April 15, 2025 • 34 mins
On Inside Geneva this week, we ask whether the United Nations (UN) and multilateralism have a future.
“Is the UN anachronistic? I mean, it was formed after the Second World War. Obviously, it’s getting a little bit dusty,” says political analyst Daniel Warner.
Younger generations from the Global South tell us where
they see the UN’s flaws.
“The countries of the Global North have not stood up to the ideals that they have created in an equitable manner. It’s simply like preaching water and drinking wine,” says Pratyush Sharma from the Global South Centre of Excellence in Dehli.
“The United Nations Security Council is absolutely inefficient in dealing with the reality of people, especially from the Global South,” continues Marilia Closs from Plataforma CIPÓ in Brazil.
“The Global South cannot exist on its own. Likewise the Global North also cannot exist on its own,” says Olumide Onitekun from the Africa Policy and Research Institute in Nigeria.
But the UN was created for very good reasons.
“When you think about the end of the Second World War and how the UN was created, the world was so sick and tired of war, they wanted it to end. It’s a different mindset. You know, it just makes me think, is that what we’re going to need?” says Dawn Clancy, UN journalist in New York.
Can the UN survive? Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast to find out.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
In today's program.
Is the UN anachronistic?
I mean it was formed after theSecond World War.
Obviously it's getting a littlebit dusty.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
The countries of the Global North.
They themselves have not stoodup to the ideals that they have
created in an equitable manner.
It is simply like you know,you're preaching water and
drinking wine.
Speaker 5 (00:40):
The United Nations Security Council is absolutely
inefficient to deal with thereality of people, especially
from the Global South.
Speaker 6 (00:49):
The Global South cannot exist on its own, and
likewise the Global North alsocannot exist on its own.
Speaker 7 (00:55):
When you think about the end of World War II and how
the UN was created.
You had the world.
They were so sick and tired ofwar, they wanted it to end.
It's a different mindset, youknow.
It just makes me think is thatwhat we're going to need?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
And in today's program we'regoing to take a deep breath, be
brave and ask whether aninstitution we report on
regularly, the United Nations,may be on its last legs.
Under Donald Trump we've seenunprecedented disengagement from
the United States, withmultilateral institutions and
(01:36):
massive cuts in US funding to UNaid agencies.
So can the UN survive withoutthe United States?
Some listeners may know, othersmay not, that the UN in Geneva
was, until 1946, home to theLeague of Nations.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
The Council of the League of Nations at Geneva met
to consider the appeal ofgallant little Finland against
the aggression of Soviet Russia.
The Emperor Haile Selassie roseto make his final appeal before
the League of Nations at Geneva, and his appearance was the
signal for an extraordinaryoutburst of catcalls and jeering
from Italian journalists in thegallery.
The story of the League ofNations comes to an end when, at
(02:20):
the Palace of Geneva, thedelegates of many lands meet for
the last time.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
In the run-up to the Second World War, tensions and
divisions between member statesdestroyed the League.
So today, to discuss the futureof the UN and of
multilateralism, I'm joined byDaniel Warner, specialist in
international affairs here inGeneva, and journalist Dawn
Clancy, who covers the UN in NewYork, and a little later in the
(02:49):
programme we'll talk to youngpeople from the global south and
hear what their hopes formultilateralism are.
But first I'm going to startwith you, danny.
You've got a long historicalperspective about this.
Does the United Nations inGeneva now have a kind of
terminal feel about it?
Could it go the way of theLeague of Nations?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I wrote an article where I began by saying
the League is dead.
Robert Cecil solemnly declaredon April 18th 1946, addressing
delegates from 34 countries atthe League headquarters here in
Geneva what is interesting aboutthat moment was that, right
(03:30):
after he declared, the UnitedNations was being born.
So, although the League died,there was something to replace
it.
If the United Nations is on itslast legs today, we have
nothing to replace it now, andthat has to be remembered.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Let me ask you that, don, from the New York
perspective, because in hisfirst term Donald Trump did
engage with the UN from time totime.
Some people say he did actuallysee it as useful from time to
time, but this time it's reallyhard to tell, and a lot of those
around him really seem devotednot just to this idea of America
(04:11):
first, but America alone.
What's your feeling in New York?
Is the US starting a walk away?
Speaker 7 (04:19):
I don't think it would be a full-on, 100% walk
away.
But here's based on you knowwhat I've been paying attention
to, what I do see.
So Elise Stefanik she was thenominee for the US ambassador to
the UN.
She had her confirmationhearing.
There was never a vote and then, of course, president Trump
pulled her nomination.
(04:39):
But if you listen to her herhearing, she spoke a lot about
Israel and defending againstanti-Semitism.
She really went hard againstChina and there was this really
strong idea that we have to pushback against China.
We have to keep them in line atthe UN.
So meanwhile she's not thenominee anymore.
(05:01):
Her nomination has been pulled.
We still don't know who Trumpmay nominate for the
ambassadorship for that position, but that just tells me that
there is concern and I thinkthere's acknowledgement from
Trump that it would be silly topull out completely from the UN.
But that may only mean thathe's only interested in where,
(05:24):
in the spots of power, which oneof those would be, of course,
the Security Council.
You know, in addition to China,there's also Iran, there's also
Russia, but I think China isgoing to play and decisions
about China is going to play ahuge role in how the Trump
administration interacts withthe UN.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Well, that's interesting because, from the
Geneva perspective, what I seeis a United States that's doing
all this stuff related to China,related to Russia, etc.
Etc.
Without the United Nations atall.
There has been zero role forthe UN in the discussions about
Ukraine, zero role for the UN inthe discussions about Gaza and
(06:05):
with China.
A trade war has been launched,a unilateral trade war has been
launched.
The only engagement we see withthe UN in Geneva is what
appears to be a veryideologically driven funding cut
, that even the funding, thelittle funding from the US that
(06:25):
might be retained, seems to haveto conform to particular US
ideologies.
Now, from both of you, this isjust not how the United Nations
works.
It's not a tool for the UnitedStates to impose whatever
particular ideology it has atthe moment.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Most of the criticisms you've mentioned deal
with New York and the SecurityCouncil, Gaza, Ukraine, etc.
And the League of Nations wentunder after Italy invaded
Abyssinia, Japan invaded China,Soviet Union invaded Finland.
