September 17, 2024 • 36 mins
This month the United Nations (UN) will host the ‘Summit of the Future’ in New York. What's the point of this high-level event? Inside Geneva investigates.
“The UN is not an entity that does anything. I mean, we can all blame it, but what is the UN? It’s just the sum of its parts: the governments,” says Christiane Oelrich, journalist for the DPA German Press Agency.
Is the UN’s 1945 structure even fit for purpose?
“Historically the UN for many people is still associated with the West. And the question of including the global south still haunts the UN,” continues analyst Daniel Warner.
Does the UN have an answer to today’s brutal, intractable conflicts?
“Since World War Two there have been plenty of conflicts, but what we have seen in the last three or four or five years is the use of aggression and violence as an instrument of foreign policy. Yes, that’s right,” says Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor for the New York Times.
Can more peaceful nations rescue the UN’s purpose?
“The fact that some countries follow the path of aggression doesn't mean that all the rest of the world has to talk about failure now,” adds Oelrich.
And is the summit a gamble for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres?
“We should tip a hat to Antonio Guterres for even trying to do this given all of the stuff that's going on,” says Imogen Foulkes, Inside Geneva presenter.
Join us on Inside Geneva to find out more about what we can expect from this summit.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
In today's programme, Today's global order is not
working for everyone.
In fact, I would go further andsay it's not working for anyone
.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
The UN is not an entity that does anything.
I mean, we can all blame it,but what is the UN?
It's just the sum of its partsthe governments.
Speaker 5 (00:39):
Historically, the UN for many people is still
associated with the West and thequestion of including the
global South still haunts the UN.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
The summit of the future is not going to change
the world overnight, buthopefully it will be a
springboard to the kinds ofchange we need and a fairer,
more sustainable world foreveryone.
Speaker 6 (01:01):
Since World War II there have been plenty of
conflict, but what we have seenin the last three or four or
five years is the use ofaggression and violence as an
instrument of foreign policy.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
That's right.
We should tip a hat to AntonioGuterres for even trying to do
this, given all of the stuffthat's going on.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
So if there's one or two and especially the permanent
members of the Security Councilblocking progress or a country
blocking progress on anything onclimate change and so on it's
not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and now, injust a week's time, over in New
York, the United Nations isholding what's being called a
summit of the future.
Ambitious title, ambitioustarget.
Apparently, it's to safeguardthe future for present and
(02:05):
coming generations.
Here in Geneva, we're going todiscuss exactly what that might
mean, how realistic it is.
I'm joined by journalistChristian Ulrich of the German
Press Agency, Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor to the New York
Times, and our analyst DanielWarner.
First of all, thank you all forbeing here.
(02:26):
Before I start asking you tounpick this summit, let's hear a
little bit of I suppose wecould call it motivational mood
music about the summit from theUnited Nations.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
The summit of the future is not going to change
the world overnight, buthopefully it will be a
springboard to the kinds ofchange we need and a fairer,
more sustainable world foreveryone.
That we would have a fairer andmore effective international
financial system and much morefinancing for the SDGs, for
climate action and for all ofour agreed goals.
(02:58):
That we would have a collectivesecurity system that more
effectively tackles conflict andprevents conflict.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
And on it goes.
Those goals are not the onlyones.
There's climate change and allsorts of other things.
Before we look at the goalsspecifically, I'd quite like to
ask you all what you think ofthe idea of even holding such a
summit.
Is it worthwhile?
(03:25):
Is it going to be just anotherUN event?
Costs a lot but achieves little.
Christiane.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
What do you think?
I do think it's a great ideabecause it's a reaffirmation of
the founding principles of theUnited Nations and this is a
time in the world where wedesperately need it, with
multilateralism under attack.
And I think it's great toreaffirm the principles that
(03:52):
were once, more than 75 yearsago, formulated to guide the
work.
Does it help?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
That's a totally different question Depends on
the commitment I mean.
I would agree with you.
I think God knows we need to bereminded why multilateralism
could be good for us, given thechallenges that the world is
facing.
What about you, Nick?
Because I think you were maybeslightly more cynical about it
or less optimistic.
Speaker 6 (04:20):
I mean, I agree that it's, in many ways, a great idea
to revisit these fundamentalquestions at a time when the
international system, in so manyrespects, isn't fulfilling the
role that it was intended to andwe see a lot of the values and
standards being challenged inways that question them
(04:43):
relevance to the future.
So that's great.
The problem is that quite a lotof the tools needed to address
some of these issues alreadyexist, and it's a question of
whether these member states havethe political will to make them
work, and I think the danger isthat you wind up with a session
that produces broad platitudesrather than meaningful, specific
(05:05):
actions.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Danny, you arrived in the studio with the kind of
wearing the badge.
I'm Mr Cynical.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
I mean, you put me in that position several times
which I don't mind my accentfrom the Bronx I have to live up
to.
The one thing that bothers me isthis question of reaffirmation.
It seems to me that a realisticsummit would say where we are,
where the problems are and whatcan we do about that.
(05:35):
There was a meeting in Genevaof former international civil
servants and it was just a peptalk and I stood up and said
look, in the Palais des Nations,where we are now, the lights
are turned off, the escalatorsare turned off, the heat is.
Can we talk about reality?
But again, maybe that's theBronx and me coming out, and if
(05:57):
the summit doesn't deal with thereal challenges, then I think
it will be a waste of time andmoney.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, let's talk a little bit about the reality
because I think to be fair to us, in Geneva we are reporting on
the real failures ofmultilateralism and the
consequences of those failuresover and over again.
If we look at, say, theCOVID-19 pandemic, we didn't see
the solidarity that the WHO,the World Health Organization,
(06:27):
for example, had called for.
We see many really brutal butalso dangerously kind of
escalatory conflicts going on,whether it's in the Middle East
or Sudan or Ukraine.
What do we think Is this summitgoing to remind people?
That if they work together,they could do something about
(06:48):
these things?
Speaker 1 (06:48):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Christiane.
Your country, germany, is oneof the kind of leaders in
organizing this summit.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
You know, Germany always has a special history.
Of course that comes withorganizing such a summit.
Germany is always trying topromote itself as the most
multilateral of all countries,because it's all about
cooperation.
Because of the history of theSecond World War, I do think
it's a good idea to cometogether, because what would we
(07:18):
do in the absence of this?
It's a good idea to remindourselves and for the countries
to remind each other of whatthey should strive to do.
