December 10, 2024 • 34 mins
In this week’s Inside Geneva episode, UN correspondents in Geneva and New York look back at 2024.
Dorian Burkhalter, journalist, SWI swissinfo.ch: ‘Wars everywhere, climate change, deepening inequalities, AI…it’s just threats everywhere. But it just seems like the more global our problems are becoming, the weaker the UN is also becoming.’
But is the biggest event of the year the US election?
Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor, New York Times: ‘It’s hard to top the US election because it’s already dominating the conversation on everything else that we’ve covered in 2024.’
What could an isolationist America first strategy mean for the UN, and for the multilateral system?
Dawn Clancy, UN correspondent, New York: ‘Pulling out of the Paris Agreement, or the WHO, threatening to cut funding, the US is the biggest funder of the UN, billions of dollars. So it’s just going to be chaos and no leadership.’
Are we on the verge of a new world order, without the guardrails of international law, or the Geneva Conventions?
Imogen Foulkes, host, Inside Geneva: ‘The world is changing, while I’m watching, in terms of our fundamental principles, the world is changing while I’m watching, and for a while I didn’t even quite notice it.’
Join us on Inside Geneva for an in-depth discussion of 2024, and some predictions for 2025.
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…Rheignones in southern Gaza.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
A wave of Russian missile strikes on cities across
Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Wars everywhere, climate change, deepening
inequalities, ai it's justthreats everywhere, but it seems
like just the more global.
Our problems are becoming, theweaker the UN is also becoming.
Before I even arrive at theOval Office, I will have the
disastrous war between Russiaand Ukraine settled.
(00:55):
It will be settled quickly.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Pulling out of Paris Agreement or the WHO threatening
to cut funding.
The US is the biggest funder ofthe UN billions of dollars so
it's just going to be chaos andno leadership.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
The Fox News decision desk can now officially project
that Donald Trump will becomethe 47th president of the United
States.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
It's hard to top the US election because it already
you know.
Here we are two weeks later andit's already dominating pretty
much the conversation oneverything else that we've
covered in 2024.
Israel and its biggest ally,the United States, again
isolated, furiously attackingthe International Criminal
(01:41):
Court's decision to issue arrestwarrants for Benjamin Netanyahu
and Yoav Galant.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
The world is changing while I'm watching, in terms of
our fundamental principles.
The world is changing while I'mwatching, and for a while I
(02:08):
Geneva and it being December,it's time for our look back at
the year.
That was 2024, and we know ithasn't been exactly fantastic,
but don't switch off, keeplistening, because we've got UN
correspondents in Geneva and inNew York to provide some
analysis, reflection and, if wedare, a look ahead to what 2025
(02:34):
might have in store.
A warm welcome to you all.
We have here DorianneBurkhalter, geneva UN
correspondent with Swiss Info.
We have over in New York, dawnClancy, who covers the United
Nations and its political armover in the Big Apple, and back
here in Geneva we have NickCumming-Bruce, contributor to
(02:57):
the New York Times On All ThingsUN Geneva.
I'm going to start with it couldbe quite a difficult question,
but I would like you to try andget into it.
Is there a moment or an eventin 2024 that particularly stood
(03:18):
out for you?
I know there have been many,but, dorian, I'm going to come
to you first with that question.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
If I had to pick just one, I think it would be the US
election, donald Trump beingelected for a second mandate,
because otherwise I was thinkingabout our discussion from last
year.
And I mean, there's still a warin Ukraine, there's still a war
in the Middle East, in Sudan,and I think some of the things
we're seeing.
You know that humanitarians areunder attack, civilians too,
that we need more access,international law being violated
(03:54):
.
These things haven't changed.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Okay, yeah, I mean.
I think none of us are going todisagree that that first week
of November was quite momentousDawn.
What about you over in New York?
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Well, to get a bit more specific, it has to do with
the Israeli ambassador, formerIsraeli ambassador to the UN,
gilad Adan.
He's now left that post andit's Danny Dannen who's taken
his post as the Israeliambassador to the UN.
But back to Ambassador Adan.
(04:30):
He was giving a speech in theGeneral Assembly and he brought
with him a mini shredder and hebegan to shred pages of the UN
charter and of course he wassaying a lot of things around
that about how horrible the UNis and it's just, you know, full
of anti-Semitism rot.
But to me that moment I justthought, wow, here's a member
(04:52):
state I mean, there's a lotworse happening in the world but
here's a member state standingin front of, you know, the
General Assembly and he'sactually shredding pages of the
charter.
And, yeah, I thought thatpretty much sums up the year,
nick.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
It's hard to top the US election because it already
you know.
Here we are two weeks later andit's already dominating pretty
much the conversation oneverything else that we've
covered in 2024.
But I suppose if one looks backbefore that, from the work that
we have done in Geneva, I can'tfind a single incident like
(05:31):
Dawn's that graphicallyillustrates the kind of coverage
.
But it would have to besomething to do with Gaza,
because of the absolutelyrelentless flow of just
appalling developments that haveoccurred since October the 7th,
and the sense in whicheverything just continues to get
(05:51):
worse.
You don't think it can, but itcontinues to do so.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Yeah, I do want to come on to the US presidential
election a little bit later inthe programme.
I think I want to join Dawn andNick in saying that it is the
Middle East, not necessarily oneparticular event, and I know,
of course, it started in October2023.
(06:15):
And, as Dorian says, has beengoing on all of 2024.
But my feeling, listening topeople I've known for a decade
or more, who are aid workers,who have been to Gaza and come
back, and watching them pleadfor humanity, and listening to
(06:35):
some of them weep, and thentalking to diplomats,
particularly Western diplomats,who are just so uncomfortable
with this topic, and that's whenI just began to think, you know
, actually the world is changingwhile I'm watching, in terms of
our fundamental principles, theworld is changing while I'm
watching and for a while Ididn't quite even notice it.
