October 15, 2024 • 38 mins
The presidential elections in the United States (US) are just a couple of weeks away. What will they mean for international affairs, for Ukraine, for the Middle East, for humanitarian work, for international law and for the United Nations (UN) in Geneva?
“When I was in the US, I definitely saw that there is no interest for anything called multilateralism or collaboration globally. Because it’s a matter of support – political, financial and moral support for international questions and for international Geneva. I think Europe is there, yes, but I don’t think Europe will be able to match the US,” says Swedish journalist Gunilla von Hall.
Does it even matter who wins? Or is the waning support for multilateralism part of a bigger problem?
“Is multilateralism a system that allows all countries to deal with each other in a civil and non-violent way where common interest prevails? Or is it the appearance of a system that allows the continued hegemony of the old powers after the Second World War?” says Tammam Aloudat head of the international medical aid charity Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) Netherlands.
“There are two words that are key here. One is the notion of polarisation, not only in the United States, but internationally. We see it in Geneva, we see it everywhere. The second is the word transactional. Everything seems to be transactional: ‘what’s in this for me?’ instead of someone coming in and saying: ‘for the common good'," adds analyst Daniel Warner.
Would the multilateral system even be better off without the US?
“I don't think we can afford to sit in an arena where our hope for multilateralism, which still is in the UN and its institutions, [means we are] sitting still, taking the constant bullying of the United States,” says Aloudat.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast to discover how important the US still is these days.
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.
In today's programme….
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have
the disastrous war betweenRussia and Ukraine settled.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
When I was in the US.
I definitely see there is nointerest for anything called
multilateralism or collaborationglobally.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
There are some in my country who would force Ukraine
to give up large parts of itssovereign territory.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
There are two words that are key here.
One is the notion ofpolarization, not only in the
United States butinternationally.
We see it in Geneva, we see iteverywhere.
And the second is the wordtransactional.
Everything seems to betransactional.
What's in this for me?
I gave them Golan Heights.
(01:03):
I gave them the Abraham Accords, I recognized the capital of
Israel and opened the embassy inJerusalem, Gave them billions
and billions of dollars.
I was the best friend Israelever had.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
Is multilateralism a system that allows all countries
to deal with each other in acivil and nonviolent way, where
common interest prevails, or isit the appearance of a system
that allows the continuedhegemony of the old powers after
World War two?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
international humanitarian law must be
respected.
Too many innocent Palestinianshave been killed.
The scale of civilian sufferingand the images and videos
coming from Gaza are devastating.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I would say that this particular conflict has done
more to undermine the US placein the world, but at the same
time undermine the multilateralsystem, than anything that we've
seen in the last few decades.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
It's a matter of support, political, financial,
moral support to internationalquestions, to international
Geneva.
I think Europe is there, yes,but Europe will not be able, I
think, to match the UnitedStates.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
I don't think we can afford to sit in an arena where
our hope for multilateralism,which still is the United
Nations and its institutions, isstill sitting, taking the
constant bullying of the UnitedStates.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and todaywe're going to talk US
presidential elections.
It may be a bit of a cliche tosay that Europe is looking
anxiously across the Atlantic,worrying, maybe about another
Trump win, but here in Geneva wewant to go a little deeper than
that.
So, regardless of who wins, howimportant is the United States
(03:13):
these days?
How committed is it Democrat orRepublican to the things we
talk so much about here inGeneva international law
standards, the fundamentalprinciples we all apparently
agreed on post-World War II,what we often call the
rules-based order To join me.
(03:34):
I've got regular analyst DanielWarner, swedish journalist
Gunilla von Hall and head of thehumanitarian agency MSF
Netherlands, tamam Aloudat.
He is originally from Syria.
Welcome to you all, danny.
As the US citizen in the room,I'm going to come to you first.
Talking to you, a while ago yousaid neither Trump nor Harris
(03:58):
was going to campaign on foreignpolicy.
It's just not a factor toAmerican voters, you think.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
No, as someone famously said, it's the
economy's stupid.
Foreign affairs is not a majorissue, but it should be said
Imogen to start with.
Why is the United Stateselection that important?
And it should be reiteratedthat the United States was
fundamental to the League ofNations and fundamental to
(04:27):
starting the UN.
So it's normal that everyone'slooking at the election.
Whether the results will affectmultilateralism, whether the
results will help the UN, thatremains to be seen.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Ghanila, let me come to you next, because you've
actually been in the Statesreporting on the elections.
I'm just wondering what yoursense of it is.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
It's very interesting because I was there this summer
to report on the election.
I was at a Trump rally inMinnesota.
I was at a Kamala Harris rallyin Atlanta.
I was in Washington, in thesuburbs and in the city.
I was in Washington, in thesuburbs and in the city, and
almost everyone I spoke to werebasically focused on kitchen
table issues.
(05:11):
They want to have lower pricesfor food, grocery prices, lower
gasoline prices and close theborder Basically these three
issues.
And then when I try to speakabout well, what about
international?
What about Ukraine and Gaza orTaiwan?
It was barely that peoplereacted and they would say like
(05:40):
well, ukraine, especially withUkraine.
People told me, both the Trumpcrowd and also people at the
Kamala Harris rally, that why dowe continue to support and pay
money and give weapons?
We should care about the UnitedStates, about our country,
first, and then care aboutUkraine and far away, and where
is Ukraine anyway?
It was striking how littleappetite and interest there were
(06:03):
in international affairs,international policy and what
the United States can do.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
You know it's quite interesting.
You say that I heard a Europeanformer ambassador to Washington
commenting on this.
He said it's probably notreally a question of whether the
US will withdraw frominternational affairs.
It's basically one candidatewill slam the door on his way
out and the other will creepaway hoping nobody notices.
(06:33):
I hope it's not as bad as that.
But, tam, let me ask you,because we're in a very unstable
world and I heard yourcolleague from Doctors Without
Borders, medsans Frontier, or Iread in an article today talking
about how the big powers, inparticular the United States,
(06:57):
was using humanitarian aid as akind of smokescreen and that
their actual foreign policy isat best helpless and at worst
part of the problem,particularly when it comes to
the Middle East.
Speaker 5 (07:11):
Yes, I do think it is worth examining now,
particularly at this moment,whether we're looking at a
system that has broken down or asystem that we have convinced
ourselves existed when it reallydidn't.
If you think about, you knowwe're talking about
multilateralism, and here itwarrants the definition.
(07:32):
Is multilateralism a systemthat allows all countries to
deal with each other in a civiland non-violent way where common
interest prevails, or is it theappearance of a system that
allows the continued hegemony ofthe old powers after World War
II?
