them to acceptsomething that they don't

(30:37):
believe is right.
It's going to be difficultdiscussions, but they have to be
accepted as a nation, asovereign nation, at the table,
otherwise there won't be asolution.
And of course, because ofUkraine, there are a lot of
security concerns in Europe aswell.
Especially the neighboringcountries of Russian Federation
are alarmed when you see that abig neighbor can invade such a

(31:00):
country as Ukraine, which is ahuge country, one of the biggest
in Europe, and what Russia cando to such a country as Ukraine,
which is a huge country, one ofthe biggest in Europe, and what
Russia can do to such a country.
And you have many, many smallercountries around Russia, and
this is raising securityconcerns in Europe and any deal
between Russia and Ukraine willhave to encompass also the
future security architecture inEurope.

(31:21):
There will need to be someguarantees how we live together,
europe and Russia, and we arenot in constant fear of being
attacked.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Well, it sounds like you're specifically referring to
the Baltics.
Even Poland, a larger country,slovenia, is a near neighborhood
.
So I guess you're saying all ofthe European countries would
need to be consulted, in otherwords, of the European countries
would need to be consulted inother ways on the European
architecture.
I mean, macron has been sayingfor a long time that Europe
needs its own European army asautonomous security.

(31:55):
Do you think that Europe needssomething in addition to or
alongside NATO?

Speaker 4 (31:59):
No, I hope finally this moment has dawned on Europe
I think we were seeing thiscoming that this transatlantic
alliance that we relied on forwhat?
80 years cannot be the onlysecurity provider for Europe
anymore.
I think that was coming for along time.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
So Macron has been saying I don't believe he's the
originator actually of the termstrategic.
He made the famous speech atthe Sorbonne on strategic
autonomy.
But I think actually theconcept actually had been
discussed even earlier.

Speaker 4 (32:35):
Yeah, but it was not.
We didn't do much.

Speaker 1 (32:38):
He popularized it.

Speaker 4 (32:40):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (32:40):
But it still hasn't been enacted.

Speaker 4 (32:42):
It hasn't been enacted.
And I think now it dawned onthe EU because also the US
administration is saying we'llnot provide security for Europe
anymore.
So I think next week the primeministers are meeting and
presidents are meeting inBrussels for an extraordinary
council meeting where I believethey will be discussing this

(33:03):
issue.
Of course, they will focus onUkraine, what the EU can do for
Ukraine, but it's also thebigger issue for EU.
What does it mean?
What is happening when we arelosing an ally?
And so what is happening withthe US?
What are our future relationswith the US?
And I think we'll have to lookoutside of this transatlantic
alliance or other globalalliances that this is my

(33:25):
personal view or other alliancesthat the EU should also focus
on, so that we are not so muchdependent on one and now, with
one changing dramatically viewson us, that we feel somehow in
shock.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Well, trump keeps focusing on the 2% figure, which
is a little bit simplisticbecause of course, it's how you
spend the money that counts.
Now, slovenia is not at the 2%.
I mean it's going to beexpensive across the board.
The UK is talking just, I think, yesterday about possibly
having to cut their foreign aidto pay for their increase, but
they're above 2%.
Your country is not yet at 2%.

(34:00):
I mean, do you have a plan,first of all, to get at or above
2%?
And have you I don't know haveyou projected the year when you
think that you would get to that?
I know you're not the defenseminister, I'm not.

Speaker 4 (34:11):
Yes, I'm not in Ljubljana.
I can just tell you that wehave a plan how to reach 2%.
The plan was that we reachuntil 2030.
I'm not sure how these newrequirements are influencing our
government, the reflections inour government.
I think we are 1.6 or somethingpercent at the moment, but it

(34:33):
is increasing.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
So currently the stated goal is to reach it by
2030.
For your government Discussionsor the thinking may be
modifying.

Speaker 4 (34:42):
Now I can't say that.
I don't know how much how thatis influencing now, but the
problem is that our GDP has beenraising in the past years and
as you raise, as the GDP israising, then also the money is
not only that you're increasingpercentage-wise, but it's also
because of the GDP increase.
No, that's true.

Speaker 1 (35:02):
Other people have pointed that out and, on the
other hand, because of the GDPincrease.
No, that's, two other peoplehave pointed that out and on the
other hand, if a country, youdon't have this problem,
fortunately.
But if a country's GDP goesdown all of a sudden, they reach
the 2%, not because they'vechanged their spending, so it's
not really a perfect benchmarkto use.
Then, if you have a separatealliance that the US is not a
part of, but is only Europe,would some countries have to

(35:24):
step up and fill roles that havetraditionally been filled by
the US and NATO?
I'm thinking particularly likeintelligence logistics?
You would still have a nuclearumbrella with.
France, would you have torealign?
What countries do Not justspend more, but maybe spend it
on different things is what I'mtrying to say.