I think the big danger is that,as Nick said, everyone can hide
behind the platitudes and pointthe finger at someone else.
So that is the part that ismissing.
(07:41):
But I'm not sure that a summitlike this would be able to come
up with really concrete steps ofthings that need to be done.
It's more of a sort of a loftycircus of ideas, right Well?
Speaker 2 (07:53):
theoretically a circus of ideas oh dear, I mean,
possibly you're absolutelyright or a circus of amendments
and papers.
They are supposed to come upwith a pact, a pact for the
future, although even that, thekind of drafts that I've seen,
don't tell me very much.
Now, Danny, you had your handup.
Speaker 5 (08:13):
Yeah, I want to give a concrete example.
We're coming up to the 75thanniversary of the Geneva
Conventions on Humanitarian Lawand there is a celebration,
several celebrations coming upin Geneva and the Swiss
government, city of Geneva andCanton have invited all members
of the UN Security Council.
(08:34):
And Russia is not coming.
So behind the general title ofmultilateralism is the notion of
international law.
So if we can agree that we'llgo ahead with following
international law, human rights,humanitarian law then I think
that has a repercussion for thewhole system.
(08:55):
So instead of talking aboutsolidarity, imogen did an
excellent conference at theGraduate Institute on the role
of international law, also anInside Geneva podcast Right you
could go back and listen to itOn the role of international law
.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Also an Inside Geneva podcast Right you can go back
and listen to it.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
On the role of international law.
So if we can't agree on that,what kind of pact are we going
to have?
All the countries signed on tothe Geneva Conventions and
Russia is not coming to Genevato celebrate the 75th
anniversary.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Would it be better for the UN to focus on?
Speaker 6 (09:26):
let's reaffirm, or sign in blood, our commitment to
the body of law we already have, that's what this summit is
already doing, and what'sdisappointing is that it starts
off in the zero draft, if you'dlike, basically going back to
the three pillars of the UnitedNations From 1945.
Peace and security, sustainabledevelopment and human rights.
(09:49):
And where are we with any ofthose three?
I mean here, as Danny just said, 75th anniversary of the Geneva
Conventions, and we have thepresident of the ICRC marking
the occasion by sayingessentially, they are being
undermined and pushed aside byviolent conflict.
You know, since World War IIthere have been plenty of
(10:09):
conflict, but what we have seenin the last three or four or
five years is the use ofaggression and violence as an
instrument of foreign policy.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Not simply as an accident of the collapse of
relationships.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
But the fact that some countries follow that path,
like Russia, like Sudan, likemany others in the world, the
fact that some countries followthe path of aggression doesn't
mean that all the rest of theworld has to talk about failure
now.
I mean that they could stilluse that occasion to reaffirm
(10:51):
that those countries that do areoutcasts and do not fulfill the
collective wish of the peoplesof the world.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, I think that that's a very good point.
Then, of course, a country likeRussia is a permanent member of
the Security Council andthere's this argument you hear
from UN diplomats that we needto keep talking to them.
Big power, dangerous country,dangerous government, but the UN
is for everybody.
We need to keep talking to them, Danny.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Yeah, I think there's a problem.
Historically, the UN, for manypeople, is still associated with
the West and the question ofincluding the global South still
haunts the UN, and the factthat the Security Council, the
five permanent members, have notbeen expanded for countries in
(11:41):
the South, brazil, whateverthey're saying, this is not what
we wanted and we have to beincluded, and I think that's a
problem the UN has not solved.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
And I don't think reform of the Security Council
is going to get a look in atthis summit of the future.
And yet it would be a key thingto make the UN fit for the
present and the future would bethat reform.
But it fails at the hurdle ofthe big P5.
Speaker 5 (12:10):
And has been failing for years.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
And I think this is a very important point that we
are just discussing now it's thecountries.
The UN is not an entity thatdoes anything.
I mean, we can all blame it,but what is the UN?
It's just the sum of its parts,the governments.
So if there's one or two, andespecially the permanent members
of the Security Council,blocking progress, or a country
(12:34):
blocking progress on anything,on climate change and so on,
it's not going to happen.
We can.
All you know, it's easy for us,it's easy for populists, it's
easy for conspiracy theorists.
It's easy for us, it's easy forpopulists, it's easy for
conspiracy theorists, it's easyfor dictators.
It's also easy for ministers ofdemocratically elected
governments to point fingers atthe United Nations, whereas it's
(12:56):
us it and accountability fromthemselves.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I actually want to come on to the lack of trust and
conspiracy theories in a moment, but you mentioned climate
change because this is the onethe current UN Secretary General
, antonio Guterres.
He wanted to make climatechange a key thing for his time
(13:20):
in office.
He's in his second term now.
I think he's focusing quite alot of attention on this summit
of the future.
Now, climate change, you wouldthink, would be the one thing
where the UN could unitecountries, or that countries
would unite about understandingthat this is a global challenge,
and yet they are fighting likerats in a sack, in a way, about
(13:45):
how much greenhouse gasemissions and what they should
have to give up, and so on.
Speaker 5 (13:51):
One of the things about states is that generally
not many new ideas come out ofstates, and it does seem to me
we're in a period of acceleratedchange.
To me we're in a period ofaccelerated change and it used
to be that they I'm speaking nowas a former academic that there
were people like John Ruggie,michael Doyle, andy Mack, who
(14:12):
were around the SecretaryGeneral, who had new ideas, and
if the Summit for the Future isonly reaffirming certain basic
things, then there's not muchnew coming out, and I think that
what the world would like tosee is that the UN would come up
with something new, dynamic andenergize the governments and
(14:35):
people in general, and for themoment I haven't heard that.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
But how Every time a UN Secretary General tries to
come up with something new, itfounders on domestic policy of
different governments.
I mean, look at, for example,when Kofi Annan, he had a big
program for UN reform.
The one thing he managed toreform was the UN Human Rights
(15:00):
Commission, which became the UNHuman Rights Council, but with
massive opposition andreluctance and truculence, in
particular from the UnitedStates, which wields a lot of
power still at the UnitedNations.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
I can give a silly answer, imogen Go ahead.
Leadership means convincingpeople who are not on your side
that they should be, and thereis a question of leadership not
only at the head of the UN, butalso in certain countries,
important countries, and I dothink the concept of
multilateralism is confrontedtoday with what I call
(15:36):
anti-globalization.