I mean the first thing you saida system we designed after
(07:54):
World War II.
Who the we is?
Most of us were under colonialrule at the time.
We designed nothing and westill suffer the consequences of
a system that is designed toempower people already in power.
I'm not going to venture tothink why is one going to slam
the door and the other going tocreep out?
(08:15):
It's beside the point.
Now, maybe it doesn't pay to bein the pretense of a
multilateral system anymore, butat least let's make a possible
starting point the fact thatthere hasn't been an equitable,
multilateral, rules-based orderever.
It's not a Trump thing.
The humanitarian crisis onlymattered as far as they mattered
(08:38):
in ex-colonies or in places ofinterest.
So what we probably are seeingnow is, rather than a new smoke
screen, the clearing of the oldsmoke screens.
And I here won't talk about theUS alone, but it seems to me
that Western governments stoppedcaring about appearing
(09:00):
benevolent, as cheaply as thatcomes through the crumbs of
humanitarian aid they give.
The UK under Johnson stoppedfunding others.
So it's about what do they careabout now and what do they care
to pretend to be at this point?
Speaker 2 (09:18):
That is a really important question.
I saw you nodding there,gunilla, and I want to come to
you on that point.
But, danny, I'd maybe ask youfirst.
I mean, tamman is way beyondour framing of the debate, in
the sense that he doesn't seethe US as a global leader at all
in any kind of beneficial way,whoever is in the White House.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Well, I think he makes an interesting distinction
between who the we are.
I did mention Tom, the UnitedStates.
I didn't say it was beyond that, but the question of whether
the UN and multilateralism areWestern-oriented or universal is
a very good point.
I would make a distinction,though.
The UN is totally failing inmaking sure there's peace and
(10:04):
security there's no issue aboutthat in Ukraine, middle East and
other places Sudan but thereare certain organizations in
Geneva the ITU, internationalTelecommunications or others
that may have certain benefitsfor countries all over the world
.
So I would say that what we'reseeing now is the inability of
(10:26):
the UN to deal with peace andsecurity, which is supposed to
be one of its, if not its,fundamental thing to do.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Gunilla.
What do you make of Tamam'spoint that maybe this
multilateral system neverproperly existed, or perhaps
only in the minds of the Westernpowers?
Speaker 3 (10:46):
I tend to agree and more and more, and that's based
on what I hear working as ajournalist in different areas.
Now, when I was in the US, Idefinitely see there is no
interest for anything calledmultilateralism or collaboration
globally, perhaps with somequestions like climate change
(11:07):
and diseases and so forth, butpolitically there is almost like
a resignation because SecurityCouncil is always blocked.
Nothing happens.
They are incapable of stoppingany large conflicts, like Danny
is saying also.
So I see that and also what Itend to see.
I was in Russia this year and ofcourse, you get another point
(11:30):
of view from there, but there Ialso hear this that we do not
want to have this.
We want to have a multipolarworld.
It is BRICS, it is India, China, South Africa, other countries,
other countries than Europe andthe US.
I don't only hear this from theRussians, but also from other
quarters an interest in kind ofturning away from the
(11:53):
multilateralism that has beeninvented or built up like a
structure by the Western worldand by the United States.
So, yes, there is our notion ofmultilateralism from perhaps a
Western point of view that is incrisis.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Well, it's interesting you mentioned BRICS
because they are meeting, thatis, brazil, russia, india, china
, south Africa.
In Russia, the no-go area forthe West, the sanction after
sanction after sanction, and yetthese big emerging economic
powers are meeting there.
They're going to do some verygood deals together, I expect.
(12:33):
And I wonder, and again I willask you this, tama we've had for
a long time in Geneva, geneva,the claim of double standards
towards the traditional Westernpowers, but that in the last 12
months, over the conflict inGaza, I'm wondering whether the
(12:57):
Western powers have lost any ofthe moral authority they had,
and I obviously, because we'retalking about the elections in
the United States, I include theUnited States in that.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
Yeah, I just want to follow a bit on what Dani said
on some of the UN functions.
I think, to be fair, evenorganisations that haven't had
the best reputation for beingeffective or outspoken, like WHO
, have spoken better than manyothers in the past between COVID
and Gaza, and we've heard fromWHO positions that are not what
(13:30):
you'd expect here from WHOcourageous and straightforward.
But to go back to moralauthority, as someone who comes
from a country that has beenhistorically opposed to American
imperialism, I don't know thateverybody else thinks of the
moral authority in the West asfondly as the West thinks of it.
(13:52):
This is why I talk aboutstopping the pretense rather
than stopping the action.
Much of the world has sufferedthe double edge of the West
wanting to appear moral whileacting immoral over the past
many decades, and now we don'tat least have to pretend that
(14:13):
the West is moral anymore In thesense of, if you look at
Palestine and the completenegligence of what's happening,
continuing supplying weapons.
Complete negligence of what'shappening, continuing supplying
weapons.
I mean Macron wants to appearlike a champion now that, a year
later and 42,000 people dead,he's calling for stopping
(14:40):
exporting weapons to Israel andBiden speaks very mildly about
the situation with Netanyahu andJohn Bolton goes on CNN and
tells him to put a sock in it.
I mean, there is not even asemi-civilized conversation
anymore.
And the reason I mentioned that, not because I want to amplify
the obscenity of Bolton, butbecause it seems to pay better
(15:03):
for home politics to be openlyrude and foul-mouthed about
being a civilized nation amongnations.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Now that is a very depressing but actually, I think
, quite accurate point.
Dannyaruga To me when he waspresident of the Red Cross.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
There was a moral compass there.
Do we have any leaders in theUN or other places who are moral
leaders today?
I think the whole concept ofmoral authority is declining, if
not disappearing.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Yeah, I think there is a point there.
There's so much contradictionsand double standards because,
you can see, the US always sayswe're the global champion of
democracy and human rights, butat the same time, it has
alliances with theseauthoritarian regimes like Saudi
Arabia or Egypt that reallyhave criticism for the human
(16:15):
rights violations and this, Ithink, undermines the US
credibility in these questions,and this is a big issue.
A lot of people say you knowthe US, yeah, it's going to lead
, you know they're the leader ofdemocracy, of human rights, but
then in practice, what are theydoing?
There was a militaryintervention in Iraq, in Libya,
(16:37):
but the Syrian civil war nothingreally changed with the US.
We had the Uyghurs in China.
There hasn't been much actioneither if you compare to what
happened in Iraq and Libya.
So the choices are driven bygeopolitical interests rather
than these moral principles andweight that we could expect,
(17:00):
perhaps, from the US.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, I mean, I think that you are echoing things I
hear in Geneva, not just fromnon-Western countries but
increasingly from some Westerncountries, that you know you
have this cliched status as theleader of the free world.
