October 5, 2023 • 48 mins
This episode brings you a fascinating discussion that challenges you to rethink your understanding of the crisis between Ukraine and Russia. Featuring our esteemed guests, Oleksandra Matviichuk, a human rights war crimes investigator, and Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group, we shed light on the importance of shifting the narrative from 'helping Ukraine not to fail' to 'helping Ukraine win fast'. Oleksandra leader of the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties, unveils the chilling reality of Russia's use of war crimes as a strategy. She underscores the urgency for an autonomous judiciary and advocates for a special tribunal to bring Vladimir Putin to justice.
And our discussion also navigates the treacherous waters of power politics within the United Nations Security Council. Richard offers a unique lens to understand the predicaments the UN faces. We also examine the pressing need for UN reform, and the legitimacy of Russia's claim to the Soviet seat. Join us as we explore the broader implications of the Ukraine-Russia conflict on the global stage, Russia's enduring impunity, and the desperate need to shatter this cycle. This conversation is certain to provoke thought and foster a deeper understanding of the predicament at hand.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (00:00):
I think people start more and more
understand that we have to set acommon goal, Because when large
scale envisions started, thecivilized world told let's help
Ukraine not to fail.
But this is a time to changethis narrative to another one.
Let's help Ukraine to win fast.
Richard Gowan (00:20):
He's now having to deal with the fallout of
Russia's war on Ukraine, buthe's also, I think, quite
obsessed with the fact thatthere are big trends in the
world, like the rise ofartificial intelligence, big
breakthroughs in biotechnology,the rapid worsening of climate
change, and the UN system justisn't designed to deal with this
(00:41):
new generation of challenges.
Dana Lewis (00:48):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, just in thenews that Russia hit a village
called Groza in northeasternUkraine.
It's a crime, says PresidentZelensky.
The target was a Ukrainian foodshop.
Dozens killed Ukrainians,including a six year old boy,
(01:08):
were attending a memorialservice.
On Backstory, we speak to humanrights war crimes investigator
Alexandra Matvichak, who headsthe Ukrainian Center for Civil
Liberties, which was awarded theNobel Peace Prize.
And why can't the UnitedNations stop this war?
Richard Gowan from theInternational Crisis Group is
(01:31):
based at the UN and says theSecurity Council, paralyzed by
Chinese and Russian vetoes,won't soon be reformed, and
that's a problem.
The UN is complicated, but thatreflects the divided,
dysfunctional world in which welive.
Alexandra Matvichak headsUkraine Center for Civil
(01:55):
Liberties and was awarded theNobel Peace Prize, along with
Memorial, the largest humanrights organization in Russia.
In this week she's beenspeaking at the Warsaw Security
Forum.
Alexandra, first of all,welcome.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (02:10):
And.
Dana Lewis (02:11):
I understand.
Your message is that as long asUkraine is vulnerable, so is
all of Europe's security.
Is that message something thatpeople accept?
Do you think?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (02:24):
I think people start more and more
understand that we have to set acommon goal, because when large
scale envisions started, thecivilized world told let's help
Ukraine not to fail.
But this is a time to changethis narrative to another one
let's help Ukraine to win fast.
There is a huge differencesbetween let's help Ukraine not
(02:47):
to fail and let's help Ukraineto win fast, and we can measure
these differences practically intypes of weapons, in speed of
decisions and gravity ofsanctions.
Dana Lewis (03:00):
You keep talking about weapons, and I understand
why, because how do you eject anaggressor without being able to
fight back and without enoughguns, without enough artillery?
But as a human rights personwho's investigated war crimes,
does it leave you uncomfortable,this constant push and call for
(03:21):
more guns, more bullets, morefighting to get the Russians out
?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (03:26):
We found the dead bodies of civilians
with hand ties under their feet.
We found the dead bodies ofcivilians with hand ties under
their back, kettered around thestreets until liberation of
Butcher.
We found the dead bodies ofcivilians in the gardens of
their own households.
We found dead bodies ofcivilians in smugglers graves
men, women, children.
(03:48):
These people have no arms.
Russians killed unarmed, andthat is why the truth is that we
need weapons in order to defendourselves, because, as a human
rights lawyer, for the currentmoment I have no legal
instrument how to stop Russianatrocities.
But I do believe that it'stemporary, that we will restore
(04:11):
international order, we willestablish special tribunal on
aggression and we willdemonstrate justice.
Dana Lewis (04:19):
So you said in the past that war crimes are just
not a product of the conflict ornot something that takes place
within the conflict, but morethan that, you say these crimes
are a tactic by Russia.
Can you explain that?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (04:40):
Russia uses war crimes as a method of
warfare.
Russia attempts to breakpeople's resistance and occupy
Ukraine by the tool which I callthe immense pain on civilian
population.
We document this pain.
This is the constant policy ofRussian state.
(05:01):
Russia deliberately destroyedresidential buildings, schools,
churches, hospitals, attackevacuation corridors, managed
federation camps system,organized forcible deportations,
commit murders, tortures, rapes, abductions and other kinds of
offenses against civilians.
Dana Lewis (05:23):
Tell me within that you've called for the swift
creation of a special tribunalto try Vladimir Putin.
President Putin, are you stillcalling for that and are you
getting any support for that?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (05:38):
We face with accountability gap, and one
dimension of thisaccountability gap is in that
fact that there is nointernational court who can
persecute Putin and toppolitical leadership and high
military command for the crimeof aggression, just for their
leadership decision to initiate,to plan and to start this war
(06:00):
and all the atrocities which wedocumented.
It's result of this leadershipdecision.
That is why, if we want to stopaggressive war in our world, we
have to persecute people whomake such kind of decisions, and
this means that we need toestablish a special tribunal and
hold them accountable.
(06:21):
The problem is that when Ispeak with political leaderships
of different countries, I sawthat they still look into the
world through the Prisma ofNurevik trial, where Nazi war
criminals were tried, but onlyafter Nazi regime had collapsed.
But we live in new century.
We must move further.
Justice must be independent ofthe magnitude of Putin's regime
(06:46):
power.
There is no necessity to waitwhen and how this war will end.
If someone commit crime ofaggression, then someone has to
be punished.
Dana Lewis (06:57):
I guess the problem is, if you punish President
Putin and have a tribunal tryingPutin and his inner circle,
which is a very large circle,includes members of parliament,
media there's a lot of supportfor this war within Russia when
do you stop?
I mean, where do you stop atwho you prosecute?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (07:19):
This is not just a war of one man.
This is a war of Russian nation.
And the problem is thatmajority of Russians still see
their glory in the worstpossible restoration of Russian
power.
They really think they have aright to invade in other
countries, to kill people thereand to erode their identity.
(07:41):
And the roots of the problem isa long lasting impunity which
Russia enjoyed for decades,because Russian troops commit
horrible war crimes in Chichinya, in Moldova, in Georgia, in
Malia, in Syria, in Libya, inother countries of the world,
and they have never beenpunished.
We must break the circle ofimpunity.
(08:02):
We must demonstrate justice,not just for Ukrainians, but to
prevent another Russian attackto the next country.
Dana Lewis (08:12):
You said that this is not a war between two
countries, but a war between twosystems Authoritarianism
quoting you, authoritarianismand democracy.
Putin is trying to prove thatdemocracy, the rule of law and
freedom are fake values becausethey do not protect anyone and
if the international order isnot restored in the near future,
(08:33):
it will have long-term negativeconsequences for the
development of the world.
So that's very heady stuff.
I mean, you paint theUkraine-Russia conflict as a
worldwide struggle now, and doyou think that people accept
that, or do they look at yourargument with quite a bit of
(08:55):
skepticism?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (08:57):
Let's remind how this large-scale
invasion started.
Russia and China made astatement and presented their
vision to the new world order,and then Putin started
large-scale invasion.
And with this war, putin triedto convene that country with a
strong military potential, andnuclear weapons can break
(09:20):
international order, can dictatethe rules of the game to entire
international community andeven forceably changed
international recognized borders.