So the element of peace andsecurity is a great weakness of
(07:07):
both the League and the UN.
The fact that the United Statesis coming out of the World
Health Organization isextraordinarily worrying because
that means it's also lookingdown on certain specialized
agencies here in Geneva.
But I would not expect theUnited States to withdraw from
(07:27):
most of those specializedagencies.
Speaker 7 (07:30):
I think the one thing with Trump that's concerning
and we're certainly well, thereare many things, but we've seen
this just recently with thetariffs is that he's highly
unpredictable, and it wouldappear that all decisions get
funneled down into whether ornot Trump sees it as a benefit.
Not necessarily.
You know, the United Stateshelps fund the WHO and that's
(07:54):
important because we can keeptrack of diseases that are
rotating around the planet andwe can keep them in check.
Keep them in check.
Does Trump really think aboutthat, even though he's a human
being too, and at any point, anydisease anywhere I mean, look
at COVID could impact all of us.
It doesn't matter if you're thepresident of the United States,
it doesn't matter if you're thesecretary general of the United
(08:15):
Nations, it can get to you.
What I sense from him is thatit's about power.
I don't think that he puts alot of value in the power that
being part of the WHO would have, or even the WFP.
There was just news recentlythat funding was being pulled,
but it's back on again, but notfor funding for Afghanistan, not
(08:39):
for Yemen.
So again, that's where theunpredictability comes in.
So I'm looking at it as wherethere's power when Trump sees it
heard off the record from somediplomats here.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
European diplomats is that in some way it's better
under this administration forthe United States to be
disengaged, because a Germany ora France or a Holland or a
United Kingdom does not want togo head to head with the United
States at, for example, theHuman Rights Council, where
(09:30):
they'll be on opposite sides,possibly about human rights in
Russia or Ukraine or aboutrights around gender, so that in
some ways it could be easier.
And just coming to your pointabout the World Food Programme
utter confusion.
Nobody in Geneva really knows.
Have we got a waiver?
If so, where is the money?
(09:51):
It was supposed to come back.
It's not back.
They don't even have people tocall because USAID has been
dismantled.
Just coming back to the pointof could it be easier without
the United States Just comingback to the point of could it be
(10:16):
easier without the UnitedStates?
Speaker 3 (10:17):
if they disengage, could it give space to countries
which traditionally have reallynot had much of a voice?
Well, in principle, as aDemocrat with a small d, I agree
with you, imogen.
The difficulty is there's adifference between participation
and efficiency.
There are two complaints aboutthe UN.
One is that the Global South isnot involved enough, but the
second is it doesn't functionwell.
The two things are not the same.
(10:39):
You can have lots of people atthe table, but it doesn't work
well.
You can have an organizationworking well, but there's not
many people at the table.
So the question of integratingand being inclusive, I agree
with.
Being more efficient, I alsoagree with, but it's not
necessarily the same thing.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
No, indeed not.
But since you mentioned theGlobal South and I did say we
were going to hear voices fromthe Global South there has been
an interesting project going onright here in Geneva In the
midst of this crisis ofmultilateralism.
There's a think tank in Genevalooking at what the future of
(11:20):
multilateralism is, and I'vebeen dipping in and out of those
discussions so we can hear nowwhat I found out.
In a quiet corner of Geneva,intense but enthusiastic
discussions are taking place.
Speaker 8 (11:35):
If not now, when I mean the news are crazy every
day.
I'm almost afraid sometimes toopen the news.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Marie Hurleyman is co-director of the Swiss think
tank Voraus and, in the middleof global crisis and upheaval,
she's invited young people fromthink tanks in the global south
to come to Geneva to discuss thefuture of multilateralism and
to try to hammer out solutionsto some of the common challenges
(12:03):
facing our world.
Speaker 8 (12:05):
I'm really proud that we are able to provide this,
actually creating space fordialogue, creating space for
disagreement, creating space forthinking long-term, creating
space for differences.
And when such crises come, Ithink it's even more important
to hear the silent voices, theones we hear way less, and
that's what even more importantto hear the silent voices, the
one we hear way less, and that'swhat we're trying to do with
(12:27):
this project.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
My name is Pratyush Sharma.
I work in a think tank in Delhiand in there I work on issues
of international development,specifically South-South
cooperation.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
The young people taking part come from Africa,
Asia and Latin America.
Pratyush Sharma is from Delhi'sGlobal South Centre of
Excellence.
His first few days in Genevaand a visit to Geneva's Graduate
Institute highlighted for himwhat he already suspected the
perspectives between North andSouth remain often very
(13:02):
different.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
Just yesterday we were meeting a few people from
the Graduate Institute and wewere discussing about what do
they think about the GlobalSouth?
So they have this futuresprogramme that they conduct in
the university and they weresaying that, oh, we don't even
want to get into the ideas ofGlobal South because we are
imagining the era of 2050 or2070, where the Global South has
(13:24):
already been integrated intothe world community and we are
thinking of as one communitygoing forward.
And my point was but how canyou not discuss about the
present when the global southhas not been integrated into the
world economy?
And and they said oh, no, no,we don't want to get into the uh
, you know this revengeful ideasof global south.
I was like this is where youdon't understand what global
(13:45):
south is.
Global south is not abouttaking revenge from the global
north.
It is how we come together andwork towards and go towards the
developmental solutions that isgoing to be good for everyone,
that multilateralism should workfor everyone when you say
multilateralism should work foreveryone, do you ever get?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
multilateralism should work for everyone.
Do you ever get frustrated thenwhen you look at the UN
Security Council and who's on itand they're not helping.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
I mean, one of the major issues that I feel where
multilateralism or therules-based order lacks is not
that not all countries are onthe table to discuss things, but
my issue is that the countriesof the global north, they
themselves, have not stood up tothe ideals that they have
created in an equitable manner.
(14:32):
If that is the case I don'tthink so anyone would be crying
foul towards multilateralism orUnited Nations or Bretton Woods
institutions.
It is simply, like you know,you're preaching water and
drinking wine, and that has beena problem all throughout.
So I think that needs to besolved, and if countries of the
global south can come to thehigh table and make these
(14:53):
necessary changes, why not?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Over at another discussion table is Olamide
Onetikun, a researcher atNigeria's Africa Policy and
Research Institute.
