September 16, 2025 • 31 mins
The United Nations General Assembly has officially opened and the organisation marked its 80th anniversary. Inside Geneva asks whether the body remains relevant.
“If you're a refugee in Bangladesh, or seeking protection in South Sudan, the UN may be imperfect but it’s still relevant,” says Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group.
The UN is bigger than many of us think.
“We do sometimes forget that the UN still has 60,000 peacekeepers deployed around the world and that it continues to run vast humanitarian operations. So the UN isn’t dead, but I think it’s drifting,” he says.
But what about the UN’s original role – resolving conflicts and promoting peace?
“US President Donald Trump said he wants the UN to refocus on peace and security. But in reality, the US, along with other major powers, hasn’t been working through the UN to address any of today’s major crises.”
Are world leaders making a mistake by leaving the UN out?
“What UN mediators and other conflict resolution specialists have learnt over the past few decades is that peace is a slow business,” Gowan says.
“Trump likes to present himself as a master dealmaker, but what he’s talking about isn’t constructing lasting peace. It’s about grabbing headlines on a few occasions.”
Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast.
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 Fowkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
In today's programme, it is now my duty, my honour
and my privilege in the chair tocall for a vote on the approval
of the charter of the unitednations we do sometimes forget
that the un still has 60 000peacekeepers around the world.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
It's still running enormous humanitarian operations
.
So the UN is not dead, but Ithink the UN is drifting.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
The UN has tremendous potential.
It's not living up to thatpotential right now.
It really isn't.
Hasn't for a long time.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Donald Trump actually says that he wants the UN to
focus back on peace and security.
We prioritize globalpeacemaking, but the reality is
that the US and other and otherpowers are not working through
the UN on any of the big crisesof the day.
Speaker 6 (01:10):
Has Israel turned Gaza into a starvation camp?
The UN says the Strip is thehungriest place on Earth.
As Israel continues itsblockade and bombardment, every
single person is at risk offamine.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Something that we are seeing is actually Israel, as a
matter of policy, trying todeconstruct the UN presence in
the conflict, and that issomething which could set a very
, very disturbing precedent inmany other places.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Now, this October, the UnitedNations will be 80 years old.
The UN was founded amid greathope and determination, even to
create a better, fairer, morepeaceful and more equal world.
But eight decades later, manysay the body struggles for
(02:06):
relevance.
The big powers on the SecurityCouncil the United States,
russia, China, the UK and Franceagree on very little these days
except, it seems, on a shareddesire to hang on to their
individual vetoes, which theycan and do use to obstruct UN
policy.
The UN's traditional conflictresolution role seems to have
(02:28):
been sidelined, certainly inUkraine and the Middle East, and
the UN's humanitarian agenciesare facing existential financial
cuts.
So, 80 years on, and asgovernment leaders head to New
York for the UN General Assembly, how is the UN doing?
On Inside Geneva?
Today we bring you an in-depthconversation with Richard Gowan,
(02:52):
director UN and MultilateralDiplomacy at the International
Crisis Group.
My first question to him is theUN still relevant?
Speaker 4 (03:03):
I think that if you are a refugee in Bangladesh or
if you are looking forprotection in South Sudan, the
UN is imperfect, but it isrelevant and there's a lot of
talk at a very geopoliticallevel about the decline of
(03:26):
international cooperation, aboutthe fact we're in a very
fragmented world, but we dosometimes forget that the UN
still has 60,000 peacekeepersaround the world.
It's still running enormoushumanitarian operations,
(03:49):
enormous humanitarian operations.
So the UN is not dead, but Ithink the UN is drifting and I
think there is, especiallyagainst the backdrop of the
Trump administration and the USdistancing itself from the
organisation, a very real senseof malaise in New York and
Geneva and very real doubtsabout where this organisation is
headed as it enters its nextdecade.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Where do you think it's headed?
Then?
You know you've written aboutthe UN's waning role, for
example, in conflict resolution.
Now we see that writ largeright now the UN is nowhere in
the discussions about theRussia-Ukraine conflict, nowhere
over the conflict in the MiddleEast.
Now, 20 years ago, I think bothyou and I would have even 10
(04:33):
years ago, would have expectedthe UN to be central to these
kinds of discussions.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well, I think we have to remember that over its 80
years, the UN has waxed andwaned.
There were long periods in theCold War where the UN really was
totally marginal to a lot ofconflicts.
I think in 1959, the SecurityCouncil didn't meet at all for
three or four months, and so youknow, yes, the UN is struggling
(05:04):
at the moment, but it's not asparalysed as it has sometimes
been.
I think our challenge is thatour point of reference is the
1990s and, to some extent, thefirst decade of this century,
because in the post-Cold Warmoment there was a boom in UN
activity and the UN was centralto dealing with a lot of crises.
(05:27):
Now, let's remember that the UNmessed up horribly in the
Balkans, in Rwanda.
The UN struggled then too, butI think there was a feeling for
at least the first decade or twodecades after the Cold War that
the organization did have aspecial place as somewhere where
(05:50):
all the big powers could cometogether, an organization that
could launch very large scalepeace operations, that was an
impartial mediator.
That has been ebbing away, Iwould say, since the Arab
revolutions in 2011.
And since the beginning of theSyrian civil war in particular,
(06:10):
we have seen cooperation betweenthe big powers decline, the
Security Council has become lessefficient as a result, and UN
mediators and UN peacekeepersjust don't have the top-level
political cover that they oncedid.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
President Trump is set to arrive in New York City
ahead of his visit to the UnitedNations.