And if Putin succeed, it willencourage another leaders in the
world to do the same and wewill find ourselves in the
(09:41):
future which will be dangerousfor everyone, without any
exceptions.
And that is why it's soimportant to help Ukraine to win
fast, to demonstrate thatdemocracy can defend itself and
the international order has tobe restored.
Dana Lewis (10:00):
I agree with you.
So let me tell you where I'mcoming from, because I watch
Russian media and I listen tothe Russian lawmakers, and I've
seen President Putin's war inChechnya and then in Georgia,
and then his struggles inUkraine that have gone on for a
long time, trying to controlUkrainians and trying to
dominate Ukraine, and then theirthreats to the Baltics and then
(10:22):
their threats to Poland.
So how do you get Americans,though, to understand that they
don't see it as a broaderconflict, as you do.
They just see it as a lot ofmoney going to Ukraine.
What's the point?
We should be supportingAmericans.
Back home.
You hear this growing argumentfrom the Republican Party.
(10:44):
You've seen changes in therecent spending bill, where they
eliminated the Ukraineassistance from that bill in
order to pass it, and then wesaw the explosion in the house,
where they lost Speaker McCarthy, and now the Republican Party
is in chaos, as it normally isanyway.
But how do you get, how do youde-politicize this in America,
(11:09):
and how do you get Americans tounderstand this conflict is
important to them?
Oleksandra Matviichu (11:14):
Ukrainians are fighting not just for
ourselves.
We are fighting for theinternational order which was
established after the SecondWorld War, which means that we
are preventing the Third One.
We are dying just to preventthe Third One World War, just to
provide a chance to live in aworld where human rights
(11:41):
guarantees and security aredependent on international
system.
I have no magic stick, butmaybe I will tell two things.
First, ukrainians are fightingnot just for ourselves.
We are fighting for theinternational order which was
(12:04):
established after the SecondWorld War, which means that with
our fight we are preventing theThird One.
And second, there are a lot ofthings which have no limitation
in national borders.
Maybe we are far from eachother through geographic
(12:25):
perspective, but we are veryclose in values and human
solidarity is such a thing whichhave no limitation in national
borders.
Russians commit horribleatrocities in Ukraine and it has
to be stopped, because if wewill not be able to stop Putin
(12:46):
in Ukraine, he will go further.
Dana Lewis (12:50):
And you believe that that's not just threats or
that's not an exaggeration, butit's not, do you?
Really believe when you talk toand you travel a lot through
Europe and you talk to a lot ofdifferent European leaders.
Is the fear helpable?
Is the fear real when you talkto leaders in the Baltics and
(13:14):
Lithuania and Latvia, estonia,poland.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (13:16):
But it's not my thoughts, it's words of
Putin.
Putin told that collapse ofSoviet Union it was the main
geopolitical catastrophe on thefirst century.
Putin told that values ofmodern civilization like
democracy, rule of law and humanrights are fake values.
(13:38):
Putin declared the war not justto Ukraine.
He declared this war todemocracy.
Dana Lewis (13:49):
And you believe that the Russians will just not end
with the four areas in easternUkraine, but they will push
further towards Odessa?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (13:59):
No, I can't tell you.
Dana Lewis (14:01):
They'll just keep going, and then eventually
beyond Ukraine's borders as well, if they can.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (14:06):
I will tell you two comments on this
regard.
First, this war started not inFebruary 2022, but in February
2014, when Ukraine obtained thechance for the quick democratic
transition after the collapse ofthe authoritarian regime due to
the revolution of dignity.
(14:27):
And in order to stop us on thisway, putin started this war.
He occupied Crimea and part ofLugansk and Donetsk region and
for all eight years, ukraine hadno possibility to return the
territories back and to releasepeople who lived there.
How Putin used these eightyears he built a powerful
(14:50):
military base in Crimea, heretreated, he regrouped and he
started a new attack, becausethe Empire has a center and has
no borders.
When the Empire has energy, theEmpire always expanded.
And now I live in here and mynative city, like thousands of
other Ukrainian cities, areconstantly being shelled by
(15:12):
Russian rockets who were sentfrom this new military base
which was created in last years.
So it's with the ball thatPutin will stop, only when he
will be stopped.
And second thing, which is veryimportant, to understand the
roots of this war, because Putingoverned the country not just
(15:33):
with repression and censorship,but with a special social
contract between Kremlin's eliteand majority of Russian people.
And the problem is that even inthe 21st century, majority of
Russian people see their gloryas a basis for the social
contract in a forciblerestoration of Russian Empire.
(15:56):
Even Putin occupied Crimea.
According to the sociologicalsurvey, 94% of Russians
supported this forcibleoccupation, and this means that
Putin eye and trap.
He has always demonstrated newand new territorial achievement
to make the Russians great, andthis means that if he stopped
(16:22):
this war, he will lost his power.
Dana Lewis (16:27):
Last question to you .
You speak about democracy andthe liberal West.
You obviously believe thatdemocracy is key to civil
society, and first of all, doyou agree with that?
And second of all, on thatbasis, then, does President
Zelensky not have to holdelections next spring?
(16:48):
Because there's a big questionabout whether the elections will
go forward or not?
And if he does hold them, isthat also a problem?
Because how do you hold a fairand democratic election in the
middle of a war zone?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (17:02):
Two points from this question.
First, the problem is not justin the fact that in
authoritarian countries thefreedom is wrinkled into the
size of the prison cell.
The problem is that even inwell-developed democracies,
people start to forget the realmeaning of freedom because they
(17:24):
inherited the system ofdemocracy and the rule of law of
their parents.
They have never fought for thissystem and that is why they
start to take this for granted.
And that is why they start totake this system for granted,
Because they can easily exchangetheir own freedoms for
(17:46):
economical benefits, for somelike promises of security, or
for their own comfort.
But the truth is that freedomcan't be taken for granted.
It's a value which not existsonce and forever.
(18:06):
Every day you have to make achoice and that is why it's so
important that Ukrainians showto the whole world that value of
democracy, rule of law andfreedom.
You have to defend such values.
(18:27):
You haven't got to compromisewith aggressors.
And second, about elections weneed election, not just
imitation process, which Russiawill halt next year, for example
Because elections is not justone day when you put bulletin to
the box.
It's a whole process and thereare a lot of practical questions
(18:54):
how to ensure this wholeprocess during the large-scale
war.
I can name only several of themhow to provide ability to 7.5
million refugees in differentcountries to vote.
How to provide abilities topeople from occupied territories
to vote.
How to secure the whole processwhen we have the settlements
(19:15):
and cities where internationalobservers are not present
because they are afraid to gothere.
And also it's very importantquestion After 24 February,
hundreds of thousands of peoplejoined Ukraine's armed forces.
Yesterday it was people fromdifferent peaceful professions,
(19:37):
but now they are with weapons intheir arms, start to defend
their future and peaceful anddemocratic future for their
children, and they will bedeprived from the electoral
process.
It can provide attention,because these people sacrifice
(19:57):
their life for this country andthey have no right to take part
in the elections.
I don't mention about money howto find money for electoral
process.
I don't mention about all ofother things, like constitution
of Ukraine, like a lot of otherconstitutions don't provide a
possibility to conduct electionduring martial law.
(20:19):
So this means that we have alot of practical problems which
are real and we have to solvethis problem and only then
conduct elections.
Without solving this problem,it will be just imitation
process and this means that ifthis war will last in longer, we
(20:43):
have to do somethingunbelievable and to conduct the
fair election in accordance ofCopenhagen international
principle during the large scalewar.
Dana Lewis (20:58):
It sounds like you would favor a delay.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (21:02):
I think that for current moment, we are
not prepared to election.
I want not just calling forelection, I want to call for
solving these problems.
Without this solution, it willbe not election which provide
(21:24):
people the real right to vote.
Dana Lewis (21:28):
Alexander Mitvichuk, you've been very generous with
your time.
It's been difficult to trackyou down over these many months
and I'm glad to finally meet youand talk to you and have a
chance to hear your views.
And thank you so much.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (21:41):
I'm very grateful and I'm very grateful
for your patience.
