October 28, 2025 • 43 mins
This week on Inside Geneva, we take the pulse of the United Nations as it turns 80.
“Someone celebrating their 80th birthday cannot be expected to be in tip-top shape. The UN is an old lady,” says Corinne Momal-Vanian, executive director at the Kofi Annan Foundation.
Some world leaders don’t have much time for the UN.
“All I got from the UN was an escalator that stopped halfway on the way up and a teleprompter that didn’t work,” said US President Donald Trump.
Others think it needs an injection of fresh ideas.
“We have to reimagine the UN, and reimagine multilateralism, from the point of confidence. And this confidence only comes once we account for the lived realities of people from the Global South,” says Prathit Singh, project coordinator at the Geneva Policy Outlook.
“It’s just not the right answer anymore to have all these men in dark suits in conference rooms deciding the future of humanity,” continues Momal-Vanian.
But we shouldn’t forget its successes: from eradicating smallpox, to reducing maternal mortality, to supporting the most vulnerable every day, all over the world.
“It’s important to keep our optimism, and maybe realise that the UN is what we make of it,” says Fuad Zarbiyev, professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute.
“What would happen if we don’t cooperate? If we look at Covid, if we look at a potential climate disaster? People will be forced to cooperate and I think that’s something we should never forget,” adds analyst Daniel Warner.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
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_03 (00:06):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
SPEAKER_02 (00:20):
In today's program, the signing is done.
The great charter is completed.
This draft of mankind's deepesthopes, already a historic
document.
SPEAKER_01 (00:30):
For 80 years, we have worked to forge peace,
tackle poverty and hunger,advance human rights, and build
a more sustainable worldtogether.
SPEAKER_06 (00:38):
All I got from the United Nations was an escalator
that on the way up stopped rightin the middle.
And then a teleprompter thatdidn't work.
SPEAKER_04 (00:57):
And the young people won't accept it anymore.
SPEAKER_00 (01:00):
So we need a UN that manages to be much more
inclusive.
If at this moment we have toreimagine the UN and reimagine
multilateralism, we have tobring it in from the point of
confidence.
And this confidence only comesonce we account for lived
realities of people, once weaccount for lived experiences
from the global south.
SPEAKER_07 (01:18):
What would happen if we don't cooperate?
If we look at COVID, if we lookat a potential climate disaster,
people are going to be forced tocooperate.
And I think that's something weshould never forget.
SPEAKER_05 (01:31):
It's important to keep our optimism and maybe
realize that the yuan is what wemake of it, right?
SPEAKER_03 (01:43):
Well, hello and welcome to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folkes, and today I'mdelighted to say we've got our
old friend, analyst, and indeeddevil's advocate, Daniel Warner,
joining us.
It's really good to see youagain.
Danny, how are you?
SPEAKER_07 (02:01):
Nice to be here.
I'm fine as long as I don't readthe news and listen to what's
going on.
SPEAKER_03 (02:07):
And I think you're not alone.
But however, we are here on amomentous day.
It is the 24th of October, 2025,that we're recording this
episode.
Okay, it won't go out foranother couple of days.
But today is an importantanniversary.
SPEAKER_07 (02:35):
Well, it's the 80th anniversary of the UN.
And if you want to know, Imogenand your listeners, I'm getting
pretty close to that date aswell.
SPEAKER_03 (02:45):
You don't need to share that too much information.
Now, some of our listeners willknow that the United Nations was
formed out of the shock and thehorror of the Second World War,
with the aim that we wouldn'thave this kind of conflict, we
wouldn't have this kind ofviolence, we would try to make a
more peaceful, fairer world foreveryone.
(03:08):
This is the program where we'regoing to have a look at how
we're doing.
What's the point of the UnitedNations?
Danny, what do you think?
Should we be celebrating rightnow?
SPEAKER_07 (03:19):
Well, we should celebrate because the United
Nations is now the oldestuniversal forum, older than the
League of Nations.
The real question is, does itneed cosmetic surgery to update
it, or does it need a seriousheart cardiovascular transplant?
And those are really the issueswe have to deal with.
SPEAKER_03 (03:42):
And I think it's fair to say here in Geneva,
those discussions are going on,but at the same time, the very
problems that the United Nationswas formed to try and solve or
prevent or at the very leastmitigate are everywhere.
Conflict, rising inequality.
SPEAKER_07 (04:01):
That's right.
I mean, if we look at Gaza, WestBank, if we look at Russia and
Ukraine, we don't see a greatpresence of the United Nations.
So to guarantee peace andsecurity is obviously a
contemporary problem.
SPEAKER_03 (04:16):
Well, we're going to get into that in today's
program.
Danny, I wanted to tell you,I've taken care to interview
three different people from kindof different perspectives,
different generations fromdifferent parts of the world.
Because obviously the UnitedNations is, it shouldn't be what
it says on the tin, UnitedNations, not just one superpower
(04:39):
or two superpowers, buteverybody.
And what I've tried to do ishave people take the pulse of
the UN at 80 and have them talkabout the kind of UN they would
like to see.
First port of call was Geneva'sGraduate Institute, where I
(05:01):
talked to Fuad Zarbiev, who isprofessor of international law.
SPEAKER_05 (05:07):
The UN is obviously a very important organization
for all of us.
And I think the major reason whyit is so has to do with the
symbols rather than the reality.
And I think at the symboliclevel, what is so important
about the UN is that the UN isreally the closest approximation
(05:28):
of international community,right?
So that phrase is often used,international community, and
oftentimes people are puzzled.
I mean, what does it mean?
Who is included?
Who is excluded?
And typically, the closestapproximation we have, I think,
in the world would be the UN.
(05:49):
It's an organization, it's auniversal organization gathering
193 states.
It's a very important forumwhere states can meet, discuss
various matters, etc.
So that symbolic importance ofthe UN should be kept in mind.
SPEAKER_03 (06:07):
So it's interesting.
He's not actually saying, oh,it's fantastic, it's wonderful.
He's not saying it's over.
But he did say something there,Danny, which I find quite
telling.
That the symbolism of it, almostwhat the UN is supposed to be
rather than what it really is,is more important.
SPEAKER_07 (06:27):
No, I think that's an interesting comment.
And I think it's alsointeresting that Fu Wad is an
international lawyer and hetalks about states.
And I would make two commentsabout states.
There are many people who thinkthat although there are 193
member states, more power shouldbe given to the global south.
(06:48):
So in that sense, the UN shouldbe wider in terms of power.
The second issue I would raiseis depth.
Other people say that the UN istoo top-down and state-oriented,
so it should touch more on civilsociety.
So I think those issues areraised by FUWAD, but I do think
the question of the crisis ofmultilateralism and states is
(07:13):
something that we're dealingwith very much today.
SPEAKER_03 (07:15):
You talked about the UN being perhaps a bit more
inclusive, not just memberstates or not just a few member
states who are really powerfuland others who have little
voice.
And we're going to come on toboth of those things in a
moment.
But as I said, I wanted to get aa a broad spectrum of people to
give their views.
And our next speaker, I thinkyou probably know her, Danny,
(07:39):
it's Corinne Momalvanian, manyyears in the UN in Geneva.