Speaker 5 (06:33):
There are great hopes for it, but it's not being well
run, to be honest, and they'renot doing the job.
A lot of these conflicts thatwe're working on should be
settled, or at least we shouldhave some help in settling them.
We never seem to get help.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Now Donald Trump actually says that he wants the
UN to focus back on peace andsecurity.
He says that the organizationshould reprioritize global
peacemaking, but the reality isthat the US and other powers are
not working through the UN onany of the big crises of the day
, which leaves the UN with thecrumbs, the second order crises
(07:14):
where no one else really wantsto get their hands dirty.
And even in those places, theorganisation is sort of
struggling to stay as relevantas it once was.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Let's unpick that for a minute though, because you
mentioned Donald Trump, andobviously he is this towering
figure over internationalaffairs at the moment.
But you know he talks abouthaving solved six wars since he
came into office.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
I've solved six wars in the last six months a little
more than six months now and I'mvery proud of it.
Speaker 7 (07:48):
I put out fires all over the world.
We did one yesterday, as youknow, we stopped a war.
We stopped about five wars, sothat's much more important than
playing golf.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
I mean, some of us might ask ourselves if Donald
Trump really even understandswhat all of this is about,
because Democratic Republic ofCongo is one that he said that
he solved, which I have astatement from Amnesty
International in front of meright now talking about renewed
appalling violence.
So is it dangerous to say, oh,everything's moved away from the
(08:20):
UN and other people are takingit over, when some of these
people might not even understandwhat they're actually doing?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
I think that's right.
I think that the Trump schoolof peacemaking is very much
based on getting a quick win andyou know you can get a quick
win by bombing Iran or holdingbut this is not peacemaking,
it's not peace, it's notsustainable.
It's not, and I think you knowwhat UN mediators and Other
(08:47):
conflict resolution specialistshave learned over the last
decades is that peace is a veryslow business.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are in talks
tonight to try to bring an endto the war in Ukraine.
Donald Trump applauded VladimirPutin's arrival in Alaska.
The red carpet here is bothliteral and metaphorical.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
You can always get a summit.
You can always, if you're theUS, use military force to get a
spectacular effect, but actuallyconstructing sustainable peace
requires slow diplomacy, slowwork on the ground and there are
lots and lots of setbacks arelots and lots of setbacks Now.
(09:35):
President Trump is a man wholikes to present himself as a
master dealmaker and I do thinkhe genuinely believes that he
deserves the 2025 Nobel PeacePrize, but what he's talking
about is not constructinglasting peace.
It's about having grabbed theheadlines in a couple of
occasions.
Now we should be glad in somecases that the US is engaging on
(09:56):
peace.
I think that actually, the USengagement in the Congo overall
is a net positive.
It has moved some politicaldiscussions and some regional
discussions that were going verybadly in a marginally more
positive direction, but it's fartoo early to say it's worked.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
And people who've watched that region for many,
many years are very scepticalabout whether it will work.
Let's be honest about that.
Speaker 7 (10:23):
On Saturday, my administration helped broker a
full and immediate ceasefire Ithink a permanent one between
India and Pakistan, ending adangerous conflict of two
nations with lots of nuclearweapons.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
And there are other cases, by the way, where Trump
claims he's made peace, such asbetween India and Pakistan,
where a lot of the other playersinvolved are pretty sceptical
about how significant the USrole was.
Indian officials in particularsay that the US was helpful
during this year's clash withPakistan, but it wasn't decisive
(11:00):
.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, and the two big ones we're looking at.
Well, for everybody who's in aconflict, that conflict is the
big one, but let's say the onesthat the global spotlight is on
are the Middle East, gaza andRussia, ukraine.
Here some people might say thatthe UN input might be a useful
(11:21):
injection of reality to the kindof discussions that are going
on.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
They're two very different situations from the UN
perspective.
On Ukraine, the UN has alwaysbeen relatively marginal, going
right back to 2014,.
European powers like France andGermany have always wanted to
keep the UN out of diplomacywith Moscow, and since the
(11:47):
beginning of the all-out war in2022, since the beginning of the
all-out war in 2022, antoniaGuterres has had one really
noteworthy success, which washelping to mediate the Black Sea
Grain Initiative.
But for most of the war he hasbeen holding back and I think
he's had messages from bothMoscow and Kiev that his good
officers are not really welcomein this situation.
(12:10):
So the UN has a humanitarianrole, but it's on the margins.
In the case of Gaza and thewider Middle East conflict,
there's something differentgoing on, which is that the UN
has been centrally involved inMiddle East peacemaking, going
right back into the Cold War.
But Israel, I think, hasconcluded that the UN is
(12:32):
fundamentally biased against itand it actually wants to
dismantle the architecture of UNpeacekeeping and UN aid in the
Palestinian territories and onits borders.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
People in Gaza are hungry and desperate.
Speaker 8 (12:49):
Behind these walls we have two million people.
That has no water, no food, nomedicine.
So these trucks are not justtrucks.
They are the difference betweenlife and death for so many
people in Gaza, and to see themstuck here makes me be very
(13:14):
clear.
What we need is to make themmove.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
There is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is
no starvation in Gaza.
We enable humanitarian aid,throughout the duration of the
war, to enter Gaza, otherwisethere would be no Gazans.
Hamas robs, steals thishumanitarian aid.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
So we've seen Israel declaring the Secretary General
persona non grata, trying toundermine UN aid operations in
Gaza, and the West Bank pushingfor the UN peacekeeping mission
in Lebanon to wind down.