(06:58):
And I think, dawn, your imageof an ambassador shredding the
UN Charter in the GeneralAssembly is the absolute,
perfect image for that, whichbrings me to my next question
when are we with the UN?
Is it dead?
Is it?
Speaker 1 (07:14):
relevant.
It's interesting because thisquestion has been asked
repeatedly, especially when thewar in Ukraine started, because
the Security Council was sodeadlocked in being able to pass
resolution.
Obviously because P5 membershave a veto, russia has a veto.
So all of the coverage of theUN was basically is the UN still
(07:35):
relevant?
Is it going to crumble and fallinto the East River?
And whenever this question comesup in the noon briefing at New
York, the spokesperson for theSecretary General, steph
Dujarric, he always says ifyou're going to ask me a
question about the UN, you'regoing to have to get specific
about which UN you mean.
So if we're talking about theSecurity Council, I would say
(07:56):
yeah, they've got problems.
If you're talking about, like,the Secretariat and the
administration administrativeend of it, sure, but I think you
know.
Speaking about humanitarianworkers, you know that being a
part of the UN, these peoplethat go into these conflict
zones and they just work so hardand they risk their lives that
(08:18):
part of the UN I could say todayis quite admirable.
I think that's a plus for theUN.
But the political side is, yeah, it's like an earthquake at
this point and we don't reallyknow how this is going to all
settle down.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
So I would argue and this is where I would like
Dorian and Nick from the Genevaside to give me some thoughts on
this that where we've movedfrom this time last year when we
talked, is that the SecurityCouncil was deadlocked.
Then we saw, as you said, inUkraine.
But we've moved a step on wherethe fundamental principles of
international law are beingreally blatantly defied.
(08:59):
And now we see, for example,the suggestion, which is
precedent setting, that a UNmember state will deny a UN
agency, unrwa, the right to work, and to me that calls into
question the relevance of theUN's humanitarian wing in Geneva
as well and whether it has afuture.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Well, in a sense the humanitarian side, as Dawn said,
is the one that has really beenwhere you peg your hopes,
because the Security Council hasbeen so paralyzed by
geopolitical rivalries and it'sunable to fulfill its main
function, which is trying tohelp keep peace in the world.
(09:42):
So you tend to look for the workof the WFP and the refugee
agency human rights organization, you look at the Human Rights
Council in Geneva asorganizations which hold up some
hope of humanity and where youthink you know non-political
principles are still valued andelevated as something that we
(10:07):
should strike for.
The problem is that I thinkVolker Turek put it extremely
well in October when he issuedthis statement, saying the
international rule of law isbeing progressively dismantled,
and he was speaking specificallyabout Gaza.
But when the principles thatare being trashed in the
(10:27):
conflict in Gaza do not resultin sanctions from leading
Western democracies, then youhave to say double standards are
replete and we see the USposition on Ukraine not being
reflected in any way in itspositions on Gaza.
We see the US consistentlyfailing to recognize how its
(10:50):
continued flow of arms hasessentially enabled the
continuation of violations ofinternational humanitarian law
on an epic scale.
So I think we're all at sea,and this is before the onset of
a Trump administration which hasappointed a number of people to
key positions who haveindicated that human rights,
(11:14):
international human rights, lawand principles are absolutely of
no significance.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Dorian.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
Yeah, I agree with the Security Council.
Of course we know it isn'tworking, so we're looking at
humanitarian aid for things thatare actually working.
But I mean, humanitarians alsodepend on the decisions of
governments and I think, whetherit's funding, we see that it's
always lacking for most criseseverywhere, and then access is
(11:46):
being denied.
Humanitarian aid is beinginstrumentalized.
I mean, this is also a veryworrying trend and even though
this is not new, I think herethe Israeli ban on UNRWA is
quite unprecedented to have aparliament ban a UN agency like
this.
So it is worrying.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I mean I'm beginning to wonder if I mean we always
talk about New York, theSecurity Council, geneva, the
humanitarian agencies, but thehumanitarian agencies are paying
the price of the utter failureof the Security Council.
I mean, we've got of the P5, wenow have one whose leader has
been indicted for war crimes,that's Russia.
One whose leader has beenindicted for war crimes, that's
(12:30):
Russia.
We have another who is thesubject of very, very concerning
reports and allegations ofcrimes against humanity on its
own territory, that's China.
And now we have the UnitedStates, with the new
(12:53):
administration returning,apparently very isolationist,
not especially interested ininternational law.
I suspect We'll come on to thatin a minute.
Could we drill a little deeperwhat the humanitarian side of
the UN can actually do aboutthis?
No money, no real support andpapering over these gaping
wounds that the failure ofpolitical will has created over
these gaping wounds that thefailure of political will has
(13:13):
created.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Before he left office , martin Griffiths, he gave a
briefing in New York and youcould tell that he was just so
frustrated and so fed up witheverything that was happening.
And he said you know,humanitarian agencies they tend
to stay away from the politicaland he's like I think it's time
for humanitarian agencies to getpolitical.
And that really struck mebecause I thought, yeah, it's
absolutely true.
You know, you ask anyhumanitarian agency a question
(13:40):
about something that's mildlypolitical and that's not my
mandate.
That's not my mandate.
I can't talk about that.
But you know I've thought aboutthat, even after he left his
post just what that would mean.
And is that necessary?
Is that the necessary next stepfor humanitarian agencies to
start getting political andstart taking, you know, a step
(14:02):
towards that?
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
So I mean Martin Griffiths is the former head of
emergency relief chief, the headof OCHA, been replaced by Tom
Fletcher now, who's alsosupposed to be a very strong
character.
I've heard from people who knowhim who described it as a very
brave move on his part to eventake that job, because they
think there's so little respectfor human rights and
(14:24):
international humanitarian law.