She's also now head of the KofiAnnan Foundation.
So also dedicated still tohumanitarian affairs, to
multilateralism.
And I'm really interested tohear what you think about what
she has to say because she hasher concerns.
SPEAKER_04 (08:04):
Someone who celebrates their 80th birthday
cannot be expected to be intip-top shape.
You know, the UN is an old lady.
She needs uh tender, lovingcare, she needs certainly a
reboot and a reset, and she'snot where she was 20 years ago,
which was probably the apex ofmultilateral cooperation, but it
(08:27):
was because of lots of forcesexternal to the UN as well.
So yes, I am very concerned.
SPEAKER_03 (08:34):
Can you pinpoint something particular that you
think has gone wrong?
Is it the P5?
Is it the Secretary General?
Is it member states themselvesdisengaging?
SPEAKER_04 (08:48):
All of the above emergent because the Secretary
General will change at the endof next year.
He has a limited mandate.
The P5s do not have a limitedmandate.
They are there to stay unlessthere is a major reform of the
charter, which we know is goingto be a very tall order to
achieve.
(09:09):
So what concerns me the most isthe lack of ambition of the
United Nations in the field ofpeace and security nowadays, as
compared to maybe 20 years ago,30 years ago, when I was a young
officer in the United Nations,there were many, many large
peacekeeping operations aroundthe world.
But uh the peacekeepingenthusiasm has gone down, and uh
(09:34):
the number of peacekeepersaround the world has decreased
by more than 30%, I think.
So there's a lack of ambition,there's a lot of a lack of
faith, maybe the organizationhas lost faith in its own
capacity to bring peace andsecurity.
SPEAKER_03 (09:50):
So lack of faith, lack of confidence.
But the thing is, you are gonnalose your confidence, aren't
you, Danny, if you get sidelinedin the very areas which you are
supposed to be involved in.
And we're I'm thinking aboutconflicts in the Middle East,
the conflict, the Russia'sinvasion of Ukraine.
The UN had no role to play andhas been actively in a way kept
(10:14):
out of these issues.
SPEAKER_07 (10:16):
But I think part of Corinne's argument is that the
UN doesn't sell itself verywell.
And I think there are thingsthat should sell itself.
For example, the specializedagencies.
But I give a simple example.
Sergio DeMelo was the UNrepresentative in East Timor.
He stopped the Civil War and wasable to lead East Romor to
(10:37):
independence.
We now see in Gaza, we don'tknow what the transitional
government will be, but I thinkwe should come back to what
Sergio DeMelo did.
We should go back to thespecialized agencies and not
focus entirely on wars that wesee Russia, Ukraine as an
example.
SPEAKER_03 (10:57):
My question would be, though, that perhaps it's
always been the case that the UNonly gets a role in solving
conflicts that the big powersdon't have a vested interest in.
SPEAKER_07 (11:08):
Well, I think that's certainly true.
But the focus on peace andsecurity and the role of the UN
is always going to beproblematic and the most
difficult thing.
Therefore, there's a split in asense between New York, deals
with peace and security,Security Council, and Geneva,
which is more human rights,humanitarian, and specialized
(11:28):
agencies.
SPEAKER_03 (11:29):
Well, let's turn to my third guest that I
interviewed, and that's PratitSingh.
And I wanted to talk to him,particularly young guy, project
coordinator at the Geneva PolicyOutlook at Geneva's Graduate
Institute, that looks atchallenges that we face and
tries to bring a young anddynamic perspective to them.
He's also from India, so theglobal south.
(11:51):
And he, as Corinne said, he'she's the kind of person who will
be important to the future ofthe UN if he gets involved.
SPEAKER_00 (11:58):
I think it is a time for both celebration, because of
course uh the UN has left agreat legacy in the past 80
years, but at the same time, abigger role is for reflection,
and a reflection not just onquestions of efficiency, on
questions of funding of staff asis currently undergoing with the
UN at AT process, but also awider and the more crucial
(12:22):
reflection on the idea offairness and representation.
Of course, there is a push fromthe states from inside the UN to
have a fairer representation forstates, but I think it is also
time to look beyond theclassical or traditional
stakeholders of the UN, tostakeholders like young people
who still do not find an avenueto express themselves and have
(12:44):
their voices heard within amultilateral system like the UN.
SPEAKER_03 (12:48):
Can I ask you specifically about what we often
call the global south?
Because this is something I hearin Geneva is frustration that
the traditional big powers whoare on the permanent
veto-wielding members of theSecurity Council have messed
things up.
And yet many, many countries whowould like to play a bigger
(13:11):
global role, whether it's inLatin America or in Africa or in
Asia, don't have the voice.
SPEAKER_00 (13:18):
You know, when I say that this is a big point of
reflection for the UN, added tothat is definitely a sense of
distrust that has emerged fromthis lack of fairness and
representation.
And over the time, what this hasled to is also the active
engagement and the politicalwill for this engagement has
taken a downward turn because ofthis lack of fairness and
(13:41):
representation, and also becausethis has been an issue
consistently over the years andyears.
I come from India and I used towork in the strategic space of
New Delhi before I came toGeneva.
And I can tell you thatdefinitely when we talk about
multilateralism in spaces likeNew Delhi today, it doesn't
necessarily begin with the ideaof the UN in Geneva or the UN in
(14:03):
New York.
It in fact emerges fromalternate hubs to engage with
hubs in the global south and seewhat South-South cooperation can
do.
And I think here's where themost amount of mending or
reflection on fairness that isneeded for the UN is to how to
engage with actors from theglobal south in a way that can
not only regain trust but alsorevitalize the political will to
(14:27):
engage with the UN system.
SPEAKER_03 (14:28):
So that's kind of heartening in one sense and
disheartening in another, Ithink, if you're if you're a
senior diplomat at the UnitedNations, because Pratit there is
talking about young people nothaving a voice.
He's talking about mistrustcoming from the global south,
and that people in the globalsouth who want to get things
(14:48):
done are just talking to eachother and not even trying to go
through the UN system anymore,which is kind of a shame for an
organization which has tried sohard, for example, with the
Millennium Development Goals,the Sustainable Development
Goals.
SPEAKER_07 (15:03):
I think it's trying to be as inclusive as it can.
I mentioned that theinternational lawyer Richard
Falk has always proposedsomething called a People's
Assembly to see to be inclusiveof the young people that Prattit
Corinne mentioned.
And that leads me to talk aboutGreta.
Greta is really, Greta Thunbergis really a change leader in
(15:26):
that sense.
And I do think issues likeclimate with people like Greta
will get more and more peopleinvolved in things with the
United Nations.
And I think if we continue totalk about the UN in Gaza, the
UN in Russia, Ukraine, we'regoing to lose the perspective of
the other things that the UN cando and its potential for the
(15:47):
future.
SPEAKER_03 (15:47):
That is such an important point because I think
it's absolutely true.
It's the same with governmentstoo.
They are consistently judged bytheir failures or the things
they're not doing or can't do,and not by their successes.
And I think we are at a reallydifficult point for
multilateralism and for the forthe United Nations.
(16:09):
But one of the things I wantedto do was also look back at some
of the things we might describeas achievements for the UN.