People are going back to theircountries, their tribes, and
they're not looking for any kindof solidarity.
Speaker 6 (15:45):
Yeah well, I think it's very difficult to disagree
with that statement.
And again, you know the globalresponse to humanitarian crises
is another conspicuous example.
You know the whole purpose ofUN humanitarian aid agencies is
to essentially address a commongood.
Look at the funding for theseorganisations.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
It's always been bad but now it's really dismal.
It's catastrophic.
Look at the aid workers thatare getting killed as well, and
aid workers getting killed.
Speaker 6 (16:17):
But I mean, you know you take an organisation like
OCHA.
They have a central emergencyfund to facilitate quick
responses to particularlyegregious crises.
As Martin Griffiths said beforehe stepped down, you know, this
has been widely admired by manydonor countries and yet they
put out an appeal last year fora billion dollars, which is
(16:40):
peanuts in the scheme of things.
They raised less than half.
China gave less than half amillion dollars, less than
Iceland.
Yeah, you know.
Singapore, 15th richest countryin the world, it gave $50,000.
These are derisory sums whichbasically expose a desire not to
(17:01):
go through multilateralagencies but to go where
individual states feel that theycan get the best bang and
political sort of profile andkudos from their buck.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
That's right.
So that Otter, by the way, forlisteners who don't know is the
UN's Office of Coordination forHumanitarian Affairs, basically
the agency that steps in when abig humanitarian crisis hits.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Can I just footnote that?
Yeah, because we're inSwitzerland, we're in Geneva,
and the Swiss government is nowconsidering cutting back its
development aid to give moremoney to the military.
So the example which should behere with the headquarters of
the ICRC, the headquarters ofHuman Rights Council they're
(17:48):
going to cut back onhumanitarian aid.
So if the Swiss are cuttingback Singapore and other
countries, it's not surprising.
Speaker 6 (17:56):
Yeah, it's just the pitifully small sums of money.
For a very rich country, acountry like China, you know,
the second biggest economy inthe world to produce less than
half a million dollars, I mean.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Particularly as the Chinese have made a big play of
being the last man standing insupport of multilateralism.
They've been doing that inGeneva and you start to suspect
that it's not the last manstanding in support of
multilateralism.
It's the last man standing insupport of China.
Speaker 6 (18:27):
One could take this further to the whole human
rights institution.
I mean, again, it's supposed tobe one of three pillars of the
UN, identified, you know, assuch in these documents for the
summit of the future the Officeof the High Commission for Human
Rights, which is created by theworld to look after our best
(18:49):
interests and defend us againstegregious abuse, and their core
budget is what?
Less than half CristianoRonaldo's salary?
I mean, you know, we're in.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
It's very skewed.
It's a crazy world.
It is a very, very crazy world.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
To take it back to the United Nations.
I think the Secretary Generalis very good at producing the
right soundbites.
We have a database of Guterres'soundbites on climate change
that we put in here and therebecause he has a fantastic
speech writer who comes up withall these great quotes about how
(19:26):
the earth is on fire and stufflike that.
But can he go beyond that?
I wonder whether, dan, youthink he should have more power
to persuade people who don'tbelieve we're on the wrong side.
Or isn't that?
Maybe is that his role to comeup with these bold, you know
great quotes that we can all useall the time?
(19:49):
Isn't that maybe the role thathe has as a secretary general?
Speaker 5 (19:53):
I don't think so.
I think he's the moral compassand I think politically he has
limited role.
But if he bangs on the table, Ithink of Cornelio Someruga, the
former head of the Red Cross.
When he spoke you felt acertain moral compass behind him
and people listened, and itdoes seem to me that Kofi Annan
(20:15):
to some extent had that.
But when you look at peace andsecurity, when you look at the
situation in the Middle East,you see absolutely no mention of
the United Nations involved inthe discussions about ceasefire.
You see Qatar, egypt, etc.
But you don't see the UN.
Why aren't they there If peaceand security are probably the
(20:37):
highest thing on their agenda?
We have the Middle East, wehave Ukraine and we don't see
Guterres or the United.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Nations.
They got pushed out of Syrianegotiations as well, but this
is partly to do with the bigpowers.
They're jockeying for their ownplace in the limelight.
You know to say we achieved itagain.
It's like let's, let's be thehero here.
We don't need the UN.
I'm sure the UN would love tohave a sensible role in all of
(21:04):
these conflicts, but the bigpowers don't want them.
Israel doesn't want the UNanywhere near the Middle East
negotiations, russia doesn'twant the UN near Ukraine
negotiations and they didn'twant the UN near the Syria
negotiations.
I want to bring this in beforewe finish.
(21:25):
It's slightly—well, it's notlighter, it's almost darker, but
it's unusual.
We were talking about the lackof trust in the UN and
conspiracy theories.
Now I had a very weird divedown the rabbit hole of YouTube
while I was researching thispodcast and I basically put in
UN summit of the future and Icame up first with all these
(21:46):
lovely, happy, clappy UN videosand music, mood music and
motivational slogans, and then Icame up with another one which
is from an American lady whoshows people how to pickle
vegetables and can fruit andmake pies.
But in each of her videos,after a few minutes she goes
into other stuff.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
People have very serious concerns about some of
these organizations the UN, theWEF, the WHO, the IMF and what
they're up to, and I have heardrecent talk again that people
are very concerned about signingaway autonomous rights to the
(22:33):
UN in September of 2024.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
She's talking about the summit of the future, and
the reason is that, apparently,her almost 70 000 followers on
youtube have been writing insaying I'm worried about the
summit of the future.
Should I maybe can more fruit,or something like that?
But um, there is this.
We hear it a lot in america.
(22:58):
Sometimes we hear it in Britaintoo.
Where are the people who aregoing to stand up boldly and
explain to their voters what theUN actually does?
You know, I don't seepoliticians doing that.
I expect my prime minister ormy president to do that, danny.
Speaker 5 (23:17):
We can take a bet Imogen between now and November
5th, neither of the presidentialcandidates will stand up for
the United Nations, because theyare unpopular.
They're very unpopular.
But these have gone on foryears and years and I have to go
back in history to AdlaiStevenson, when he confronted
(23:39):
the Russians over Soviets overmissiles in Cuba, to think that
there was a really dramaticmoment when the UN was in the
American press.
Not recently do we see that,and I don't think either of the
candidates will come up and sayI'm for multilateralism.