Dana Lewis (21:50):
Richard Gowen is with the International Crisis
Group and he's assigned to theUnited Nations.
He is the director of the UNfor the International Crisis
Group, so I get that right.
The International Crisis Groupis an independent organization
which we have done interviewswith them many times and they
have some great people, but theideas are there, working behind
(22:14):
the scenes to prevent wars andbuilding a more peaceful world.
Richard set me straight.
Is that it?
Richard Gowan (22:22):
That's absolutely right.
We have colleagues all aroundthe world, from Venezuela to
Afghanistan, on the groundwatching conflicts unfold.
My job is to act as a liaisonbetween them and the United
Nations in New York.
Dana Lewis (22:41):
All you need to do is get the UN doing the same
thing, working to prevent crisesaround the world, because,
while they may work at it, itwould seem in this day and age
they're not having a lot ofsuccess.
Richard Gowan (22:54):
Well, I think the role of the UN is sometimes
underestimated and we have toremember that in a place like
Afghanistan.
Since the fall of Kabul, it'sreally only been UN agencies
that have stayed behind to helpthe suffering and avoid an even
greater humanitarian crisis.
(23:15):
But it is true that, due topower politics in the Security
Council, we are seeing the UNstruggling, obviously with
Russia's aggression againstUkraine, but also with conflicts
in other regions like the Sahelor the Horn of Africa.
Dana Lewis (23:35):
Okay.
So a lot of people say thatit's this paralysis there,
especially at not necessarily inthe General Assembly, but at
the Security Council.
They can't do anything.
But even as I say that,suddenly they have just approved
taking action to restore orderin Haiti, so it's probably one
(23:58):
of the few things that theSecurity Council has moved
forward on, shall I say thisyear.
Richard Gowan (24:07):
It's certainly a good step forward for the
Council that there is agreementon Haiti, and it's taken a long
time for the Council to approvean intervention for Haiti, but
actually the main obstacles havenot been political.
It's simply because it's a veryhard case and many countries
(24:29):
will worry of sendingpeacekeepers.
I think I would emphasize thatthe Council has not innovated on
many other crises this year,but it has kept on rolling over
the mandates for peacekeepingoperations in places like South
Sudan and the Central AfricanRepublic, so there is a degree
(24:50):
of cooperation on crises thatdon't dominate the news so much.
However, we have seen somefairly significant breakdowns,
primarily between the West andthe Russians, over other topics,
like humanitarian aid to Syriaor the situation in Mali, and I
think diplomats are feelingpretty worn down.
(25:12):
They are finding it very hardto work with the Russians now in
New York, and so even a smallsuccess like the mandate for
Haiti is a bit of an uplift forthem.
Dana Lewis (25:27):
Real gangs have taken over most of Haiti.
The police are outgunned,outnumbered.
If there was ever a simplesituation that the Security
Council could probably agree onto intervene in, it would be
something like that.
But even in that vote, russiaand China abstained.
(25:49):
Why would they abstain?
Richard Gowan (25:54):
Russia and China are abstaining on a lot of
issues in the Council now, whichis primarily, I think, a way of
showing their distance from theUS and their discontent with
the multilateral system.
In the specific case of Haiti,china actually raised some quite
(26:19):
good questions about whetherthe political situation in Haiti
is ripe for an intervention.
The country is in politicalchaos as well as criminal chaos,
and I think that the Chineseare also affected by the fact
that Haiti retains diplomaticrelations with Taiwan, so it
(26:41):
doesn't really want to do theHaitians any favours.
However, the broad view in NewYork this week has been that in
this case, an abstention fromChina is fine.
What matters is that there is aresolution and this new force,
which will be led by Kenya, canget on the ground.
Now, what happens when theforce gets on the ground is a
(27:04):
different question.
You could well imagine some ofthe armed gangs that really
dominate the capital, portoPrans, launching attacks on the
Kenyans as they arrive.
It could get nasty prettyquickly.
So this resolution for a forceis the first step.
What happens afterwards isstill uncertain.
Dana Lewis (27:26):
Why did the Russians abstain?
You've told me why Chinaabstained.
Richard Gowan (27:32):
I'm not actually sure what the Russian reasoning
was.
In public, the focus over thelast couple of weeks has been on
the Chinese.
This may just have been asolidarity abstention between
the Russians and the Chinese.
They often follow each other'spositions because they do have a
(27:55):
pretty durable marriage ofconvenience at the UN.
Dana Lewis (28:00):
We recently heard UN head Guttara say that the world
is becoming unhinged asgeopolitical tensions rise and
it seems incapable of comingtogether to respond to mounting
challenges as the UN generalassembly in New York.
If you said that globalgovernance was stuck in time at
(28:22):
a point when strong, modernmultilateral institutions were
in greater need than ever, canyou translate that for me?
It?
Richard Gowan (28:32):
is remarkable that probably one of the
harshest critics of the UN isthe UN Secretary-General.
There are US critics of the UN,like John Bolton, who actually
in some ways are less frankabout the organization's
failings than Guttarish's.
(28:53):
I think Guttarish has been inoffice now for the best part of
seven years.
He's obviously had a fairlyrough ride.
He had to cohabit with Trump inWashington for four years.
He's now having to deal withthe fallout of Russia's war on
Ukraine.
But he's also, I think, quiteobsessed with the fact that
(29:14):
there are big trends in theworld, like the rise of
artificial intelligence, bigbreakthroughs in biotechnology
and, obviously, the rapidworsening of climate change.
The UN system just isn'tdesigned to deal with this new
(29:36):
generation of challenges.
The UN is still struggling withplaces like Haiti where, after
all, they've been peacekeeperssince the 1990s.
It has a development systemthat was fit for purpose in
about 1965.
Guttarish looks at afast-changing world and he
simply doesn't believe theorganization he leads has the
(29:58):
institutions and has themechanisms to deal with it If
time has gone by, Then why notreform it?
Dana Lewis (30:05):
That's what a lot of people are saying.
If the Security Council can'tagree to anything and there are
15 members in there, the debatebecomes why is Russia even a
member of it?
If it's just going to vetoeverything or sit it out, why
not expand it?
Bring in more members and makethe Security Council actually
(30:29):
stand for something and dosomething and make the world a
better place.
And those who don't want toparticipate they're out.
And then you get into that.
It's sorry for the longquestion, but you get into that
big debate about why was Russiaever a member of the Security
Council in the first place?
Because it was during theSoviet Union and then, when the
(30:50):
Soviet Union fell apart, maybeRussia should have lost its seat
or other seats should have beenadded.
Richard Gowan (30:58):
So I mean, firstly, I would say that some
of the issues that Guterres israising, like the global
regulation of AI, would not gothrough the Security Council and
the UN is much bigger than theCouncil and for AI, guterres is
actually suggesting the creationof a completely new
international mechanism to dealwith this new technology.
(31:19):
But when we talk about UNreform, as you suggest, people
often come back to SecurityCouncil reform.
It is the apex of the systemand since February of 2022, and
the Russian aggression againstUkraine, council reform has been
(31:39):
uppermost in a lot ofdiplomats' minds here in New
York.
It is difficult.
Under the rules of the UNCharter, you can't make
fundamental changes to theCouncil without getting
ratifications from two-thirds ofthe UN's membership, which has
grown to 193 countries,including all the permanent
(32:02):
members of the Council.
So Russia would have to ratifyand China would have to ratify
any reform, and you can see whythat would be tricky.
Dana Lewis (32:09):
Right, let's keep Russia out of there.
That's not going to getratified by Russia.
Richard Gowan (32:13):
Exactly, and so there is a big debate about
Council reform.
India and Brazil in particular,are pushing really hard to get
permanent seats of their own,and for the Indians in
particular, this is a bigpriority.
Dana Lewis (32:30):
But an end, by the way, a nuclear power, which it
wasn't before.
But if you're arguing that thefive permanent members of the
Security Council were all white,I mean chiefly because they
were nuclear powers, were theynot?
That's why they got those seats.
Richard Gowan (32:49):
No, I mean they got the seats because they were
the victors of the Second WorldWar.