But for Nick and Dorian, theidea of the humanitarian
agencies becoming political istricky though, isn't it Because
they have this mantra of neutral, impartial, independent.
What we've seen in Geneva isactually they've gone pretty
quiet this year, particularlythe International Committee of
the Red Cross.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Yeah, I mean it's difficult for them to get too
political when they're dependenton governments for funding.
Part of the problem with theparalysis and security council
level in a multipolar world nowis that multilateral solutions
are less and less appealing tolarge numbers of states.
Martin Griffith also, before heleft, said you know, the
(15:06):
multilateral system still workswell, that the international aid
community is much moreefficient now than it used to be
, that it does the job muchbetter.
But it's just the epic size ofthe humanitarian challenges that
it's being asked to deal withare not being supported by donor
states, and so what we see isthat I mean more and more
(15:29):
governments put money intothings on a unilateral basis.
Ocha's SURF fund, the emergencyfund, is a good kind of
barometer of that, and you seeChina gives half a million
dollars.
I mean derisory sums of money.
The top five donors are allEuropean sums of money.
(15:50):
The top five donors are allEuropean, so the European aid
givers remain, but the rest ofthe world is sort of scattering
and doing its own thing.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Dorian, I saw you nodding there.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
No, exactly, that's actually also what I was going
to say.
I think of course it is hardfor humanitarian organizations
to be more political and I thinkrecently, but it's hard for me
to tell whether that's new ornot but I feel like they are
saying things quite clearly whenit comes, for example, with
them being sort ofinstrumentalized, you know when
there's misinformation aboutthem.
(16:25):
But I think certainly theywould need to encourage more
governments to provide fundingbecause in the end, if it's just
the big Western countries, thatdoes not make things easier for
them.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Since you talked about funding, let's hone in
specifically on the USpresidential election and the
appointments, because the US, ofcourse, is a massive donor at
the moment to United Nations.
Now should we read the tealeaves a little bit Donald
Trump's appointments.
(17:01):
Let's look at the Middle Eastfirst.
What do we think?
I think this.
I mean I personally think hischoice for ambassador to the
United Nations, his choice forambassador to Israel looked like
.
As far as the US is concerned,any idea of a two-state solution
is over.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
I completely agree with that.
You know you brought up hischoice for ambassador to the
United Nations, Elise Stefanik.
She describes herself asultra-MAGA make America great
again, which I guess is Trump'sparty, or cult, or whatever you
want to call it I don't know ifthat's appropriate to say cult
and she is severely pro-Israeland she has called out the
(17:45):
United Nations for beinganti-Semitic and being full of
anti-Semitic rot, moraldepravity, and she sounds just
like Israel's ambassador to theUN, Danny Danone.
So it's worrisome to me because, like you said, it kind of
makes it look like a two-statesolution will be even farther,
pushed back beyond the horizonas an option to answering this
(18:08):
question, this Palestinianquestion.
I was actually after Trump saidthat he was nominating her,
Elise Stefanik, AmbassadorDanone went on X and he
congratulated her and I justkind of scrolled through the
comments of that post to seewhat people were saying and
there was one individual whosaid something to the effect of
(18:31):
oh, this is perfect, Now Israelwill have two ambassadors at the
UN and I thought that kind of.
I thought that really hit thepoint, at least with how I'm
thinking.
I thought, yes, right on, rightthere.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Nick, what do you think?
I mean?
It's Huckabee, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Yes, Mike Huckabee.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
He's appointed to ambassador to Israel.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Well, I mean, this is a man who says there's no such
thing as a West Bank and thereis no such thing as settlements
and who says that, you know,israel has the right to sort of
control the whole of sort ofJudea and Samaria.
Then you've got, as Dawn hasmentioned, the ambassador to the
UN, who is rabidly pro-Israel.
(19:15):
You could take also PeteHegseth, the incoming if he's
confirmed Secretary of Defense,who has also said that the US
Army is the only sort ofpro-Christian, pro-israeli army
in the world.
I mean, these statements allshow very strong predilection
(19:35):
for unqualified support forIsrael, which it has taken on
from in many ways, from theBiden administration.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Leave aside, maybe, our own personal feelings of
rights and wrongs in thisconflict although I guess we
agree that there have been verymany wrongs by all parties the
approach just feels to me as ifit's going to store up more and
more and more and more troubleand, in particular, humanitarian
crises.
(20:03):
I don't see a route to any kindof peace.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Well, I mean, president-elect Trump is going
to bring peace to Ukraine, as weunderstand it.
If he is going to apply the artof the deal to bringing peace
to Ukraine, the question then ison what terms?
And is it going to be on termsthat somehow rein in the kind of
(20:28):
aggressive politics that we'veseen from Russia?
Rein in the kind of aggressivepolitics that we've seen from
Russia?
Or is it going to be terms thatultimately surrender advantages
to the Kremlin and thereforeleaves the rest of Europe
fearing what will come next?
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, I mean, I was thinking about this today and
thinking you have this horribleslightly 1938, feel about it.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
You know, we got, got a deal, we have a piece of
paper and then, a year later, ifI could just add one other
thought, and that is you know,we're very focused on Europe and
Gaza and the Middle East, but Imean, what's also concerning to
, perhaps, is the verystridently anti-Chinese line in
DC andC, and tensions areratcheting up in the Pacific
(21:15):
area, and so does this veryhawkish stand from a variety of
people who have been nominatedby Mr Trump to serve in his
administration whether that'sgoing to basically lead us into
a much tenser, more conflictsusceptible time in that area as
(21:36):
well, or are we going to seethat the new administration
simply uses this for tradeleverage?
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, we don't know.
We're getting towards lookingforward to 2025.
Dorian, I wanted to ask you umbeing possibly the youngest
person here oh, hey, now wait, aminute.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Wait, I won't ask then don't ask, don't age it.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
I mean somebody um about your age.