We have to do more to help theUnited Nations.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
Unlike the man from the Bronx.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Germany will surely defend the United Nations.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
I think they do.
Yeah, I think they do, althoughthey keep.
How do you say that?
Ihr liegt unter den Scheffe.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Okay, they're not trumpeting about that right.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
So they have been the biggest, the largest
contributor to WHO for two years, I think, when the.
United States withdrew.
They never themselves trumpetedabout that, but yes, they do a
lot for multilateralism and Ithink, if there's any
opportunity, the governmentministers would also sing the
praises of UN organizations.
(24:40):
I think they do that all thetime, the praises of UN
organizations.
I think they do that all thetime.
For this lady who is talkingabout pickled vegetables, I
think, and pies, don't forgetthe pies.
I think it's a phenomenon ofthese times where everything is
changing so fast and people needa scapegoat.
(25:02):
Everything is changing so fastand people need a scapegoat.
So for these housewives who arelistening to the advice of this
lady, they will probably findthat comforting to be presented
with some entity somewhere,that's the UN or the WHO I guess
hardly anyone knows theabbreviations that she mentioned
there, the abbreviations thatshe mentioned there but to have
(25:22):
the impression oh, there issomeone I can blame for all the
ills and now I can carry onpickling my vegetables in peace.
I guess that might be theexplanation for that.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
I guess, but I still feel it's a failure of You're
right, dani, I'm sure that theUN won't feature large in the US
presidential election campaignunless it features from the more
right wing side in a verynegative way.
But I still feel when are wegoing to, or how far down the
abyss do we need to look, givenwhat we've seen over the last
(25:57):
two or three years?
To come back to the conclusionwe came to in 1945, that maybe a
body like the UN could behelpful.
Speaker 6 (26:06):
I guess I have very low expectations on that front,
but I think, when we're comingto this particular summit, one
of the interesting features ofit is that it's supposed to come
up with a declaration forfuture generations.
Come up with a declaration forfuture generations, which should
(26:28):
be a way of engaging youngpeople with all these critical
issues of global security for,you know, the next 25, 50 years.
But we have very little senseof what any of the content of
that is or how it has beenreally prepared.
It's been almost invisible andinstead we get sort of
references to forms ofoperationalization of our
(26:51):
commitment to future generations.
Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Word salad.
Un word salad.
Speaker 6 (26:57):
It's not inspiring great hope that this is going to
deliver something that will bemeaningful and excite great
enthusiasm on the part of theTikTok Instagram generation.
Danny.
Speaker 5 (27:12):
I give two quick examples.
If you mention Imogen, the UK,they don't even want to be part
of the European Union.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Well, they're not.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Breaking news.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
They came back.
If you look at the UnitedStates, you know membership in
NATO.
So this is what I call theanti-globalization, going back
to a kind of primitive tribalism, Except that the young in the
UK did want to stay in theEuropean Union.
But they lost.
Speaker 6 (27:39):
Nick.
They thought foolishly thattheir elders and betters were
wiser.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
And they are the future.
This is where I think, andwe're just coming to the end.
Now maybe we can go round thetable and think what you would
like to see the UN do to reviveitself.
I mean, we've all been watchingthe UN for years and years and
years.
What do we think it could do?
I'm going to start with myself,since I'm on a roll.
(28:05):
If we look at the youngergeneration we see in Britain,
they wanted to stay in theEuropean Union.
This is a younger generationthat has seen the benefits of
easier travel far easier than wehad it when we were teenagers,
early 20s.
They also are much moremotivated, I think, by the
challenge or engage with many ofthem the challenge of climate
(28:27):
change and see that as a global,universal challenge.
So maybe the UN should directlyaddress young people, how to
reach them.
That's difficult with all thestuff that's out there.
But I also I do feel nationalgovernments fail on this.
(28:48):
I mean willfully.
They're not such big fans thatun can get in the way of
domestic policy sometimes.
Who else wants?
Speaker 4 (28:57):
um, I would throw in another little thought on what
this could get us.
I think it would have beengreat to include a part in the
summit of the futures of how theUnited Nations can reform
itself.
Inward looking, not like theSecurity Council and the
(29:18):
financial architecture and allthat, but inward looking, it
seems to be a cosmos that isexpanding forever and ever.
There are 125,000 employees inthe United Nations and every new
problem gets a new departmentand there's a lot of duplication
.
So I think, talking to my ownchildren, you know they always
(29:40):
have the impression it's such ahuge, big block, the United
Nations, and it is.
If it was half the size, Ithink that might energize young
people to think, oh, you know,there's something going and
there's also the possibility,instead of expanding forever, to
come back to the roots andmaybe, you know, maybe that
(30:01):
would be something that inspiresyoung people to pay more
attention.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Yeah, Danny, august 19th is the anniversary of the
death of Sergio Vieira de Melo,and Sergio was a star.
He was High Commissioner forHuman Rights, but he was much
more than that, and in the worldwe live in today, I think the
UN needs a star.
I think Taylor Swift has 260million people.
(30:26):
If Taylor Swift comes out andsays UN, someone in the UN has
that kind of star power, it willspeak to the young.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Right, nobody's holding their breath here, nick.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
I have nothing to match such a vision.
I think we have to give creditto Mr Guterres for the ideas
behind this summit.
He has, in his second term, Ithink, completely outshone his
first term.
He has spoken with greatauthority on climate.
He has tried to draw attentionto the inequities of the global
(31:02):
financial system in a way thatnobody else was in sort of major
multilateral fora.
He has tried to address crisesin Ukraine, gaza and Sudan and
get global responses.
So if he can somehow pluck fromUN verbiage a summit that
(31:22):
actually brings people togetherto understand that they have to
find better responses to theseissues, then I think we'd have
to give him high marks for that.
But it's in the hands of statesand the political will of
states and it's up to them tomake it work.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
I was actually almost about to finish your sentence
there.
He can make all that effortthat you mentioned, and I agree
with you, nick.
I think we should tip a hat toAntonio Guterres for even trying
to do this, given all of thestuff that's going on that you
(32:06):
mentioned, that he has providedover Ukraine, russia, over
Israel, gaza and over climatechange, reminding us again and
again of what our fundamentalprinciples are supposed to be.
So we will see what happens atthis UN summit of the future.
What I fear is that it may justget no attention at all, that a
lot of people will gather inNew York and have some nice
chats together and so much elseis going on in the world that
(32:28):
the journalists like us mightnot even cover it.