I mean that was the setup in1945.
And they then were the firstfive states to become declared
nuclear powers.
So I mean there is a linkagebetween nuclear capacity and
having a permanent seat on theCouncil, although I don't think
(33:12):
anyone would suggest that thatmeans that DPRK, for example,
should get a permanent seat.
Look, india has nuclear power.
It has a long history ofinvolvement in UN peacekeeping,
it's a big diplomatic player.
But it's still also true thatChina doesn't want India to have
(33:32):
a permanent seat in the Council.
The power politics around it arevery, very hard.
The Biden administration hasbeen exploring whether you can
do Council reform.
I don't think Biden is going toprioritize that before next
year's elections.
If he does get a second term,it might be something that he
could pursue.
But everyone understands thatpolitical obstacles are high.
(33:56):
And then, just on the specificquestion of whether Russia
deserves the Soviet seat Look,everyone has always known that
the process by which Russia tookover the Soviet seat in the
1990s was a bit hazy.
I mean that's something Iremember being discussed many
years ago.
But sort of smarter people thanthe people who really
(34:19):
understand that that processhave looked at various
declarations from that time,various agreements that were
made as the Soviet Union brokeup, and their conclusion is that
actually Russia's claim to bethe inheritor of the Soviet seat
is pretty solid.
Now the Ukrainians reject this.
The Ukrainians say that Russiais an illicit member of the
(34:45):
Security Council, but the US andthe UK and France have not gone
there.
So I think this will remain acompelling Ukrainian talking
point, but we won't see Russiathrown out.
Dana Lewis (34:59):
So can you manage my expectation as to what I think
the United Nations is there for,because I think it's there a
little bit like the raisond'etre of the crisis group to
prevent war, build a morepeaceful world, but also, beyond
that, have the ability to takesome armed intervention in the
(35:24):
case like Haiti and more?
Richard Gowan (35:30):
I think it's worth saying that the UN has
never lived up to the vision ofits founders.
I mean, it was launched in 1945at the end of the Second World
War.
Franklin Roosevelt, the USpresident, who was its primary
architect, had this vision ofthe US, the Soviets and the UK
(35:53):
policing the world and the UNSecurity Council being the high
command for that cooperativepolicing operation.
Now that fell apart pretty muchas soon as the Security Council
started meeting in 1946 and1947.
They've only been very, veryrare periods, such as the end of
(36:16):
the Cold War in the late 80sand early 90s, where you've had
that level of big powercooperation sort of really
really taking place through theUN For most of its history.
And I think today the UN's mainvalue is really in damping down
(36:38):
some of the geopoliticallysecondary conflicts around the
world and humanitarian crisesaround the world, such as
violence in parts of Africa orthe humanitarian crisis in Yemen
, where the big powers can seesome common interest in at least
(37:02):
keeping a lid on a crisis, and,as I say, in a case like
Afghanistan or indeed in Haiti,despite the major splits over
Ukraine, everyone just aboutagrees that it's useful to have
the UN containing the problemsin these situations.
(37:23):
So it's still living up to thatrather lower level of
expectation.
I think.
For those who quite rightlybelieve that the UN should
actually be living up to theprinciples of the UN Charter,
which would mean in fact takingaction against Russia over its
aggression against Ukraine, Ithink there's an eternity of
(37:43):
disappointment ahead because theorganization has never quite
met that founding goal.
Dana Lewis (37:51):
Well, the Security Council can't do it, but does it
then revert to the GeneralAssembly?
Should it be that the GeneralAssembly really is the one that
condemns the invasion of a whichit has, I think, condemns the
invasion of a neighboringcountry by an aggressor, and
(38:13):
then could potentially vote tosend in peacekeeping troops or
to have armed resolution incertain cases?
Richard Gowan (38:25):
There are precedents to the General
Assembly stepping in in that wayand going right back to the
serious crisis in the 1950s.
The General Assembly stepped upand mandated peacekeepers when
the Security Council wasparalyzed.
What we've seen in the last 18months is that General Assembly
members are quite willing tocondemn Russia on principle.
(38:47):
There have been a series ofresolutions reaffirming Ukraine
sovereignty, calling for Russiato pull its forces out of
Ukraine.
Those have been passed by bigmajorities.
I think 140 out of the 190-oddmembers of the UN have backed
those texts.
(39:08):
But it has been striking that alot of the countries that are
willing to condemn Russia onpaper are not willing to go
further.
Midwestern countries voteagainst Moscow at the UN but are
still not participating insanctions against Russia.
There's a feeling that a lot ofUN members are willing to make
statements of principle, butthey don't want to get dragged
(39:32):
into a real confrontation withthe Russians.
By that I don't just mean warwith Russia, but I think a lot
of countries are nervous aboutdispleasing Russia and not
affecting their food supplies orenergy supplies.
Dana Lewis (39:52):
Right.
Nobody wants to put the moneywhere their mouth is in
sprutting their sins in somecase.
Richard Gowan (39:59):
Yeah, and also I mean it is also worth saying
that for quite a lot of UNmembers from the Middle East or
North Africa, they see parallelsbetween this and what happened
in Iraq and what happened inLibya.
We can push back and argue that, despite the history of Western
(40:23):
misadventures, you should stillcondemn Russia, but I think
that some of our counterpartsfrom those regions do feel a bit
more equivocal about this.
Dana Lewis (40:35):
But how do you, on a personal level, working there?
I'm not quite sure how to framethe question, but how do you
put your head on your pillow atnight and think that what's
going on there is constructive,positive, somehow is leading the
(40:56):
world to a better place?
Or you just turn out the light,just go to sleep as quickly as
possible, forget the very stronggin and tonic takes the edge
off at the end of the day.
Richard Gowan (41:07):
Look, I can be absolutely honest with you.
There have been periods in the20 years where I've been working
on the UN for variousorganizations where the level of
frustration is extremely high.
You know we've talked a lotabout Ukraine.
(41:29):
But going back a bit further,in 2021, there were a lot of
debates at the UN about twoconflicts the coup in Myanmar
and the war in Ethiopia and inboth of those cases there simply
wasn't impetus for action atthe UN, and my crisis group
(41:54):
colleagues covering events onthe ground were telling us of
appalling violence in both casesand we could see that the
Security Council wasn't going todeal with those situations.
We could see that the GeneralAssembly wasn't going to deal
with those situations that youknow.
(42:14):
That left one feeling prettyhopeless.
Dana Lewis (42:19):
I would say, on the other hand, hopeless because in
cases where they can probablymake a real difference, they
didn't.
Richard Gowan (42:29):
There are other cases where you know, there are
other cases where you can feelmore positive, even against
quite bleak backdrops.
So we at Crisis Group didcampaign lobbyists we're not
lobbyists, so we're not.
We advocated in 2021-2022 forUN members and the UN to get
(42:55):
more humanitarian assistance toAfghanistan, despite the Taliban
takeover.
We just believed that wasnecessary to save lives and that
advocacy effort, I think, wassuccessful.
Although the situation inAfghanistan remains utterly
bleak, we did sort of live up toour goal of saving lives in
(43:20):
that case.
On Ukraine, I never expectedthe Security Council to act
effectively on Ukraine.
I mean, just by definition,having Russia there as the veto
power made that impossible.
But I do think that some of theadvocacy work we've done around
(43:41):
these big general assemblyvotes, the condemnations of
Russia, you know, I think thathas at least played a small part
in shaking the global narrativearound the war.
And so sometimes you have toaim for small wins, symbolic
wins, while being fully awarethat that isn't getting to the
(44:06):
heart of the matter.
Dana Lewis (44:12):
I take your point, richard Gowan with the
International Crisis Group.
Richard, thank you for theviews and for a pretty good
education on what it's like towork with the United Nations,
and it's a little bit of what Ithought, but a bit more than
that too, and I appreciate verymuch your insight.
Richard Gowan (44:33):
Thank you very much indeed, I mean, I would say
.
By the way, if the idealist, 25year old Richard Gowan, who
started working on the UN, hadheard all this, he would have
thought that I'd fallen in along way from my initial
ambitious goals.