Let's go back to Fuan.
Here's what he says the UNshould really take some credit
for.
SPEAKER_05 (16:22):
I know a lot of things have happened, making
many of us disappointed with theUN.
But I think if we look at the UNachievements, one of them I
would say it happened actuallyduring the Cold War, and it's
quite remarkable for thatreason.
So even though the UN wasoperating under very difficult
(16:43):
circumstances, it was able toachieve that.
The process of decolonization,so the former colonies of
European countries acceding toindependence.
I think that's something forwhich UN should get the credit
for, right?
So it was it was a majorachievement for the UN.
And it was not just a matter ofsome countries becoming
(17:06):
independent all by themselves.
It's a process that wasaccompanied by the UN.
In some cases, UN actually wasinvolved in the administration
of countries before they becamefully independent and
self-governing, and Namibiawould be an example.
So those things are the kind ofthings that I think we should uh
give the UN credit for.
SPEAKER_03 (17:28):
Do you agree with that?
I mean, I suppose it was aprocess, I guess, primarily late
50s, 1960s, of a peacefultransition from colonial rule to
independence, which the UNsupported.
SPEAKER_07 (17:42):
Exactly.
But it's very state-centric.
And I only say that in terms oftwo other issues I think we
should mention.
One would be human rights, themainstreaming of human rights,
and the other would be genderissues.
Now, if we say that they're notbeing followed, it means that
people are conscious that theyshould be followed.
SPEAKER_03 (18:02):
That they do exist, exactly.
SPEAKER_07 (18:04):
And I think there there's been tremendous progress
led by the United Nations.
And I think that's something weshould never forget when these
criticisms come up.
SPEAKER_03 (18:15):
But again, it's a double-edged sword because this
is why I think so many peopleare so desperately disappointed
that the UN has not been able todo anything round the conflict
in Gaza or Russia's invasion ofUkraine, which our own UN
Secretary General said quiteclearly is a violation of the of
the UN Charter.
However, as he said, we shouldperhaps not focus so much,
(18:39):
desperate though it is, on theamount of conflict and the
limited impact the UN'speacekeeping role is having.
A couple of other achievementsof the United Nations that
Corinne Momalvanian wanted toremind me of.
And again, these are things thatshe said, this is what I want to
tell young people.
(19:00):
This is why the United Nationsis relevant.
This is what it's achieved.
SPEAKER_04 (19:04):
Many young people do not trust an organization where
they don't even have a voice.
I mean, frankly, I fullyunderstand.
But I would have several thingsto tell them.
And the first is that beforethey were born, the UN and
multilateral corporationdelivered incredible progress
for the world.
Uneven, sometimesunsatisfactory, but progress
(19:25):
that benefited the whole ofhumanity.
The hole in the ozone layer thatwas plugged, the eradication of
smallpox.
And also the MillenniumDevelopment Goals that saw
incredible increase in thenumber of girls in school,
incredible decrease in childmortality.
This did not happen in a vacuum.
(19:46):
This happened through organizedinternational cooperation.
But they don't remember because,frankly, everything has been
slowing down, progress has beenslowing down or reversing in the
last 15 years, which someone whois 25 today would not remember a
time before that.
So let's take a step back andsee what the UN has delivered
(20:06):
over its 80 years of existence.
Of course, we need a differentUN, of course, we need a reset.
Of course, we need the youngvoices at the table.
But don't throw the baby outwith bath water.
SPEAKER_03 (20:19):
What kind of reset would you like to see then?
Where should the UN be going?
SPEAKER_04 (20:23):
We have to find a way for the UN to represent more
of the voices of people directlyconcerned.
It's just not the right answeranymore.
To have all these men in darksuits in conference rooms
deciding on the future ofhumanity is just not satisfying.
And the young people won'taccept it anymore.
So we need a UN that manages tobe much more inclusive.
(20:46):
Frankly, the way we should go isthat is not being stuck in the
past and looking at what we canfix from what the UN was, but to
really look at what we need theUN to do in 10, 20 years.
To a certain extent, theSecretary General has already
pushed it in the direction oflooking at the international
governance of AI, looking atclimate change and so on.
(21:09):
We have to identify those areaswhere it can make a positive
difference now and in 10 yearsand in 20 years, rather than
being stuck in what it did inthe past and what it didn't do
in the past.
And I'm worried that the reformand the all the discussions
around UNAT is about fixing theUN and not reinventing it for
(21:31):
the future.
SPEAKER_03 (21:31):
Well, before we go quite onto the future, I did a
bit of digging when Corin madethat point to me about the
eradication of smallpox.
Danny, do you know how manypeople died of smallpox in the
20th century?
SPEAKER_07 (21:46):
No, I have no idea.
Sorry.
SPEAKER_03 (21:49):
300 million.
Far more than the first andsecond world wars combined.
And do you know who proposed tothe United Nations that we
should get together and try anderadicate smallpox?
SPEAKER_07 (22:02):
I would guess someone in the United States,
but I'm probably wrong.
SPEAKER_03 (22:07):
It was actually the Soviet Union.
It was the Soviet Union.
Now, whatever people might havethought about the Soviet Union
then or Russia now, becausethere are plenty of bad guys
around.
Let's keep in mind that whenpeople work together, they can
achieve great things.
And I think that is is maybe themessage for the United Nations.
(22:29):
What about Corinne's point aboutthe reset?
SPEAKER_07 (22:32):
I I think that's difficult to say the least.
When the League of Nationsstopped, the United Nations was
already in the process ofstarting.
So there was an organization tofollow that which was closing.
If the UN closes or if itcontinues to be stagnating, no
one's talking really aboutsomething new.
(22:54):
That's why I raised in thebeginning whether the UN needs
Botox or cosmetic surgery or aheart operation.
And I don't think that we need atotally different organization.
I think we're in a specifictimeframe.
And I do think the presidency ofDonald Trump has an influence on
(23:15):
multilateralism and the UnitedNations.
That may be only a blip inhistory, and that could change
in a small number amount oftime.
SPEAKER_03 (23:24):
Could do.
But I see, and I think Corinnehas also made this point that
just at the point that theUnited Nations is is turning 80,
and there should rightly bereflection.
We've heard some of it allalready about how it can
function more inclusively, moreequitably, it's faced with
swinging financial cuts.
(23:46):
And that in a way the wholefocus seems to be not let's
build a UN really fit for futurechallenges, but uh let's adapt
the UN to cope with these cuts.
There should be more vision, Ithink.
But I wanted to hear from PratitSingh, of course, the youngest
person on our panel, what hethinks.
(24:08):
And I know we've said let's talkabout the successes and so on,
but the fact is, young peoplecan't be very optimistic when
they look around at the worldwe're in with these conflicts,
with the superpowers facing off,sidelining the body that again
should be there to try and keepthe peace or at least provide a
(24:30):
forum for peaceful diplomacy.
Take a listen to him, Danny,because you know he reflects the
worry of the younger generation.
SPEAKER_00 (24:38):
With the repeated cycles of conflict, with the
threat of climate change, uh,with what we call a polycrisis,
and added to that is this timeof radical uncertainty, wherein
we do not know what comes next.