He too sees the need for morelistening from the Global North
and less dictating of solutions,however well-meaning.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
I have a perception of the Global North as a
community that comes to exploreand the Global North, on the
other hand, probably see theGlobal South maybe as a place to
go to just pick up some of thekey resources in the Global
South.
So I think the world systemshould operate in a way whereby
(15:37):
we have this level ofinterdependencies with ourselves
.
The Global South cannot existon its own, and likewise the
Global global south cannot existon its own, and likewise the
global north also cannot existon its own.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
And especially right now, there is frustration.
It's not as if, says MariliaCloss of the Brazilian research
institute Plataforma Chipo,those who invented the
rules-based order have beendoing a great job.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
When we think of the reality that we are living, I
think it's offensive when wethink of the institutions that
we have to deal with it, Becauseit's not been two years that we
know that this is not enough,that the way that we organize
ourselves collectivelyinternationally is not enough.
It's been decades that we knowthat this is not enough.
(16:23):
So we are facing some conflicts.
The same regions have beenstruggling with conflicts for so
many decades, so we do knowthat the international
governance has not been enoughto deal with this kind of
situations.
So that's why I say it isoffensive for us from the Global
South to think of this.
(16:45):
The kind of organization that wehave the United Nations, to
deal with conflict, the UnitedNations Security Council, is
absolutely inefficient to dealwith the reality of people,
especially from the Global South.
We do know that its structureand its ways of
representativeness areanachronic.
They are absolutely anachronic.
(17:05):
It's like a photography of thepast.
So it is not enough.
We've been knowing this fordecades and what we are seeing
now in the Middle East,especially what's happening to
people in Gaza, well, that's theimage of it.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Both Marilia and Olamide are focused on climate
change.
For Olamide, a key obstacle totackling the challenges which
the global south is alreadyfeeling the brunt of are the
multilateral financialinstitutions set up at the end
of the Second World War.
The Bretton Woods institutions,as they are known, were
(17:42):
supposed to regulate a fairer,more equitable global economy,
but Olumide reminds us they wereset up by the advanced
economies of the 1940s withlittle thought to the
development of the global south.
Speaker 6 (17:57):
My group.
We focused on climate financeand we are bringing up
innovative ideas on how toreform the global financial
architecture.
And we drew back to 1944, whenthe Bretton Woods institutions
were constituted.
You know this was largelyexclusive of the global south.
Currently, the voting system inthe Bretton Woods institutions
(18:17):
is skewed towards the advancedeconomy.
That could be a challenge, but,yeah, the world is changing,
power is shifting, so it'simportant that we begin to
rethink how we create aninclusive institutional
framework that allows forimpactful outcome and solutions,
especially now in the contextof climate change that is
(18:37):
ravaging the world.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
And Marilia, from Brazil, also wants to see
different approaches to tacklingclimate change.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
So I'm here trying to discuss how we can deal with
this international governanceregarding climate, which is so I
don't know how to say that inEnglish, but so stuck.
When we see the negotiationprocess, for example, in climate
agenda, we are facing a crisisbut at the same time, the
international system does notgive the answers that we need in
(19:07):
the urgency that we need, inthe speed that we need.
So I'm here with this focus howcan we see the South-South
cooperation regarding theclimate agenda to solve a
problem in which we have urgency, but, at the same time, that
international system does notgive enough, not only for the
(19:27):
global south, but for the wholeworld, does not give us enough
money, answers and resources toanswer the crisis, Do you?
Speaker 2 (19:37):
think it's unbalanced , the kind of power and
influence of the global northversus the global south,
countries from the global northversus the global south.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Countries from the global north do have more
responsibility, historicalresponsibility, of what we are
facing right now.
Countries from the global north, of course, do have more
resources to deal with it, but,at the same time, countries from
the global south do haveresponsibilities as well, but
it's not the same amount ofresponsibilities and it's's not
(20:04):
the same amount ofresponsibilities and it's
definitely not the same amountof power.
We from the Global South haveimportant goals that we have to
tackle, but at the same time, wedon't have the kind of power
that the Global North has.
So that's why we're herespecifically.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Voices from the Global South with crucial points
to make, but in the noisy chaosof our current world, will they
be heard?
Marie Hurleyman again.
Speaker 8 (20:30):
How am I hopeful that people can make a difference
and how am I hopeful that thoseparticipants can make a
difference?
Well, they have great ideas,they have great input.
They are amazing professionals,extremely talented, and I do
think their voices is worthhearing, so I'm trying to keep
hope.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
yes, and Pratyush Sharma says no one expects
things to change overnight.
At least he and his colleaguesfrom the Global South have youth
on their side.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
These are slow changes.
These processes are slow.
It takes time.
These are slow, smallincremental steps, but
ultimately we are going to reachthere.
But this is a good start.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
I have to say I found those young people very
inspiring.
Now, some of the things theybrought up the frustration with
the current system, particularlyaround the UN Security Council
are not new, and I should saythat these young people
discussed way more topics than Iwas able to include in that
(21:37):
short report.
Frustration with theanachronistic structure, as one
of them said, of the UnitedNations stood out for me, and
also the real concern about theneed for a concerted, global,
multilateral approach to climatechange.
Now, dawn, that's somethingyou've been working on.
(22:00):
You attended a conference onthe small island states not so
long ago.
Tell us about that, because theconcern now is that climate
change has dropped completelyoff the global agenda Right.
Speaker 7 (22:14):
That conference was in Antigua and it was a really
interesting turn of eventsbecause they were going through
a major heat wave.
Now, for example, I've been toQatar.
I've spent time in Doha inAugust where it's arguably like
120 degrees.
I've lived in Houston, texas,where it's just hot all year
(22:35):
round and it's humid.
But when I was in Antigua forthat conference, the heat just
made you angry, and not becauseof any ideas about climate
change.
It was just so hot and youcouldn't get away from it.
And when I would talk to people,there was so many people said
to me now do you see what we'retalking about when we say we're
being impacted by climate change?
(22:56):
You feel that heat?
Well, it's right there, all ofthese small island developing
states in the global South.