Speaker 4 (35:41):
I don't think we're there yet.
I think these are thediscussions that will be coming.
We're still counting on NATO.
For us, the NATO is thealliance that we want to remain
part of.
We want to make it functional.
Of course, we'll talk veryopenly with the US.
What does it mean?
The messages that are comingfrom Washington?
What do they mean?

(36:01):
So I think this is still thebasic alliance, but within the
NATO, of course, to strengthenthe European wing, if you want.
Also to the commitments forfinancing or taking
responsibility for problems inEurope like Ukraine.
I think when President Macronwas in Washington, they were

(36:24):
talking about possibilities inthe border between Russia and
Ukraine.
So that's, I think, what nowdiscussions are.
I don't think we're there yetto have something completely
separate from NATO as long asthe US is part of NATO.
I think that's wherediscussions will continue.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
as the US is part of NATO, I think that's where
discussions will continue.
Just speaking of peacekeepingin Ukraine and Erbakan who said
he's willing to have Frenchtroops.
I don't know if there's beenany discussion in Brussels
between European capitals onEuropean peacekeepers more
broadly, and would they be thereunder a NATO flag, a UN flag?

(37:07):
Would these be UN peacekeepersor would they just be there on
their own under each country'sown flag?

Speaker 4 (37:14):
Well, first, if Europe is not at the table, then
it's very difficult to discussthat Europe would be sending any
troops there as peacekeepers.
That's why we are sayingnothing about Europe without
Europe.
So we hope that that's anotherreason why we should be at the

(37:35):
table when there will bediscussions about it.
I know that the presidents andprime ministers were talking
about this possibility, but Ithink it's too early.
We don't know whether therewill be peacekeepers, whether
there will be peace.
Of course, this is not peaceenforcement.
It will probably bepeacekeeping missions just
between the two countries.
I mean, this is way too early,but my understanding was that

(38:00):
the countries are ready toreflect on that option if this
will be part of the broaderagreement.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
Then there's also post-war reconstruction.
Again, this is very early days,the negotiations haven't even
started yet.
But there's this famousminerals deal which and I should
say for listeners that we'respeaking on Wednesday so we
really don't have any moredetails, they're murky On Friday
we may know more, if Zelenskyindeed does sign this on Friday

(38:30):
in Washington.
But some of the reporting we'veheard today said that proceeds
from minerals which, if Iunderstand correctly, would not
include current mining therewould be new projects would go
into a fund which, among things,might pay for Ukraine's
reconstruction.

(38:50):
And if that's true, the firstthing that hit me would be that
Ukraine was then paying for itsown reconstruction.
Post-war Europe until now hasbeen saying that frozen Russian
assets should be used to pay forreconstruction.
And if Ukraine uses its mineralwealth which is large but

(39:11):
finite we're not talking aboutrenewable resources here if they
use that for reconstruction,then it's almost like paying
reparations and paying for theirreconstruction.
So do Europeans have an opinionon how that post-war
reconstruction should befinanced?

Speaker 4 (39:27):
No, not that I'm aware.
I think the European Union willbe ready to help Ukraine, as we
were helping so far.
The European Union is stretchedas well.
We are seeing how electionsacross Europe are bringing votes
more and more to very populistpoliticians.

(39:54):
We just saw the results inGermany, but there are other
countries.
That's also linked to theUkrainian war and also maybe to
other wars as well.
The feeling of instability, thefeeling that money is going
elsewhere.
I think if Trump administrationis saying America first, I think

(40:15):
European Union starts sayinggradually also Europe first, and
then what will happen withUkraine?
Then you have an unstablecountry, destroyed country, with
people then moving outside.
So yes, I think we haveresponsibility and we committed
to help Ukraine, but we wouldexpect the whole international
community to help.
Of course we are counting onthe frozen Russian assets, but

(40:39):
that again might be part of thediscussions.
I'm pretty sure the Russianswould be asking those assets
back after the war.
It's a lot of questions up inthe air.
It all depends how negotiationswill go on.
If you don't talk about whostarted the war and who actually
did the damage in Ukraine, thenit's very difficult to say who

(40:59):
will do the reconstruction whowill?
pay for reparation if there isno aggressor at the peace talks.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
Well, and that is one reason this is left out of this
.
You kindly referred to the USresolution being quickly put
together, but in fact it wasthree sentences and it left all
of that out.
That has been in all of theother resolutions.
So, because that will have animpact on peace negotiations.
Also, we should point out, alot of the frozen Russian assets

(41:26):
are in Europe, so there isanother reason why Europe would
need to be part of thenegotiations.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
You cannot expect that.
You know Europe and Ukrainewill be at the table and then
Ukraine will give the territoryaway, EU will lift the sanctions
, EU will unfroze the assets.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
Ukraine pays for its own reconstruction with its
mineral wealth.