I mean, something that we areseeing is actually Israel, as a
matter of policy, trying todeconstruct the UN presence in
(13:59):
the conflict, and that issomething which could set a very
, very disturbing precedent inmany other places, because if
the UN does crumble after nearly80 years of involvement in the
Middle East, does crumble afternearly 80 years of involvement
in the Middle East, then it cancrumble anywhere.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
That goes, I think, to the heart of what our
conversation today is about,because this is a precedent that
has occurred to me and many ofmy colleagues in Geneva too that
we are seeing a directreputational attack on what many
of us consider to be reputableUN humanitarian organisations
and indeed the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross not
(14:43):
UN, but also present and thesense that these bodies are
absolutely not desired inexactly the place that they are
most needed, which is Gaza.
We talked about the sideliningof the UN in peacekeeping, but
we are now seeing also this keyrole of the UN, the humanitarian
side, also being sidelined.
(15:04):
And it's always the way withthese things, isn't it, that if
one member state can do it,others will follow when it suits
them.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
I think that's absolutely true and obviously
Gaza dominates the headlines,but if you look around the world
, you can see very serious casessuch as the civil war in Sudan,
where again you have conflictparties who are either blocking
the UN from assisting very largenumbers of civilians or at
(15:36):
least place incredibly heavyconditions on the UN's work.
Speaker 8 (15:41):
Now, this is not unprecedented.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
The UN has always faced political pushback in
situations like Bosnia in the1990s, situations like Bosnia in
the 1990s.
But I do think that we'reentering a moment where a lot of
states and a lot of other armedgroups.
They look at the UN, they seethe Security Council is divided.
They look at precedents likeGaza and they can tell that you
(16:06):
can you know you can beat up theUN and there's no penalty.
You may face a lot ofstatements of concern, you may
even face some votes in theGeneral Assembly, but actually
you know what Israel isdemonstrating is that there's
very little real world price forrejecting the UN and I do worry
(16:30):
that that lesson is going to belearned and transmitted to
other conflicts.
Speaker 6 (16:36):
Food distribution by GHF, the Israeli-US-sponsored
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
In that first month, Israel'sHaaretz newspaper documents 19
instances of the Israeli armyopening fire near these food
handouts.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
We stand in line for hours to get a handful of rice
or a loaf of bread, we cannotapproach the USAID distribution
post.
The Israeli drones open fireand drop bombs on us.
The other thing where for meanyway, observing it very much
from the humanitarianheadquarters of the UN in Geneva
, any way, observing it verymuch from the humanitarian
headquarters of the UN in Genevais that what's happened in Gaza
(17:14):
takes things in some ways a bitof a step further than Sudan or
even Syria 10 years ago, wherethere was lots of blocking of
aid and so on.
Because here we have the UnitedStates, a member of the
Security Council, with Israelsetting up a rival humanitarian
organisation and providing itwith the logistics and the
(17:37):
permission to work.
That's the Gaza HumanitarianFoundation.
Disastrous consequences interms of the deaths, and yet it
continues.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
I mean, you would hope that other global players
will look at the GazaHumanitarian Foundation, see
what a disaster it has been andtake away the lesson that
actually sometimes the UN, forall its flaws, is actually the
best placed actor to providehumanitarian aid to civilian
(18:07):
populations.
I mean, I think that the Gazastory has demonstrated precisely
that non-UN actors are just notable to replicate the sort of
aid provision that the big UNagencies can provide.
It's interesting.
There's a curious parallel inthe peacekeeping world in Haiti
(18:29):
right now.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Haiti.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
One of the most dangerous places on earth.
We're joining the Kenyan policein their fight against the
gangs terrorizing the country.
Speaker 6 (18:41):
The multinational force, which is headed by Kenya,
arrived in Haiti last June.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
A Kenyan policeman was killed in the incident.
Last year, a group of Kenyanpolice deployed to try and
support the Haitian governmentrestore order, but they haven't
had the logistical backup andfinancial backup that they would
have if they were a UN BlueHelmet mission and they've been
really, really struggling and alot of diplomats look at that
(19:07):
and say, hmm, actually, maybe UNpeacekeeping does have some
strengths.
So you can look at these ad hoc, one-off operations and I think
you often find that they don'toutperform the UN.
The problem, of course, is thatthe UN requires both Security
(19:27):
Council, political backup toengage, but it also needs money,
and the other challenge thatthe humanitarians in particular
face is that the US is justslashing funding from under all
the big agencies.
I don't think that there's ascenario where that funding
comes back, at least in Trump'sterm.
Speaker 8 (19:49):
The United Nations says, his situation and that of
millions of other displacedpeople in the Sahel and West
Africa is only going to getworse.
Warehouses are running out ofsupplies because donors are
cutting funding.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Late today, the US State Department suspended all
foreign assistance around theworld for at least three months.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
And so the UN's ability to provide the level of
aid that it has been doing inrecent years is contracting
anyway.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
So where do we go from here?
Then?
We started this conversationwith the fact that the UN is 80.
Very good reasons why it wascreated.
Some of those reasons, in termsof conflict and people being
brutal to each other and anunequal world have not gone away
.
So optimistic view memberstates might notice that yeah,
(20:40):
actually what we invented 80years ago, it has got some
benefits.
Doing without it in Gaza orHaiti didn't work so well.
Pessimistic view We've setprecedents where people are
thinking this organisation getsin our way politically,
strategically.
We believe in nationalism, notmultilateralism.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I mean, I actually think that on the one hand, the
bulk of UN member states,especially small and middle
sized powers, do want theorganization to keep going.