These places have so manydifferent vulnerabilities that,
when it comes to climate change,they could be wiped out by a
hurricane and then have torecover from that, and it's just
like the global north doesn'tunderstand what situation
(23:19):
they're in.
I don't think that thecountries of the global south
are being heard.
So would the answer to that bebringing them to the Security
Council?
I will say that the Bidenadministration did suggest
adding a seat to the Middle Eastare the preoccupations of the
most powerful nations.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Again, that doesn't mean to say they're not
important, but climate change isone.
This current UN SecretaryGeneral, antonio Guterres,
identified as the biggest mostexistential challenge facing the
planet.
Identified as the biggest mostexistential challenge facing the
planet.
Many scientists and people insmall island states, dawn, would
agree with him, but it's rightat the bottom of the agenda,
(24:14):
danny.
What do you think we can doabout that?
I mean, we have the UnitedStates telling UN agencies it
will not fund any projects whichare to do with climate change
mitigation or things like that.
So we're going backwards.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
There are two points I have.
First of all, is the UNanachronistic?
I mean, it was formed after theSecond World War and it hasn't
really adapted to what's goingon.
Secondly, is it too northernoriented?
How universal is it?
So a real reform of theinstitution is difficult to
(24:48):
imagine, but obviously it'sgetting a little bit dusty and
needs an uplifting in manydifferent areas.
Can it do that, or is it goingto become just something from
the past, anachronistic?
And that, to me, is thegreatest worry.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
I mean, I think we do know that there have been
attempts over years, decadeseven, to reform the Security
Council so that it doesn't justreflect the winners in 1945.
That is the particular point.
I think that the young peoplefrom the Global South I talked
to said that this part of it inparticular is anachronistic.
(25:25):
That is where you need morediverse voices.
But coming back again toclimate change, this is the
challenge that needsmultilateralism and we're
failing.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
I mean, it's not just the United Nations is failing,
we are all failing Well there'sreally no leadership there,
certainly not from the UnitedStates, and the fact that Donald
Trump is the president isprobably the worst situation you
could find as far as the restof the world.
I mean.
He's already having certainnatural reserves being used to
(26:01):
dig up oil and gas, and none ofthe mentions that Biden and the
Obama administrations did forthe environment.
All of those are being repealed.
So where is the leadership onclimate change going to come
from the young people in theSouth?
I admire them, but they're notthe ones who are going to exert
the leadership.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Well, they say it's a matter of time.
I was actually quite inspiredby their energy and, to a
certain extent, their optimism,even though they are pretty,
pretty frustrated by the powerimbalance at the moment.
But they think their countrieswill get there.
They think they will get theirvoice.
We are coming to the end almostof the program, dawn.
(26:44):
I saw you had your hand up, soplease do come in.
But I also want to ask you bothwhat is our gut feeling now?
Is this a blip in theinternational system, in the
rules-based order, or is this anabsolute paradigm shift?
Speaker 7 (27:00):
Dani, you've written about how, after World War I,
there was this urgency aboutcreating a system that would
prevent future wars, make theworld more equitable.
Then came World War II, and youget the United Nations and I
know you've asked this questionin your writing.
And you get the United Nationsand I know you've asked this
question in your writing, youknow is are we looking at
another moment in time wherewe're going to need a big event,
(27:21):
perhaps a war, to kind of shake, shake the dust off of the UN,
or perhaps have somethingdifferent?
And I think that's a reallygood point to make.
You know, when you think aboutthe end of World War II and how
the UN was created, you have theworld.
They were so sick and tired ofwar, they wanted it to end.
It's a different mindset, so itjust makes me think is that
(27:43):
what we're going to need?
So that would be my first point.
Second point has to do withclimate change, small island
developing states and countriesof the global South.
One of the reasons why theyoften have difficulty in dealing
with these issues is becausetheir countries are burdened by
immense amounts of debt.
I will say that, in terms ofleadership, there is someone who
(28:05):
comes to mind.
She spoke at the um, at theconference that I was at.
Her name's mia motley.
She's the prime minister ofbarbados and she's a force.
She is a force.
I kind of wish she would be thenext Secretary General of the
United Nations Not excluded.
I've heard rumors.
Ok, all right, well, keep aneye on that for sure.
But I mean, she just says it asit is.
(28:25):
She speaks about the colonialpast of this whole Bretton Woods
financial configuration of theof the world and how that needs
to be dealt with.
I really think that when itcomes to climate because debt is
connected to climate for theglobal South she will be the one
to lead the way.
I have her on my radar.
I'm definitely watching her inthis small island global South
(28:48):
space.
But I do want to say, as far aswhat the Trump administration
may have in mind for the UnitedNations and how much of a role
the United States is going toplay, I have to keep in mind
that we still don't know who theambassador, who the nominee, is
going to be for to replaceElise Stefanik, and I would also
(29:09):
keep an eye on the fact thatPresident Trump has not spoken
to the secretary general, sincehe was sworn into office in
January, they have not had aconversation, they have not met
in person.
So I would also keep an eye onthat to gauge, I think, where
the US, the Trump administration, will look to reshape the UN,
(29:31):
reform the UN.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Danny, I'm going to let you end this one.
Where do you think we'll be ina year's time?
Speaker 3 (29:39):
We are, I should say, also waiting for a US, and
whether the UN can continuefunctioning without American
(30:00):
leadership, without Americanfinances, and there can be true
universal cooperation is up forgrabs and it does seem to me
that multilateralism has a roleto play.
The question is whether,without American leadership,
whether it's Donald Trump or thenext president, whether
(30:20):
multilateralism can go ahead.
And I'm always looking for whois Mr Multilateralism?
Who can be Mrs Multilateralism?
The Dog Hamishills?
The Kofi Annans?
Where is that generation comingfrom and how successful can
they be?
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, on that note, we're just at the end of this
edition of Inside Geneva.
Thanks very much, danny andDawn.
We will actually have anelection for a new UN Secretary
General in 2026, not so far away.
It will be very interesting tosee who throws their hat into
the ring.
Some people are asking whowould even want that job, right?
Speaker 6 (31:02):
now.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
It is such a huge, huge challenge just to defend
even the concept of theinstitution.
I think it has to functionwithout US leadership at the
moment, because this is not amultilateral administration in
any shape or form.