Speaker 4 (41:50):
I don't think that's really the recipe for a
successful negotiation.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
Well, what do you see as the risks inherent in that?

Speaker 4 (41:59):
I think there's a lot of risks.
But it's true what Americansare saying For three years we
were not successful.
It's true what Americans aresaying For three years we were
not successful.
It's true the Europe region, inthree years, was not able to
come with a serious proposal toend the conflict, which here in
the UN we heard from the globalsouth increasingly more and more

(42:19):
that why don't you push for aceasefire?
Why don't you do something tostop the killing?
So I think we have to take onourselves that in the past years
we continue to have the samenarrative, which didn't bring us
closer to peace but brought usin the situation that we are
today.
Then somebody else tookinitiative, with which we are
not very happy about.

(42:41):
But now I think we'll have toadjust.
We'll have to work with the USand try to find what is the way
forward so that it will actuallywork on the ground.

Speaker 1 (42:50):
Well, it appears that a lot of trust was put in the
sanctions and that Ukraine'sallies and partners were
counting on it basically to holdout long enough for the
sanctions to bite in Russia, forRussians to be unhappy enough
with the sanctions to startpushing for an end to the war.
Now, the other problem, ofcourse, with the sanctions is

(43:10):
they don't only impact Russia.
They've led to increasedinflation elsewhere as well, in
large and small countries.
I think most economists wouldsay a lot of those populous
waves are because of theinflation which the Russia's war
in Ukraine may be a part of.
So is part of it a lack of,perhaps, patience or staying

(43:31):
power to wait for the sanctionsto do their effect?
Or do you think, if there weremore time, that the sanctions
would have pushed Russia to thebargaining table on their own,
or do they need something else?

Speaker 4 (43:43):
Well, the fact is that after three years, the
sanctions are more bitingEuropean countries than they're
biting Russia.
Russia adjusted to thesanctions.
There's a lot of violation ofthe sanctions by other countries
, so Russia is getting a lot ofthings from Europe and US
through the third countries.
I don't know whether if itlasted longer it will have an

(44:05):
effect on Russia, but sanctionsin general, hoping that the
public will revolt against theleadership because of the
hardship of the sanctions.
I don't think it worked anyway.
So usually, not necessarily dothey work, and they didn't work
this time.
So they didn't force Russia tobe more flexible.

(44:26):
Start discussing peace inUkraine.
It just made lives in Europemore difficult.

Speaker 1 (44:32):
But it also impacts the global south certainly and
humanitarian aid.
But it seems there are at leasttwo reasons I can think of why
the global south will be gettingimpatient about the Ukraine war
, and one of them is the factthat they're also getting the
impacts of inflation and maybeless able to pay, and the other
simply being the time that theUN has to dedicate to subjects.
There are a lot of conflictsall over the world.

(44:54):
The last few years we've heardprimarily really about two,
maybe three.
We've heard about Ukraine, Gaza, and the UN does spend some
time on Sudan, although we don'thear about it as much in the
media.
So is there that impact too,that many, many of those
countries perhaps that havestated the general assembly want
the conversation to move on toissues that are more direct

(45:15):
concern outside of Europe?

Speaker 4 (45:17):
I think the messages from global side were coming
that they want discussion onpeace.
China formed this groupAlliance for in Ukraine and
there were the initiativesChinese, brazilian.
There was increasing pressurethat we should start discussing
peace in Ukraine, also becauseusually it's the Europe the ones

(45:39):
who is calling for ceasefire inother conflicts.
When there are conflicts, weusually come and we call for
ceasefire.
That's why it looked like adouble standard and it's in our
territory.
We don't pursue ceasefire, eventhough I can explain, but I
understand the logic.
Then it's the wheat fromUkraine.
We all learn now that greatamounts of global wheat was

(46:03):
coming from Ukraine and all of asudden that was blocked, which
increased the prices and madeproblems in many countries of
the South.
So that increased theuneasiness of the South with the
whole war.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
Foreign Minister Lavrov spent a lot of time
traveling, especially earlier inthe war, to the global South
and convincing African countries, or basically a PR campaign
around the time.
They were opposing the BlackSea Green Deal, which I would
have thought would have madethis very unpopular in the
Global South.

(46:36):
But in fact, actually Russiamay have made a mistake to walk
away from the Black Sea GreenDeal because they've lost a lot
of ships.

Speaker 4 (46:45):
So you know, there's that too mistake to walk away
from the Black Sea Green Dealbecause they've lost a lot of
ships.
So you know there's that too.
But on Russia, you know, at thebeginning when the war started,
it was so obvious violation ofthe Charter, violation of
territorial integrity of thecountries.
It was huge support across themembership of the UN, 141 and so
on, votes that were receivedfor Ukraine.