You know, we focus on the worstcases, we focus on countries
that are rejecting the UN.
We overlook the fact that therank and file of states around
(21:23):
the world actually quite likethe multilateral system that we
have.
But I think the counter to thatis something that has really
struck me since January, whichis, in a moment of great
turbulence and a moment wherepeople are seeing the wider
world order shifting, the UN isnot their top priority.
(21:45):
So I think policymakers inalmost every capital in the
world are primarily worriedabout trade relations with the
US, and policymakers in USallies are desperately concerned
about security relations withthe US, and so that's what
they're focusing on.
You know what Washington isdoing to the Human Rights
(22:06):
Council or the World FoodProgramme doesn't make the top.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Not outside Geneva.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
no, the top 50 priorities in most national
capitals and I think diplomatsin Geneva and New York.
They're left sort of on the onehand saying we want the
multilateral system to continue,but on the other hand they're
really struggling to get theattention of their masters back
home about all the problems thatare that are building up Now.
I think at some point the youknow the really dire financial
(22:37):
situation will come home.
I think at some point we'regoing to have to have much more
serious discussions than we'vehad so far about not just the
financing of the UN but also thestructure of the UN.
We're going to have to talkabout whether we should be
merging some large UN agenciesto make them really more
efficient, and governments willhave to engage on that.
(22:57):
But I have a suspicion thatit's still going to be a couple
of years until those sorts ofbig systemic discussions really
come into focus.
It may be associated with thearrival of a new secretary
general in 2027, because justright now the political energy
and the political focus iselsewhere.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
So, but just coming up to the General Assembly then,
and it's Antonio Guterres isstill secretary general for
another couple of years.
What can he do right now, atthis coming up General Assembly,
to remind member states,including the big dinosaurs of
the Security Council, that thisis a body.
(23:41):
They should be investing sometime and attention?
Speaker 4 (23:46):
So Katerish tends to work at two levels.
There's a rhetorical level, andhe does give grand sweeping
statements about, you know, theneed to preserve world order and
the risks of not doing so.
But there's also a morepractical level, which is his
focus right now, which is simplybalancing the books.
(24:07):
And since January, guterres hasbeen very, very heavily focused
on cutting costs, you know,reducing the UN staff, you know,
essentially muddling through toensure that especially the UN
Secretariat doesn't implodefinancially.
And with 15 months left of histerm, my sense is that Guterres
(24:29):
is increasingly resigned to thefact that that has to be his
focus.
The cost savings and the costefficiencies are ultimately
where he has to concentrate,because if he doesn't, then the
entire system may seize up.
So I'm sure he will give a verybroad, sweeping defence of the
(24:49):
UN system when he speaks toworld leaders, but he will then
likely pivot from that to adiscussion of UN structures,
mandates and management.
That I doubt will feel superinspiring, but that's what he's
lumped with.
That's what he's lumped with.
That's what he's got to do.
The other problem for Guterresis that the speaker after him is
(25:14):
President Lula from Brazil, butthen this guy, donald, up from
Washington, will take to thepodium.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Is he definitely coming?
Do you think?
Speaker 4 (25:22):
We haven't had it fully confirmed, but you know
Trump, he loves the attention.
He's always enjoyed the UNGeneral Assembly, so I suspect
he'll be there and from themoment he opens his mouth,
whatever Guterres said justevaporates, because people are
really going to be there to seeTrump.
Leaders will want bilats withTrump and, once again, you know
(25:45):
even prime ministers who've beensitting there thinking like,
yeah, well, we should probablyprop up.
The UN will refocus 100 percentand be asking well, what is
Trump going to tell us?
Speaker 2 (25:57):
You talked about Antonio Guterres being lumped
with this, having to save money,and this is how, perhaps, his
reign at the UN will be defined.
Perhaps his reign at the UNwill be defined.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Do you have some sympathy for him as a man who
really wanted to make amultilateral tackling of climate
change the signature of histime as Secretary General.
I have a lot of sympathy forGuterres.
Now I think that actually isn'twidely shared amongst a lot of
UN colleagues at the moment iswidely shared amongst a lot of
UN colleagues.
At the moment there's a lot ofill feeling around the system
towards him because he is havingto cut the budget and because
he is having to cut jobs.
But I think if you zoom out,you know you have to say that
(26:41):
whatever his strengths andwhatever his weaknesses, the
Secretary General has been aprofoundly unlucky man.
His weaknesses the SecretaryGeneral has been a profoundly
unlucky man.
He had to spend his first termgrappling with Trump 1.
He had to spend most of hissecond term grappling with
Russia's aggression againstUkraine and then the
Israel-Hamas war, which has attimes felt like an existential
(27:04):
crisis for the organisation.
And then he gets to spend hislame duck period dealing with
Trump too.
And he is a man of greatintellect and he has ego, but he
has ambition and I think hewanted to spend his time,
especially these last few years,in office, rebooting the
(27:26):
climate change battle and alsogetting the UN to focus on
issues like regulatingartificial intelligence, and
instead he's having to spend histwilight in office trying to
get the staff to shave off 20%of posts.
It's a bit of a tragic storyreally.
It's a reminder that, howeverexperienced and however smart a
(27:48):
politician may be, events willalways shape their time in
office, and I think that hasvery much been the case for
Guterres.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
After days and nights of compromise and cooperation,
four main agencies upon whichthe world now puts its hope A
powerful security council havingfinal military authority, a
General Assembly representingall member nations, a social and
economic council to tackle thecauses of war and an
(28:17):
international court to judge anyinternational disputes.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
And that final reminder of the hopes invested
in the United Nations in 1945brings us to the end of this
edition of Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Richard Gowan forhis insights into the UN at 80.