But life's like that, isn't it?
Dana Lewis (44:51):
Well, don't give up on us.
We need people like you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you, richard, and that'sour Backstory this Week.
Please subscribe to the podcastand, most of all, we ask that,
if you value these interviews,share a backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, thanks forlistening and I'll talk to you
(45:11):
again soon.
Please subscribe to the podcastand, most of all, we ask that
(46:51):
you value these interviews.
Richard Gowan (47:28):
Music, music, music you.
I think people start more and more
understand that we have to set acommon goal, Because when large
scale envisions started, thecivilized world told let's help
Ukraine not to fail.
But this is a time to changethis narrative to another one.
Let's help Ukraine to win fast.
Richard Gowan (00:20):
He's now having to deal with the fallout of
Russia's war on Ukraine, buthe's also, I think, quite
obsessed with the fact thatthere are big trends in the
world, like the rise ofartificial intelligence, big
breakthroughs in biotechnology,the rapid worsening of climate
change, and the UN system justisn't designed to deal with this
(00:41):
new generation of challenges.
Dana Lewis (00:48):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, just in thenews that Russia hit a village
called Groza in northeasternUkraine.
It's a crime, says PresidentZelensky.
The target was a Ukrainian foodshop.
Dozens killed Ukrainians,including a six year old boy,
(01:08):
were attending a memorialservice.
On Backstory, we speak to humanrights war crimes investigator
Alexandra Matvichak, who headsthe Ukrainian Center for Civil
Liberties, which was awarded theNobel Peace Prize.
And why can't the UnitedNations stop this war?
Richard Gowan from theInternational Crisis Group is
(01:31):
based at the UN and says theSecurity Council, paralyzed by
Chinese and Russian vetoes,won't soon be reformed, and
that's a problem.
The UN is complicated, but thatreflects the divided,
dysfunctional world in which welive.
Alexandra Matvichak headsUkraine Center for Civil
(01:55):
Liberties and was awarded theNobel Peace Prize, along with
Memorial, the largest humanrights organization in Russia.
In this week she's beenspeaking at the Warsaw Security
Forum.
Alexandra, first of all,welcome.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (02:10):
And.
Dana Lewis (02:11):
I understand.
Your message is that as long asUkraine is vulnerable, so is
all of Europe's security.
Is that message something thatpeople accept?
Do you think?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (02:24):
I think people start more and more
understand that we have to set acommon goal, because when large
scale envisions started, thecivilized world told let's help
Ukraine not to fail.
But this is a time to changethis narrative to another one
let's help Ukraine to win fast.
There is a huge differencesbetween let's help Ukraine not
(02:47):
to fail and let's help Ukraineto win fast, and we can measure
these differences practically intypes of weapons, in speed of
decisions and gravity ofsanctions.
Dana Lewis (03:00):
You keep talking about weapons, and I understand
why, because how do you eject anaggressor without being able to
fight back and without enoughguns, without enough artillery?
But as a human rights personwho's investigated war crimes,
does it leave you uncomfortable,this constant push and call for
(03:21):
more guns, more bullets, morefighting to get the Russians out
?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (03:26):
We found the dead bodies of civilians
with hand ties under their feet.
We found the dead bodies ofcivilians with hand ties under
their back, kettered around thestreets until liberation of
Butcher.
We found the dead bodies ofcivilians in the gardens of
their own households.
We found dead bodies ofcivilians in smugglers graves
men, women, children.
(03:48):
These people have no arms.
Russians killed unarmed, andthat is why the truth is that we
need weapons in order to defendourselves, because, as a human
rights lawyer, for the currentmoment I have no legal
instrument how to stop Russianatrocities.
But I do believe that it'stemporary, that we will restore
(04:11):
international order, we willestablish special tribunal on
aggression and we willdemonstrate justice.
Dana Lewis (04:19):
So you said in the past that war crimes are just
not a product of the conflict ornot something that takes place
within the conflict, but morethan that, you say these crimes
are a tactic by Russia.
Can you explain that?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (04:40):
Russia uses war crimes as a method of
warfare.
Russia attempts to breakpeople's resistance and occupy
Ukraine by the tool which I callthe immense pain on civilian
population.
We document this pain.
This is the constant policy ofRussian state.
(05:01):
Russia deliberately destroyedresidential buildings, schools,
churches, hospitals, attackevacuation corridors, managed
federation camps system,organized forcible deportations,
commit murders, tortures, rapes, abductions and other kinds of
offenses against civilians.
Dana Lewis (05:23):
Tell me within that you've called for the swift
creation of a special tribunalto try Vladimir Putin.
President Putin, are you stillcalling for that and are you
getting any support for that?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (05:38):
We face with accountability gap, and one
dimension of thisaccountability gap is in that
fact that there is nointernational court who can
persecute Putin and toppolitical leadership and high
military command for the crimeof aggression, just for their
leadership decision to initiate,to plan and to start this war
(06:00):
and all the atrocities which wedocumented.
It's result of this leadershipdecision.
That is why, if we want to stopaggressive war in our world, we
have to persecute people whomake such kind of decisions, and
this means that we need toestablish a special tribunal and
hold them accountable.
(06:21):
The problem is that when Ispeak with political leaderships
of different countries, I sawthat they still look into the
world through the Prisma ofNurevik trial, where Nazi war
criminals were tried, but onlyafter Nazi regime had collapsed.
But we live in new century.
We must move further.
Justice must be independent ofthe magnitude of Putin's regime
(06:46):
power.
There is no necessity to waitwhen and how this war will end.
If someone commit crime ofaggression, then someone has to
be punished.
Dana Lewis (06:57):
I guess the problem is, if you punish President
Putin and have a tribunal tryingPutin and his inner circle,
which is a very large circle,includes members of parliament,
media there's a lot of supportfor this war within Russia when
do you stop?
I mean, where do you stop atwho you prosecute?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (07:19):
This is not just a war of one man.
This is a war of Russian nation.
And the problem is thatmajority of Russians still see
their glory in the worstpossible restoration of Russian
power.
They really think they have aright to invade in other
countries, to kill people thereand to erode their identity.
(07:41):
And the roots of the problem isa long lasting impunity which
Russia enjoyed for decades,because Russian troops commit
horrible war crimes in Chichinya, in Moldova, in Georgia, in
Malia, in Syria, in Libya, inother countries of the world,
and they have never beenpunished.
We must break the circle ofimpunity.
(08:02):
We must demonstrate justice,not just for Ukrainians, but to
prevent another Russian attackto the next country.
Dana Lewis (08:12):
You said that this is not a war between two
countries, but a war between twosystems Authoritarianism
quoting you, authoritarianismand democracy.
Putin is trying to prove thatdemocracy, the rule of law and
freedom are fake values becausethey do not protect anyone and
if the international order isnot restored in the near future,
(08:33):
it will have long-term negativeconsequences for the
development of the world.
So that's very heady stuff.
I mean, you paint theUkraine-Russia conflict as a
worldwide struggle now, and doyou think that people accept
that, or do they look at yourargument with quite a bit of
(08:55):
skepticism?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (08:57):
Let's remind how this large-scale
invasion started.
Russia and China made astatement and presented their
vision to the new world order,and then Putin started
large-scale invasion.
And with this war, putin triedto convene that country with a
strong military potential, andnuclear weapons can break
(09:20):
international order, can dictatethe rules of the game to entire
international community andeven forceably changed
international recognized borders.
And if Putin succeed, it willencourage another leaders in the
world to do the same and wewill find ourselves in the
(09:41):
future which will be dangerousfor everyone, without any
exceptions.
And that is why it's soimportant to help Ukraine to win
fast, to demonstrate thatdemocracy can defend itself and
the international order has tobe restored.
Dana Lewis (10:00):
I agree with you.
So let me tell you where I'mcoming from, because I watch
Russian media and I listen tothe Russian lawmakers, and I've
seen President Putin's war inChechnya and then in Georgia,
and then his struggles inUkraine that have gone on for a
long time, trying to controlUkrainians and trying to
dominate Ukraine, and then theirthreats to the Baltics and then
(10:22):
their threats to Poland.