One of my fact said it's allright for you, you've had your
day.
I mean, when you look at theworld, do you think, oh God,
this is climate change, ukraine,the Middle East, sudan,
possible trade war.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
It's totally overwhelming, I think.
As you said, I mean it's warseverywhere.
As you said, I mean it's warseverywhere, and I mean just
recently, when you hear VladimirPutin say that the conflict in
Ukraine has become basically aglobal conflict.
It's just super worrying.
I mean as well as his saberrattling when it comes to
(22:45):
nuclear weapons.
And behind this, all you haveclimate change, deepening
inequalities, ai.
It's just threats everywhere.
Yeah, I mean, the narrativeusually is that we have those
global problems, so we needglobal solutions, so we need the
(23:05):
UN and a strong multilateralsystem.
But it seems like just the moreglobal our problems are
becoming, the weaker the UN isalso becoming.
So no, I'm not too optimistic,unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
No, I mean, I was hoping to try and end this
podcast on some moment ofoptimism.
I might have one or two, butfirst let's have a little look
at 2025 for the United Nations,because one point I wanted to
bring in was again related tothe US administration.
Donald Trump everybody sayshe's very transactional, he's
(23:43):
quite retributional, and I thinkwe are looking at possibly
getting out of the Paris Accordagain, probably leaving the
Human Rights Council, possiblyleaving the World Health
Organization and, if thisisolationist posture remains,
big, big funding cuts for UNbodies.
(24:03):
The other thing somebodyspeculated to me the other day
is that Cindy McCain, currenthead of the World Food Programme
, will definitely be for thehigh jump because there's a lot
of bad blood between the McCainsand the Trumps, and that Trump
will certainly want to replacethe head of the World Food
Programme with somebody morepliant.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
I think one of the points in what you're saying
about Trump coming in, I guessone of the more disappointing
things is that this isn't goingto lead to any new kind of
leadership at the UN.
I think when you look at theSecurity Council, when you look
at the UN as a whole, I think,you know, when you look at the
Security Council, when you lookat the UN as a whole and I don't
mean to say this to sayanything poorly about the
(24:47):
Secretary General, antonioGuterres there's just no
leadership.
I'm not saying that therearen't leaders, but there's
absolutely no leadership whenyou look at the P5.
No leadership.
It's like everybody's sayalthough I've never read the
books Lord of the Rings,everybody's obsessed with this
ring and when they get the ringthey start turning into these
(25:07):
goblins and I just feel like theveto is like the ring that's
the P5.
They've all become warped andyou know they're rusting away
from the inside with this veto.
So, looking ahead at 2025, Istill think we're going to be
lacking some major leadershipand when Trump comes in, you
know, comes back.
I guess it's.
I could see him, exactly as yousaid, emoji pulling out of
(25:39):
these different you know, parisagreement or the WHO threatening
to cut funding.
Like you said, the US is thebiggest funder of the UN
billions of dollars so it's justgoing to be chaos and no
leadership.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Nick thoughts for 2025?
.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
Struggling to come up with any particularly positive
scenarios.
We have the likelihood of analready weakened COP process
being weakened further byAmerican withdrawal.
We've had progress in 2024 onpreparation of a pandemic treaty
, which was one area of positivedevelopment, if you like, but
again we face the probability, Ithink, that the United States
(26:16):
will not want to participate intaking that any further forward.
We can only hope for a positivepeace in Ukraine.
Sudan seems to be almost beyondthe reach of all the
stakeholders at the moment, soit's very difficult to see how
that's going on.
Yeah, gaza that's still nowhereon the horizon and the whole
(26:43):
day after the war scenario forGaza is extremely bleak and
absolutely no vision coming fromany of the major powers.
So, yeah, it's not a verybright and cheerful dawn of 2025
.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Dorian 2025.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Dorian, yeah, like Don and Nick, I mean I fear that
Trump will withdraw from UNorganizations, from UN treaties.
But maybe my hope is thatactually he doesn't really care
and that maybe the US foreignpolicy is a little more robust
than we fear.
Because I was talking to aformer Swiss ambassador to the
US recently and he thought thatDonald Trump, behind the big
(27:30):
statements, didn't necessarilyor wasn't always this much
against the UN and that then JoeBiden also, even though he
returned to the WHO, to theHuman Rights Council, wasn't
necessarily always a fan ofmultilateralism when we think
about the Middle Eastnegotiations were outside of the
(27:50):
UN.
So maybe he doesn't really careabout the UN and that leaves
room for another kind ofleadership.
But that's probably justhopeful and then maybe
concretely we can hope for apandemic treaty this year or
(28:11):
next year for good, maybe aplastic treaty.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Yeah, well then it has to be honoured, I suppose.
But you're right, I meanpandemic treaty, plastic treaty,
these are the littleincremental of the Rings but
that the other countries in theworld, particularly in the
(28:41):
global south, are sodisenchanted with the way the P5
are behaving, and particularlywhat's happening in the Middle
East, that they are losing faithwith this multilateral system
as well because of the doublestandards.
Anyway, just a quick couple ofpredictions of mine for 2025.
I think we might get a deal inUkraine and we won't know for
(29:04):
quite a while whether it'sactually worked or not.
It'll be something frozen wherepeople will initially be a bit
glad that people are not gettingkilled, but we won't know for a
while whether it emboldensRussia or not.
On the Middle East, I thinkthere is terrible horrors in
(29:25):
store still for Gaza, and Ithink history will judge all of
us actually on this one in theend.
But one hopeful, one tinyhopeful thing well, an
encouragement I think Europe hasto get its act together, has to
stand up for itself, and I wasin Strasbourg last week and what
was quite heartening was theyhad a big session about 75 years
(29:49):
of the Council of Europe 46members supposed to be ensuring
a rights-based Europe, you know,with values that you know the
1930s and 40s would never berepeated.