I mean, even I that phrasestarts to bug me.
(17:22):
But let's bring it down tosomething which is also
important and that is cashdollars, because the United
States is a big, big funder ofthe UN humanitarian agencies in
Geneva, big funder to the WorldHealth Organization, to the UN
Refugee Agency, also to theInternational Committee of the
(17:45):
Red Cross.
Now, under Trump Mark One, wesaw him start moving away from
the US, left the Human RightsCouncil, left the Paris Climate
Accord, left the Iran nucleardeal, wanted to leave the World
Health Organization.
So that matters, doesn't it?
(18:05):
I mean the money, were it Trump, or even political pressure on
a Democrat president to cutthings back, that's going to
matter here in Geneva.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Yeah, but the question is Imogen supposing
Trump gets elected and supposinghe does what he promises by
stopping funding or reducing, isit worth it for other countries
to step forward?
And that's, to me, thefundamental question If Tamman
is talking about the lack ofWestern credibility in the UN
(18:36):
system, is it worth it for someother countries to step forward
and say if the US isn't paying,we'll take up that deficit?
And that, to me, is a realquestion, because if they want
the UN to be less Westernoriented, okay, you be more
active or maybe you begin totake charge.
That might be an interestingpossibility.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
We certainly see very little cash coming from China,
for example, or the Gulf states,who have plenty of it.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Yeah, and that's been a long time that they've been
asking for, as we see in the UN,asking for more support,
especially from the Gulf statesand China.
We've been seeing that in howmany humanitarian crises lately
I don't know, but there'snothing coming from there.
So that is true, it's the US,it is Europe to a large extent.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Tamem, do you want to come in on that?
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Yeah, I mean if we take a slightly cynical view, I
understand asking othercountries to take charge, but if
we measure it by money, then weare saying that poorer
countries will never take chargeof anything.
And I think they can and theyshould.
And COVID has given us anexample where several countries
(19:48):
refused the framework that hasfailed in distributing vaccines
and negotiated on their own andactually got vaccinated before
other Western countries.
So the point is, if we aretalking about a failing
multilateralism and I'm notsaying this is the case, but
this is part of the argumentthen why do you expect other
actors to come and invest in afailing and rigged game that
(20:12):
they haven't designed and cannotcontrol against a superpower
that economically and militarilyI've traveled across much of
Africa in the past 20 years andChina is giving a lot of money
not to the UN but toinfrastructure.
The US invests very little ininfrastructure infrastructure.
(20:33):
So we still are seeing the gamefrom the existing Western
multilateral eye.
Others are coming with othermeans and methods.
Now one of the issues is ifother countries want to invest,
then there needs to be apossibility of reform of the
(20:55):
multilateral system.
And here I'm making thedistinction, danny, that you
mentioned between the peace andsecurity part, which is
completely blocked.
As Gunilla mentioned, it's likea security council.
It's dysfunctional and theinvesting in actually livability
which other agencies provide.
I think it is absolutely worthreforming and improving the
(21:18):
functioning of agencies thatimprove livability without
having to stick to the currentshape.
But I don't know how would weever be able to overcome the
complete blockage of the peaceand security part.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
I think it's.
Yeah, we're coming back to theissue, too, what Danny was
speaking about the SecurityCouncil Council, and when and
how it can be reformed and bemore representative of today's
world.
Because if you have that, thencountries will feel also that
they're participating more, theyhave more influence and then
maybe they want to alsocontribute more.
But as you have a SecurityCouncil that's stuck with these
(21:55):
five, you're also going to haveperhaps the whole structure of
how much countries want to helpis going to be blocked.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
You know, we're in Geneva and Geneva is the site
where the League of Nationsfolded, and is there a
possibility that either theUnited Nations folds and the
multilateral system goes underor it continues in one way or
another.
But it's totally ineffectual.
And that's when I think Tompicked it up.
(22:25):
The question of the fights thatare going on, the violence
that's going on and the factthat the UN has nothing to do
with make any kind of peacefulsettlement or humanitarian is
terribly disappointing and, Iwould think, enormously worrying
for Geneva.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
That's where my next question was going as well,
actually, because we've got twoviewpoints being expressed here,
but on the same lines.
One is that, you know, theSecurity Council, the current
setup of the United Nations, isso mired in the past and so
blocked that it's becomingdiscredited.
Tamim, you said.
(23:04):
Well, you know, some countriesmight want to just do things
their own way, ie not throughthe multilateral system, but
where does that leave the UnitedNations?
And particularly, where does itleave humanitarian aid?
Because certainly there can bebilateral efforts, but there are
some crises which, I would say,still need a multilateral
(23:29):
effort, perhaps not one that'sas discredited as we have now,
but that need one.
I mean, gaza would be one,actually, if it worked.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
So I would say, if I follow on a mention of where's
the leadership that Danimentioned, moral leadership, I
believe you know, at least fromappearance and so on, least from
appearance and so on, guterresmight be a moral person, but
(24:01):
leadership it's eitherimpossible or beyond his
capacity at this point to assert.
And you said who do?
I remember, I mean I rememberreading about Dag Hammarskjöld
and his diplomacy.
I remember reading about peoplewho actually went I can't
remember who is it that did landin Baghdad and negotiate with
Saddam on the airport.
That doesn't seem to be thereanymore.
(24:24):
It seems to be more of amassive three-dimensional chess
game where people don't seem tobe taking enough risk and Imogen
.
I definitely don't think it isbeyond multilateralism and that
we don't need it anymore.
But I don't think we can affordto sit in a arena where our
(24:48):
hope for multilateralism, whichstill is the United Nations and
its institutions, is stillsitting, taking the constant
bullying of the United Statesand unable to answer, have no
capacity to answer.
And here I'll just give you anexample In New York, in the UN
General Assembly just a coupleof weeks ago, on a session on
(25:11):
Sudan, ambassador LindaThomas-Greenfield sat on a panel
and talked about how she has.
You know, her heart is brokenabout how Sudan shows the
collapse of compassion.
I think she said it.
And this is the same person whohas vetoed every resolution on
ceasefire and gas, like.
Who has vetoed every resolutionon ceasefire and gas, like.
Okay, you're a superpower, fine, do you need to insult us,
(25:35):
insult our short-term memory tothis extent?
Do we need to act like this?
I don't know, to be honest,that, if this is the moderate,
supposedly leftist government inthe US, I mean, who needs
enemies when you have friendslike that.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
I mean I think you've highlighted very starkly there
with that example, the dismayand anger that we hear all the
time in Geneva, particularly theHuman Rights Council, about
double standards.