So how do you get Americans,though, to understand that they
don't see it as a broaderconflict, as you do.
They just see it as a lot ofmoney going to Ukraine.
What's the point?
We should be supportingAmericans.
Back home.
You hear this growing argumentfrom the Republican Party.
(10:44):
You've seen changes in therecent spending bill, where they
eliminated the Ukraineassistance from that bill in
order to pass it, and then wesaw the explosion in the house,
where they lost Speaker McCarthy, and now the Republican Party
is in chaos, as it normally isanyway.
But how do you get, how do youde-politicize this in America,
(11:09):
and how do you get Americans tounderstand this conflict is
important to them?
Oleksandra Matviichu (11:14):
Ukrainians are fighting not just for
ourselves.
We are fighting for theinternational order which was
established after the SecondWorld War, which means that we
are preventing the Third One.
We are dying just to preventthe Third One World War, just to
provide a chance to live in aworld where human rights
(11:41):
guarantees and security aredependent on international
system.
I have no magic stick, butmaybe I will tell two things.
First, ukrainians are fightingnot just for ourselves.
We are fighting for theinternational order which was
(12:04):
established after the SecondWorld War, which means that with
our fight we are preventing theThird One.
And second, there are a lot ofthings which have no limitation
in national borders.
Maybe we are far from eachother through geographic
(12:25):
perspective, but we are veryclose in values and human
solidarity is such a thing whichhave no limitation in national
borders.
Russians commit horribleatrocities in Ukraine and it has
to be stopped, because if wewill not be able to stop Putin
(12:46):
in Ukraine, he will go further.
Dana Lewis (12:50):
And you believe that that's not just threats or
that's not an exaggeration, butit's not, do you?
Really believe when you talk toand you travel a lot through
Europe and you talk to a lot ofdifferent European leaders.
Is the fear helpable?
Is the fear real when you talkto leaders in the Baltics and
(13:14):
Lithuania and Latvia, estonia,poland.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (13:16):
But it's not my thoughts, it's words of
Putin.
Putin told that collapse ofSoviet Union it was the main
geopolitical catastrophe on thefirst century.
Putin told that values ofmodern civilization like
democracy, rule of law and humanrights are fake values.
(13:38):
Putin declared the war not justto Ukraine.
He declared this war todemocracy.
Dana Lewis (13:49):
And you believe that the Russians will just not end
with the four areas in easternUkraine, but they will push
further towards Odessa?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (13:59):
No, I can't tell you.
Dana Lewis (14:01):
They'll just keep going, and then eventually
beyond Ukraine's borders as well, if they can.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (14:06):
I will tell you two comments on this
regard.
First, this war started not inFebruary 2022, but in February
2014, when Ukraine obtained thechance for the quick democratic
transition after the collapse ofthe authoritarian regime due to
the revolution of dignity.
(14:27):
And in order to stop us on thisway, putin started this war.
He occupied Crimea and part ofLugansk and Donetsk region and
for all eight years, ukraine hadno possibility to return the
territories back and to releasepeople who lived there.
How Putin used these eightyears he built a powerful
(14:50):
military base in Crimea, heretreated, he regrouped and he
started a new attack, becausethe Empire has a center and has
no borders.
When the Empire has energy, theEmpire always expanded.
And now I live in here and mynative city, like thousands of
other Ukrainian cities, areconstantly being shelled by
(15:12):
Russian rockets who were sentfrom this new military base
which was created in last years.
So it's with the ball thatPutin will stop, only when he
will be stopped.
And second thing, which is veryimportant, to understand the
roots of this war, because Putingoverned the country not just
(15:33):
with repression and censorship,but with a special social
contract between Kremlin's eliteand majority of Russian people.
And the problem is that even inthe 21st century, majority of
Russian people see their gloryas a basis for the social
contract in a forciblerestoration of Russian Empire.
(15:56):
Even Putin occupied Crimea.
According to the sociologicalsurvey, 94% of Russians
supported this forcibleoccupation, and this means that
Putin eye and trap.
He has always demonstrated newand new territorial achievement
to make the Russians great, andthis means that if he stopped
(16:22):
this war, he will lost his power.
Dana Lewis (16:27):
Last question to you .
You speak about democracy andthe liberal West.
You obviously believe thatdemocracy is key to civil
society, and first of all, doyou agree with that?
And second of all, on thatbasis, then, does President
Zelensky not have to holdelections next spring?
(16:48):
Because there's a big questionabout whether the elections will
go forward or not?
And if he does hold them, isthat also a problem?
Because how do you hold a fairand democratic election in the
middle of a war zone?
Oleksandra Matviichuk (17:02):
Two points from this question.
First, the problem is not justin the fact that in
authoritarian countries thefreedom is wrinkled into the
size of the prison cell.
The problem is that even inwell-developed democracies,
people start to forget the realmeaning of freedom because they
(17:24):
inherited the system ofdemocracy and the rule of law of
their parents.
They have never fought for thissystem and that is why they
start to take this for granted.
And that is why they start totake this system for granted,
Because they can easily exchangetheir own freedoms for
(17:46):
economical benefits, for somelike promises of security, or
for their own comfort.
But the truth is that freedomcan't be taken for granted.
It's a value which not existsonce and forever.
(18:06):
Every day you have to make achoice and that is why it's so
important that Ukrainians showto the whole world that value of
democracy, rule of law andfreedom.
You have to defend such values.
(18:27):
You haven't got to compromisewith aggressors.
And second, about elections weneed election, not just
imitation process, which Russiawill halt next year, for example
Because elections is not justone day when you put bulletin to
the box.
It's a whole process and thereare a lot of practical questions
(18:54):
how to ensure this wholeprocess during the large-scale
war.
I can name only several of themhow to provide ability to 7.5
million refugees in differentcountries to vote.
How to provide abilities topeople from occupied territories
to vote.
How to secure the whole processwhen we have the settlements
(19:15):
and cities where internationalobservers are not present
because they are afraid to gothere.
And also it's very importantquestion After 24 February,
hundreds of thousands of peoplejoined Ukraine's armed forces.
Yesterday it was people fromdifferent peaceful professions,
(19:37):
but now they are with weapons intheir arms, start to defend
their future and peaceful anddemocratic future for their
children, and they will bedeprived from the electoral
process.
It can provide attention,because these people sacrifice
(19:57):
their life for this country andthey have no right to take part
in the elections.
I don't mention about money howto find money for electoral
process.
I don't mention about all ofother things, like constitution
of Ukraine, like a lot of otherconstitutions don't provide a
possibility to conduct electionduring martial law.
(20:19):
So this means that we have alot of practical problems which
are real and we have to solvethis problem and only then
conduct elections.
Without solving this problem,it will be just imitation
process and this means that ifthis war will last in longer, we
(20:43):
have to do somethingunbelievable and to conduct the
fair election in accordance ofCopenhagen international
principle during the large scalewar.
Dana Lewis (20:58):
It sounds like you would favor a delay.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (21:02):
I think that for current moment, we are
not prepared to election.
I want not just calling forelection, I want to call for
solving these problems.
Without this solution, it willbe not election which provide
(21:24):
people the real right to vote.
Dana Lewis (21:28):
Alexander Mitvichuk, you've been very generous with
your time.
It's been difficult to trackyou down over these many months
and I'm glad to finally meet youand talk to you and have a
chance to hear your views.
And thank you so much.
Oleksandra Matviichuk (21:41):
I'm very grateful and I'm very grateful
for your patience.
Dana Lewis (21:50):
Richard Gowen is with the International Crisis
Group and he's assigned to theUnited Nations.
He is the director of the UNfor the International Crisis
Group, so I get that right.
The International Crisis Groupis an independent organization
which we have done interviewswith them many times and they
have some great people, but theideas are there, working behind
(22:14):
the scenes to prevent wars andbuilding a more peaceful world.
Richard set me straight.
Is that it?
Richard Gowan (22:22):
That's absolutely right.