And most of the people therewere young people from across
Europe, university students, andit was really interesting to
hear about the work they weredoing around human rights in
(30:13):
Europe, around things likeimmigration, around climate
change, and I just thought, well, at least there are still
people like that around.
And you had politicians fromEurope who said I'm glad you're
here to these young people.
Hold our feet to the fire, weneed it.
So that is my motto for 2025.
(30:37):
Hold their feet to the fire.
And that's it from this editionof Inside Geneva.
Thank you, nick Cumming-Bruce,dawn Clancy and Dorian
Borkhalter.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
(30:57):
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
(31:21):
.
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…Rheignones in southern Gaza.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
A wave of Russian missile strikes on cities across
Ukraine.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Wars everywhere, climate change, deepening
inequalities, ai it's justthreats everywhere, but it seems
like just the more global.
Our problems are becoming, theweaker the UN is also becoming.
Before I even arrive at theOval Office, I will have the
disastrous war between Russiaand Ukraine settled.
(00:55):
It will be settled quickly.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Pulling out of Paris Agreement or the WHO threatening
to cut funding.
The US is the biggest funder ofthe UN billions of dollars so
it's just going to be chaos andno leadership.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
The Fox News decision desk can now officially project
that Donald Trump will becomethe 47th president of the United
States.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
It's hard to top the US election because it already
you know.
Here we are two weeks later andit's already dominating pretty
much the conversation oneverything else that we've
covered in 2024.
Israel and its biggest ally,the United States, again
isolated, furiously attackingthe International Criminal
(01:41):
Court's decision to issue arrestwarrants for Benjamin Netanyahu
and Yoav Galant.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
The world is changing while I'm watching, in terms of
our fundamental principles.
The world is changing while I'mwatching, and for a while I
(02:08):
Geneva and it being December,it's time for our look back at
the year.
That was 2024, and we know ithasn't been exactly fantastic,
but don't switch off, keeplistening, because we've got UN
correspondents in Geneva and inNew York to provide some
analysis, reflection and, if wedare, a look ahead to what 2025
(02:34):
might have in store.
A warm welcome to you all.
We have here DorianneBurkhalter, geneva UN
correspondent with Swiss Info.
We have over in New York, dawnClancy, who covers the United
Nations and its political armover in the Big Apple, and back
here in Geneva we have NickCumming-Bruce, contributor to
(02:57):
the New York Times On All ThingsUN Geneva.
I'm going to start with it couldbe quite a difficult question,
but I would like you to try andget into it.
Is there a moment or an eventin 2024 that particularly stood
(03:18):
out for you?
I know there have been many,but, dorian, I'm going to come
to you first with that question.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
If I had to pick just one, I think it would be the US
election, donald Trump beingelected for a second mandate,
because otherwise I was thinkingabout our discussion from last
year.
And I mean, there's still a warin Ukraine, there's still a war
in the Middle East, in Sudan,and I think some of the things
we're seeing.
You know that humanitarians areunder attack, civilians too,
that we need more access,international law being violated
(03:54):
.
These things haven't changed.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Okay, yeah, I mean.
I think none of us are going todisagree that that first week
of November was quite momentousDawn.
What about you over in New York?
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Well, to get a bit more specific, it has to do with
the Israeli ambassador, formerIsraeli ambassador to the UN,
gilad Adan.
He's now left that post andit's Danny Dannen who's taken
his post as the Israeliambassador to the UN.
But back to Ambassador Adan.
(04:30):
He was giving a speech in theGeneral Assembly and he brought
with him a mini shredder and hebegan to shred pages of the UN
charter and of course he wassaying a lot of things around
that about how horrible the UNis and it's just, you know, full
of anti-Semitism rot.
But to me that moment I justthought, wow, here's a member
(04:52):
state I mean, there's a lotworse happening in the world but
here's a member state standingin front of, you know, the
General Assembly and he'sactually shredding pages of the
charter.
And, yeah, I thought thatpretty much sums up the year,
nick.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
It's hard to top the US election because it already
you know.
Here we are two weeks later andit's already dominating pretty
much the conversation oneverything else that we've
covered in 2024.
But I suppose if one looks backbefore that, from the work that
we have done in Geneva, I can'tfind a single incident like
(05:31):
Dawn's that graphicallyillustrates the kind of coverage
.
But it would have to besomething to do with Gaza,
because of the absolutelyrelentless flow of just
appalling developments that haveoccurred since October the 7th,
and the sense in whicheverything just continues to get
(05:51):
worse.
You don't think it can, but itcontinues to do so.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Yeah, I do want to come on to the US presidential
election a little bit later inthe programme.
I think I want to join Dawn andNick in saying that it is the
Middle East, not necessarily oneparticular event, and I know,
of course, it started in October2023.
(06:15):
And, as Dorian says, has beengoing on all of 2024.
But my feeling, listening topeople I've known for a decade
or more, who are aid workers,who have been to Gaza and come
back, and watching them pleadfor humanity, and listening to
(06:35):
some of them weep, and thentalking to diplomats,
particularly Western diplomats,who are just so uncomfortable
with this topic, and that's whenI just began to think, you know
, actually the world is changingwhile I'm watching, in terms of
our fundamental principles, theworld is changing while I'm
watching and for a while Ididn't quite even notice it.
(06:58):
And I think, dawn, your imageof an ambassador shredding the
UN Charter in the GeneralAssembly is the absolute,
perfect image for that, whichbrings me to my next question
when are we with the UN?
Is it dead?
Is it?
Speaker 1 (07:14):
relevant.
It's interesting because thisquestion has been asked
repeatedly, especially when thewar in Ukraine started, because
the Security Council was sodeadlocked in being able to pass
resolution.
Obviously because P5 membershave a veto, russia has a veto.
So all of the coverage of theUN was basically is the UN still
(07:35):
relevant?
Is it going to crumble and fallinto the East River?