There are more and morecountries I mean Gunilla, you're
nodding there I mean there aresome in Western Europe as well,
but they're not very loud.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
No, it's true.
No, it's true.
No, you hear it more and more.
I mean there's double standardand it's against the US.
And I saw it also in the UnitedStates, especially when Kamala
Harris rally in Atlanta.
There were maybe two, threehundred people outside
demonstrating for Palestine, forsupport for Palestine, and
(26:33):
inside Kamala Harris is not evenmentioning and people were
frustrated saying where is shestanding, is she not?
You know they continue to giveweapons and pay money, political
support and weapons to Israel,but what about Palestinians?
There was an enormousfrustration that it's not clear.
You know who side are you onand how come.
(26:54):
You support Israel, but whatabout?
You?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
look at Ukraine and you are stoutly, stoutly against
Putin, but Israel support goingto be a proper answer to this
that will make any sense toanybody who's had anything to do
with humanitarian work orinternational law.
I would say that thisparticular conflict has done
(27:21):
more to undermine the US placein the world, but at the same
time undermine the multilateralsystem, than anything that we've
seen in the last few decades.
I see it's a terriblefracturing and people won't
forget.
They won't forget this.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
And it may change.
The people in the United Stateswill not vote for Kamala Harris
simply because she won't comeout and say that I will do this
or I will no longer continue tosupport Israel, and which will
mean in the end that probablyTrump will win.
If that happens, where we don'teven know, we can't imagine
(28:11):
what he'll do.
We know as far asmultilateralism.
What he'll do as far as theIsrael situation, we're not sure
.
But I do think that there aretwo words that are key here.
One is the notion ofpolarization, not only in the
United States butinternationally.
We see it in Geneva, we see iteverywhere.
(28:31):
And the second is the wordtransactional.
Everything seems to betransactional.
What's in this for me, insteadof someone coming in long and
saying for the common good, andthose kinds of moral, ethical
questions have totallydisappeared from the narrative
that's going on today.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
I also think that, just to add, I think it is so
much.
Well, you have the Gazaconflict, of course, and Israel,
but I think what happened inUkraine and the invasion by
Russia in Ukraine has destroyedso much, so deeply, that has
completely closed the doorbetween the West and Russia.
Russia is turning east and thiswe're going to have to live
(29:14):
with for generations.
I think that conflict, what'sgoing on in Ukraine today, has
much, much, much deeperrepercussions than we can
imagine.
I think.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
Also, let's remember, Russia invaded Syria in 2015.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (29:29):
And no one did anything, and you know, and
bombed the hell out of it anddisplaced hundreds of thousands
of people and actually sustainedthe regime in Syria and
continues to do so.
I mean, I'm not going to sulkabout how that affected my
country, but I'm going to sayalso politics, even bad politics
(29:55):
, requires smart people, and theinability to see the obvious
over the past couple of decadesin most political circles is
staggering.
The fact that the US didn't seethat, you know, invading
multiple countries, two decadesof drone bombing and supplying
(30:16):
weapons to Israel and others, isgoing to backfire one day.
That you know, letting Putingive him Syria, he'll be fine.
No, he wasn't fine and he won'tever be.
All that, I mean, it wasn'timpossible to predict or deal
with, but everybody was throwingstuff down the road and we're
now down the road.
(30:36):
And you know, chicken Is thathow you say it?
Chicken, come back home.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
To roost.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
They're roosting now.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Well, on that note, we're actually just about at the
end.
I've got one really clichedbasic question for each of you,
because we did start talkingabout the consequences on
international Geneva for the USpresidential elections.
So, basic question does it evenmatter who's in the White House
(31:06):
in January 25?
I'm going to come to you first,Gunilla, from maybe the Europe
point of view.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
I really do think so, because it's a matter of
support political, financial,moral support to international
questions, to internationalGeneva.
I think Europe is there, yes,but Europe will not be able, I
think, to match the UnitedStates.
We have a lot of problems inEurope right now and we have the
(31:35):
war in Ukraine to deal with, sothere is a need for the United
States.
It matters who is there.
The world needs someone whocares about the world and about
multilateralism and globalsupport, and I don't think
that's Trump.
I think that's more likelyKamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
What do you think, Tamar?
I mean, it ain't a perfectworld, as we say.
Harris would be preferable toTrump.
Speaker 5 (32:05):
I mean, I stopped anticipating stuff.
It's just too difficult.
I mean, who knows, Trump wasfollowing the wave of his
supporters or his, you know,indoctrinators.
Now he doesn't really.
Maybe he doesn't care enough.
He has no next elections, Maybehe will change his mind.
(32:25):
He's changed his mind onabortion the past week since you
know, several times, I think.
Harris has a next election tothink about, and I fear I'm not
saying it's not preferable.
I fear we've been bitten fromthis hole before.
Twice I obsessed about Obamawinning the elections in 2008.
(32:48):
And then he ended up bombingthe hell out of civilians.
For eight years I wanted Bidento win, and he's now, you know,
in a plausible genocide.
He's the godfather of it.
Do we want to sit here and waituntil we're disillusioned yet
(33:09):
again?
I don't know.
I don't know what's preferableand I fear that we won't know
until we're disillusioned yetagain.
I don't know.
I don't know what's preferableand I fear that we won't know
until we know.
And until then, geneva is oneof the singular places and I
don't think even New York as acenter of a UN is capable of
that.
It's way too political One ofthe few places where you can
(33:29):
intersect people who work onmultiple issues related to
international politics, not fromthe political angle, from the
IT, from the communication, fromthe health, from the
displacement and so on.
There's a conversation that ispossible here in Geneva, that is
not possible almost anywhereelse and that might be a form of
(33:49):
multilateralism that needs tobe supported and encouraged as
well.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
That is a delightfully optimistic point to
make, tamam, so I'm glad youmade it in what was largely a
relatively gloomy program.
But, yes, let's tip a hat toGeneva and indeed, the types of
conversations which happen here,which are always aiming for the
best, but often incrediblypractical and realistic as well.
(34:16):
Now, danny, I'm going to give,as our US citizen, the last word
to you.
Does it matter to Geneva who'sin the White House?
Speaker 1 (34:22):
There are over 30 cities in the United States
called Geneva because the GenevaBible was on the Mayflower.
Because the Geneva Bible was onthe Mayflower.
I don't think in the UnitedStates today, geneva,
switzerland is high on theagenda in this election, but
I'll try and be optimistic withTamar.
There are things going on herethat traditional Democrats and
(34:44):
Republicans understand theimportance of.