(47:06):
So that was very clear.
Of course, as the war progressedand you said, yes, with Russian
disinformation going aroundit's all West, it's because of
NATO, it's because of Russiansin the East, and so on then
diluted this, Even though whenwe were discussing now the last
resolution, we got the feelingthis is still there, the member

(47:27):
states still feel strongly aboutthe UN Charter and territorial
integrity.
That's how we got those votes,that's how we got two thirds of
the 11 votes in the SecurityCouncil on this amendment.
But, yes, because it lasted forthree years and because so much
funds from Europe went intoUkraine, so much attention, as

(47:49):
you said, went to Ukraine andbecause, unfortunately, we
showed some double standards onGaza, that all affected the
approach of the Global Southtoward the Ukrainian war.
We discussed this a lot, Alsowithin the EU.
Of course we have differentviews within the EU, but those
elements didn't help in ourrelationship with the global

(48:13):
south.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
Well, speaking of Gaza, I mean I did want to ask
you a little bit about yourthoughts on reconstruction in
Gaza.
I don't know how much this hasbeen discussed on the Security
Council, in consultations orbetween members.
Trump's recent statements onclearing out Gaza, the US taking

(48:35):
control, reconstruction,relocating Gazans, which also
seem to be very much counter tothe UN charter, very much
counter to the UN Charter.
And then I don't know if you'veseen yet the video last night,
the dancing yes, the beardedladies at the beach.
What, if anything, can the UNSecurity Council do to push a

(48:56):
reconstruction plan for Gazathat is, I guess, more in line
with the UN Charter?

Speaker 4 (49:01):
Yeah, I think we have to keep a cool head, because
these people really suffered somuch in the past year and a half
.
Gaza is completely destroyed.
Secretary General presented thereport saying the 53 billion
will be needed, or 50 for Gaza.
88% of schools destroyed,hospitals, everything.

(49:22):
We know that For time being, Ithink the focus is on ceasefire
to last.
So now we have ceasefire, weneed to all support the three
mediators so that they can bringthe ceasefire to a permanent
peace.
I know they're working veryhard Qatar and Egypt and the US

(49:43):
so that continues.
I think that's the focus.
You need permanent peace inorder to start discussing
reconstruction.
The European Union built manyhospitals several times.
A port in Gaza was built threetimes by the Dutch and destroyed
it each time by Israelis.
I think this time people wouldwant donors would want to see

(50:09):
permanent peace so that they canbe assured that if they invest
something, it will stay.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
What kind of security arrangements would be to be
made?
Or is it an actual peace deal?
Is it a document that would besigned?
Assurances from Israel, Aregional security deal?
What kind of assurances couldEuropean donors get that they
would make that investment againon a third or fourth time?
Something that they've alreadybuilt three or four times has

(50:37):
been destroyed.

Speaker 4 (50:38):
Well, definitely, it would not be only European
donors.
So, yes, we hope for the US tobe present there as well, and
primarily, the region, and theregion is having a summit on the
4th of March and we are allwaiting for their plan.
We should follow their guidance.
It seems that Egypt is workingon a plan of reconstruction, but

(50:59):
reconstruction doesn't meanjust what you rebuild.
It means also what will be thesecurity.
Who will take care of security?
Of course, it will need to bediscussed with Israel, because
they have to be okay withwhatever is going to be there,
because they have to be okaywith whatever is going to be
there, otherwise you don't havepeace.
So it's quite complicated, butthat would have who will be

(51:19):
governed in Gaza?
Where is Hamas in all thisstory?
All these need to be sorted outbefore you can really start
some serious reconstruction inGaza.
But I remind that Resolution ofthe Security Council 2735, the
famous one who called for theceasefire in Gaza from June last

(51:42):
year and which actually thenmaterialized itself into this
deal now on ceasefire.
That resolution is alsorejecting any forceful changing
of demographic composition ofGaza, meaning it's against any
relocation of Gazans.

Speaker 1 (52:02):
And that I know you weren't on the Security Council
this entire time, but thatresolution was after many, many
failed resolutions that theSecurity Council resolution came
with a lot of compromise too.
So that was the many, manyfailed resolutions that the
Security Council resolution camewith a lot of compromise too.

Speaker 4 (52:17):
That was a resolution , yes, which came from the US.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
From the US.
Yeah, we should say the US hadmade several resolutions.

Speaker 4 (52:23):
And then they brought this was the Biden plan.
And then they brought it to theCouncil and pretty much like
the Monday one, it was like takeit or leave it.
So there was not many changesmade in.
So that's what the US brought.
They said this is what we'renegotiating, this is what we
believe can go through.
So we all had ideas how itcould be improved.
But then at the end we said ifthere is hope for a ceasefire,

(52:47):
we go for it, and everybody, butI think Russia, voted in favor.