And whenever this question comesup in the noon briefing at New
York, the spokesperson for theSecretary General, steph
Dujarric, he always says ifyou're going to ask me a
question about the UN, you'regoing to have to get specific
about which UN you mean.
So if we're talking about theSecurity Council, I would say
(07:56):
yeah, they've got problems.
If you're talking about, like,the Secretariat and the
administration administrativeend of it, sure, but I think you
know.
Speaking about humanitarianworkers, you know that being a
part of the UN, these peoplethat go into these conflict
zones and they just work so hardand they risk their lives that
(08:18):
part of the UN I could say todayis quite admirable.
I think that's a plus for theUN.
But the political side is, yeah, it's like an earthquake at
this point and we don't reallyknow how this is going to all
settle down.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
So I would argue and this is where I would like
Dorian and Nick from the Genevaside to give me some thoughts on
this that where we've movedfrom this time last year when we
talked, is that the SecurityCouncil was deadlocked.
Then we saw, as you said, inUkraine.
But we've moved a step on wherethe fundamental principles of
international law are beingreally blatantly defied.
(08:59):
And now we see, for example,the suggestion, which is
precedent setting, that a UNmember state will deny a UN
agency, unrwa, the right to work, and to me that calls into
question the relevance of theUN's humanitarian wing in Geneva
as well and whether it has afuture.
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Well, in a sense the humanitarian side, as Dawn said,
is the one that has really beenwhere you peg your hopes,
because the Security Council hasbeen so paralyzed by
geopolitical rivalries and it'sunable to fulfill its main
function, which is trying tohelp keep peace in the world.
(09:42):
So you tend to look for the workof the WFP and the refugee
agency human rights organization, you look at the Human Rights
Council in Geneva asorganizations which hold up some
hope of humanity and where youthink you know non-political
principles are still valued andelevated as something that we
(10:07):
should strike for.
The problem is that I thinkVolker Turek put it extremely
well in October when he issuedthis statement, saying the
international rule of law isbeing progressively dismantled,
and he was speaking specificallyabout Gaza.
But when the principles thatare being trashed in the
(10:27):
conflict in Gaza do not resultin sanctions from leading
Western democracies, then youhave to say double standards are
replete and we see the USposition on Ukraine not being
reflected in any way in itspositions on Gaza.
We see the US consistentlyfailing to recognize how its
(10:50):
continued flow of arms hasessentially enabled the
continuation of violations ofinternational humanitarian law
on an epic scale.
So I think we're all at sea,and this is before the onset of
a Trump administration which hasappointed a number of people to
key positions who haveindicated that human rights,
(11:14):
international human rights, lawand principles are absolutely of
no significance.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Dorian.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
Yeah, I agree with the Security Council.
Of course we know it isn'tworking, so we're looking at
humanitarian aid for things thatare actually working.
But I mean, humanitarians alsodepend on the decisions of
governments and I think, whetherit's funding, we see that it's
always lacking for most criseseverywhere, and then access is
(11:46):
being denied.
Humanitarian aid is beinginstrumentalized.
I mean, this is also a veryworrying trend and even though
this is not new, I think herethe Israeli ban on UNRWA is
quite unprecedented to have aparliament ban a UN agency like
this.
So it is worrying.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I mean I'm beginning to wonder if I mean we always
talk about New York, theSecurity Council, geneva, the
humanitarian agencies, but thehumanitarian agencies are paying
the price of the utter failureof the Security Council.
I mean, we've got of the P5, wenow have one whose leader has
been indicted for war crimes,that's Russia.
One whose leader has beenindicted for war crimes, that's
(12:30):
Russia.
We have another who is thesubject of very, very concerning
reports and allegations ofcrimes against humanity on its
own territory, that's China.
And now we have the UnitedStates, with the new
(12:53):
administration returning,apparently very isolationist,
not especially interested ininternational law.
I suspect We'll come on to thatin a minute.
Could we drill a little deeperwhat the humanitarian side of
the UN can actually do aboutthis?
No money, no real support andpapering over these gaping
wounds that the failure ofpolitical will has created over
these gaping wounds that thefailure of political will has
(13:13):
created.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Before he left office , martin Griffiths, he gave a
briefing in New York and youcould tell that he was just so
frustrated and so fed up witheverything that was happening.
And he said you know,humanitarian agencies they tend
to stay away from the politicaland he's like I think it's time
for humanitarian agencies to getpolitical.
And that really struck mebecause I thought, yeah, it's
absolutely true.
You know, you ask anyhumanitarian agency a question
(13:40):
about something that's mildlypolitical and that's not my
mandate.
That's not my mandate.
I can't talk about that.
But you know I've thought aboutthat, even after he left his
post just what that would mean.
And is that necessary?
Is that the necessary next stepfor humanitarian agencies to
start getting political andstart taking, you know, a step
(14:02):
towards that?
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
So I mean Martin Griffiths is the former head of
emergency relief chief, the headof OCHA, been replaced by Tom
Fletcher now, who's alsosupposed to be a very strong
character.
I've heard from people who knowhim who described it as a very
brave move on his part to eventake that job, because they
think there's so little respectfor human rights and
(14:24):
international humanitarian law.
But for Nick and Dorian, theidea of the humanitarian
agencies becoming political istricky though, isn't it Because
they have this mantra of neutral, impartial, independent.
What we've seen in Geneva isactually they've gone pretty
quiet this year, particularlythe International Committee of
the Red Cross.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Yeah, I mean it's difficult for them to get too
political when they're dependenton governments for funding.
Part of the problem with theparalysis and security council
level in a multipolar world nowis that multilateral solutions
are less and less appealing tolarge numbers of states.
Martin Griffith also, before heleft, said you know, the
(15:06):
multilateral system still workswell, that the international aid
community is much moreefficient now than it used to be
, that it does the job muchbetter.