One can only hope that therewill be some reasonables
returning to the United Statesafter this election.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Okay, well, a bit of, like I said, some optimism to
end on.
That's it for this edition ofInside Geneva.
My thanks to Daniel Warner,gunilla von Hohl and Tamam
Aloudat for your insights.
Brutally realistic all of you,but I think we all need that.
And just maybe stay with withtamam for my final words.
(35:14):
It's maybe better in theclimate we live in not to try to
anticipate too much.
Thank you all for listening.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swissinfo production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
(35:39):
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.
How the International Red Crossunites prisoners of war with
their families, or why survivorsof human rights violations turn
to the UN in Geneva for justice.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme….
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have
the disastrous war betweenRussia and Ukraine settled.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
When I was in the US.
I definitely see there is nointerest for anything called
multilateralism or collaborationglobally.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
There are some in my country who would force Ukraine
to give up large parts of itssovereign territory.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
There are two words that are key here.
One is the notion ofpolarization, not only in the
United States butinternationally.
We see it in Geneva, we see iteverywhere.
And the second is the wordtransactional.
Everything seems to betransactional.
What's in this for me?
I gave them Golan Heights.
(01:03):
I gave them the Abraham Accords, I recognized the capital of
Israel and opened the embassy inJerusalem, Gave them billions
and billions of dollars.
I was the best friend Israelever had.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
Is multilateralism a system that allows all countries
to deal with each other in acivil and nonviolent way, where
common interest prevails, or isit the appearance of a system
that allows the continuedhegemony of the old powers after
World War two?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
international humanitarian law must be
respected.
Too many innocent Palestinianshave been killed.
The scale of civilian sufferingand the images and videos
coming from Gaza are devastating.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I would say that this particular conflict has done
more to undermine the US placein the world, but at the same
time undermine the multilateralsystem, than anything that we've
seen in the last few decades.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
It's a matter of support, political, financial,
moral support to internationalquestions, to international
Geneva.
I think Europe is there, yes,but Europe will not be able, I
think, to match the UnitedStates.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
I don't think we can afford to sit in an arena where
our hope for multilateralism,which still is the United
Nations and its institutions, isstill sitting, taking the
constant bullying of the UnitedStates.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes and todaywe're going to talk US
presidential elections.
It may be a bit of a cliche tosay that Europe is looking
anxiously across the Atlantic,worrying, maybe about another
Trump win, but here in Geneva wewant to go a little deeper than
that.
So, regardless of who wins, howimportant is the United States
(03:13):
these days?
How committed is it Democrat orRepublican to the things we
talk so much about here inGeneva international law
standards, the fundamentalprinciples we all apparently
agreed on post-World War II,what we often call the
rules-based order To join me.
(03:34):
I've got regular analyst DanielWarner, swedish journalist
Gunilla von Hall and head of thehumanitarian agency MSF
Netherlands, tamam Aloudat.
He is originally from Syria.
Welcome to you all, danny.
As the US citizen in the room,I'm going to come to you first.
Talking to you, a while ago yousaid neither Trump nor Harris
(03:58):
was going to campaign on foreignpolicy.
It's just not a factor toAmerican voters, you think.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
No, as someone famously said, it's the
economy's stupid.
Foreign affairs is not a majorissue, but it should be said
Imogen to start with.
Why is the United Stateselection that important?
And it should be reiteratedthat the United States was
fundamental to the League ofNations and fundamental to
(04:27):
starting the UN.
So it's normal that everyone'slooking at the election.
Whether the results will affectmultilateralism, whether the
results will help the UN, thatremains to be seen.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Ghanila, let me come to you next, because you've
actually been in the Statesreporting on the elections.
I'm just wondering what yoursense of it is.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
It's very interesting because I was there this summer
to report on the election.
I was at a Trump rally inMinnesota.
I was at a Kamala Harris rallyin Atlanta.
I was in Washington, in thesuburbs and in the city.
I was in Washington, in thesuburbs and in the city, and
almost everyone I spoke to werebasically focused on kitchen
table issues.
(05:11):
They want to have lower pricesfor food, grocery prices, lower
gasoline prices and close theborder Basically these three
issues.
And then when I try to speakabout well, what about
international?
What about Ukraine and Gaza orTaiwan?
It was barely that peoplereacted and they would say like
(05:40):
well, ukraine, especially withUkraine.
People told me, both the Trumpcrowd and also people at the
Kamala Harris rally, that why dowe continue to support and pay
money and give weapons?
We should care about the UnitedStates, about our country,
first, and then care aboutUkraine and far away, and where
is Ukraine anyway?
It was striking how littleappetite and interest there were
(06:03):
in international affairs,international policy and what
the United States can do.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
You know it's quite interesting.
You say that I heard a Europeanformer ambassador to Washington
commenting on this.
He said it's probably notreally a question of whether the
US will withdraw frominternational affairs.
It's basically one candidatewill slam the door on his way
out and the other will creepaway hoping nobody notices.
(06:33):
I hope it's not as bad as that.
But, tam, let me ask you,because we're in a very unstable
world and I heard yourcolleague from Doctors Without
Borders, medsans Frontier, or Iread in an article today talking
about how the big powers, inparticular the United States,
(06:57):
was using humanitarian aid as akind of smokescreen and that
their actual foreign policy isat best helpless and at worst
part of the problem,particularly when it comes to
the Middle East.
Speaker 5 (07:11):
Yes, I do think it is worth examining now,
particularly at this moment,whether we're looking at a
system that has broken down or asystem that we have convinced
ourselves existed when it reallydidn't.
If you think about, you knowwe're talking about
multilateralism, and here itwarrants the definition.
(07:32):
Is multilateralism a systemthat allows all countries to
deal with each other in a civiland non-violent way where common
interest prevails, or is it theappearance of a system that
allows the continued hegemony ofthe old powers after World War
II?
I mean the first thing you saida system we designed after
(07:54):
World War II.
Who the we is?
Most of us were under colonialrule at the time.
We designed nothing and westill suffer the consequences of
a system that is designed toempower people already in power.
I'm not going to venture tothink why is one going to slam
the door and the other going tocreep out?
(08:15):
It's beside the point.
Now, maybe it doesn't pay to bein the pretense of a
multilateral system anymore, butat least let's make a possible
starting point the fact thatthere hasn't been an equitable,
multilateral, rules-based orderever.
It's not a Trump thing.
The humanitarian crisis onlymattered as far as they mattered
(08:38):
in ex-colonies or in places ofinterest.
So what we probably are seeingnow is, rather than a new smoke
screen, the clearing of the oldsmoke screens.