Speaker 1 (52:53):
Right, I believe it was.
Yeah, I believe it was 14 infavor and Russia abstained.
Abstained yes, there was aquestion whether Russia would
veto, in part simply because itwas a US draft resolution, but
they abstained.

Speaker 4 (53:05):
Yeah, they abstained also, and then they kept
reminding us that they abstainedbecause they didn't know what
resolution is about.
And now it's proved that it'snot implemented.
Well, in the end, hopefully itwas implemented this year in
January.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
Yeah, one difference between that and this Monday is
we're going on memory here, butthere had already been some work
on the Biden plan.
Obviously, secretary Blinkenhad been back and forth, back
and forth many times, whereaswe're really in the
preliminaries in Ukraine and theTrump administration has only
been there a few weeks.

(53:38):
Yeah, this is a resolution pathfor peace.
It's called yeah, the path forpeace resolution, which is three
sentences.

Speaker 4 (53:45):
It's supposed to be, you know, the carpet leading to
negotiations.
As I said, we think it's a goodaim and it's good to have
finally a resolution on Ukraineand directing us toward peace.
We hope there will be moreresolutions.
I hope in the next resolutions,the views of the region, which
is us, will be respected andtaken into account.

(54:07):
Like we do for Sudan, we listento Africans, Like on the case
of Gaza, we listen to Arab worldOn this, on the Ukraine, I
think we should be listening asEurope, and Europe being not
only EU but also UK.
I think we're pretty unitedhere.
So we hope the next resolutionsthat are coming they will be

(54:27):
not just the carpet, but it willbe more substance.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Well, I not just listen to you, but I would
imagine that in the case of Gaza, you would say that the region
should be the head seat at thetable.
Their views should berepresented before they do.
And in Africa there has beenthat phrase, I think it's.

Speaker 4 (54:51):
African solutions for African problems.

Speaker 1 (54:53):
Exactly African solutions for African problems.
Exactly African solutions forAfrican problems.
But actually, well, this isn'tSudan, but the DRC foreign
minister kind of brought thatinto question.
She did a media stakeoutrecently.
I mean, there are issuesbecause there are a number of
conflicts in Africa which do notget much coverage in the media
but are starting to feel reallyintractable.
And I know you had a meeting onSudan, you're coming for one.

(55:14):
Basically, I guess, is thereany outcome from that meeting
and what can the UN do?
Is it still Africa solutionsfor Africa problems or is there
something else that the UNshould be doing?

Speaker 4 (55:28):
No, I think, African solution for African problems.
We are accepting that and weare looking at African Union to
show us the guidance.
But, as member of SecurityCouncil, we believe that, yes,
we should listen to Africa, butwe have our own responsibility
as the council.
On Sudan, we've been looking.
It's going to be almost twoyears of the war horrible war

(55:50):
which is war against civilianswar, horrible war which is war
against civilians, as SpecialEnvoy President of the Lamambra
said this morning is war againstcivilians of two generals
fighting for power againstcivilians with their mercenaries
.
So two years we've been allwaiting for the initiative.
And there's a lot of initiatives.
You have African Union, igad,you have this American-US

(56:13):
initiative last year, alps Gold,you have all kinds.
So we believe that UN should bethe one coordinating the issues
, but also the one to be in thelead.
Un has been pushed away fromall negotiations.
It's not a good sign.
In Ukraine, un had no role.
In Gaza, un doesn't have anyrole in negotiations, In Africa

(56:35):
neither.
But in the past it was the UNwho was mediating, who was more
present in these peace processes.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
Is it the position of the African Union that they
should be leading it and the UNdoesn't have much of a role to
play, or does the African Union?

Speaker 4 (56:52):
They want to coordinate.
The problem is that the partiesdon't want.
Only Sudan really don't want toengage because they believe in
military solution.
But at least last year it was afeeling of competition of
mediators on Sudan.
Drc is, as you mentioned before, is becoming a huge problem,

(57:13):
very dangerous for escalationinto regional and that's really
escalated more recently.
I mean.

Speaker 1 (57:19):
Sudan is just two strong men who neither one wants
to give up.

Speaker 4 (57:23):
But when you look at it around, all the conflicts are
going in the very wrongdirection.
None of them is calming downthose who were kind of going in
the right direction, like DRC,un mission was closing down just
a year ago and now it exploded,with Rwanda being inside and

(57:45):
rebels progressing and dangerousof regional war.
Indeed, sudan exploded twoyears ago Before it was calming
down political mission of the UNthere In Sahel.
We were thrown out.
So we don't even know.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
Particularly the French.
They did not want the Europeans.
I'm just wondering if there'sanything that you think the UN
Security Council could dodifferently in Africa, or is it
really just being a backstop forthe African Union but letting
them come up with the strategies?