It is definitely, you know, ananxious time, a scary time for
young people, primarily emergingfrom, firstly, the lack of
(25:00):
accountability of states toengage in conflict whenever they
want, bypassing the framework ofinternational law.
There was still so much of trustin the idea that, you know,
there is a form of internationallaw, international norm and
order.
We see that being floutedpractically every month now or
every day, wouldn't be wrong tosay.
That is definitely, you know,something very scary to think
(25:22):
about, growing in an era notonly of uncertainty where we do
not know what state would it be,which will flout the
international system and thentry to justify it, but also of
the idea of the future directlybeing at stake with challenges
like climate change and thesucceeding failures of
negotiations like the COP allthe way exacerbate this anxiety,
(25:44):
this scare of accountability ofthe direct future that I'm
walking into as a young person.
And here's where my push toaccount for the voices of young
people.
I think the UN has a big role inaccounting for these voices
because our futures are directlyat stake.
SPEAKER_03 (26:01):
I find it saddening actually as somebody who's I've
had my youth.
And okay, it wasn't necessarilyeasy when I was growing up.
It was the tail end of the ColdWar.
I used to get very frightenedabout the possibility of a
nuclear war.
But he's talking about apolycrisis, conflict, the
climate crisis.
Can we reassure the youngergeneration?
SPEAKER_07 (26:23):
Well, I don't know if our role is to reassure.
One of the things I do note isthat the younger generation is
very tuned in to technology, beit internet, etc.
And the question ismultilateralism deals mostly
with states.
And states and statebureaucracies are much slower.
(26:44):
So how can a bureaucracy likethe United Nations adapt to a
world where there is anacceleration of time?
And one of the questions beingraised is artificial
intelligence.
What can the United Nations doabout something like that?
It's moving at such a rapidpace, and the treaties that the
(27:04):
UN signs take years and years tocome.
So I think there's a differenceamong the young people, more
attuned to the private, moreattuned to things that happen
quickly, whereas the UNmultilateralism state system
seems to be very dusty and slow.
SPEAKER_03 (27:22):
But if you listen to Pratit, he is invested in the
multilateral effort.
He's just frustrated that thepeople who are kind of working
in multilateralism, I mean he'sstill a young guy, are not
fulfilling those goals.
SPEAKER_07 (27:39):
That's right.
And and I think there the systemneeds serious cosmetic surgery.
Uh but the question is how?
SPEAKER_03 (27:47):
What are concretely the solutions for the future,
particularly as we begin to seea certain amount of
disengagement from the UnitedNations.
First off, let's go back toFuad, see what he has to say.
SPEAKER_05 (28:03):
Under the UN Charter, P5 permanent members of
the Security Council havespecial responsibilities when it
comes to international peace andsecurity.
But I don't think that thedrafters of the UN Charter
actually contemplated thesituations that we are facing
increasingly.
Basically, one of the permanentmembers being actually a party
(28:28):
to the conflict or being a closeally of a party to conflict and
paralyzing the whole process.
SPEAKER_03 (28:37):
How can the UN, though, realistically continue
doing anything significant thenif the Security Council is
paralyzed?
SPEAKER_05 (28:47):
When it comes to mistrust of multilateralism,
it's very easy to understand,right?
So we have all beendisappointed.
But I think it's very importantto contextualize some of the
problems that we have beenfacing lately and look at uh
maybe history in a long-termperspective.
(29:09):
You know, just because thesethings are happening or have
been happening the last fewyears doesn't necessarily mean
that they are unavoidable andthe future cannot be different.
I mean, we can just putourselves into the shoes of the
drafters of the UN Charter.
Let's not forget that the UNCharter was drafted when the war
(29:31):
was still not over, right?
So I don't know what theirmindset was back then.
I assume they were hopeful thatthe war would be won and um the
future would be would bedifferent.
So I think it is important tohave, especially in difficult
circumstances of that kind, it'simportant to keep our optimism
(29:52):
and maybe realize that the yuanis what we make of it, right?
SPEAKER_03 (29:58):
He made some interesting points there.
For me, Danny, because heidentified what you and I have
talked about so often, theparalysis inside the Security
Council that the people whocreated the UN didn't really
imagine necessarily the UnitedStates, Russia, and China
vetoing each other.
But he also made a moreoptimistic point that what they
(30:21):
created was something brand new,creative, aspirational,
inspirational.
And he's thinking we could dothat with the United Nations
now.
SPEAKER_07 (30:32):
I think two things have to happen, Imogen.
The first is to remember thatthe UN was started right after
the Second World War.
So behind all of the notion ofcooperation was what would
happen if we don't cooperate.
If we look at COVID, if we lookat a potential climate disaster,
(30:53):
people are going to be forced tocooperate.
And I think that's something weshould never forget.
The second thing is the questionof charisma.
I think if we have a newSecretary General coming up who
somehow restores a moral compassto the office of the Secretary
General, I think people may bemore willing to cooperate
(31:15):
because they see it's ineveryone's interest.
SPEAKER_03 (31:17):
Well, how do you feel about the current Secretary
General?
I mean, the current SecretaryGeneral does have a moral
compass.
SPEAKER_07 (31:23):
Well, he may have it, but the question is how many
people are using it.
It's a little bit like the Pope.
They have no army.
And the question also is, ofcourse, Donald Trump.
It's not simple for the head ofthe UN or any organization to
function when someone's cuttingtheir budget and seems to be
doing everything against them.
(31:45):
And I think perhaps with adifferent Secretary General,
with a different President ofthe United States, there might
be a change in the future.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (31:53):
There could be.
I mean, I think the UN SecretaryGeneral, the UN is always
powered or not powered, by thecommitment of powerful nation
states.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_07 (32:04):
The infamous comment is there's a secretary but no
general.
So the question, of course,comes in: do the states have the
political will?
And there I come back to somekind of catastrophe, COVID, or
climate that people are going tohave to understand.
But I do think people make adifference.
I come back to Greta and howmany people became engaged with
(32:25):
climate issues because of her.
SPEAKER_03 (32:27):
Well, let's hear again from Corinne, because we
talked about a couple of thingsthere.
The fact that there is going tobe a new UN Secretary General in
2026, at the same time as we seea disengagement from, in
particular, the United States,from at the moment, some UN
(32:48):
bodies.
I'm thinking the World HealthOrganization, UN Human Rights
Council.
I wanted to see what Corinne,with her long experience of the
UN, had to say about that.
SPEAKER_04 (33:00):
Listen, WHO exists without the United States.
UNESCO has survived alreadytwice before without the United
States.
So the answer, yes, it could,but it just won't be the same.
And here in Geneva, we have seenthe difference when the US
engages, for instance, in theHuman Rights Council, or when it
doesn't.
(33:21):
And you can go much further whenthe US is positively engaged
than you could go without it.
But we can survive.
The organization can survivewithout it and will.
Those agencies that the US hasquit will survive because they
are indispensable.
SPEAKER_03 (33:36):
We are going to have a new Secretary General next
year.
Any advice for her or him?
SPEAKER_04 (33:42):
That's a tough one.
I want to reflect carefully onwhat the advice, because I mean
that sounds very presumptuous ofme to give advice to the new
Secretary General.