The question, I think, will bewill the US post-Donald Trump
(31:25):
return to multilateralism orwill this be a real paradigm
shift in how the world works Atthe moment?
My gut is telling me the latter, but given the rapidity with
which things are changing thesedays, I could be proved
completely wrong in about twohours' time.
(31:45):
On that note, thanks everyone.
We hope you enjoyed thisedition of Inside Geneva and do
(32:09):
join us again next time.
Next time episodes how theInternational Red Cross unites
prisoners of war with theirfamilies, or why survivors of
human rights violations turn tothe UN in Geneva for justice.
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.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
In today's program.
Is the UN anachronistic?
I mean it was formed after theSecond World War.
Obviously it's getting a littlebit dusty.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
The countries of the Global North.
They themselves have not stoodup to the ideals that they have
created in an equitable manner.
It is simply like you know,you're preaching water and
drinking wine.
Speaker 5 (00:40):
The United Nations Security Council is absolutely
inefficient to deal with thereality of people, especially
from the Global South.
Speaker 6 (00:49):
The Global South cannot exist on its own, and
likewise the Global North alsocannot exist on its own.
Speaker 7 (00:55):
When you think about the end of World War II and how
the UN was created.
You had the world.
They were so sick and tired ofwar, they wanted it to end.
It's a different mindset, youknow.
It just makes me think is thatwhat we're going to need?
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
And in today's program we'regoing to take a deep breath, be
brave and ask whether aninstitution we report on
regularly, the United Nations,may be on its last legs.
Under Donald Trump we've seenunprecedented disengagement from
the United States, withmultilateral institutions and
(01:36):
massive cuts in US funding to UNaid agencies.
So can the UN survive withoutthe United States?
Some listeners may know, othersmay not, that the UN in Geneva
was, until 1946, home to theLeague of Nations.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
The Council of the League of Nations at Geneva met
to consider the appeal ofgallant little Finland against
the aggression of Soviet Russia.
The Emperor Haile Selassie roseto make his final appeal before
the League of Nations at Geneva, and his appearance was the
signal for an extraordinaryoutburst of catcalls and jeering
from Italian journalists in thegallery.
The story of the League ofNations comes to an end when, at
(02:20):
the Palace of Geneva, thedelegates of many lands meet for
the last time.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
In the run-up to the Second World War, tensions and
divisions between member statesdestroyed the League.
So today, to discuss the futureof the UN and of
multilateralism, I'm joined byDaniel Warner, specialist in
international affairs here inGeneva, and journalist Dawn
Clancy, who covers the UN in NewYork, and a little later in the
(02:49):
programme we'll talk to youngpeople from the global south and
hear what their hopes formultilateralism are.
But first I'm going to startwith you, danny.
You've got a long historicalperspective about this.
Does the United Nations inGeneva now have a kind of
terminal feel about it?
Could it go the way of theLeague of Nations?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, I wrote an article where I began by saying
the League is dead.
Robert Cecil solemnly declaredon April 18th 1946, addressing
delegates from 34 countries atthe League headquarters here in
Geneva what is interesting aboutthat moment was that, right
(03:30):
after he declared, the UnitedNations was being born.
So, although the League died,there was something to replace
it.
If the United Nations is on itslast legs today, we have
nothing to replace it now, andthat has to be remembered.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Let me ask you that, don, from the New York
perspective, because in hisfirst term Donald Trump did
engage with the UN from time totime.
Some people say he did actuallysee it as useful from time to
time, but this time it's reallyhard to tell, and a lot of those
around him really seem devotednot just to this idea of America
(04:11):
first, but America alone.
What's your feeling in New York?
Is the US starting a walk away?
Speaker 7 (04:19):
I don't think it would be a full-on, 100% walk
away.
But here's based on you knowwhat I've been paying attention
to, what I do see.
So Elise Stefanik she was thenominee for the US ambassador to
the UN.
She had her confirmationhearing.
There was never a vote and then, of course, president Trump
pulled her nomination.
(04:39):
But if you listen to her herhearing, she spoke a lot about
Israel and defending againstanti-Semitism.
She really went hard againstChina and there was this really
strong idea that we have to pushback against China.
We have to keep them in line atthe UN.
So meanwhile she's not thenominee anymore.
(05:01):
Her nomination has been pulled.
We still don't know who Trumpmay nominate for the
ambassadorship for that position, but that just tells me that
there is concern and I thinkthere's acknowledgement from
Trump that it would be silly topull out completely from the UN.
But that may only mean thathe's only interested in where,
(05:24):
in the spots of power, which oneof those would be, of course,
the Security Council.
You know, in addition to China,there's also Iran, there's also
Russia, but I think China isgoing to play and decisions
about China is going to play ahuge role in how the Trump
administration interacts withthe UN.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Well, that's interesting because, from the
Geneva perspective, what I seeis a United States that's doing
all this stuff related to China,related to Russia, etc.
Etc.
Without the United Nations atall.
There has been zero role forthe UN in the discussions about
Ukraine, zero role for the UN inthe discussions about Gaza and
(06:05):
with China.
A trade war has been launched,a unilateral trade war has been
launched.
The only engagement we see withthe UN in Geneva is what
appears to be a veryideologically driven funding cut
, that even the funding, thelittle funding from the US that
(06:25):
might be retained, seems to haveto conform to particular US
ideologies.
Now, from both of you, this isjust not how the United Nations
works.
It's not a tool for the UnitedStates to impose whatever
particular ideology it has atthe moment.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Most of the criticisms you've mentioned deal
with New York and the SecurityCouncil, Gaza, Ukraine, etc.
And the League of Nations wentunder after Italy invaded
Abyssinia, Japan invaded China,Soviet Union invaded Finland.
So the element of peace andsecurity is a great weakness of
(07:07):
both the League and the UN.
The fact that the United Statesis coming out of the World
Health Organization isextraordinarily worrying because
that means it's also lookingdown on certain specialized
agencies here in Geneva.
But I would not expect theUnited States to withdraw from
(07:27):
most of those specializedagencies.
Speaker 7 (07:30):
I think the one thing with Trump that's concerning
and we're certainly well, thereare many things, but we've seen
this just recently with thetariffs is that he's highly
unpredictable, and it wouldappear that all decisions get
funneled down into whether ornot Trump sees it as a benefit.