Speaker 4 (58:18):
We encourage today La Mambra to.
I think we support SpecialAdmiral La Mambra.
We see that he's the one whohas good access to both sides
and that he could bring theprocess forward.
So he's working closely withthe African Union.
Of course, the problem with theAfrican Union, the problem is
that Sudan, the status of Sudan,is frozen in the African Union

(58:42):
because of the martial law,because of the coup d'etat.
They went out of EGAD becausethey didn't have Greece, so
they're not even really a fullparty to the African Union.
But he got huge support todayto work with the African Union
and to try to start theproximity talks between the two

(59:04):
sides.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
Now, one thing that EUA, of course, does do a lot of
in Africa is the humanitarianaid through its office in
Nigeria and throughout Africa.
But how much are the cuts?
Obviously, the Trumpadministration looks like they
may cut all of USAID.
There's the statement yesterdayI think it was yesterday by the
UK saying they might need tocut humanitarian aid to pay for

(59:27):
increases in defense spending.
And even small percentages thatthey're talking about are
fractions amounts to billions ofdollars, and if other european
countries decide they need to dosomething similar, they're
they're all talking aboutincreasing their defense.
The money has to come fromsomewhere and, as we know,

(59:47):
taking it from social programscan have a big impact on
elections.
So so I mean, should Africa beconcerned that they may get a
dramatic decrease inhumanitarian aid because of
those budget cuts?

Speaker 4 (01:00:02):
I think we should all be concerned, because security
you don't defend only withdefense.
Your security you defend alsowith removing the causes for
conflict and in today's world,if something happens in another
part of the world, it affectsyou as well.
You cannot be isolated.
The lack of development, thepoverty, these are sources of

(01:00:24):
conflicts in Africa and otherregions, and that's why
development assistance was meantto remove the sources of the
conflicts, so that you don'thave conflict, you don't
conflicts, so that you don'thave conflict, you don't have
migration, you don't haverefugees, you don't have
pressure on Europe.
That's how we are investing inthis development.
It's not altruism, it'sactually helping us.

(01:00:47):
So I think there will need tobe a balance.
Of course you can put more ondefense, but that will not
necessarily make you safer.
But of course I understand whywe are doing it because of
Ukraine.
When we saw what happened toUkraine, huge country and yet

(01:01:08):
attacked for years.
We are all watching and nowthey are pressured to negotiate.
Russia is closed.
That's why there is this, as Italked at the beginning, the
feel that there is a need inthere.
We feel the need to invest morein defense so that we'll be
more ready and it will bedeterrent toward Russia so that
they will not, or anybody else,so that they will not attack us.

(01:01:29):
But I agree this is verysensitive and I don't know what
is my government's position yet.
I don't think we are going toreduce development decisions.
We are not as huge as the UKbut still we are growing,
emerging donor, increasing ourfunds.
We increased for UNRWAsignificantly in the past year.

(01:01:50):
We are increasing for WFP,world Food Programme, for ICRC
and other humanitarianorganisations quite
significantly in the past fewyears.
So I don't think we're going toreduce.
I don't think we'll be one ofthose, but personally I believe
that it's very tricky to reducedevelopment aid because it can
come back as a boomerang if youhave all of a sudden conflicts

(01:02:14):
all over the other continentswhich definitely will affect you
.
It's one world, it's one globalworld and you cannot isolate
yourself from conflicts outside,and that goes for the US as
well.
I don't want to preach to the US.
I can talk for Europe, but youcannot isolate In one or the

(01:02:35):
other way.
It can come back and it was fora reason that the US was
investing so much in thedevelopment of the rest of the
world.
This is also the responsibilityas a global main power, and if
the US removes from that role,there are others who might step
in.
The same goes for the UN andinfluencing the UN.

(01:02:59):
If the US would not find the UNinteresting, there might be
other powers who are payingalmost as much to the regular
budget as US who can step in.

Speaker 1 (01:03:13):
Well, famously, china has just reached 20%.
The US pays 22%.
Yes, so we're talking aboutalmost an equal portion of the
budget.

Speaker 4 (01:03:22):
Yeah, for regular budget Of the regular budget,
because the US gives a lot forthese voluntary contributions.

Speaker 1 (01:03:27):
The World Food Program is almost entirely the
US.

Speaker 4 (01:03:31):
And it's felt already ?
Yes, and it's felt already.
I hear that you know like 70percent of the food in Congo,
DRC, is being from the US funds.
There were some vaccinationsthat were done by US funds.