But I would say make sure tochange the composition of the UN
system in a way that youngpeople are inside the system and
not on the margins.
(34:03):
Imagine today of the whole UNsystem, all the agencies
together, only 3% of peopleemployed by this system are
younger than 30.
Half of the world is youngerthan 30.
And there's a big disconnectthere.
So a new Secretary Generalshould fix that disconnect.
SPEAKER_03 (34:19):
So that's her repeated message
inclusivity, more young people.
You want more charisma from theUN Secretary General and more
visible moral backbone.
I think we we perhaps all goalong with that.
But what about, just before wego to for some final comments to
Pratit, what about thepossibility that the United
(34:42):
States could actually leave?
Do you see that as realistic?
SPEAKER_07 (34:47):
I mean, realistic.
It hasn't paid and probablywon't pay for 2024 and 2025.
It got out of certainorganizations, has threatened
others.
The question is, as forSwitzerland and the rest of the
world, Europe included, how doyou disengage from the United
States?
I see the European Union incertain ways is doing that.
(35:10):
And the question is, the worldneeds a universal organization
because today we live in complexinterdependence.
So if the United States wants tobe isolationist, the rest of the
world probably has to cooperatein one way or another, whether
they're small regionalorganizations, but and the
universal one is in everyone'sinterest.
(35:33):
If the United States doesn'twant to be there, the game has
to go on.
SPEAKER_03 (35:37):
As you say, the US hasn't paid its dues.
Should it get to keep its placeon the Security Council when
it's not even paying its dues?
Because I think that's the onething the United States wouldn't
want to walk away from is itsveto on the on the Security
Council.
SPEAKER_07 (35:52):
Another possibility would moving the UN and the
Security Council out of NewYork.
Why should it still be there andthe organizations not paying?
And those are really interestingquestions, and I think they
should be raised.
We see other countries areproposing to take some of the
organizations in Geneva to bebased there.
(36:13):
Maybe to take it out of New Yorkwould be a proposal as well.
SPEAKER_03 (36:16):
Very interesting point.
I mean, we are seeing that inGeneva that some of the uh
humanitarian agencies will bemoving some of their offices to
the global south, which umalthough I know that there's a
lot of wailing and gnashing ofteeth in Geneva and some people
are losing their jobs, which isalways a tragedy, I still think
that the global south, as Pratithas said to us, needs more
(36:41):
representation.
And why shouldn't there be moreUN bodies with their
headquarters in Africa, on theIndian subcontinent, in
Southeast Asia, and make it uh,you know, a body that's properly
reflective of the world we livein.
And on that note, final wordsfrom Pratit.
I asked him how he would sellthe United Nations to his
(37:04):
friends, his relatives, peoplehe might meet over over a coffee
back home in India.
SPEAKER_00 (37:10):
I would sell the UN, telling them that their stories
have a space in developingsolutions to the crises that we
face.
So people, when I talk to peoplewho are based in India, some of
them, my very own friends, theyare at the forefront of climate
activism while going about theirdaily lives.
And my idea to them isdefinitely that their stories
(37:32):
are something that can create adifference.
Their lived experiences can beincorporated within the
multilateral system.
But then again, I'm very mindfulthat it's a two-way street.
As much as their stories andtheir practical actions around
their day-to-day lives can makea difference in the multilateral
system and in developingsolutions towards some of the
crises, the multilateral systemneeds to be receptive towards
(37:55):
these stories and livedexperiences.
And I think that's where theidea of confidence in such a
system comes from, is that if atthis moment we have to reimagine
the UN and reimaginemultilateralism, we have to
bring it in from the point ofconfidence.
And this confidence only comesonce we account for lived
realities of people, once weaccount for lived experiences
(38:15):
from the global south, and thatis when we can revitalize the
trust and confidence that isneeded for the future of the UN.
SPEAKER_03 (38:21):
I thought he made a lot of good points.
Re-inspire confidence in the UN,particularly among younger
people, and they will bring itback to the United Nations.
That inspires me.
What about you, Danny?
SPEAKER_07 (38:37):
Well, I mean, I think there's a huge
generational problem here.
I was raised with the model UN,Adley Stevenson is the American
ambassador, and it was somethingthat we accepted and look
forward to.
Why don't we have more youngpeople involved in the UN?
And I think there has to be agenerational shift.
(38:59):
It's embarrassing to see the twocandidates to run for president
of the United States over 70years old.
So the young people, most ofthem or many of them, are going
into the private sector.
So we have to give a wholedifferent perspective of what it
means to work for the commongood, to work for the community
instead of just individuals.
(39:19):
And that's why I think people,new Secretary General, a
different kind of leadership isneeded.
And I think people like Biden,Trump, and all of that age
group, uh, we've been there,we've done what we could, but
it's time for a next generationto come through.
SPEAKER_03 (39:35):
Well, I would support that, but I would also
say to the skeptics 300 millionpeople dead of smallpox in the
20th century.
And the world's Cold Warwarriors got together and said,
let's eradicate it.
And they did.
That's what you get when youwork together, that's what you
(39:56):
get when you invest in the ideaof the United Nations.
So let's just say happybirthday, UN.
Time for a long, hard look inthe mirror, time to open some
doors.
But as one uh US diplomatskeptical of the United Nations
said to me, if it didn't exist,we'd still have to invent it.
(40:37):
What do you think about theUnited Nations at 80?
What should it do to remainrelevant and useful in a very
insecure world?
Write to us at insidegeneva atswissinfo.ch to let us know.
And join us next time on InsideGeneva, where we'll be exploring
the 21st century implications ofthat old saying, in war, truth
(41:02):
is the first casualty.
We'll be looking at thechallenges of reporting what's
really happening in today'sconflicts.
Challenges faced not just byjournalists, but by aid workers
too.
That's out on the 11th ofNovember.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
(41:31):
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.
I'm Imogen folks.
(41:52):
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
SPEAKER_02 (00:20):
In today's program, the signing is done.
The great charter is completed.
This draft of mankind's deepesthopes, already a historic
document.
SPEAKER_01 (00:30):
For 80 years, we have worked to forge peace,
tackle poverty and hunger,advance human rights, and build
a more sustainable worldtogether.
SPEAKER_06 (00:38):
All I got from the United Nations was an escalator
that on the way up stopped rightin the middle.
And then a teleprompter thatdidn't work.
SPEAKER_04 (00:57):
And the young people won't accept it anymore.
SPEAKER_00 (01:00):
So we need a UN that manages to be much more
inclusive.
If at this moment we have toreimagine the UN and reimagine
multilateralism, we have tobring it in from the point of
confidence.
And this confidence only comesonce we account for lived
realities of people, once weaccount for lived experiences
from the global south.
SPEAKER_07 (01:18):
What would happen if we don't cooperate?
If we look at COVID, if we lookat a potential climate disaster,
people are going to be forced tocooperate.
And I think that's something weshould never forget.
SPEAKER_05 (01:31):
It's important to keep our optimism and maybe
realize that the yuan is what wemake of it, right?
SPEAKER_03 (01:43):
Well, hello and welcome to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folkes, and today I'mdelighted to say we've got our
old friend, analyst, and indeeddevil's advocate, Daniel Warner,
joining us.