And I here won't talk about theUS alone, but it seems to me
that Western governments stoppedcaring about appearing
(09:00):
benevolent, as cheaply as thatcomes through the crumbs of
humanitarian aid they give.
The UK under Johnson stoppedfunding others.
So it's about what do they careabout now and what do they care
to pretend to be at this point?
Speaker 2 (09:18):
That is a really important question.
I saw you nodding there,gunilla, and I want to come to
you on that point.
But, danny, I'd maybe ask youfirst.
I mean, tamman is way beyondour framing of the debate, in
the sense that he doesn't seethe US as a global leader at all
in any kind of beneficial way,whoever is in the White House.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Well, I think he makes an interesting distinction
between who the we are.
I did mention Tom, the UnitedStates.
I didn't say it was beyond that, but the question of whether
the UN and multilateralism areWestern-oriented or universal is
a very good point.
I would make a distinction,though.
The UN is totally failing inmaking sure there's peace and
(10:04):
security there's no issue aboutthat in Ukraine, middle East and
other places Sudan but thereare certain organizations in
Geneva the ITU, internationalTelecommunications or others
that may have certain benefitsfor countries all over the world
.
So I would say that what we'reseeing now is the inability of
(10:26):
the UN to deal with peace andsecurity, which is supposed to
be one of its, if not its,fundamental thing to do.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Gunilla.
What do you make of Tamam'spoint that maybe this
multilateral system neverproperly existed, or perhaps
only in the minds of the Westernpowers?
Speaker 3 (10:46):
I tend to agree and more and more, and that's based
on what I hear working as ajournalist in different areas.
Now, when I was in the US, Idefinitely see there is no
interest for anything calledmultilateralism or collaboration
globally, perhaps with somequestions like climate change
(11:07):
and diseases and so forth, butpolitically there is almost like
a resignation because SecurityCouncil is always blocked.
Nothing happens.
They are incapable of stoppingany large conflicts, like Danny
is saying also.
So I see that and also what Itend to see.
I was in Russia this year and ofcourse, you get another point
(11:30):
of view from there, but there Ialso hear this that we do not
want to have this.
We want to have a multipolarworld.
It is BRICS, it is India, China, South Africa, other countries,
other countries than Europe andthe US.
I don't only hear this from theRussians, but also from other
quarters an interest in kind ofturning away from the
(11:53):
multilateralism that has beeninvented or built up like a
structure by the Western worldand by the United States.
So, yes, there is our notion ofmultilateralism from perhaps a
Western point of view that is incrisis.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Well, it's interesting you mentioned BRICS
because they are meeting, thatis, brazil, russia, india, china
, south Africa.
In Russia, the no-go area forthe West, the sanction after
sanction after sanction, and yetthese big emerging economic
powers are meeting there.
They're going to do some verygood deals together, I expect.
(12:33):
And I wonder, and again I willask you this, tama we've had for
a long time in Geneva, geneva,the claim of double standards
towards the traditional Westernpowers, but that in the last 12
months, over the conflict inGaza, I'm wondering whether the
(12:57):
Western powers have lost any ofthe moral authority they had,
and I obviously, because we'retalking about the elections in
the United States, I include theUnited States in that.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
Yeah, I just want to follow a bit on what Dani said
on some of the UN functions.
I think, to be fair, evenorganisations that haven't had
the best reputation for beingeffective or outspoken, like WHO
, have spoken better than manyothers in the past between COVID
and Gaza, and we've heard fromWHO positions that are not what
(13:30):
you'd expect here from WHOcourageous and straightforward.
But to go back to moralauthority, as someone who comes
from a country that has beenhistorically opposed to American
imperialism, I don't know thateverybody else thinks of the
moral authority in the West asfondly as the West thinks of it.
(13:52):
This is why I talk aboutstopping the pretense rather
than stopping the action.
Much of the world has sufferedthe double edge of the West
wanting to appear moral whileacting immoral over the past
many decades, and now we don'tat least have to pretend that
(14:13):
the West is moral anymore In thesense of, if you look at
Palestine and the completenegligence of what's happening,
continuing supplying weapons.
Complete negligence of what'shappening, continuing supplying
weapons.
I mean Macron wants to appearlike a champion now that, a year
later and 42,000 people dead,he's calling for stopping
(14:40):
exporting weapons to Israel andBiden speaks very mildly about
the situation with Netanyahu andJohn Bolton goes on CNN and
tells him to put a sock in it.
I mean, there is not even asemi-civilized conversation
anymore.
And the reason I mentioned that, not because I want to amplify
the obscenity of Bolton, butbecause it seems to pay better
(15:03):
for home politics to be openlyrude and foul-mouthed about
being a civilized nation amongnations.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Now that is a very depressing but actually, I think
, quite accurate point.
Dannyaruga To me when he waspresident of the Red Cross.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
There was a moral compass there.
Do we have any leaders in theUN or other places who are moral
leaders today?
I think the whole concept ofmoral authority is declining, if
not disappearing.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Yeah, I think there is a point there.
There's so much contradictionsand double standards because,
you can see, the US always sayswe're the global champion of
democracy and human rights, butat the same time, it has
alliances with theseauthoritarian regimes like Saudi
Arabia or Egypt that reallyhave criticism for the human
(16:15):
rights violations and this, Ithink, undermines the US
credibility in these questions,and this is a big issue.
A lot of people say you knowthe US, yeah, it's going to lead
, you know they're the leader ofdemocracy, of human rights, but
then in practice, what are theydoing?
There was a militaryintervention in Iraq, in Libya,
(16:37):
but the Syrian civil war nothingreally changed with the US.
We had the Uyghurs in China.
There hasn't been much actioneither if you compare to what
happened in Iraq and Libya.
So the choices are driven bygeopolitical interests rather
than these moral principles andweight that we could expect,
(17:00):
perhaps, from the US.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Yeah, I mean, I think that you are echoing things I
hear in Geneva, not just fromnon-Western countries but
increasingly from some Westerncountries, that you know you
have this cliched status as theleader of the free world.
I mean, even I that phrasestarts to bug me.
(17:22):
But let's bring it down tosomething which is also
important and that is cashdollars, because the United
States is a big, big funder ofthe UN humanitarian agencies in
Geneva, big funder to the WorldHealth Organization, to the UN
Refugee Agency, also to theInternational Committee of the
(17:45):
Red Cross.
Now, under Trump Mark One, wesaw him start moving away from
the US, left the Human RightsCouncil, left the Paris Climate
Accord, left the Iran nucleardeal, wanted to leave the World
Health Organization.
So that matters, doesn't it?