But at least listeners, you cansay you heard about it here on
Inside Geneva with a bit ofcynicism, a bit of irreverence,
but also a bit of, I think,insight into how the UN works
and how, as one very senior USdiplomat once said to me, yeah,
we criticise the UN, but if wedidn't have it, we'd have to
(32:49):
invent it.
That's it from Inside Geneva forthis week.
My thanks to Christian Ulrich,daniel Warner and Nick
Cumming-Bruce.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(33:10):
Swiss Info production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
(33:31):
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Thank you.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
In today's programme, Today's global order is not
working for everyone.
In fact, I would go further andsay it's not working for anyone
.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
The UN is not an entity that does anything.
I mean, we can all blame it,but what is the UN?
It's just the sum of its partsthe governments.
Speaker 5 (00:39):
Historically, the UN for many people is still
associated with the West and thequestion of including the
global South still haunts the UN.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
The summit of the future is not going to change
the world overnight, buthopefully it will be a
springboard to the kinds ofchange we need and a fairer,
more sustainable world foreveryone.
Speaker 6 (01:01):
Since World War II there have been plenty of
conflict, but what we have seenin the last three or four or
five years is the use ofaggression and violence as an
instrument of foreign policy.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
That's right.
We should tip a hat to AntonioGuterres for even trying to do
this, given all of the stuffthat's going on.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
So if there's one or two and especially the permanent
members of the Security Councilblocking progress or a country
blocking progress on anything onclimate change and so on it's
not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and now, injust a week's time, over in New
York, the United Nations isholding what's being called a
summit of the future.
Ambitious title, ambitioustarget.
Apparently, it's to safeguardthe future for present and
(02:05):
coming generations.
Here in Geneva, we're going todiscuss exactly what that might
mean, how realistic it is.
I'm joined by journalistChristian Ulrich of the German
Press Agency, Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor to the New York
Times, and our analyst DanielWarner.
First of all, thank you all forbeing here.
(02:26):
Before I start asking you tounpick this summit, let's hear a
little bit of I suppose wecould call it motivational mood
music about the summit from theUnited Nations.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
The summit of the future is not going to change
the world overnight, buthopefully it will be a
springboard to the kinds ofchange we need and a fairer,
more sustainable world foreveryone.
That we would have a fairer andmore effective international
financial system and much morefinancing for the SDGs, for
climate action and for all ofour agreed goals.
(02:58):
That we would have a collectivesecurity system that more
effectively tackles conflict andprevents conflict.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
And on it goes.
Those goals are not the onlyones.
There's climate change and allsorts of other things.
Before we look at the goalsspecifically, I'd quite like to
ask you all what you think ofthe idea of even holding such a
summit.
Is it worthwhile?
(03:25):
Is it going to be just anotherUN event?
Costs a lot but achieves little.
Christiane.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
What do you think?
I do think it's a great ideabecause it's a reaffirmation of
the founding principles of theUnited Nations and this is a
time in the world where wedesperately need it, with
multilateralism under attack.
And I think it's great toreaffirm the principles that
(03:52):
were once, more than 75 yearsago, formulated to guide the
work.
Does it help?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
That's a totally different question Depends on
the commitment I mean.
I would agree with you.
I think God knows we need to bereminded why multilateralism
could be good for us, given thechallenges that the world is
facing.
What about you, Nick?
Because I think you were maybeslightly more cynical about it
or less optimistic.
Speaker 6 (04:20):
I mean, I agree that it's, in many ways, a great idea
to revisit these fundamentalquestions at a time when the
international system, in so manyrespects, isn't fulfilling the
role that it was intended to andwe see a lot of the values and
standards being challenged inways that question them
(04:43):
relevance to the future.
So that's great.
The problem is that quite a lotof the tools needed to address
some of these issues alreadyexist, and it's a question of
whether these member states havethe political will to make them
work, and I think the danger isthat you wind up with a session
that produces broad platitudesrather than meaningful, specific
(05:05):
actions.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Danny, you arrived in the studio with the kind of
wearing the badge.
I'm Mr Cynical.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
I mean, you put me in that position several times
which I don't mind my accentfrom the Bronx I have to live up
to.
The one thing that bothers me isthis question of reaffirmation.
It seems to me that a realisticsummit would say where we are,
where the problems are and whatcan we do about that.
(05:35):
There was a meeting in Genevaof former international civil
servants and it was just a peptalk and I stood up and said
look, in the Palais des Nations,where we are now, the lights
are turned off, the escalatorsare turned off, the heat is.
Can we talk about reality?
But again, maybe that's theBronx and me coming out, and if
(05:57):
the summit doesn't deal with thereal challenges, then I think
it will be a waste of time andmoney.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Well, let's talk a little bit about the reality
because I think to be fair to us, in Geneva we are reporting on
the real failures ofmultilateralism and the
consequences of those failuresover and over again.
If we look at, say, theCOVID-19 pandemic, we didn't see
the solidarity that the WHO,the World Health Organization,
(06:27):
for example, had called for.
We see many really brutal butalso dangerously kind of
escalatory conflicts going on,whether it's in the Middle East
or Sudan or Ukraine.
What do we think Is this summitgoing to remind people?
That if they work together,they could do something about
(06:48):
these things?
Speaker 1 (06:48):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Christiane.
Your country, germany, is oneof the kind of leaders in
organizing this summit.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
You know, Germany always has a special history.
Of course that comes withorganizing such a summit.
Germany is always trying topromote itself as the most
multilateral of all countries,because it's all about
cooperation.
Because of the history of theSecond World War, I do think
it's a good idea to cometogether, because what would we
(07:18):
do in the absence of this?
It's a good idea to remindourselves and for the countries
to remind each other of whatthey should strive to do.
I think the big danger is that,as Nick said, everyone can hide
behind the platitudes and pointthe finger at someone else.
So that is the part that ismissing.
(07:41):
But I'm not sure that a summitlike this would be able to come
up with really concrete steps ofthings that need to be done.
It's more of a sort of a loftycircus of ideas, right Well?
Speaker 2 (07:53):
theoretically a circus of ideas oh dear, I mean,
possibly you're absolutelyright or a circus of amendments
and papers.
They are supposed to come upwith a pact, a pact for the
future, although even that, thekind of drafts that I've seen,
don't tell me very much.
Now, Danny, you had your handup.
Speaker 5 (08:13):
Yeah, I want to give a concrete example.