It's really good to see youagain.
Danny, how are you?
SPEAKER_07 (02:01):
Nice to be here.
I'm fine as long as I don't readthe news and listen to what's
going on.
SPEAKER_03 (02:07):
And I think you're not alone.
But however, we are here on amomentous day.
It is the 24th of October, 2025,that we're recording this
episode.
Okay, it won't go out foranother couple of days.
But today is an importantanniversary.
SPEAKER_07 (02:35):
Well, it's the 80th anniversary of the UN.
And if you want to know, Imogenand your listeners, I'm getting
pretty close to that date aswell.
SPEAKER_03 (02:45):
You don't need to share that too much information.
Now, some of our listeners willknow that the United Nations was
formed out of the shock and thehorror of the Second World War,
with the aim that we wouldn'thave this kind of conflict, we
wouldn't have this kind ofviolence, we would try to make a
more peaceful, fairer world foreveryone.
(03:08):
This is the program where we'regoing to have a look at how
we're doing.
What's the point of the UnitedNations?
Danny, what do you think?
Should we be celebrating rightnow?
SPEAKER_07 (03:19):
Well, we should celebrate because the United
Nations is now the oldestuniversal forum, older than the
League of Nations.
The real question is, does itneed cosmetic surgery to update
it, or does it need a seriousheart cardiovascular transplant?
And those are really the issueswe have to deal with.
SPEAKER_03 (03:42):
And I think it's fair to say here in Geneva,
those discussions are going on,but at the same time, the very
problems that the United Nationswas formed to try and solve or
prevent or at the very leastmitigate are everywhere.
Conflict, rising inequality.
SPEAKER_07 (04:01):
That's right.
I mean, if we look at Gaza, WestBank, if we look at Russia and
Ukraine, we don't see a greatpresence of the United Nations.
So to guarantee peace andsecurity is obviously a
contemporary problem.
SPEAKER_03 (04:16):
Well, we're going to get into that in today's
program.
Danny, I wanted to tell you,I've taken care to interview
three different people from kindof different perspectives,
different generations fromdifferent parts of the world.
Because obviously the UnitedNations is, it shouldn't be what
it says on the tin, UnitedNations, not just one superpower
(04:39):
or two superpowers, buteverybody.
And what I've tried to do ishave people take the pulse of
the UN at 80 and have them talkabout the kind of UN they would
like to see.
First port of call was Geneva'sGraduate Institute, where I
(05:01):
talked to Fuad Zarbiev, who isprofessor of international law.
SPEAKER_05 (05:07):
The UN is obviously a very important organization
for all of us.
And I think the major reason whyit is so has to do with the
symbols rather than the reality.
And I think at the symboliclevel, what is so important
about the UN is that the UN isreally the closest approximation
(05:28):
of international community,right?
So that phrase is often used,international community, and
oftentimes people are puzzled.
I mean, what does it mean?
Who is included?
Who is excluded?
And typically, the closestapproximation we have, I think,
in the world would be the UN.
(05:49):
It's an organization, it's auniversal organization gathering
193 states.
It's a very important forumwhere states can meet, discuss
various matters, etc.
So that symbolic importance ofthe UN should be kept in mind.
SPEAKER_03 (06:07):
So it's interesting.
He's not actually saying, oh,it's fantastic, it's wonderful.
He's not saying it's over.
But he did say something there,Danny, which I find quite
telling.
That the symbolism of it, almostwhat the UN is supposed to be
rather than what it really is,is more important.
SPEAKER_07 (06:27):
No, I think that's an interesting comment.
And I think it's alsointeresting that Fu Wad is an
international lawyer and hetalks about states.
And I would make two commentsabout states.
There are many people who thinkthat although there are 193
member states, more power shouldbe given to the global south.
(06:48):
So in that sense, the UN shouldbe wider in terms of power.
The second issue I would raiseis depth.
Other people say that the UN istoo top-down and state-oriented,
so it should touch more on civilsociety.
So I think those issues areraised by FUWAD, but I do think
the question of the crisis ofmultilateralism and states is
(07:13):
something that we're dealingwith very much today.
SPEAKER_03 (07:15):
You talked about the UN being perhaps a bit more
inclusive, not just memberstates or not just a few member
states who are really powerfuland others who have little
voice.
And we're going to come on toboth of those things in a
moment.
But as I said, I wanted to get aa a broad spectrum of people to
give their views.
And our next speaker, I thinkyou probably know her, Danny,
(07:39):
it's Corinne Momalvanian, manyyears in the UN in Geneva.
She's also now head of the KofiAnnan Foundation.
So also dedicated still tohumanitarian affairs, to
multilateralism.
And I'm really interested tohear what you think about what
she has to say because she hasher concerns.
SPEAKER_04 (08:04):
Someone who celebrates their 80th birthday
cannot be expected to be intip-top shape.
You know, the UN is an old lady.
She needs uh tender, lovingcare, she needs certainly a
reboot and a reset, and she'snot where she was 20 years ago,
which was probably the apex ofmultilateral cooperation, but it
(08:27):
was because of lots of forcesexternal to the UN as well.
So yes, I am very concerned.
SPEAKER_03 (08:34):
Can you pinpoint something particular that you
think has gone wrong?
Is it the P5?
Is it the Secretary General?
Is it member states themselvesdisengaging?
SPEAKER_04 (08:48):
All of the above emergent because the Secretary
General will change at the endof next year.
He has a limited mandate.
The P5s do not have a limitedmandate.
They are there to stay unlessthere is a major reform of the
charter, which we know is goingto be a very tall order to
achieve.
(09:09):
So what concerns me the most isthe lack of ambition of the
United Nations in the field ofpeace and security nowadays, as
compared to maybe 20 years ago,30 years ago, when I was a young
officer in the United Nations,there were many, many large
peacekeeping operations aroundthe world.
But uh the peacekeepingenthusiasm has gone down, and uh
(09:34):
the number of peacekeepersaround the world has decreased
by more than 30%, I think.
So there's a lack of ambition,there's a lot of a lack of
faith, maybe the organizationhas lost faith in its own
capacity to bring peace andsecurity.
SPEAKER_03 (09:50):
So lack of faith, lack of confidence.
But the thing is, you are gonnalose your confidence, aren't
you, Danny, if you get sidelinedin the very areas which you are
supposed to be involved in.
And we're I'm thinking aboutconflicts in the Middle East,
the conflict, the Russia'sinvasion of Ukraine.
The UN had no role to play andhas been actively in a way kept
(10:14):
out of these issues.
SPEAKER_07 (10:16):
But I think part of Corinne's argument is that the
UN doesn't sell itself verywell.
And I think there are thingsthat should sell itself.
For example, the specializedagencies.
But I give a simple example.
Sergio DeMelo was the UNrepresentative in East Timor.
He stopped the Civil War and wasable to lead East Romor to
(10:37):
independence.
We now see in Gaza, we don'tknow what the transitional
government will be, but I thinkwe should come back to what
Sergio DeMelo did.
We should go back to thespecialized agencies and not
focus entirely on wars that wesee Russia, Ukraine as an
example.