But it's just the epic size ofthe humanitarian challenges that
it's being asked to deal withare not being supported by donor
states, and so what we see isthat I mean more and more
(15:29):
governments put money intothings on a unilateral basis.
Ocha's SURF fund, the emergencyfund, is a good kind of
barometer of that, and you seeChina gives half a million
dollars.
I mean derisory sums of money.
The top five donors are allEuropean sums of money.
(15:50):
The top five donors are allEuropean, so the European aid
givers remain, but the rest ofthe world is sort of scattering
and doing its own thing.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Dorian, I saw you nodding there.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
No, exactly, that's actually also what I was going
to say.
I think of course it is hardfor humanitarian organizations
to be more political and I thinkrecently, but it's hard for me
to tell whether that's new ornot but I feel like they are
saying things quite clearly whenit comes, for example, with
them being sort ofinstrumentalized, you know when
there's misinformation aboutthem.
(16:25):
But I think certainly theywould need to encourage more
governments to provide fundingbecause in the end, if it's just
the big Western countries, thatdoes not make things easier for
them.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Since you talked about funding, let's hone in
specifically on the USpresidential election and the
appointments, because the US, ofcourse, is a massive donor at
the moment to United Nations.
Now should we read the tealeaves a little bit Donald
Trump's appointments.
(17:01):
Let's look at the Middle Eastfirst.
What do we think?
I think this.
I mean I personally think hischoice for ambassador to the
United Nations, his choice forambassador to Israel looked like
.
As far as the US is concerned,any idea of a two-state solution
is over.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
I completely agree with that.
You know you brought up hischoice for ambassador to the
United Nations, Elise Stefanik.
She describes herself asultra-MAGA make America great
again, which I guess is Trump'sparty, or cult, or whatever you
want to call it I don't know ifthat's appropriate to say cult
and she is severely pro-Israeland she has called out the
(17:45):
United Nations for beinganti-Semitic and being full of
anti-Semitic rot, moraldepravity, and she sounds just
like Israel's ambassador to theUN, Danny Danone.
So it's worrisome to me because, like you said, it kind of
makes it look like a two-statesolution will be even farther,
pushed back beyond the horizonas an option to answering this
(18:08):
question, this Palestinianquestion.
I was actually after Trump saidthat he was nominating her,
Elise Stefanik, AmbassadorDanone went on X and he
congratulated her and I justkind of scrolled through the
comments of that post to seewhat people were saying and
there was one individual whosaid something to the effect of
(18:31):
oh, this is perfect, Now Israelwill have two ambassadors at the
UN and I thought that kind of.
I thought that really hit thepoint, at least with how I'm
thinking.
I thought, yes, right on, rightthere.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Nick, what do you think?
I mean?
It's Huckabee, isn't it?
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Yes, Mike Huckabee.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
He's appointed to ambassador to Israel.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Well, I mean, this is a man who says there's no such
thing as a West Bank and thereis no such thing as settlements
and who says that, you know,israel has the right to sort of
control the whole of sort ofJudea and Samaria.
Then you've got, as Dawn hasmentioned, the ambassador to the
UN, who is rabidly pro-Israel.
(19:15):
You could take also PeteHegseth, the incoming if he's
confirmed Secretary of Defense,who has also said that the US
Army is the only sort ofpro-Christian, pro-israeli army
in the world.
I mean, these statements allshow very strong predilection
(19:35):
for unqualified support forIsrael, which it has taken on
from in many ways, from theBiden administration.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Leave aside, maybe, our own personal feelings of
rights and wrongs in thisconflict although I guess we
agree that there have been verymany wrongs by all parties the
approach just feels to me as ifit's going to store up more and
more and more and more troubleand, in particular, humanitarian
crises.
(20:03):
I don't see a route to any kindof peace.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Well, I mean, president-elect Trump is going
to bring peace to Ukraine, as weunderstand it.
If he is going to apply the artof the deal to bringing peace
to Ukraine, the question then ison what terms?
And is it going to be on termsthat somehow rein in the kind of
(20:28):
aggressive politics that we'veseen from Russia?
Rein in the kind of aggressivepolitics that we've seen from
Russia?
Or is it going to be terms thatultimately surrender advantages
to the Kremlin and thereforeleaves the rest of Europe
fearing what will come next?
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, I mean, I was thinking about this today and
thinking you have this horribleslightly 1938, feel about it.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
You know, we got, got a deal, we have a piece of
paper and then, a year later, ifI could just add one other
thought, and that is you know,we're very focused on Europe and
Gaza and the Middle East, but Imean, what's also concerning to
, perhaps, is the verystridently anti-Chinese line in
DC andC, and tensions areratcheting up in the Pacific
(21:15):
area, and so does this veryhawkish stand from a variety of
people who have been nominatedby Mr Trump to serve in his
administration whether that'sgoing to basically lead us into
a much tenser, more conflictsusceptible time in that area as
(21:36):
well, or are we going to seethat the new administration
simply uses this for tradeleverage?
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, we don't know.
We're getting towards lookingforward to 2025.
Dorian, I wanted to ask you umbeing possibly the youngest
person here oh, hey, now wait, aminute.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Wait, I won't ask then don't ask, don't age it.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
I mean somebody um about your age.
One of my fact said it's allright for you, you've had your
day.
I mean, when you look at theworld, do you think, oh God,
this is climate change, ukraine,the Middle East, sudan,
possible trade war.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
It's totally overwhelming, I think.
As you said, I mean it's warseverywhere.
As you said, I mean it's warseverywhere, and I mean just
recently, when you hear VladimirPutin say that the conflict in
Ukraine has become basically aglobal conflict.
It's just super worrying.
I mean as well as his saberrattling when it comes to
(22:45):
nuclear weapons.
And behind this, all you haveclimate change, deepening
inequalities, ai.
It's just threats everywhere.