We're coming up to the 75thanniversary of the Geneva
Conventions on Humanitarian Lawand there is a celebration,
several celebrations coming upin Geneva and the Swiss
government, city of Geneva andCanton have invited all members
of the UN Security Council.
(08:34):
And Russia is not coming.
So behind the general title ofmultilateralism is the notion of
international law.
So if we can agree that we'llgo ahead with following
international law, human rights,humanitarian law then I think
that has a repercussion for thewhole system.
(08:55):
So instead of talking aboutsolidarity, imogen did an
excellent conference at theGraduate Institute on the role
of international law, also anInside Geneva podcast Right you
could go back and listen to itOn the role of international law
.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Also an Inside Geneva podcast Right you can go back
and listen to it.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
On the role of international law.
So if we can't agree on that,what kind of pact are we going
to have?
All the countries signed on tothe Geneva Conventions and
Russia is not coming to Genevato celebrate the 75th
anniversary.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Would it be better for the UN to focus on?
Speaker 6 (09:26):
let's reaffirm, or sign in blood, our commitment to
the body of law we already have, that's what this summit is
already doing, and what'sdisappointing is that it starts
off in the zero draft, if you'dlike, basically going back to
the three pillars of the UnitedNations From 1945.
Peace and security, sustainabledevelopment and human rights.
(09:49):
And where are we with any ofthose three?
I mean here, as Danny just said, 75th anniversary of the Geneva
Conventions, and we have thepresident of the ICRC marking
the occasion by sayingessentially, they are being
undermined and pushed aside byviolent conflict.
You know, since World War IIthere have been plenty of
(10:09):
conflict, but what we have seenin the last three or four or
five years is the use ofaggression and violence as an
instrument of foreign policy.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
Not simply as an accident of the collapse of
relationships.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
But the fact that some countries follow that path,
like Russia, like Sudan, likemany others in the world, the
fact that some countries followthe path of aggression doesn't
mean that all the rest of theworld has to talk about failure
now.
I mean that they could stilluse that occasion to reaffirm
(10:51):
that those countries that do areoutcasts and do not fulfill the
collective wish of the peoplesof the world.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, I think that that's a very good point.
Then, of course, a country likeRussia is a permanent member of
the Security Council andthere's this argument you hear
from UN diplomats that we needto keep talking to them.
Big power, dangerous country,dangerous government, but the UN
is for everybody.
We need to keep talking to them, Danny.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
Yeah, I think there's a problem.
Historically, the UN, for manypeople, is still associated with
the West and the question ofincluding the global South still
haunts the UN, and the factthat the Security Council, the
five permanent members, have notbeen expanded for countries in
(11:41):
the South, brazil, whateverthey're saying, this is not what
we wanted and we have to beincluded, and I think that's a
problem the UN has not solved.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
And I don't think reform of the Security Council
is going to get a look in atthis summit of the future.
And yet it would be a key thingto make the UN fit for the
present and the future would bethat reform.
But it fails at the hurdle ofthe big P5.
Speaker 5 (12:10):
And has been failing for years.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
And I think this is a very important point that we
are just discussing now it's thecountries.
The UN is not an entity thatdoes anything.
I mean, we can all blame it,but what is the UN?
It's just the sum of its parts,the governments.
So if there's one or two, andespecially the permanent members
of the Security Council,blocking progress, or a country
(12:34):
blocking progress on anything,on climate change and so on,
it's not going to happen.
We can.
All you know, it's easy for us,it's easy for populists, it's
easy for conspiracy theorists.
It's easy for us, it's easy forpopulists, it's easy for
conspiracy theorists, it's easyfor dictators.
It's also easy for ministers ofdemocratically elected
governments to point fingers atthe United Nations, whereas it's
(12:56):
us it and accountability fromthemselves.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I actually want to come on to the lack of trust and
conspiracy theories in a moment, but you mentioned climate
change because this is the onethe current UN Secretary General
, antonio Guterres.
He wanted to make climatechange a key thing for his time
(13:20):
in office.
He's in his second term now.
I think he's focusing quite alot of attention on this summit
of the future.
Now, climate change, you wouldthink, would be the one thing
where the UN could unitecountries, or that countries
would unite about understandingthat this is a global challenge,
and yet they are fighting likerats in a sack, in a way, about
(13:45):
how much greenhouse gasemissions and what they should
have to give up, and so on.
Speaker 5 (13:51):
One of the things about states is that generally
not many new ideas come out ofstates, and it does seem to me
we're in a period of acceleratedchange.
To me we're in a period ofaccelerated change and it used
to be that they I'm speaking nowas a former academic that there
were people like John Ruggie,michael Doyle, andy Mack, who
(14:12):
were around the SecretaryGeneral, who had new ideas, and
if the Summit for the Future isonly reaffirming certain basic
things, then there's not muchnew coming out, and I think that
what the world would like tosee is that the UN would come up
with something new, dynamic andenergize the governments and
(14:35):
people in general, and for themoment I haven't heard that.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
But how Every time a UN Secretary General tries to
come up with something new, itfounders on domestic policy of
different governments.
I mean, look at, for example,when Kofi Annan, he had a big
program for UN reform.
The one thing he managed toreform was the UN Human Rights
(15:00):
Commission, which became the UNHuman Rights Council, but with
massive opposition andreluctance and truculence, in
particular from the UnitedStates, which wields a lot of
power still at the UnitedNations.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
I can give a silly answer, imogen Go ahead.
Leadership means convincingpeople who are not on your side
that they should be, and thereis a question of leadership not
only at the head of the UN, butalso in certain countries,
important countries, and I dothink the concept of
multilateralism is confrontedtoday with what I call
(15:36):
anti-globalization.
People are going back to theircountries, their tribes, and
they're not looking for any kindof solidarity.
Speaker 6 (15:45):
Yeah well, I think it's very difficult to disagree
with that statement.
And again, you know the globalresponse to humanitarian crises
is another conspicuous example.
You know the whole purpose ofUN humanitarian aid agencies is
to essentially address a commongood.
Look at the funding for theseorganisations.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
It's always been bad but now it's really dismal.
It's catastrophic.
Look at the aid workers thatare getting killed as well, and
aid workers getting killed.
Speaker 6 (16:17):
But I mean, you know you take an organisation like
OCHA.
They have a central emergencyfund to facilitate quick
responses to particularlyegregious crises.