(18:05):
I mean the money, were it Trump, or even political pressure on
a Democrat president to cutthings back, that's going to
matter here in Geneva.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Yeah, but the question is Imogen supposing
Trump gets elected and supposinghe does what he promises by
stopping funding or reducing, isit worth it for other countries
to step forward?
And that's, to me, thefundamental question If Tamman
is talking about the lack ofWestern credibility in the UN
(18:36):
system, is it worth it for someother countries to step forward
and say if the US isn't paying,we'll take up that deficit?
And that, to me, is a realquestion, because if they want
the UN to be less Westernoriented, okay, you be more
active or maybe you begin totake charge.
That might be an interestingpossibility.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
We certainly see very little cash coming from China,
for example, or the Gulf states,who have plenty of it.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
Yeah, and that's been a long time that they've been
asking for, as we see in the UN,asking for more support,
especially from the Gulf statesand China.
We've been seeing that in howmany humanitarian crises lately
I don't know, but there'snothing coming from there.
So that is true, it's the US,it is Europe to a large extent.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Tamem, do you want to come in on that?
Speaker 5 (19:27):
Yeah, I mean if we take a slightly cynical view, I
understand asking othercountries to take charge, but if
we measure it by money, then weare saying that poorer
countries will never take chargeof anything.
And I think they can and theyshould.
And COVID has given us anexample where several countries
(19:48):
refused the framework that hasfailed in distributing vaccines
and negotiated on their own andactually got vaccinated before
other Western countries.
So the point is, if we aretalking about a failing
multilateralism and I'm notsaying this is the case, but
this is part of the argumentthen why do you expect other
actors to come and invest in afailing and rigged game that
(20:12):
they haven't designed and cannotcontrol against a superpower
that economically and militarilyI've traveled across much of
Africa in the past 20 years andChina is giving a lot of money
not to the UN but toinfrastructure.
The US invests very little ininfrastructure infrastructure.
(20:33):
So we still are seeing the gamefrom the existing Western
multilateral eye.
Others are coming with othermeans and methods.
Now one of the issues is ifother countries want to invest,
then there needs to be apossibility of reform of the
(20:55):
multilateral system.
And here I'm making thedistinction, danny, that you
mentioned between the peace andsecurity part, which is
completely blocked.
As Gunilla mentioned, it's likea security council.
It's dysfunctional and theinvesting in actually livability
which other agencies provide.
I think it is absolutely worthreforming and improving the
(21:18):
functioning of agencies thatimprove livability without
having to stick to the currentshape.
But I don't know how would weever be able to overcome the
complete blockage of the peaceand security part.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
I think it's.
Yeah, we're coming back to theissue, too, what Danny was
speaking about the SecurityCouncil Council, and when and
how it can be reformed and bemore representative of today's
world.
Because if you have that, thencountries will feel also that
they're participating more, theyhave more influence and then
maybe they want to alsocontribute more.
But as you have a SecurityCouncil that's stuck with these
(21:55):
five, you're also going to haveperhaps the whole structure of
how much countries want to helpis going to be blocked.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
You know, we're in Geneva and Geneva is the site
where the League of Nationsfolded, and is there a
possibility that either theUnited Nations folds and the
multilateral system goes underor it continues in one way or
another.
But it's totally ineffectual.
And that's when I think Tompicked it up.
(22:25):
The question of the fights thatare going on, the violence
that's going on and the factthat the UN has nothing to do
with make any kind of peacefulsettlement or humanitarian is
terribly disappointing and, Iwould think, enormously worrying
for Geneva.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
That's where my next question was going as well,
actually, because we've got twoviewpoints being expressed here,
but on the same lines.
One is that, you know, theSecurity Council, the current
setup of the United Nations, isso mired in the past and so
blocked that it's becomingdiscredited.
Tamim, you said.
(23:04):
Well, you know, some countriesmight want to just do things
their own way, ie not throughthe multilateral system, but
where does that leave the UnitedNations?
And particularly, where does itleave humanitarian aid?
Because certainly there can bebilateral efforts, but there are
some crises which, I would say,still need a multilateral
(23:29):
effort, perhaps not one that'sas discredited as we have now,
but that need one.
I mean, gaza would be one,actually, if it worked.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
So I would say, if I follow on a mention of where's
the leadership that Danimentioned, moral leadership, I
believe you know, at least fromappearance and so on, least from
appearance and so on, guterresmight be a moral person, but
(24:01):
leadership it's eitherimpossible or beyond his
capacity at this point to assert.
And you said who do?
I remember, I mean I rememberreading about Dag Hammarskjöld
and his diplomacy.
I remember reading about peoplewho actually went I can't
remember who is it that did landin Baghdad and negotiate with
Saddam on the airport.
That doesn't seem to be thereanymore.
(24:24):
It seems to be more of amassive three-dimensional chess
game where people don't seem tobe taking enough risk and Imogen
.
I definitely don't think it isbeyond multilateralism and that
we don't need it anymore.
But I don't think we can affordto sit in a arena where our
(24:48):
hope for multilateralism, whichstill is the United Nations and
its institutions, is stillsitting, taking the constant
bullying of the United Statesand unable to answer, have no
capacity to answer.
And here I'll just give you anexample In New York, in the UN
General Assembly just a coupleof weeks ago, on a session on
(25:11):
Sudan, ambassador LindaThomas-Greenfield sat on a panel
and talked about how she has.
You know, her heart is brokenabout how Sudan shows the
collapse of compassion.
I think she said it.
And this is the same person whohas vetoed every resolution on
ceasefire and gas, like.
Who has vetoed every resolutionon ceasefire and gas, like.
Okay, you're a superpower, fine, do you need to insult us,
(25:35):
insult our short-term memory tothis extent?
Do we need to act like this?
I don't know, to be honest,that, if this is the moderate,
supposedly leftist government inthe US, I mean, who needs
enemies when you have friendslike that.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
I mean I think you've highlighted very starkly there
with that example, the dismayand anger that we hear all the
time in Geneva, particularly theHuman Rights Council, about
double standards.
There are more and morecountries I mean Gunilla, you're
nodding there I mean there aresome in Western Europe as well,
but they're not very loud.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
No, it's true.
No, it's true.
No, you hear it more and more.
I mean there's double standardand it's against the US.
And I saw it also in the UnitedStates, especially when Kamala
Harris rally in Atlanta.
There were maybe two, threehundred people outside
demonstrating for Palestine, forsupport for Palestine, and
(26:33):
inside Kamala Harris is not evenmentioning and people were
frustrated saying where is shestanding, is she not?
You know they continue to giveweapons and pay money, political
support and weapons to Israel,but what about Palestinians?
There was an enormousfrustration that it's not clear.
You know who side are you onand how come.