Next on Inside Geneva, we'll bebringing you our very last
(28:47):
summer profile of the year,where we talk to a young
physiotherapist from Ireland whonow works for the International
Committee of the Red Cross inGaza.
That's out September 30th,don't miss it.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(29:09):
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever 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
(29:29):
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Fowkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
In today's programme, it is now my duty, my honour
and my privilege in the chair tocall for a vote on the approval
of the charter of the unitednations we do sometimes forget
that the un still has 60 000peacekeepers around the world.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
It's still running enormous humanitarian operations
.
So the UN is not dead, but Ithink the UN is drifting.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
The UN has tremendous potential.
It's not living up to thatpotential right now.
It really isn't.
Hasn't for a long time.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Donald Trump actually says that he wants the UN to
focus back on peace and security.
We prioritize globalpeacemaking, but the reality is
that the US and other and otherpowers are not working through
the UN on any of the big crisesof the day.
Speaker 6 (01:10):
Has Israel turned Gaza into a starvation camp?
The UN says the Strip is thehungriest place on Earth.
As Israel continues itsblockade and bombardment, every
single person is at risk offamine.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
Something that we are seeing is actually Israel, as a
matter of policy, trying todeconstruct the UN presence in
the conflict, and that issomething which could set a very
, very disturbing precedent inmany other places.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Now, this October, the UnitedNations will be 80 years old.
The UN was founded amid greathope and determination, even to
create a better, fairer, morepeaceful and more equal world.
But eight decades later, manysay the body struggles for
(02:06):
relevance.
The big powers on the SecurityCouncil the United States,
russia, China, the UK and Franceagree on very little these days
except, it seems, on a shareddesire to hang on to their
individual vetoes, which theycan and do use to obstruct UN
policy.
The UN's traditional conflictresolution role seems to have
(02:28):
been sidelined, certainly inUkraine and the Middle East, and
the UN's humanitarian agenciesare facing existential financial
cuts.
So, 80 years on, and asgovernment leaders head to New
York for the UN General Assembly, how is the UN doing?
On Inside Geneva?
Today we bring you an in-depthconversation with Richard Gowan,
(02:52):
director UN and MultilateralDiplomacy at the International
Crisis Group.
My first question to him is theUN still relevant?
Speaker 4 (03:03):
I think that if you are a refugee in Bangladesh or
if you are looking forprotection in South Sudan, the
UN is imperfect, but it isrelevant and there's a lot of
talk at a very geopoliticallevel about the decline of
(03:26):
international cooperation, aboutthe fact we're in a very
fragmented world, but we dosometimes forget that the UN
still has 60,000 peacekeepersaround the world.
It's still running enormoushumanitarian operations,
(03:49):
enormous humanitarian operations.
So the UN is not dead, but Ithink the UN is drifting and I
think there is, especiallyagainst the backdrop of the
Trump administration and the USdistancing itself from the
organisation, a very real senseof malaise in New York and
Geneva and very real doubtsabout where this organisation is
headed as it enters its nextdecade.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Where do you think it's headed?
Then?
You know you've written aboutthe UN's waning role, for
example, in conflict resolution.
Now we see that writ largeright now the UN is nowhere in
the discussions about theRussia-Ukraine conflict, nowhere
over the conflict in the MiddleEast.
Now, 20 years ago, I think bothyou and I would have even 10
(04:33):
years ago, would have expectedthe UN to be central to these
kinds of discussions.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well, I think we have to remember that over its 80
years, the UN has waxed andwaned.
There were long periods in theCold War where the UN really was
totally marginal to a lot ofconflicts.
I think in 1959, the SecurityCouncil didn't meet at all for
three or four months, and so youknow, yes, the UN is struggling
(05:04):
at the moment, but it's not asparalysed as it has sometimes
been.
I think our challenge is thatour point of reference is the
1990s and, to some extent, thefirst decade of this century,
because in the post-Cold Warmoment there was a boom in UN
activity and the UN was centralto dealing with a lot of crises.
(05:27):
Now, let's remember that the UNmessed up horribly in the
Balkans, in Rwanda.
The UN struggled then too, butI think there was a feeling for
at least the first decade or twodecades after the Cold War that
the organization did have aspecial place as somewhere where
(05:50):
all the big powers could cometogether, an organization that
could launch very large scalepeace operations, that was an
impartial mediator.
That has been ebbing away, Iwould say, since the Arab
revolutions in 2011.
And since the beginning of theSyrian civil war in particular,
(06:10):
we have seen cooperation betweenthe big powers decline, the
Security Council has become lessefficient as a result, and UN
mediators and UN peacekeepersjust don't have the top-level
political cover that they oncedid.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
President Trump is set to arrive in New York City
ahead of his visit to the UnitedNations.
Speaker 5 (06:33):
There are great hopes for it, but it's not being well
run, to be honest, and they'renot doing the job.
A lot of these conflicts thatwe're working on should be
settled, or at least we shouldhave some help in settling them.
We never seem to get help.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
Now Donald Trump actually says that he wants the
UN to focus back on peace andsecurity.
He says that the organizationshould reprioritize global
peacemaking, but the reality isthat the US and other powers are
not working through the UN onany of the big crises of the day
, which leaves the UN with thecrumbs, the second order crises
(07:14):
where no one else really wantsto get their hands dirty.