We have colleagues all aroundthe world, from Venezuela to
Afghanistan, on the groundwatching conflicts unfold.
My job is to act as a liaisonbetween them and the United
Nations in New York.
Dana Lewis (22:41):
All you need to do is get the UN doing the same
thing, working to prevent crisesaround the world, because,
while they may work at it, itwould seem in this day and age
they're not having a lot ofsuccess.
Richard Gowan (22:54):
Well, I think the role of the UN is sometimes
underestimated and we have toremember that in a place like
Afghanistan.
Since the fall of Kabul, it'sreally only been UN agencies
that have stayed behind to helpthe suffering and avoid an even
greater humanitarian crisis.
(23:15):
But it is true that, due topower politics in the Security
Council, we are seeing the UNstruggling, obviously with
Russia's aggression againstUkraine, but also with conflicts
in other regions like the Sahelor the Horn of Africa.
Dana Lewis (23:35):
Okay.
So a lot of people say thatit's this paralysis there,
especially at not necessarily inthe General Assembly, but at
the Security Council.
They can't do anything.
But even as I say that,suddenly they have just approved
taking action to restore orderin Haiti, so it's probably one
(23:58):
of the few things that theSecurity Council has moved
forward on, shall I say thisyear.
Richard Gowan (24:07):
It's certainly a good step forward for the
Council that there is agreementon Haiti, and it's taken a long
time for the Council to approvean intervention for Haiti, but
actually the main obstacles havenot been political.
It's simply because it's a veryhard case and many countries
(24:29):
will worry of sendingpeacekeepers.
I think I would emphasize thatthe Council has not innovated on
many other crises this year,but it has kept on rolling over
the mandates for peacekeepingoperations in places like South
Sudan and the Central AfricanRepublic, so there is a degree
(24:50):
of cooperation on crises thatdon't dominate the news so much.
However, we have seen somefairly significant breakdowns,
primarily between the West andthe Russians, over other topics,
like humanitarian aid to Syriaor the situation in Mali, and I
think diplomats are feelingpretty worn down.
(25:12):
They are finding it very hardto work with the Russians now in
New York, and so even a smallsuccess like the mandate for
Haiti is a bit of an uplift forthem.
Dana Lewis (25:27):
Real gangs have taken over most of Haiti.
The police are outgunned,outnumbered.
If there was ever a simplesituation that the Security
Council could probably agree onto intervene in, it would be
something like that.
But even in that vote, russiaand China abstained.
(25:49):
Why would they abstain?
Richard Gowan (25:54):
Russia and China are abstaining on a lot of
issues in the Council now, whichis primarily, I think, a way of
showing their distance from theUS and their discontent with
the multilateral system.
In the specific case of Haiti,china actually raised some quite
(26:19):
good questions about whetherthe political situation in Haiti
is ripe for an intervention.
The country is in politicalchaos as well as criminal chaos,
and I think that the Chineseare also affected by the fact
that Haiti retains diplomaticrelations with Taiwan, so it
(26:41):
doesn't really want to do theHaitians any favours.
However, the broad view in NewYork this week has been that in
this case, an abstention fromChina is fine.
What matters is that there is aresolution and this new force,
which will be led by Kenya, canget on the ground.
Now, what happens when theforce gets on the ground is a
(27:04):
different question.
You could well imagine some ofthe armed gangs that really
dominate the capital, portoPrans, launching attacks on the
Kenyans as they arrive.
It could get nasty prettyquickly.
So this resolution for a forceis the first step.
What happens afterwards isstill uncertain.
Dana Lewis (27:26):
Why did the Russians abstain?
You've told me why Chinaabstained.
Richard Gowan (27:32):
I'm not actually sure what the Russian reasoning
was.
In public, the focus over thelast couple of weeks has been on
the Chinese.
This may just have been asolidarity abstention between
the Russians and the Chinese.
They often follow each other'spositions because they do have a
(27:55):
pretty durable marriage ofconvenience at the UN.
Dana Lewis (28:00):
We recently heard UN head Guttara say that the world
is becoming unhinged asgeopolitical tensions rise and
it seems incapable of comingtogether to respond to mounting
challenges as the UN generalassembly in New York.
If you said that globalgovernance was stuck in time at
(28:22):
a point when strong, modernmultilateral institutions were
in greater need than ever, canyou translate that for me?
It?
Richard Gowan (28:32):
is remarkable that probably one of the
harshest critics of the UN isthe UN Secretary-General.
There are US critics of the UN,like John Bolton, who actually
in some ways are less frankabout the organization's
failings than Guttarish's.
(28:53):
I think Guttarish has been inoffice now for the best part of
seven years.
He's obviously had a fairlyrough ride.
He had to cohabit with Trump inWashington for four years.
He's now having to deal withthe fallout of Russia's war on
Ukraine.
But he's also, I think, quiteobsessed with the fact that
(29:14):
there are big trends in theworld, like the rise of
artificial intelligence, bigbreakthroughs in biotechnology
and, obviously, the rapidworsening of climate change.
The UN system just isn'tdesigned to deal with this new
(29:36):
generation of challenges.
The UN is still struggling withplaces like Haiti where, after
all, they've been peacekeeperssince the 1990s.
It has a development systemthat was fit for purpose in
about 1965.
Guttarish looks at afast-changing world and he
simply doesn't believe theorganization he leads has the
(29:58):
institutions and has themechanisms to deal with it If
time has gone by, Then why notreform it?
Dana Lewis (30:05):
That's what a lot of people are saying.
If the Security Council can'tagree to anything and there are
15 members in there, the debatebecomes why is Russia even a
member of it?
If it's just going to vetoeverything or sit it out, why
not expand it?
Bring in more members and makethe Security Council actually
(30:29):
stand for something and dosomething and make the world a
better place.
And those who don't want toparticipate they're out.
And then you get into that.
It's sorry for the longquestion, but you get into that
big debate about why was Russiaever a member of the Security
Council in the first place?
Because it was during theSoviet Union and then, when the
(30:50):
Soviet Union fell apart, maybeRussia should have lost its seat
or other seats should have beenadded.
Richard Gowan (30:58):
So I mean, firstly, I would say that some
of the issues that Guterres israising, like the global
regulation of AI, would not gothrough the Security Council and
the UN is much bigger than theCouncil and for AI, guterres is
actually suggesting the creationof a completely new
international mechanism to dealwith this new technology.
(31:19):
But when we talk about UNreform, as you suggest, people
often come back to SecurityCouncil reform.
It is the apex of the systemand since February of 2022, and
the Russian aggression againstUkraine, council reform has been
(31:39):
uppermost in a lot ofdiplomats' minds here in New
York.
It is difficult.
Under the rules of the UNCharter, you can't make
fundamental changes to theCouncil without getting
ratifications from two-thirds ofthe UN's membership, which has
grown to 193 countries,including all the permanent
(32:02):
members of the Council.
So Russia would have to ratifyand China would have to ratify
any reform, and you can see whythat would be tricky.
Dana Lewis (32:09):
Right, let's keep Russia out of there.
That's not going to getratified by Russia.
Richard Gowan (32:13):
Exactly, and so there is a big debate about
Council reform.
India and Brazil in particular,are pushing really hard to get
permanent seats of their own,and for the Indians in
particular, this is a bigpriority.
Dana Lewis (32:30):
But an end, by the way, a nuclear power, which it
wasn't before.
But if you're arguing that thefive permanent members of the
Security Council were all white,I mean chiefly because they
were nuclear powers, were theynot?
That's why they got those seats.
Richard Gowan (32:49):
No, I mean they got the seats because they were
the victors of the Second WorldWar.
I mean that was the setup in1945.
And they then were the firstfive states to become declared
nuclear powers.
So I mean there is a linkagebetween nuclear capacity and
having a permanent seat on theCouncil, although I don't think
(33:12):
anyone would suggest that thatmeans that DPRK, for example,
should get a permanent seat.
Look, india has nuclear power.
It has a long history ofinvolvement in UN peacekeeping,
it's a big diplomatic player.
But it's still also true thatChina doesn't want India to have
(33:32):
a permanent seat in the Council.