Not necessarily.
You know, the United Stateshelps fund the WHO and that's
(07:54):
important because we can keeptrack of diseases that are
rotating around the planet andwe can keep them in check.
Keep them in check.
Does Trump really think aboutthat, even though he's a human
being too, and at any point, anydisease anywhere I mean, look
at COVID could impact all of us.
It doesn't matter if you're thepresident of the United States,
it doesn't matter if you're thesecretary general of the United
(08:15):
Nations, it can get to you.
What I sense from him is thatit's about power.
I don't think that he puts alot of value in the power that
being part of the WHO would have, or even the WFP.
There was just news recentlythat funding was being pulled,
but it's back on again, but notfor funding for Afghanistan, not
(08:39):
for Yemen.
So again, that's where theunpredictability comes in.
So I'm looking at it as wherethere's power when Trump sees it
heard off the record from somediplomats here.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
European diplomats is that in some way it's better
under this administration forthe United States to be
disengaged, because a Germany ora France or a Holland or a
United Kingdom does not want togo head to head with the United
States at, for example, theHuman Rights Council, where
(09:30):
they'll be on opposite sides,possibly about human rights in
Russia or Ukraine or aboutrights around gender, so that in
some ways it could be easier.
And just coming to your pointabout the World Food Programme
utter confusion.
Nobody in Geneva really knows.
Have we got a waiver?
If so, where is the money?
(09:51):
It was supposed to come back.
It's not back.
They don't even have people tocall because USAID has been
dismantled.
Just coming back to the pointof could it be easier without
the United States Just comingback to the point of could it be
(10:16):
easier without the UnitedStates?
Speaker 3 (10:17):
if they disengage, could it give space to countries
which traditionally have reallynot had much of a voice?
Well, in principle, as aDemocrat with a small d, I agree
with you, imogen.
The difficulty is there's adifference between participation
and efficiency.
There are two complaints aboutthe UN.
One is that the Global South isnot involved enough, but the
second is it doesn't functionwell.
The two things are not the same.
(10:39):
You can have lots of people atthe table, but it doesn't work
well.
You can have an organizationworking well, but there's not
many people at the table.
So the question of integratingand being inclusive, I agree
with.
Being more efficient, I alsoagree with, but it's not
necessarily the same thing.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
No, indeed not.
But since you mentioned theGlobal South and I did say we
were going to hear voices fromthe Global South there has been
an interesting project going onright here in Geneva In the
midst of this crisis ofmultilateralism.
There's a think tank in Genevalooking at what the future of
(11:20):
multilateralism is, and I'vebeen dipping in and out of those
discussions so we can hear nowwhat I found out.
In a quiet corner of Geneva,intense but enthusiastic
discussions are taking place.
Speaker 8 (11:35):
If not now, when I mean the news are crazy every
day.
I'm almost afraid sometimes toopen the news.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Marie Hurleyman is co-director of the Swiss think
tank Voraus and, in the middleof global crisis and upheaval,
she's invited young people fromthink tanks in the global south
to come to Geneva to discuss thefuture of multilateralism and
to try to hammer out solutionsto some of the common challenges
(12:03):
facing our world.
Speaker 8 (12:05):
I'm really proud that we are able to provide this,
actually creating space fordialogue, creating space for
disagreement, creating space forthinking long-term, creating
space for differences.
And when such crises come, Ithink it's even more important
to hear the silent voices, theones we hear way less, and
that's what even more importantto hear the silent voices, the
one we hear way less, and that'swhat we're trying to do with
(12:27):
this project.
Speaker 4 (12:29):
My name is Pratyush Sharma.
I work in a think tank in Delhiand in there I work on issues
of international development,specifically South-South
cooperation.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
The young people taking part come from Africa,
Asia and Latin America.
Pratyush Sharma is from Delhi'sGlobal South Centre of
Excellence.
His first few days in Genevaand a visit to Geneva's Graduate
Institute highlighted for himwhat he already suspected the
perspectives between North andSouth remain often very
(13:02):
different.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
Just yesterday we were meeting a few people from
the Graduate Institute and wewere discussing about what do
they think about the GlobalSouth?
So they have this futuresprogramme that they conduct in
the university and they weresaying that, oh, we don't even
want to get into the ideas ofGlobal South because we are
imagining the era of 2050 or2070, where the Global South has
(13:24):
already been integrated intothe world community and we are
thinking of as one communitygoing forward.
And my point was but how canyou not discuss about the
present when the global southhas not been integrated into the
world economy?
And and they said oh, no, no,we don't want to get into the uh
, you know this revengeful ideasof global south.
I was like this is where youdon't understand what global
(13:45):
south is.
Global south is not abouttaking revenge from the global
north.
It is how we come together andwork towards and go towards the
developmental solutions that isgoing to be good for everyone,
that multilateralism should workfor everyone when you say
multilateralism should work foreveryone, do you ever get?
Speaker 2 (14:04):
multilateralism should work for everyone.
Do you ever get frustrated thenwhen you look at the UN
Security Council and who's on itand they're not helping.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
I mean, one of the major issues that I feel where
multilateralism or therules-based order lacks is not
that not all countries are onthe table to discuss things, but
my issue is that the countriesof the global north, they
themselves, have not stood up tothe ideals that they have
created in an equitable manner.
(14:32):
If that is the case I don'tthink so anyone would be crying
foul towards multilateralism orUnited Nations or Bretton Woods
institutions.
It is simply, like you know,you're preaching water and
drinking wine, and that has beena problem all throughout.
So I think that needs to besolved, and if countries of the
global south can come to thehigh table and make these
(14:53):
necessary changes, why not?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Over at another discussion table is Olamide
Onetikun, a researcher atNigeria's Africa Policy and
Research Institute.
He too sees the need for morelistening from the Global North
and less dictating of solutions,however well-meaning.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
I have a perception of the Global North as a
community that comes to exploreand the Global North, on the
other hand, probably see theGlobal South maybe as a place to
go to just pick up some of thekey resources in the Global
South.
So I think the world systemshould operate in a way whereby
(15:37):
we have this level ofinterdependencies with ourselves
.
The Global South cannot existon its own, and likewise the
Global global south cannot existon its own, and likewise the
global north also cannot existon its own.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
And especially right now, there is frustration.