Speaker 1 (01:03:43):
Well, in fact you see on every bag of food USAID, so
the locals who work with it knowthat it's coming from the US.
So what you're saying is thatthis humanitarian aid helps
foster peace and security.

Speaker 4 (01:04:02):
It removes the causes of conflicts because it helps
with the development.
If people see progress, theywill not fight.
People fight because of poverty.
Usually that's the reason.
If you are poor and you havenothing to lose, then you get.

(01:04:23):
For instance, in Sahel, theonly employer who can provide
jobs are these terroristorganizations and groups in Mali
.
So you have young boys, nothingto do, no job, no everything.
And then you have theseterrorist organizations or
linked to ISIS or whoever whohave funds and give them job.
And so if you don't havedevelopment, then you have

(01:04:45):
somebody else who can come inand makes you unsafe and safe.

Speaker 1 (01:04:56):
And the irony is, of course, many of the populist
political parties that opposeimmigration also oppose foreign
aid.
So there is sort of a conflictthere and that's one boomerang.
There's one that I meant to askyou this earlier, so this will
be my last one.
But there's one other boomerang, which is another focus of the
UN is nuclear non-proliferation.
But many countries now see whathappened to Ukraine, which gave

(01:05:17):
up its nuclear weapons.
Which is another focus of theUN is nuclear nonproliferation.
But many countries now see whathappened to Ukraine, which gave
up its nuclear weapons, and theimpact that has had, and
several have started saying thatperhaps they should have
nuclear programs or developingnuclear weapons.
And at the same time Russia hasblocked weapons inspections in
North Korea, which is now asupporter of its war effort in
Ukraine.

(01:05:37):
Is there a risk, as the worldbecomes a more dangerous place,
of backtracking on the nuclearnonproliferation which has been
such a focus at the UN?

Speaker 4 (01:05:47):
I think the world is already a more dangerous place
with the number of conflicts.
Icrc is telling us that thereare 120 conflicts around the
world.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
I thought it was 50-something, I heard it had
been 20.
But they're talking, of course,conflicts within states, not
just between states.

Speaker 4 (01:06:02):
Yeah, I also heard these two numbers.
In any case, it's a lot and thelargest number since, I guess,
the Second World War.
So we're already living in amore dangerous world.
We are living in a moredangerous world.
We are living in more dangerousEurope, as we see, if there is
a need that we increase defensebudgets, it means that we are
not as safe as we thought wewere before.
Now with Ukraine a very goodpoint, of course, ukraine had

(01:06:24):
nuclear weapons.
Had they kept them, probablyRussia would not attack them.
When they gave them away, theygot guarantees and where are
they.
So, yes, that doesn't work wellwith Iran and Korea to see now
these weapons as the way toprotect themselves.
So it's going to be a difficultyear on Iran, I think because

(01:06:48):
of the sanctions issue withJCPOA, this agreement that was
done to remove the sanctions ifIran follows the nuclearization
process.
Today, this year, thisagreement expires and it's the
last time when you can bringback the sanctions if the
Security Council establish thatIran continues with nuclear

(01:07:10):
weapons program.

Speaker 1 (01:07:12):
But it did occur to me.
It might not be a completecoincidence that we're looking
at the Shahid drone was beingdisplayed at the UN at a time
where Iran is back in the newsin terms of sanctions.

Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
Yeah, so that means another tension is going to come
.
Yes, I think we're alreadyliving in a dangerous world.

Speaker 1 (01:07:31):
Well, I also wondered about proliferation and that
obviously North Korea and Iranmight look at Ukraine and be
like you know, maybe we shoulddouble down.
But even other countries mightbe saying to themselves the two
obvious examples are Ukraine andSouth Korea that can we count
on someone else's nuclearumbrella?

(01:07:51):
So there's the security aspectand even the fact that Russia
has also gained quite a lot.
I mean, their war might havegone very differently.
I had real stretch of theimagination to say they were not
a nuclear power, but in otherwords the bargaining chip that
you have as a nuclear power,whether those groups that work
on nuclear nonproliferationshould adapt.

Speaker 4 (01:08:12):
So in that sense, maybe this rapprochement between
US and Russia is not such a badthing, because it's the
responsibility of the nuclearpowers to prevent proliferation.
They have the mainresponsibility.
And I think it's positive whatI heard, that there was an
initiative, an idea to reducenuclear arsenal or to reduce

(01:08:35):
some weapons by half or spendingfor weapons by half.
So it seems there arediscussing ways how to control
the weapons programs and this ispositive.
So if something's coming out ofthis trying to solve the
Ukrainian war and getting moreknown relations with Russia is
that then you can start this andyou have to bring China in as

(01:08:56):
well, but we're a long way fromthe SALT treaties.
We're a long way from actual weare, but you need to have a
dialogue, then you need to talkto come to something.
So if these three countriesstart discussing these issues
and they have responsibility toprevent and interest as well to
prevent further proliferation ofnuclear weapons, Well, that's a
great note to end on.