SPEAKER_03 (10:57):
My question would be, though, that perhaps it's
always been the case that the UNonly gets a role in solving
conflicts that the big powersdon't have a vested interest in.
SPEAKER_07 (11:08):
Well, I think that's certainly true.
But the focus on peace andsecurity and the role of the UN
is always going to beproblematic and the most
difficult thing.
Therefore, there's a split in asense between New York, deals
with peace and security,Security Council, and Geneva,
which is more human rights,humanitarian, and specialized
(11:28):
agencies.
SPEAKER_03 (11:29):
Well, let's turn to my third guest that I
interviewed, and that's PratitSingh.
And I wanted to talk to him,particularly young guy, project
coordinator at the Geneva PolicyOutlook at Geneva's Graduate
Institute, that looks atchallenges that we face and
tries to bring a young anddynamic perspective to them.
He's also from India, so theglobal south.
(11:51):
And he, as Corinne said, he'she's the kind of person who will
be important to the future ofthe UN if he gets involved.
SPEAKER_00 (11:58):
I think it is a time for both celebration, because of
course uh the UN has left agreat legacy in the past 80
years, but at the same time, abigger role is for reflection,
and a reflection not just onquestions of efficiency, on
questions of funding of staff asis currently undergoing with the
UN at AT process, but also awider and the more crucial
(12:22):
reflection on the idea offairness and representation.
Of course, there is a push fromthe states from inside the UN to
have a fairer representation forstates, but I think it is also
time to look beyond theclassical or traditional
stakeholders of the UN, tostakeholders like young people
who still do not find an avenueto express themselves and have
(12:44):
their voices heard within amultilateral system like the UN.
SPEAKER_03 (12:48):
Can I ask you specifically about what we often
call the global south?
Because this is something I hearin Geneva is frustration that
the traditional big powers whoare on the permanent
veto-wielding members of theSecurity Council have messed
things up.
And yet many, many countries whowould like to play a bigger
(13:11):
global role, whether it's inLatin America or in Africa or in
Asia, don't have the voice.
SPEAKER_00 (13:18):
You know, when I say that this is a big point of
reflection for the UN, added tothat is definitely a sense of
distrust that has emerged fromthis lack of fairness and
representation.
And over the time, what this hasled to is also the active
engagement and the politicalwill for this engagement has
taken a downward turn because ofthis lack of fairness and
(13:41):
representation, and also becausethis has been an issue
consistently over the years andyears.
I come from India and I used towork in the strategic space of
New Delhi before I came toGeneva.
And I can tell you thatdefinitely when we talk about
multilateralism in spaces likeNew Delhi today, it doesn't
necessarily begin with the ideaof the UN in Geneva or the UN in
(14:03):
New York.
It in fact emerges fromalternate hubs to engage with
hubs in the global south and seewhat South-South cooperation can
do.
And I think here's where themost amount of mending or
reflection on fairness that isneeded for the UN is to how to
engage with actors from theglobal south in a way that can
not only regain trust but alsorevitalize the political will to
(14:27):
engage with the UN system.
SPEAKER_03 (14:28):
So that's kind of heartening in one sense and
disheartening in another, Ithink, if you're if you're a
senior diplomat at the UnitedNations, because Pratit there is
talking about young people nothaving a voice.
He's talking about mistrustcoming from the global south,
and that people in the globalsouth who want to get things
(14:48):
done are just talking to eachother and not even trying to go
through the UN system anymore,which is kind of a shame for an
organization which has tried sohard, for example, with the
Millennium Development Goals,the Sustainable Development
Goals.
SPEAKER_07 (15:03):
I think it's trying to be as inclusive as it can.
I mentioned that theinternational lawyer Richard
Falk has always proposedsomething called a People's
Assembly to see to be inclusiveof the young people that Prattit
Corinne mentioned.
And that leads me to talk aboutGreta.
Greta is really, Greta Thunbergis really a change leader in
(15:26):
that sense.
And I do think issues likeclimate with people like Greta
will get more and more peopleinvolved in things with the
United Nations.
And I think if we continue totalk about the UN in Gaza, the
UN in Russia, Ukraine, we'regoing to lose the perspective of
the other things that the UN cando and its potential for the
(15:47):
future.
SPEAKER_03 (15:47):
That is such an important point because I think
it's absolutely true.
It's the same with governmentstoo.
They are consistently judged bytheir failures or the things
they're not doing or can't do,and not by their successes.
And I think we are at a reallydifficult point for
multilateralism and for the forthe United Nations.
(16:09):
But one of the things I wantedto do was also look back at some
of the things we might describeas achievements for the UN.
Let's go back to Fuan.
Here's what he says the UNshould really take some credit
for.
SPEAKER_05 (16:22):
I know a lot of things have happened, making
many of us disappointed with theUN.
But I think if we look at the UNachievements, one of them I
would say it happened actuallyduring the Cold War, and it's
quite remarkable for thatreason.
So even though the UN wasoperating under very difficult
(16:43):
circumstances, it was able toachieve that.
The process of decolonization,so the former colonies of
European countries acceding toindependence.
I think that's something forwhich UN should get the credit
for, right?
So it was it was a majorachievement for the UN.
And it was not just a matter ofsome countries becoming
(17:06):
independent all by themselves.
It's a process that wasaccompanied by the UN.
In some cases, UN actually wasinvolved in the administration
of countries before they becamefully independent and
self-governing, and Namibiawould be an example.
So those things are the kind ofthings that I think we should uh
give the UN credit for.
SPEAKER_03 (17:28):
Do you agree with that?
I mean, I suppose it was aprocess, I guess, primarily late
50s, 1960s, of a peacefultransition from colonial rule to
independence, which the UNsupported.
SPEAKER_07 (17:42):
Exactly.
But it's very state-centric.
And I only say that in terms oftwo other issues I think we
should mention.
One would be human rights, themainstreaming of human rights,
and the other would be genderissues.
Now, if we say that they're notbeing followed, it means that
people are conscious that theyshould be followed.
SPEAKER_03 (18:02):
That they do exist, exactly.
SPEAKER_07 (18:04):
And I think there there's been tremendous progress
led by the United Nations.
And I think that's something weshould never forget when these
criticisms come up.
SPEAKER_03 (18:15):
But again, it's a double-edged sword because this
is why I think so many peopleare so desperately disappointed
that the UN has not been able todo anything round the conflict
in Gaza or Russia's invasion ofUkraine, which our own UN
Secretary General said quiteclearly is a violation of the of
the UN Charter.
However, as he said, we shouldperhaps not focus so much,
(18:39):
desperate though it is, on theamount of conflict and the
limited impact the UN'speacekeeping role is having.
A couple of other achievementsof the United Nations that
Corinne Momalvanian wanted toremind me of.
And again, these are things thatshe said, this is what I want to
tell young people.
(19:00):
This is why the United Nationsis relevant.
This is what it's achieved.
SPEAKER_04 (19:04):
Many young people do not trust an organization where
they don't even have a voice.
I mean, frankly, I fullyunderstand.
But I would have several thingsto tell them.
And the first is that beforethey were born, the UN and
multilateral corporationdelivered incredible progress
for the world.