(26:54):
You support Israel, but whatabout?
You?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
look at Ukraine and you are stoutly, stoutly against
Putin, but Israel support goingto be a proper answer to this
that will make any sense toanybody who's had anything to do
with humanitarian work orinternational law.
I would say that thisparticular conflict has done
(27:21):
more to undermine the US placein the world, but at the same
time undermine the multilateralsystem, than anything that we've
seen in the last few decades.
I see it's a terriblefracturing and people won't
forget.
They won't forget this.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
And it may change.
The people in the United Stateswill not vote for Kamala Harris
simply because she won't comeout and say that I will do this
or I will no longer continue tosupport Israel, and which will
mean in the end that probablyTrump will win.
If that happens, where we don'teven know, we can't imagine
(28:11):
what he'll do.
We know as far asmultilateralism.
What he'll do as far as theIsrael situation, we're not sure
.
But I do think that there aretwo words that are key here.
One is the notion ofpolarization, not only in the
United States butinternationally.
We see it in Geneva, we see iteverywhere.
(28:31):
And the second is the wordtransactional.
Everything seems to betransactional.
What's in this for me, insteadof someone coming in long and
saying for the common good, andthose kinds of moral, ethical
questions have totallydisappeared from the narrative
that's going on today.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
I also think that, just to add, I think it is so
much.
Well, you have the Gazaconflict, of course, and Israel,
but I think what happened inUkraine and the invasion by
Russia in Ukraine has destroyedso much, so deeply, that has
completely closed the doorbetween the West and Russia.
Russia is turning east and thiswe're going to have to live
(29:14):
with for generations.
I think that conflict, what'sgoing on in Ukraine today, has
much, much, much deeperrepercussions than we can
imagine.
I think.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
Also, let's remember, Russia invaded Syria in 2015.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Exactly.
Speaker 5 (29:29):
And no one did anything, and you know, and
bombed the hell out of it anddisplaced hundreds of thousands
of people and actually sustainedthe regime in Syria and
continues to do so.
I mean, I'm not going to sulkabout how that affected my
country, but I'm going to sayalso politics, even bad politics
(29:55):
, requires smart people, and theinability to see the obvious
over the past couple of decadesin most political circles is
staggering.
The fact that the US didn't seethat, you know, invading
multiple countries, two decadesof drone bombing and supplying
(30:16):
weapons to Israel and others, isgoing to backfire one day.
That you know, letting Putingive him Syria, he'll be fine.
No, he wasn't fine and he won'tever be.
All that, I mean, it wasn'timpossible to predict or deal
with, but everybody was throwingstuff down the road and we're
now down the road.
(30:36):
And you know, chicken Is thathow you say it?
Chicken, come back home.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
To roost.
Speaker 5 (30:43):
They're roosting now.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Well, on that note, we're actually just about at the
end.
I've got one really clichedbasic question for each of you,
because we did start talkingabout the consequences on
international Geneva for the USpresidential elections.
So, basic question does it evenmatter who's in the White House
(31:06):
in January 25?
I'm going to come to you first,Gunilla, from maybe the Europe
point of view.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
I really do think so, because it's a matter of
support political, financial,moral support to international
questions, to internationalGeneva.
I think Europe is there, yes,but Europe will not be able, I
think, to match the UnitedStates.
We have a lot of problems inEurope right now and we have the
(31:35):
war in Ukraine to deal with, sothere is a need for the United
States.
It matters who is there.
The world needs someone whocares about the world and about
multilateralism and globalsupport, and I don't think
that's Trump.
I think that's more likelyKamala Harris.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
What do you think, Tamar?
I mean, it ain't a perfectworld, as we say.
Harris would be preferable toTrump.
Speaker 5 (32:05):
I mean, I stopped anticipating stuff.
It's just too difficult.
I mean, who knows, Trump wasfollowing the wave of his
supporters or his, you know,indoctrinators.
Now he doesn't really.
Maybe he doesn't care enough.
He has no next elections, Maybehe will change his mind.
(32:25):
He's changed his mind onabortion the past week since you
know, several times, I think.
Harris has a next election tothink about, and I fear I'm not
saying it's not preferable.
I fear we've been bitten fromthis hole before.
Twice I obsessed about Obamawinning the elections in 2008.
(32:48):
And then he ended up bombingthe hell out of civilians.
For eight years I wanted Bidento win, and he's now, you know,
in a plausible genocide.
He's the godfather of it.
Do we want to sit here and waituntil we're disillusioned yet
(33:09):
again?
I don't know.
I don't know what's preferableand I fear that we won't know
until we're disillusioned yetagain.
I don't know.
I don't know what's preferableand I fear that we won't know
until we know.
And until then, geneva is oneof the singular places and I
don't think even New York as acenter of a UN is capable of
that.
It's way too political One ofthe few places where you can
(33:29):
intersect people who work onmultiple issues related to
international politics, not fromthe political angle, from the
IT, from the communication, fromthe health, from the
displacement and so on.
There's a conversation that ispossible here in Geneva, that is
not possible almost anywhereelse and that might be a form of
(33:49):
multilateralism that needs tobe supported and encouraged as
well.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
That is a delightfully optimistic point to
make, tamam, so I'm glad youmade it in what was largely a
relatively gloomy program.
But, yes, let's tip a hat toGeneva and indeed, the types of
conversations which happen here,which are always aiming for the
best, but often incrediblypractical and realistic as well.
(34:16):
Now, danny, I'm going to give,as our US citizen, the last word
to you.
Does it matter to Geneva who'sin the White House?
Speaker 1 (34:22):
There are over 30 cities in the United States
called Geneva because the GenevaBible was on the Mayflower.
Because the Geneva Bible was onthe Mayflower.
I don't think in the UnitedStates today, geneva,
switzerland is high on theagenda in this election, but
I'll try and be optimistic withTamar.
There are things going on herethat traditional Democrats and
(34:44):
Republicans understand theimportance of.
One can only hope that therewill be some reasonables
returning to the United Statesafter this election.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Okay, well, a bit of, like I said, some optimism to
end on.
That's it for this edition ofInside Geneva.
My thanks to Daniel Warner,gunilla von Hohl and Tamam
Aloudat for your insights.
Brutally realistic all of you,but I think we all need that.
And just maybe stay with withtamam for my final words.
(35:14):
It's maybe better in theclimate we live in not to try to
anticipate too much.
Thank you all for listening.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swissinfo production.
You can email us oninsidegeneva at swissinfoch and
(35:39):
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.
How the International Red Crossunites prisoners of war with
their families, or why survivorsof human rights violations turn
to the UN in Geneva for justice.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
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