And even in those places, theorganisation is sort of
struggling to stay as relevantas it once was.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Let's unpick that for a minute though, because you
mentioned Donald Trump, andobviously he is this towering
figure over internationalaffairs at the moment.
But you know he talks abouthaving solved six wars since he
came into office.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
I've solved six wars in the last six months a little
more than six months now and I'mvery proud of it.
Speaker 7 (07:48):
I put out fires all over the world.
We did one yesterday, as youknow, we stopped a war.
We stopped about five wars, sothat's much more important than
playing golf.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
I mean, some of us might ask ourselves if Donald
Trump really even understandswhat all of this is about,
because Democratic Republic ofCongo is one that he said that
he solved, which I have astatement from Amnesty
International in front of meright now talking about renewed
appalling violence.
So is it dangerous to say, oh,everything's moved away from the
(08:20):
UN and other people are takingit over, when some of these
people might not even understandwhat they're actually doing?
Speaker 4 (08:26):
I think that's right.
I think that the Trump schoolof peacemaking is very much
based on getting a quick win andyou know you can get a quick
win by bombing Iran or holdingbut this is not peacemaking,
it's not peace, it's notsustainable.
It's not, and I think you knowwhat UN mediators and Other
(08:47):
conflict resolution specialistshave learned over the last
decades is that peace is a veryslow business.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are in talks
tonight to try to bring an endto the war in Ukraine.
Donald Trump applauded VladimirPutin's arrival in Alaska.
The red carpet here is bothliteral and metaphorical.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
You can always get a summit.
You can always, if you're theUS, use military force to get a
spectacular effect, but actuallyconstructing sustainable peace
requires slow diplomacy, slowwork on the ground and there are
lots and lots of setbacks arelots and lots of setbacks Now.
(09:35):
President Trump is a man wholikes to present himself as a
master dealmaker and I do thinkhe genuinely believes that he
deserves the 2025 Nobel PeacePrize, but what he's talking
about is not constructinglasting peace.
It's about having grabbed theheadlines in a couple of
occasions.
Now we should be glad in somecases that the US is engaging on
(09:56):
peace.
I think that actually, the USengagement in the Congo overall
is a net positive.
It has moved some politicaldiscussions and some regional
discussions that were going verybadly in a marginally more
positive direction, but it's fartoo early to say it's worked.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
And people who've watched that region for many,
many years are very scepticalabout whether it will work.
Let's be honest about that.
Speaker 7 (10:23):
On Saturday, my administration helped broker a
full and immediate ceasefire Ithink a permanent one between
India and Pakistan, ending adangerous conflict of two
nations with lots of nuclearweapons.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
And there are other cases, by the way, where Trump
claims he's made peace, such asbetween India and Pakistan,
where a lot of the other playersinvolved are pretty sceptical
about how significant the USrole was.
Indian officials in particularsay that the US was helpful
during this year's clash withPakistan, but it wasn't decisive
(11:00):
.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, and the two big ones we're looking at.
Well, for everybody who's in aconflict, that conflict is the
big one, but let's say the onesthat the global spotlight is on
are the Middle East, gaza andRussia, ukraine.
Here some people might say thatthe UN input might be a useful
(11:21):
injection of reality to the kindof discussions that are going
on.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
They're two very different situations from the UN
perspective.
On Ukraine, the UN has alwaysbeen relatively marginal, going
right back to 2014,.
European powers like France andGermany have always wanted to
keep the UN out of diplomacywith Moscow, and since the
(11:47):
beginning of the all-out war in2022, since the beginning of the
all-out war in 2022, antoniaGuterres has had one really
noteworthy success, which washelping to mediate the Black Sea
Grain Initiative.
But for most of the war he hasbeen holding back and I think
he's had messages from bothMoscow and Kiev that his good
officers are not really welcomein this situation.
(12:10):
So the UN has a humanitarianrole, but it's on the margins.
In the case of Gaza and thewider Middle East conflict,
there's something differentgoing on, which is that the UN
has been centrally involved inMiddle East peacemaking, going
right back into the Cold War.
But Israel, I think, hasconcluded that the UN is
(12:32):
fundamentally biased against itand it actually wants to
dismantle the architecture of UNpeacekeeping and UN aid in the
Palestinian territories and onits borders.
Speaker 6 (12:44):
People in Gaza are hungry and desperate.
Speaker 8 (12:49):
Behind these walls we have two million people.
That has no water, no food, nomedicine.
So these trucks are not justtrucks.
They are the difference betweenlife and death for so many
people in Gaza, and to see themstuck here makes me be very
(13:14):
clear.
What we need is to make themmove.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
There is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is
no starvation in Gaza.
We enable humanitarian aid,throughout the duration of the
war, to enter Gaza, otherwisethere would be no Gazans.
Hamas robs, steals thishumanitarian aid.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
So we've seen Israel declaring the Secretary General
persona non grata, trying toundermine UN aid operations in
Gaza, and the West Bank pushingfor the UN peacekeeping mission
in Lebanon to wind down.
I mean, something that we areseeing is actually Israel, as a
matter of policy, trying todeconstruct the UN presence in
(13:59):
the conflict, and that issomething which could set a very
, very disturbing precedent inmany other places, because if
the UN does crumble after nearly80 years of involvement in the
Middle East, does crumble afternearly 80 years of involvement
in the Middle East, then it cancrumble anywhere.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
That goes, I think, to the heart of what our
conversation today is about,because this is a precedent that
has occurred to me and many ofmy colleagues in Geneva too that
we are seeing a directreputational attack on what many
of us consider to be reputableUN humanitarian organisations
and indeed the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross not
(14:43):
UN, but also present and thesense that these bodies are
absolutely not desired inexactly the place that they are
most needed, which is Gaza.