Speaker 1 (01:09:17):
Thank you so much for visiting us today in the
Delegate Salons.
Mr Ambassador, Thank you forbeing our guest.

Speaker 4 (01:09:23):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:09:24):
On Monday night, Frank and I saw the display of
an Iranian Shahid drone.
The midnight sky black dronewas bigger than I had imagined.
You'll find photos and videosand our social media links in
the show notes.
According to the eventorganizers, Ukraine forces
downed the drone.
It was then transported fromUkraine to Poland, where the

(01:09:45):
inert drone was then flown on aPolish Air Force jet to Joint
Base Andrews in Maryland fordisplay to select audiences,
including UN diplomats, on thethird anniversary of Russia's
full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
I'll let the remarks by PolishForeign Minister Wroclaw
Sikorski tell you the rest ofthe story.

Speaker 2 (01:10:16):
Thanks, mark.
As you said, there is a debateat the Security Council where I
am going to represent theEuropean Union as the presidency
, so I will depart.
But I just want to confirm whatyou said, namely I have

(01:10:37):
personally been lied to by anIranian ambassador that Iran
does not send Shahed drones toRussia.
Here is the evidence.

(01:10:57):
This is proof that they lie,because this was shot down in
Ukraine, it was moved across theborder into Poland and brought
directly to the United States.
If they lie about this, they ofcourse, can lie about
everything else.
And the Chernobyl strike isparticularly significant because
we know what one of ourproblems with Iran is their

(01:11:18):
nuclear program and thesuspicions that we have that
they want to enrich, to have amilitary program.
Well, the Islamic Republic isalready threatening Europe in
the nuclear field by allowingRussia to shoot these things

(01:11:38):
into Ukraine.
Thank God, the outer ceiling ofthe Chernobyl nuclear power
plant activated the warhead andthe warhead exploded before
hitting the sarcophagus, butlast time radiation was emitted

(01:12:00):
from the plant, it endangeredhalf of Europe.
So this is what theRussian-Iranian axis of chaos is
already producing.
It is endangering both Israelisand Europeans by exporting this
indiscriminate technology.

(01:12:22):
There is one other aspect that Iwant to mention.
We are here on the thirdanniversary of Russia's full
scale invasion of Ukraine.
Before that day, putin thoughthe had a first-class army
Frankly, we thought that he hada first-class army and then,

(01:12:43):
when his attempt to take Kiev inthree days failed, he had to
beg the leaders of Iran andNorth Korea for all the
ammunition and for deadly butactually not that sophisticated
drones.
This is proof that the Russianwar effort depends on the help

(01:13:08):
of rogue regimes, and this isone more reason why we should be
steadfast in our support forUkraine and steadfast in our
condemnations of the Russianinvasion of Ukraine at the
Security Council.
I hope the people of Iran seethat we have proof of the

(01:13:31):
malfeasance of their government.
The Polish ambassador in Tehranwas summoned to the foreign
ministry this morning to protestmy words put in the Wall Street
Journal about this drug.
I dare to say that this provesthat Russia and Iran have a
military relationship.

(01:13:52):
They claim no, it's not amilitary relationship.
We just sell it for money.
Really, it's not a militaryrelationship.
What is it?
A toy, a piece of civilianmerchandise?

Speaker 3 (01:14:05):
No.

Speaker 2 (01:14:05):
Iran cannot escape responsibility for exporting
thousands of these things toUkraine, to Russia, and causing
thousands of people to losetheir lives and homes to this
weapon.
Iran lies, iran is guilty andIran cannot expect our sympathy

(01:14:26):
when we take measures to preventthis from occurring in the
future.

Speaker 3 (01:14:48):
Thank you, our listeners, who we hope are
sufficiently edified to clamorfor more of the same.
Do drop in for a weekly episodeon Thursday, or from time to
time if we're on the road, forspecial events, in which case
there'll be a bonus episode.
Subscribe wherever you listento podcasts and, if you like
what you've heard, please take amoment to rate or review the
show, as it helps others whoshare your abiding interest in

(01:15:09):
world affairs to find their wayto the Delegates Lounge.
You can connect with us on manypopular social media platforms
or reach out to us directly atinfothedelicatesloungecom.
We're a small team so we can'trespond to every message, but we
will read them.
Our show this week was writtenand produced by the host and by
yours truly executive producer,frank Radford.
Until next time, keep calm andcurious.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Slovenia’s Ambassador Pulls Back the Curtain on a Surprise Act at the UN

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Slovenia’s Ambassador Pulls Back the Curtain on a Surprise Act at the UN

Crime Junkie