Yeah, I mean, the narrativeusually is that we have those
global problems, so we needglobal solutions, so we need the
(23:05):
UN and a strong multilateralsystem.
But it seems like just the moreglobal our problems are
becoming, the weaker the UN isalso becoming.
So no, I'm not too optimistic,unfortunately.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
No, I mean, I was hoping to try and end this
podcast on some moment ofoptimism.
I might have one or two, butfirst let's have a little look
at 2025 for the United Nations,because one point I wanted to
bring in was again related tothe US administration.
Donald Trump everybody sayshe's very transactional, he's
(23:43):
quite retributional, and I thinkwe are looking at possibly
getting out of the Paris Accordagain, probably leaving the
Human Rights Council, possiblyleaving the World Health
Organization and, if thisisolationist posture remains,
big, big funding cuts for UNbodies.
(24:03):
The other thing somebodyspeculated to me the other day
is that Cindy McCain, currenthead of the World Food Programme
, will definitely be for thehigh jump because there's a lot
of bad blood between the McCainsand the Trumps, and that Trump
will certainly want to replacethe head of the World Food
Programme with somebody morepliant.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
I think one of the points in what you're saying
about Trump coming in, I guessone of the more disappointing
things is that this isn't goingto lead to any new kind of
leadership at the UN.
I think when you look at theSecurity Council, when you look
at the UN as a whole, I think,you know, when you look at the
Security Council, when you lookat the UN as a whole and I don't
mean to say this to sayanything poorly about the
(24:47):
Secretary General, antonioGuterres there's just no
leadership.
I'm not saying that therearen't leaders, but there's
absolutely no leadership whenyou look at the P5.
No leadership.
It's like everybody's sayalthough I've never read the
books Lord of the Rings,everybody's obsessed with this
ring and when they get the ringthey start turning into these
(25:07):
goblins and I just feel like theveto is like the ring that's
the P5.
They've all become warped andyou know they're rusting away
from the inside with this veto.
So, looking ahead at 2025, Istill think we're going to be
lacking some major leadershipand when Trump comes in, you
know, comes back.
I guess it's.
I could see him, exactly as yousaid, emoji pulling out of
(25:39):
these different you know, parisagreement or the WHO threatening
to cut funding.
Like you said, the US is thebiggest funder of the UN
billions of dollars so it's justgoing to be chaos and no
leadership.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Nick thoughts for 2025?
.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
Struggling to come up with any particularly positive
scenarios.
We have the likelihood of analready weakened COP process
being weakened further byAmerican withdrawal.
We've had progress in 2024 onpreparation of a pandemic treaty
, which was one area of positivedevelopment, if you like, but
again we face the probability, Ithink, that the United States
(26:16):
will not want to participate intaking that any further forward.
We can only hope for a positivepeace in Ukraine.
Sudan seems to be almost beyondthe reach of all the
stakeholders at the moment, soit's very difficult to see how
that's going on.
Yeah, gaza that's still nowhereon the horizon and the whole
(26:43):
day after the war scenario forGaza is extremely bleak and
absolutely no vision coming fromany of the major powers.
So, yeah, it's not a verybright and cheerful dawn of 2025
.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Dorian 2025.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Dorian, yeah, like Don and Nick, I mean I fear that
Trump will withdraw from UNorganizations, from UN treaties.
But maybe my hope is thatactually he doesn't really care
and that maybe the US foreignpolicy is a little more robust
than we fear.
Because I was talking to aformer Swiss ambassador to the
US recently and he thought thatDonald Trump, behind the big
(27:30):
statements, didn't necessarilyor wasn't always this much
against the UN and that then JoeBiden also, even though he
returned to the WHO, to theHuman Rights Council, wasn't
necessarily always a fan ofmultilateralism when we think
about the Middle Eastnegotiations were outside of the
(27:50):
UN.
So maybe he doesn't really careabout the UN and that leaves
room for another kind ofleadership.
But that's probably justhopeful and then maybe
concretely we can hope for apandemic treaty this year or
(28:11):
next year for good, maybe aplastic treaty.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Yeah, well then it has to be honoured, I suppose.
But you're right, I meanpandemic treaty, plastic treaty,
these are the littleincremental of the Rings but
that the other countries in theworld, particularly in the
(28:41):
global south, are sodisenchanted with the way the P5
are behaving, and particularlywhat's happening in the Middle
East, that they are losing faithwith this multilateral system
as well because of the doublestandards.
Anyway, just a quick couple ofpredictions of mine for 2025.
I think we might get a deal inUkraine and we won't know for
(29:04):
quite a while whether it'sactually worked or not.
It'll be something frozen wherepeople will initially be a bit
glad that people are not gettingkilled, but we won't know for a
while whether it emboldensRussia or not.
On the Middle East, I thinkthere is terrible horrors in
(29:25):
store still for Gaza, and Ithink history will judge all of
us actually on this one in theend.
But one hopeful, one tinyhopeful thing well, an
encouragement I think Europe hasto get its act together, has to
stand up for itself, and I wasin Strasbourg last week and what
was quite heartening was theyhad a big session about 75 years
(29:49):
of the Council of Europe 46members supposed to be ensuring
a rights-based Europe, you know,with values that you know the
1930s and 40s would never berepeated.
And most of the people therewere young people from across
Europe, university students, andit was really interesting to
hear about the work they weredoing around human rights in
(30:13):
Europe, around things likeimmigration, around climate
change, and I just thought, well, at least there are still
people like that around.
And you had politicians fromEurope who said I'm glad you're
here to these young people.
Hold our feet to the fire, weneed it.
So that is my motto for 2025.
(30:37):
Hold their feet to the fire.
And that's it from this editionof Inside Geneva.
Thank you, nick Cumming-Bruce,dawn Clancy and Dorian
Borkhalter.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
(30:57):
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
(31:21):
.
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