We talked about the sideliningof the UN in peacekeeping, but
we are now seeing also this keyrole of the UN, the humanitarian
side, also being sidelined.
(15:04):
And it's always the way withthese things, isn't it, that if
one member state can do it,others will follow when it suits
them.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
I think that's absolutely true and obviously
Gaza dominates the headlines,but if you look around the world
, you can see very serious casessuch as the civil war in Sudan,
where again you have conflictparties who are either blocking
the UN from assisting very largenumbers of civilians or at
(15:36):
least place incredibly heavyconditions on the UN's work.
Speaker 8 (15:41):
Now, this is not unprecedented.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
The UN has always faced political pushback in
situations like Bosnia in the1990s, situations like Bosnia in
the 1990s.
But I do think that we'reentering a moment where a lot of
states and a lot of other armedgroups.
They look at the UN, they seethe Security Council is divided.
They look at precedents likeGaza and they can tell that you
(16:06):
can you know you can beat up theUN and there's no penalty.
You may face a lot ofstatements of concern, you may
even face some votes in theGeneral Assembly, but actually
you know what Israel isdemonstrating is that there's
very little real world price forrejecting the UN and I do worry
(16:30):
that that lesson is going to belearned and transmitted to
other conflicts.
Speaker 6 (16:36):
Food distribution by GHF, the Israeli-US-sponsored
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
In that first month, Israel'sHaaretz newspaper documents 19
instances of the Israeli armyopening fire near these food
handouts.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
We stand in line for hours to get a handful of rice
or a loaf of bread, we cannotapproach the USAID distribution
post.
The Israeli drones open fireand drop bombs on us.
The other thing where for meanyway, observing it very much
from the humanitarianheadquarters of the UN in Geneva
, any way, observing it verymuch from the humanitarian
headquarters of the UN in Genevais that what's happened in Gaza
(17:14):
takes things in some ways a bitof a step further than Sudan or
even Syria 10 years ago, wherethere was lots of blocking of
aid and so on.
Because here we have the UnitedStates, a member of the
Security Council, with Israelsetting up a rival humanitarian
organisation and providing itwith the logistics and the
(17:37):
permission to work.
That's the Gaza HumanitarianFoundation.
Disastrous consequences interms of the deaths, and yet it
continues.
Speaker 4 (17:47):
I mean, you would hope that other global players
will look at the GazaHumanitarian Foundation, see
what a disaster it has been andtake away the lesson that
actually sometimes the UN, forall its flaws, is actually the
best placed actor to providehumanitarian aid to civilian
(18:07):
populations.
I mean, I think that the Gazastory has demonstrated precisely
that non-UN actors are just notable to replicate the sort of
aid provision that the big UNagencies can provide.
It's interesting.
There's a curious parallel inthe peacekeeping world in Haiti
(18:29):
right now.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Haiti.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
One of the most dangerous places on earth.
We're joining the Kenyan policein their fight against the
gangs terrorizing the country.
Speaker 6 (18:41):
The multinational force, which is headed by Kenya,
arrived in Haiti last June.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
A Kenyan policeman was killed in the incident.
Last year, a group of Kenyanpolice deployed to try and
support the Haitian governmentrestore order, but they haven't
had the logistical backup andfinancial backup that they would
have if they were a UN BlueHelmet mission and they've been
really, really struggling and alot of diplomats look at that
(19:07):
and say, hmm, actually, maybe UNpeacekeeping does have some
strengths.
So you can look at these ad hoc, one-off operations and I think
you often find that they don'toutperform the UN.
The problem, of course, is thatthe UN requires both Security
(19:27):
Council, political backup toengage, but it also needs money,
and the other challenge thatthe humanitarians in particular
face is that the US is justslashing funding from under all
the big agencies.
I don't think that there's ascenario where that funding
comes back, at least in Trump'sterm.
Speaker 8 (19:49):
The United Nations says, his situation and that of
millions of other displacedpeople in the Sahel and West
Africa is only going to getworse.
Warehouses are running out ofsupplies because donors are
cutting funding.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Late today, the US State Department suspended all
foreign assistance around theworld for at least three months.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
And so the UN's ability to provide the level of
aid that it has been doing inrecent years is contracting
anyway.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
So where do we go from here?
Then?
We started this conversationwith the fact that the UN is 80.
Very good reasons why it wascreated.
Some of those reasons, in termsof conflict and people being
brutal to each other and anunequal world have not gone away
.
So optimistic view memberstates might notice that yeah,
(20:40):
actually what we invented 80years ago, it has got some
benefits.
Doing without it in Gaza orHaiti didn't work so well.
Pessimistic view We've setprecedents where people are
thinking this organisation getsin our way politically,
strategically.
We believe in nationalism, notmultilateralism.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
I mean, I actually think that on the one hand, the
bulk of UN member states,especially small and middle
sized powers, do want theorganization to keep going.
You know, we focus on the worstcases, we focus on countries
that are rejecting the UN.
We overlook the fact that therank and file of states around
(21:23):
the world actually quite likethe multilateral system that we
have.
But I think the counter to thatis something that has really
struck me since January, whichis, in a moment of great
turbulence and a moment wherepeople are seeing the wider
world order shifting, the UN isnot their top priority.
(21:45):
So I think policymakers inalmost every capital in the
world are primarily worriedabout trade relations with the
US, and policymakers in USallies are desperately concerned
about security relations withthe US, and so that's what
they're focusing on.