As Martin Griffiths said beforehe stepped down, you know, this
has been widely admired by manydonor countries and yet they
put out an appeal last year fora billion dollars, which is
(16:40):
peanuts in the scheme of things.
They raised less than half.
China gave less than half amillion dollars, less than
Iceland.
Yeah, you know.
Singapore, 15th richest countryin the world, it gave $50,000.
These are derisory sums whichbasically expose a desire not to
(17:01):
go through multilateralagencies but to go where
individual states feel that theycan get the best bang and
political sort of profile andkudos from their buck.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
That's right.
So that Otter, by the way, forlisteners who don't know is the
UN's Office of Coordination forHumanitarian Affairs, basically
the agency that steps in when abig humanitarian crisis hits.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Can I just footnote that?
Yeah, because we're inSwitzerland, we're in Geneva,
and the Swiss government is nowconsidering cutting back its
development aid to give moremoney to the military.
So the example which should behere with the headquarters of
the ICRC, the headquarters ofHuman Rights Council they're
(17:48):
going to cut back onhumanitarian aid.
So if the Swiss are cuttingback Singapore and other
countries, it's not surprising.
Speaker 6 (17:56):
Yeah, it's just the pitifully small sums of money.
For a very rich country, acountry like China, you know,
the second biggest economy inthe world to produce less than
half a million dollars, I mean.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Particularly as the Chinese have made a big play of
being the last man standing insupport of multilateralism.
They've been doing that inGeneva and you start to suspect
that it's not the last manstanding in support of
multilateralism.
It's the last man standing insupport of China.
Speaker 6 (18:27):
One could take this further to the whole human
rights institution.
I mean, again, it's supposed tobe one of three pillars of the
UN, identified, you know, assuch in these documents for the
summit of the future the Officeof the High Commission for Human
Rights, which is created by theworld to look after our best
(18:49):
interests and defend us againstegregious abuse, and their core
budget is what?
Less than half CristianoRonaldo's salary?
I mean, you know, we're in.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
It's very skewed.
It's a crazy world.
It is a very, very crazy world.
Speaker 4 (19:04):
To take it back to the United Nations.
I think the Secretary Generalis very good at producing the
right soundbites.
We have a database of Guterres'soundbites on climate change
that we put in here and therebecause he has a fantastic
speech writer who comes up withall these great quotes about how
(19:26):
the earth is on fire and stufflike that.
But can he go beyond that?
I wonder whether, dan, youthink he should have more power
to persuade people who don'tbelieve we're on the wrong side.
Or isn't that?
Maybe is that his role to comeup with these bold, you know
great quotes that we can all useall the time?
(19:49):
Isn't that maybe the role thathe has as a secretary general?
Speaker 5 (19:53):
I don't think so.
I think he's the moral compassand I think politically he has
limited role.
But if he bangs on the table, Ithink of Cornelio Someruga, the
former head of the Red Cross.
When he spoke you felt acertain moral compass behind him
and people listened, and itdoes seem to me that Kofi Annan
(20:15):
to some extent had that.
But when you look at peace andsecurity, when you look at the
situation in the Middle East,you see absolutely no mention of
the United Nations involved inthe discussions about ceasefire.
You see Qatar, egypt, etc.
But you don't see the UN.
Why aren't they there If peaceand security are probably the
(20:37):
highest thing on their agenda?
We have the Middle East, wehave Ukraine and we don't see
Guterres or the United.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
Nations.
They got pushed out of Syrianegotiations as well, but this
is partly to do with the bigpowers.
They're jockeying for their ownplace in the limelight.
You know to say we achieved itagain.
It's like let's, let's be thehero here.
We don't need the UN.
I'm sure the UN would love tohave a sensible role in all of
(21:04):
these conflicts, but the bigpowers don't want them.
Israel doesn't want the UNanywhere near the Middle East
negotiations, russia doesn'twant the UN near Ukraine
negotiations and they didn'twant the UN near the Syria
negotiations.
I want to bring this in beforewe finish.
(21:25):
It's slightly—well, it's notlighter, it's almost darker, but
it's unusual.
We were talking about the lackof trust in the UN and
conspiracy theories.
Now I had a very weird divedown the rabbit hole of YouTube
while I was researching thispodcast and I basically put in
UN summit of the future and Icame up first with all these
(21:46):
lovely, happy, clappy UN videosand music, mood music and
motivational slogans, and then Icame up with another one which
is from an American lady whoshows people how to pickle
vegetables and can fruit andmake pies.
But in each of her videos,after a few minutes she goes
into other stuff.
Speaker 3 (22:07):
People have very serious concerns about some of
these organizations the UN, theWEF, the WHO, the IMF and what
they're up to, and I have heardrecent talk again that people
are very concerned about signingaway autonomous rights to the
(22:33):
UN in September of 2024.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
She's talking about the summit of the future, and
the reason is that, apparently,her almost 70 000 followers on
youtube have been writing insaying I'm worried about the
summit of the future.
Should I maybe can more fruit,or something like that?
But um, there is this.
We hear it a lot in america.
(22:58):
Sometimes we hear it in Britaintoo.
Where are the people who aregoing to stand up boldly and
explain to their voters what theUN actually does?
You know, I don't seepoliticians doing that.
I expect my prime minister ormy president to do that, danny.
Speaker 5 (23:17):
We can take a bet Imogen between now and November
5th, neither of the presidentialcandidates will stand up for
the United Nations, because theyare unpopular.
They're very unpopular.
But these have gone on foryears and years and I have to go
back in history to AdlaiStevenson, when he confronted
(23:39):
the Russians over Soviets overmissiles in Cuba, to think that
there was a really dramaticmoment when the UN was in the
American press.
Not recently do we see that,and I don't think either of the
candidates will come up and sayI'm for multilateralism.
We have to do more to help theUnited Nations.
Speaker 6 (24:00):
Unlike the man from the Bronx.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Germany will surely defend the United Nations.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
I think they do.
Yeah, I think they do, althoughthey keep.
How do you say that?
Ihr liegt unter den Scheffe.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Okay, they're not trumpeting about that right.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
So they have been the biggest, the largest
contributor to WHO for two years, I think, when the.
United States withdrew.
They never themselves trumpetedabout that, but yes, they do a
lot for multilateralism and Ithink, if there's any
opportunity, the governmentministers would also sing the
praises of UN organizations.
(24:40):
I think they do that all thetime, the praises of UN
organizations.