The power politics around it arevery, very hard.
The Biden administration hasbeen exploring whether you can
do Council reform.
I don't think Biden is going toprioritize that before next
year's elections.
If he does get a second term,it might be something that he
could pursue.
But everyone understands thatpolitical obstacles are high.
(33:56):
And then, just on the specificquestion of whether Russia
deserves the Soviet seat Look,everyone has always known that
the process by which Russia tookover the Soviet seat in the
1990s was a bit hazy.
I mean that's something Iremember being discussed many
years ago.
But sort of smarter people thanthe people who really
(34:19):
understand that that processhave looked at various
declarations from that time,various agreements that were
made as the Soviet Union brokeup, and their conclusion is that
actually Russia's claim to bethe inheritor of the Soviet seat
is pretty solid.
Now the Ukrainians reject this.
The Ukrainians say that Russiais an illicit member of the
(34:45):
Security Council, but the US andthe UK and France have not gone
there.
So I think this will remain acompelling Ukrainian talking
point, but we won't see Russiathrown out.
Dana Lewis (34:59):
So can you manage my expectation as to what I think
the United Nations is there for,because I think it's there a
little bit like the raisond'etre of the crisis group to
prevent war, build a morepeaceful world, but also, beyond
that, have the ability to takesome armed intervention in the
(35:24):
case like Haiti and more?
Richard Gowan (35:30):
I think it's worth saying that the UN has
never lived up to the vision ofits founders.
I mean, it was launched in 1945at the end of the Second World
War.
Franklin Roosevelt, the USpresident, who was its primary
architect, had this vision ofthe US, the Soviets and the UK
(35:53):
policing the world and the UNSecurity Council being the high
command for that cooperativepolicing operation.
Now that fell apart pretty muchas soon as the Security Council
started meeting in 1946 and1947.
They've only been very, veryrare periods, such as the end of
(36:16):
the Cold War in the late 80sand early 90s, where you've had
that level of big powercooperation sort of really
really taking place through theUN For most of its history.
And I think today the UN's mainvalue is really in damping down
(36:38):
some of the geopoliticallysecondary conflicts around the
world and humanitarian crisesaround the world, such as
violence in parts of Africa orthe humanitarian crisis in Yemen
, where the big powers can seesome common interest in at least
(37:02):
keeping a lid on a crisis, and,as I say, in a case like
Afghanistan or indeed in Haiti,despite the major splits over
Ukraine, everyone just aboutagrees that it's useful to have
the UN containing the problemsin these situations.
(37:23):
So it's still living up to thatrather lower level of
expectation.
I think.
For those who quite rightlybelieve that the UN should
actually be living up to theprinciples of the UN Charter,
which would mean in fact takingaction against Russia over its
aggression against Ukraine, Ithink there's an eternity of
(37:43):
disappointment ahead because theorganization has never quite
met that founding goal.
Dana Lewis (37:51):
Well, the Security Council can't do it, but does it
then revert to the GeneralAssembly?
Should it be that the GeneralAssembly really is the one that
condemns the invasion of a whichit has, I think, condemns the
invasion of a neighboringcountry by an aggressor, and
(38:13):
then could potentially vote tosend in peacekeeping troops or
to have armed resolution incertain cases?
Richard Gowan (38:25):
There are precedents to the General
Assembly stepping in in that wayand going right back to the
serious crisis in the 1950s.
The General Assembly stepped upand mandated peacekeepers when
the Security Council wasparalyzed.
What we've seen in the last 18months is that General Assembly
members are quite willing tocondemn Russia on principle.
(38:47):
There have been a series ofresolutions reaffirming Ukraine
sovereignty, calling for Russiato pull its forces out of
Ukraine.
Those have been passed by bigmajorities.
I think 140 out of the 190-oddmembers of the UN have backed
those texts.
(39:08):
But it has been striking that alot of the countries that are
willing to condemn Russia onpaper are not willing to go
further.
Midwestern countries voteagainst Moscow at the UN but are
still not participating insanctions against Russia.
There's a feeling that a lot ofUN members are willing to make
statements of principle, butthey don't want to get dragged
(39:32):
into a real confrontation withthe Russians.
By that I don't just mean warwith Russia, but I think a lot
of countries are nervous aboutdispleasing Russia and not
affecting their food supplies orenergy supplies.
Dana Lewis (39:52):
Right.
Nobody wants to put the moneywhere their mouth is in
sprutting their sins in somecase.
Richard Gowan (39:59):
Yeah, and also I mean it is also worth saying
that for quite a lot of UNmembers from the Middle East or
North Africa, they see parallelsbetween this and what happened
in Iraq and what happened inLibya.
We can push back and argue that, despite the history of Western
(40:23):
misadventures, you should stillcondemn Russia, but I think
that some of our counterpartsfrom those regions do feel a bit
more equivocal about this.
Dana Lewis (40:35):
But how do you, on a personal level, working there?
I'm not quite sure how to framethe question, but how do you
put your head on your pillow atnight and think that what's
going on there is constructive,positive, somehow is leading the
(40:56):
world to a better place?
Or you just turn out the light,just go to sleep as quickly as
possible, forget the very stronggin and tonic takes the edge
off at the end of the day.
Richard Gowan (41:07):
Look, I can be absolutely honest with you.
There have been periods in the20 years where I've been working
on the UN for variousorganizations where the level of
frustration is extremely high.
You know we've talked a lotabout Ukraine.
(41:29):
But going back a bit further,in 2021, there were a lot of
debates at the UN about twoconflicts the coup in Myanmar
and the war in Ethiopia and inboth of those cases there simply
wasn't impetus for action atthe UN, and my crisis group
(41:54):
colleagues covering events onthe ground were telling us of
appalling violence in both casesand we could see that the
Security Council wasn't going todeal with those situations.
We could see that the GeneralAssembly wasn't going to deal
with those situations that youknow.
(42:14):
That left one feeling prettyhopeless.
Dana Lewis (42:19):
I would say, on the other hand, hopeless because in
cases where they can probablymake a real difference, they
didn't.
Richard Gowan (42:29):
There are other cases where you know, there are
other cases where you can feelmore positive, even against
quite bleak backdrops.
So we at Crisis Group didcampaign lobbyists we're not
lobbyists, so we're not.
We advocated in 2021-2022 forUN members and the UN to get
(42:55):
more humanitarian assistance toAfghanistan, despite the Taliban
takeover.
We just believed that wasnecessary to save lives and that
advocacy effort, I think, wassuccessful.
Although the situation inAfghanistan remains utterly
bleak, we did sort of live up toour goal of saving lives in
(43:20):
that case.
On Ukraine, I never expectedthe Security Council to act
effectively on Ukraine.
I mean, just by definition,having Russia there as the veto
power made that impossible.
But I do think that some of theadvocacy work we've done around
(43:41):
these big general assemblyvotes, the condemnations of
Russia, you know, I think thathas at least played a small part
in shaking the global narrativearound the war.
And so sometimes you have toaim for small wins, symbolic
wins, while being fully awarethat that isn't getting to the
(44:06):
heart of the matter.
Dana Lewis (44:12):
I take your point, richard Gowan with the
International Crisis Group.
Richard, thank you for theviews and for a pretty good
education on what it's like towork with the United Nations,
and it's a little bit of what Ithought, but a bit more than
that too, and I appreciate verymuch your insight.
Richard Gowan (44:33):
Thank you very much indeed, I mean, I would say
.
By the way, if the idealist, 25year old Richard Gowan, who
started working on the UN, hadheard all this, he would have
thought that I'd fallen in along way from my initial
ambitious goals.
But life's like that, isn't it?
Dana Lewis (44:51):
Well, don't give up on us.
We need people like you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you, richard, and that'sour Backstory this Week.
Please subscribe to the podcastand, most of all, we ask that,
if you value these interviews,share a backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, thanks forlistening and I'll talk to you
(45:11):
again soon.
Please subscribe to the podcastand, most of all, we ask that
(46:51):
you value these interviews.
Richard Gowan (47:28):
Music, music, music you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!