You know what Washington isdoing to the Human Rights
(22:06):
Council or the World FoodProgramme doesn't make the top.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
Not outside Geneva.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
no, the top 50 priorities in most national
capitals and I think diplomatsin Geneva and New York.
They're left sort of on the onehand saying we want the
multilateral system to continue,but on the other hand they're
really struggling to get theattention of their masters back
home about all the problems thatare that are building up Now.
I think at some point the youknow the really dire financial
(22:37):
situation will come home.
I think at some point we'regoing to have to have much more
serious discussions than we'vehad so far about not just the
financing of the UN but also thestructure of the UN.
We're going to have to talkabout whether we should be
merging some large UN agenciesto make them really more
efficient, and governments willhave to engage on that.
(22:57):
But I have a suspicion thatit's still going to be a couple
of years until those sorts ofbig systemic discussions really
come into focus.
It may be associated with thearrival of a new secretary
general in 2027, because justright now the political energy
and the political focus iselsewhere.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
So, but just coming up to the General Assembly then,
and it's Antonio Guterres isstill secretary general for
another couple of years.
What can he do right now, atthis coming up General Assembly,
to remind member states,including the big dinosaurs of
the Security Council, that thisis a body.
(23:41):
They should be investing sometime and attention?
Speaker 4 (23:46):
So Katerish tends to work at two levels.
There's a rhetorical level, andhe does give grand sweeping
statements about, you know, theneed to preserve world order and
the risks of not doing so.
But there's also a morepractical level, which is his
focus right now, which is simplybalancing the books.
(24:07):
And since January, guterres hasbeen very, very heavily focused
on cutting costs, you know,reducing the UN staff, you know,
essentially muddling through toensure that especially the UN
Secretariat doesn't implodefinancially.
And with 15 months left of histerm, my sense is that Guterres
(24:29):
is increasingly resigned to thefact that that has to be his
focus.
The cost savings and the costefficiencies are ultimately
where he has to concentrate,because if he doesn't, then the
entire system may seize up.
So I'm sure he will give a verybroad, sweeping defence of the
(24:49):
UN system when he speaks toworld leaders, but he will then
likely pivot from that to adiscussion of UN structures,
mandates and management.
That I doubt will feel superinspiring, but that's what he's
lumped with.
That's what he's lumped with.
That's what he's got to do.
The other problem for Guterresis that the speaker after him is
(25:14):
President Lula from Brazil, butthen this guy, donald, up from
Washington, will take to thepodium.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
Is he definitely coming?
Do you think?
Speaker 4 (25:22):
We haven't had it fully confirmed, but you know
Trump, he loves the attention.
He's always enjoyed the UNGeneral Assembly, so I suspect
he'll be there and from themoment he opens his mouth,
whatever Guterres said justevaporates, because people are
really going to be there to seeTrump.
Leaders will want bilats withTrump and, once again, you know
(25:45):
even prime ministers who've beensitting there thinking like,
yeah, well, we should probablyprop up.
The UN will refocus 100 percentand be asking well, what is
Trump going to tell us?
Speaker 2 (25:57):
You talked about Antonio Guterres being lumped
with this, having to save money,and this is how, perhaps, his
reign at the UN will be defined.
Perhaps his reign at the UNwill be defined.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Do you have some sympathy for him as a man who
really wanted to make amultilateral tackling of climate
change the signature of histime as Secretary General.
I have a lot of sympathy forGuterres.
Now I think that actually isn'twidely shared amongst a lot of
UN colleagues at the moment iswidely shared amongst a lot of
UN colleagues.
At the moment there's a lot ofill feeling around the system
towards him because he is havingto cut the budget and because
he is having to cut jobs.
But I think if you zoom out,you know you have to say that
(26:41):
whatever his strengths andwhatever his weaknesses, the
Secretary General has been aprofoundly unlucky man.
His weaknesses the SecretaryGeneral has been a profoundly
unlucky man.
He had to spend his first termgrappling with Trump 1.
He had to spend most of hissecond term grappling with
Russia's aggression againstUkraine and then the
Israel-Hamas war, which has attimes felt like an existential
(27:04):
crisis for the organisation.
And then he gets to spend hislame duck period dealing with
Trump too.
And he is a man of greatintellect and he has ego, but he
has ambition and I think hewanted to spend his time,
especially these last few years,in office, rebooting the
(27:26):
climate change battle and alsogetting the UN to focus on
issues like regulatingartificial intelligence, and
instead he's having to spend histwilight in office trying to
get the staff to shave off 20%of posts.
It's a bit of a tragic storyreally.
It's a reminder that, howeverexperienced and however smart a
(27:48):
politician may be, events willalways shape their time in
office, and I think that hasvery much been the case for
Guterres.
Speaker 3 (27:57):
After days and nights of compromise and cooperation,
four main agencies upon whichthe world now puts its hope A
powerful security council havingfinal military authority, a
General Assembly representingall member nations, a social and
economic council to tackle thecauses of war and an
(28:17):
international court to judge anyinternational disputes.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
And that final reminder of the hopes invested
in the United Nations in 1945brings us to the end of this
edition of Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Richard Gowan forhis insights into the UN at 80.
Next on Inside Geneva, we'll bebringing you our very last
(28:47):
summer profile of the year,where we talk to a young
physiotherapist from Ireland whonow works for the International
Committee of the Red Cross inGaza.
That's out September 30th,don't miss it.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
(29:09):
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever 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
(29:29):
.
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.