I think they do that all thetime.
For this lady who is talkingabout pickled vegetables, I
think, and pies, don't forgetthe pies.
I think it's a phenomenon ofthese times where everything is
changing so fast and people needa scapegoat.
(25:02):
Everything is changing so fastand people need a scapegoat.
So for these housewives who arelistening to the advice of this
lady, they will probably findthat comforting to be presented
with some entity somewhere,that's the UN or the WHO I guess
hardly anyone knows theabbreviations that she mentioned
there, the abbreviations thatshe mentioned there but to have
(25:22):
the impression oh, there issomeone I can blame for all the
ills and now I can carry onpickling my vegetables in peace.
I guess that might be theexplanation for that.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
I guess, but I still feel it's a failure of You're
right, dani, I'm sure that theUN won't feature large in the US
presidential election campaignunless it features from the more
right wing side in a verynegative way.
But I still feel when are wegoing to, or how far down the
abyss do we need to look, givenwhat we've seen over the last
(25:57):
two or three years?
To come back to the conclusionwe came to in 1945, that maybe a
body like the UN could behelpful.
Speaker 6 (26:06):
I guess I have very low expectations on that front,
but I think, when we're comingto this particular summit, one
of the interesting features ofit is that it's supposed to come
up with a declaration forfuture generations.
Come up with a declaration forfuture generations, which should
(26:28):
be a way of engaging youngpeople with all these critical
issues of global security for,you know, the next 25, 50 years.
But we have very little senseof what any of the content of
that is or how it has beenreally prepared.
It's been almost invisible andinstead we get sort of
references to forms ofoperationalization of our
(26:51):
commitment to future generations.
Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Word salad.
Un word salad.
Speaker 6 (26:57):
It's not inspiring great hope that this is going to
deliver something that will bemeaningful and excite great
enthusiasm on the part of theTikTok Instagram generation.
Danny.
Speaker 5 (27:12):
I give two quick examples.
If you mention Imogen, the UK,they don't even want to be part
of the European Union.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Well, they're not.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Breaking news.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
They came back.
If you look at the UnitedStates, you know membership in
NATO.
So this is what I call theanti-globalization, going back
to a kind of primitive tribalism, Except that the young in the
UK did want to stay in theEuropean Union.
But they lost.
Speaker 6 (27:39):
Nick.
They thought foolishly thattheir elders and betters were
wiser.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
And they are the future.
This is where I think, andwe're just coming to the end.
Now maybe we can go round thetable and think what you would
like to see the UN do to reviveitself.
I mean, we've all been watchingthe UN for years and years and
years.
What do we think it could do?
I'm going to start with myself,since I'm on a roll.
(28:05):
If we look at the youngergeneration we see in Britain,
they wanted to stay in theEuropean Union.
This is a younger generationthat has seen the benefits of
easier travel far easier than wehad it when we were teenagers,
early 20s.
They also are much moremotivated, I think, by the
challenge or engage with many ofthem the challenge of climate
(28:27):
change and see that as a global,universal challenge.
So maybe the UN should directlyaddress young people, how to
reach them.
That's difficult with all thestuff that's out there.
But I also I do feel nationalgovernments fail on this.
(28:48):
I mean willfully.
They're not such big fans thatun can get in the way of
domestic policy sometimes.
Who else wants?
Speaker 4 (28:57):
um, I would throw in another little thought on what
this could get us.
I think it would have beengreat to include a part in the
summit of the futures of how theUnited Nations can reform
itself.
Inward looking, not like theSecurity Council and the
(29:18):
financial architecture and allthat, but inward looking, it
seems to be a cosmos that isexpanding forever and ever.
There are 125,000 employees inthe United Nations and every new
problem gets a new departmentand there's a lot of duplication
.
So I think, talking to my ownchildren, you know they always
(29:40):
have the impression it's such ahuge, big block, the United
Nations, and it is.
If it was half the size, Ithink that might energize young
people to think, oh, you know,there's something going and
there's also the possibility,instead of expanding forever, to
come back to the roots andmaybe, you know, maybe that
(30:01):
would be something that inspiresyoung people to pay more
attention.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Yeah, Danny, august 19th is the anniversary of the
death of Sergio Vieira de Melo,and Sergio was a star.
He was High Commissioner forHuman Rights, but he was much
more than that, and in the worldwe live in today, I think the
UN needs a star.
I think Taylor Swift has 260million people.
(30:26):
If Taylor Swift comes out andsays UN, someone in the UN has
that kind of star power, it willspeak to the young.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Right, nobody's holding their breath here, nick.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
I have nothing to match such a vision.
I think we have to give creditto Mr Guterres for the ideas
behind this summit.
He has, in his second term, Ithink, completely outshone his
first term.
He has spoken with greatauthority on climate.
He has tried to draw attentionto the inequities of the global
(31:02):
financial system in a way thatnobody else was in sort of major
multilateral fora.
He has tried to address crisesin Ukraine, gaza and Sudan and
get global responses.
So if he can somehow pluck fromUN verbiage a summit that
(31:22):
actually brings people togetherto understand that they have to
find better responses to theseissues, then I think we'd have
to give him high marks for that.
But it's in the hands of statesand the political will of
states and it's up to them tomake it work.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
I was actually almost about to finish your sentence
there.
He can make all that effortthat you mentioned, and I agree
with you, nick.
I think we should tip a hat toAntonio Guterres for even trying
to do this, given all of thestuff that's going on that you
(32:06):
mentioned, that he has providedover Ukraine, russia, over
Israel, gaza and over climatechange, reminding us again and
again of what our fundamentalprinciples are supposed to be.
So we will see what happens atthis UN summit of the future.
What I fear is that it may justget no attention at all, that a
lot of people will gather inNew York and have some nice
chats together and so much elseis going on in the world that
(32:28):
the journalists like us mightnot even cover it.
But at least listeners, you cansay you heard about it here on
Inside Geneva with a bit ofcynicism, a bit of irreverence,
but also a bit of, I think,insight into how the UN works
and how, as one very senior USdiplomat once said to me, yeah,
we criticise the UN, but if wedidn't have it, we'd have to
(32:49):
invent it.
That's it from Inside Geneva forthis week.
My thanks to Christian Ulrich,daniel Warner and Nick
Cumming-Bruce.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(33:10):
Swiss Info production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
subscribe to us and review uswherever you get your podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
(33:31):
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
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!
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. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com