It's not as if, says MariliaCloss of the Brazilian research
institute Plataforma Chipo,those who invented the
rules-based order have beendoing a great job.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
When we think of the reality that we are living, I
think it's offensive when wethink of the institutions that
we have to deal with it, Becauseit's not been two years that we
know that this is not enough,that the way that we organize
ourselves collectivelyinternationally is not enough.
It's been decades that we knowthat this is not enough.
(16:23):
So we are facing some conflicts.
The same regions have beenstruggling with conflicts for so
many decades, so we do knowthat the international
governance has not been enoughto deal with this kind of
situations.
So that's why I say it isoffensive for us from the Global
South to think of this.
(16:45):
The kind of organization that wehave the United Nations, to
deal with conflict, the UnitedNations Security Council, is
absolutely inefficient to dealwith the reality of people,
especially from the Global South.
We do know that its structureand its ways of
representativeness areanachronic.
They are absolutely anachronic.
(17:05):
It's like a photography of thepast.
So it is not enough.
We've been knowing this fordecades and what we are seeing
now in the Middle East,especially what's happening to
people in Gaza, well, that's theimage of it.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Both Marilia and Olamide are focused on climate
change.
For Olamide, a key obstacle totackling the challenges which
the global south is alreadyfeeling the brunt of are the
multilateral financialinstitutions set up at the end
of the Second World War.
The Bretton Woods institutions,as they are known, were
(17:42):
supposed to regulate a fairer,more equitable global economy,
but Olumide reminds us they wereset up by the advanced
economies of the 1940s withlittle thought to the
development of the global south.
Speaker 6 (17:57):
My group.
We focused on climate financeand we are bringing up
innovative ideas on how toreform the global financial
architecture.
And we drew back to 1944, whenthe Bretton Woods institutions
were constituted.
You know this was largelyexclusive of the global south.
Currently, the voting system inthe Bretton Woods institutions
(18:17):
is skewed towards the advancedeconomy.
That could be a challenge, but,yeah, the world is changing,
power is shifting, so it'simportant that we begin to
rethink how we create aninclusive institutional
framework that allows forimpactful outcome and solutions,
especially now in the contextof climate change that is
(18:37):
ravaging the world.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
And Marilia, from Brazil, also wants to see
different approaches to tacklingclimate change.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
So I'm here trying to discuss how we can deal with
this international governanceregarding climate, which is so I
don't know how to say that inEnglish, but so stuck.
When we see the negotiationprocess, for example, in climate
agenda, we are facing a crisisbut at the same time, the
international system does notgive the answers that we need in
(19:07):
the urgency that we need, inthe speed that we need.
So I'm here with this focus howcan we see the South-South
cooperation regarding theclimate agenda to solve a
problem in which we have urgency, but, at the same time, that
international system does notgive enough, not only for the
(19:27):
global south, but for the wholeworld, does not give us enough
money, answers and resources toanswer the crisis, Do you?
Speaker 2 (19:37):
think it's unbalanced , the kind of power and
influence of the global northversus the global south,
countries from the global northversus the global south.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
Countries from the global north do have more
responsibility, historicalresponsibility, of what we are
facing right now.
Countries from the global north, of course, do have more
resources to deal with it, but,at the same time, countries from
the global south do haveresponsibilities as well, but
it's not the same amount ofresponsibilities and it's's not
(20:04):
the same amount ofresponsibilities and it's
definitely not the same amountof power.
We from the Global South haveimportant goals that we have to
tackle, but at the same time, wedon't have the kind of power
that the Global North has.
So that's why we're herespecifically.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Voices from the Global South with crucial points
to make, but in the noisy chaosof our current world, will they
be heard?
Marie Hurleyman again.
Speaker 8 (20:30):
How am I hopeful that people can make a difference
and how am I hopeful that thoseparticipants can make a
difference?
Well, they have great ideas,they have great input.
They are amazing professionals,extremely talented, and I do
think their voices is worthhearing, so I'm trying to keep
hope.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
yes, and Pratyush Sharma says no one expects
things to change overnight.
At least he and his colleaguesfrom the Global South have youth
on their side.
Speaker 4 (21:00):
These are slow changes.
These processes are slow.
It takes time.
These are slow, smallincremental steps, but
ultimately we are going to reachthere.
But this is a good start.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
I have to say I found those young people very
inspiring.
Now, some of the things theybrought up the frustration with
the current system, particularlyaround the UN Security Council
are not new, and I should saythat these young people
discussed way more topics than Iwas able to include in that
(21:37):
short report.
Frustration with theanachronistic structure, as one
of them said, of the UnitedNations stood out for me, and
also the real concern about theneed for a concerted, global,
multilateral approach to climatechange.
Now, dawn, that's somethingyou've been working on.
(22:00):
You attended a conference onthe small island states not so
long ago.
Tell us about that, because theconcern now is that climate
change has dropped completelyoff the global agenda Right.
Speaker 7 (22:14):
That conference was in Antigua and it was a really
interesting turn of eventsbecause they were going through
a major heat wave.
Now, for example, I've been toQatar.
I've spent time in Doha inAugust where it's arguably like
120 degrees.
I've lived in Houston, texas,where it's just hot all year
(22:35):
round and it's humid.
But when I was in Antigua forthat conference, the heat just
made you angry, and not becauseof any ideas about climate
change.
It was just so hot and youcouldn't get away from it.
And when I would talk to people,there was so many people said
to me now do you see what we'retalking about when we say we're
being impacted by climate change?
(22:56):
You feel that heat?
Well, it's right there, all ofthese small island developing
states in the global South.
These places have so manydifferent vulnerabilities that,
when it comes to climate change,they could be wiped out by a
hurricane and then have torecover from that, and it's just
like the global north doesn'tunderstand what situation
(23:19):
they're in.
I don't think that thecountries of the global south
are being heard.
So would the answer to that bebringing them to the Security
Council?
I will say that the Bidenadministration did suggest
adding a seat to the Middle Eastare the preoccupations of the
most powerful nations.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Again, that doesn't mean to say they're not
important, but climate change isone.
This current UN SecretaryGeneral, antonio Guterres,
identified as the biggest mostexistential challenge facing the
planet.
Identified as the biggest mostexistential challenge facing the
planet.
Many scientists and people insmall island states, dawn, would
agree with him, but it's rightat the bottom of the agenda,
(24:14):
danny.
What do you think we can doabout that?
I mean, we have the UnitedStates telling UN agencies it
will not fund any projects whichare to do with climate change
mitigation or things like that.
So we're going backwards.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
There are two points I have.
First of all, is the UNanachronistic?
I mean, it was formed after theSecond World War and it hasn't
really adapted to what's goingon.
Secondly, is it too northernoriented?
How universal is it?
So a real reform of theinstitution is difficult to
(24:48):
imagine, but obviously it'sgetting a little bit dusty and
needs an uplifting in manydifferent areas.
Can it do that, or is it goingto become just something from
the past, anachronistic?
And that, to me, is thegreatest worry.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
I mean, I think we do know that there have been
attempts over years, decadeseven, to reform the Security
Council so that it doesn't justreflect the winners in 1945.
That is the particular point.
I think that the young peoplefrom the Global South I talked
to said that this part of it inparticular is anachronistic.
(25:25):
That is where you need morediverse voices.
But coming back again toclimate change, this is the
challenge that needsmultilateralism and we're
failing.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
I mean, it's not just the United Nations is failing,
we are all failing Well there'sreally no leadership there,
certainly not from the UnitedStates, and the fact that Donald
Trump is the president isprobably the worst situation you
could find as far as the restof the world.
I mean.
He's already having certainnatural reserves being used to
(26:01):
dig up oil and gas, and none ofthe mentions that Biden and the
Obama administrations did forthe environment.
All of those are being repealed.
So where is the leadership onclimate change going to come
from the young people in theSouth?
I admire them, but they're notthe ones who are going to exert
the leadership.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Well, they say it's a matter of time.
I was actually quite inspiredby their energy and, to a
certain extent, their optimism,even though they are pretty,
pretty frustrated by the powerimbalance at the moment.
But they think their countrieswill get there.
They think they will get theirvoice.
We are coming to the end almostof the program, dawn.
(26:44):
I saw you had your hand up, soplease do come in.
But I also want to ask you bothwhat is our gut feeling now?
Is this a blip in theinternational system, in the
rules-based order, or is this anabsolute paradigm shift?
Speaker 7 (27:00):
Dani, you've written about how, after World War I,
there was this urgency aboutcreating a system that would
prevent future wars, make theworld more equitable.
Then came World War II, and youget the United Nations and I
know you've asked this questionin your writing.
And you get the United Nationsand I know you've asked this
question in your writing, youknow is are we looking at
another moment in time wherewe're going to need a big event,
(27:21):
perhaps a war, to kind of shake, shake the dust off of the UN,
or perhaps have somethingdifferent?
And I think that's a reallygood point to make.
You know, when you think aboutthe end of World War II and how
the UN was created, you have theworld.
They were so sick and tired ofwar, they wanted it to end.
It's a different mindset, so itjust makes me think is that
(27:43):
what we're going to need?
So that would be my first point.
Second point has to do withclimate change, small island
developing states and countriesof the global South.
One of the reasons why theyoften have difficulty in dealing
with these issues is becausetheir countries are burdened by
immense amounts of debt.
I will say that, in terms ofleadership, there is someone who
(28:05):
comes to mind.
She spoke at the um, at theconference that I was at.
Her name's mia motley.
She's the prime minister ofbarbados and she's a force.
She is a force.
I kind of wish she would be thenext Secretary General of the
United Nations Not excluded.
I've heard rumors.
Ok, all right, well, keep aneye on that for sure.
But I mean, she just says it asit is.
(28:25):
She speaks about the colonialpast of this whole Bretton Woods
financial configuration of theof the world and how that needs
to be dealt with.
I really think that when itcomes to climate because debt is
connected to climate for theglobal South she will be the one
to lead the way.
I have her on my radar.
I'm definitely watching her inthis small island global South
(28:48):
space.
But I do want to say, as far aswhat the Trump administration
may have in mind for the UnitedNations and how much of a role
the United States is going toplay, I have to keep in mind
that we still don't know who theambassador, who the nominee, is
going to be for to replaceElise Stefanik, and I would also
(29:09):
keep an eye on the fact thatPresident Trump has not spoken
to the secretary general, sincehe was sworn into office in
January, they have not had aconversation, they have not met
in person.
So I would also keep an eye onthat to gauge, I think, where
the US, the Trump administration, will look to reshape the UN,
(29:31):
reform the UN.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
Danny, I'm going to let you end this one.
Where do you think we'll be ina year's time?
Speaker 3 (29:39):
We are, I should say, also waiting for a US, and
whether the UN can continuefunctioning without American
(30:00):
leadership, without Americanfinances, and there can be true
universal cooperation is up forgrabs and it does seem to me
that multilateralism has a roleto play.
The question is whether,without American leadership,
whether it's Donald Trump or thenext president, whether
(30:20):
multilateralism can go ahead.
And I'm always looking for whois Mr Multilateralism?
Who can be Mrs Multilateralism?
The Dog Hamishills?
The Kofi Annans?
Where is that generation comingfrom and how successful can
they be?
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, on that note, we're just at the end of this
edition of Inside Geneva.
Thanks very much, danny andDawn.
We will actually have anelection for a new UN Secretary
General in 2026, not so far away.
It will be very interesting tosee who throws their hat into
the ring.
Some people are asking whowould even want that job, right?
Speaker 6 (31:02):
now.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
It is such a huge, huge challenge just to defend
even the concept of theinstitution.
I think it has to functionwithout US leadership at the
moment, because this is not amultilateral administration in
any shape or form.
The question, I think, will bewill the US post-Donald Trump
(31:25):
return to multilateralism orwill this be a real paradigm
shift in how the world works Atthe moment?
My gut is telling me the latter, but given the rapidity with
which things are changing thesedays, I could be proved
completely wrong in about twohours' time.
(31:45):
On that note, thanks everyone.
We hope you enjoyed thisedition of Inside Geneva and do
(32:09):
join us again next time.
Next time episodes how theInternational Red Cross unites
prisoners of war with theirfamilies, or why survivors of
human rights violations turn tothe UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.