Uneven, sometimesunsatisfactory, but progress
(19:25):
that benefited the whole ofhumanity.
The hole in the ozone layer thatwas plugged, the eradication of
smallpox.
And also the MillenniumDevelopment Goals that saw
incredible increase in thenumber of girls in school,
incredible decrease in childmortality.
This did not happen in a vacuum.
(19:46):
This happened through organizedinternational cooperation.
But they don't remember because,frankly, everything has been
slowing down, progress has beenslowing down or reversing in the
last 15 years, which someone whois 25 today would not remember a
time before that.
So let's take a step back andsee what the UN has delivered
(20:06):
over its 80 years of existence.
Of course, we need a differentUN, of course, we need a reset.
Of course, we need the youngvoices at the table.
But don't throw the baby outwith bath water.
SPEAKER_03 (20:19):
What kind of reset would you like to see then?
Where should the UN be going?
SPEAKER_04 (20:23):
We have to find a way for the UN to represent more
of the voices of people directlyconcerned.
It's just not the right answeranymore.
To have all these men in darksuits in conference rooms
deciding on the future ofhumanity is just not satisfying.
And the young people won'taccept it anymore.
So we need a UN that manages tobe much more inclusive.
(20:46):
Frankly, the way we should go isthat is not being stuck in the
past and looking at what we canfix from what the UN was, but to
really look at what we need theUN to do in 10, 20 years.
To a certain extent, theSecretary General has already
pushed it in the direction oflooking at the international
governance of AI, looking atclimate change and so on.
(21:09):
We have to identify those areaswhere it can make a positive
difference now and in 10 yearsand in 20 years, rather than
being stuck in what it did inthe past and what it didn't do
in the past.
And I'm worried that the reformand the all the discussions
around UNAT is about fixing theUN and not reinventing it for
(21:31):
the future.
SPEAKER_03 (21:31):
Well, before we go quite onto the future, I did a
bit of digging when Corin madethat point to me about the
eradication of smallpox.
Danny, do you know how manypeople died of smallpox in the
20th century?
SPEAKER_07 (21:46):
No, I have no idea.
Sorry.
SPEAKER_03 (21:49):
300 million.
Far more than the first andsecond world wars combined.
And do you know who proposed tothe United Nations that we
should get together and try anderadicate smallpox?
SPEAKER_07 (22:02):
I would guess someone in the United States,
but I'm probably wrong.
SPEAKER_03 (22:07):
It was actually the Soviet Union.
It was the Soviet Union.
Now, whatever people might havethought about the Soviet Union
then or Russia now, becausethere are plenty of bad guys
around.
Let's keep in mind that whenpeople work together, they can
achieve great things.
And I think that is is maybe themessage for the United Nations.
(22:29):
What about Corinne's point aboutthe reset?
SPEAKER_07 (22:32):
I I think that's difficult to say the least.
When the League of Nationsstopped, the United Nations was
already in the process ofstarting.
So there was an organization tofollow that which was closing.
If the UN closes or if itcontinues to be stagnating, no
one's talking really aboutsomething new.
(22:54):
That's why I raised in thebeginning whether the UN needs
Botox or cosmetic surgery or aheart operation.
And I don't think that we need atotally different organization.
I think we're in a specifictimeframe.
And I do think the presidency ofDonald Trump has an influence on
(23:15):
multilateralism and the UnitedNations.
That may be only a blip inhistory, and that could change
in a small number amount oftime.
SPEAKER_03 (23:24):
Could do.
But I see, and I think Corinnehas also made this point that
just at the point that theUnited Nations is is turning 80,
and there should rightly bereflection.
We've heard some of it allalready about how it can
function more inclusively, moreequitably, it's faced with
swinging financial cuts.
(23:46):
And that in a way the wholefocus seems to be not let's
build a UN really fit for futurechallenges, but uh let's adapt
the UN to cope with these cuts.
There should be more vision, Ithink.
But I wanted to hear from PratitSingh, of course, the youngest
person on our panel, what hethinks.
(24:08):
And I know we've said let's talkabout the successes and so on,
but the fact is, young peoplecan't be very optimistic when
they look around at the worldwe're in with these conflicts,
with the superpowers facing off,sidelining the body that again
should be there to try and keepthe peace or at least provide a
(24:30):
forum for peaceful diplomacy.
Take a listen to him, Danny,because you know he reflects the
worry of the younger generation.
SPEAKER_00 (24:38):
With the repeated cycles of conflict, with the
threat of climate change, uh,with what we call a polycrisis,
and added to that is this timeof radical uncertainty, wherein
we do not know what comes next.
It is definitely, you know, ananxious time, a scary time for
young people, primarily emergingfrom, firstly, the lack of
(25:00):
accountability of states toengage in conflict whenever they
want, bypassing the framework ofinternational law.
There was still so much of trustin the idea that, you know,
there is a form of internationallaw, international norm and
order.
We see that being floutedpractically every month now or
every day, wouldn't be wrong tosay.
That is definitely, you know,something very scary to think
(25:22):
about, growing in an era notonly of uncertainty where we do
not know what state would it be,which will flout the
international system and thentry to justify it, but also of
the idea of the future directlybeing at stake with challenges
like climate change and thesucceeding failures of
negotiations like the COP allthe way exacerbate this anxiety,
(25:44):
this scare of accountability ofthe direct future that I'm
walking into as a young person.
And here's where my push toaccount for the voices of young
people.
I think the UN has a big role inaccounting for these voices
because our futures are directlyat stake.
SPEAKER_03 (26:01):
I find it saddening actually as somebody who's I've
had my youth.
And okay, it wasn't necessarilyeasy when I was growing up.
It was the tail end of the ColdWar.
I used to get very frightenedabout the possibility of a
nuclear war.
But he's talking about apolycrisis, conflict, the
climate crisis.
Can we reassure the youngergeneration?
SPEAKER_07 (26:23):
Well, I don't know if our role is to reassure.
One of the things I do note isthat the younger generation is
very tuned in to technology, beit internet, etc.
And the question ismultilateralism deals mostly
with states.
And states and statebureaucracies are much slower.
(26:44):
So how can a bureaucracy likethe United Nations adapt to a
world where there is anacceleration of time?
And one of the questions beingraised is artificial
intelligence.
What can the United Nations doabout something like that?
It's moving at such a rapidpace, and the treaties that the
(27:04):
UN signs take years and years tocome.
So I think there's a differenceamong the young people, more
attuned to the private, moreattuned to things that happen
quickly, whereas the UNmultilateralism state system
seems to be very dusty and slow.
SPEAKER_03 (27:22):
But if you listen to Pratit, he is invested in the
multilateral effort.
He's just frustrated that thepeople who are kind of working
in multilateralism, I mean he'sstill a young guy, are not
fulfilling those goals.
SPEAKER_07 (27:39):
That's right.
And and I think there the systemneeds serious cosmetic surgery.
Uh but the question is how?
SPEAKER_03 (27:47):
What are concretely the solutions for the future,
particularly as we begin to seea certain amount of
disengagement from the UnitedNations.
First off, let's go back toFuad, see what he has to say.
SPEAKER_05 (28:03):
Under the UN Charter, P5 permanent members of
the Security Council havespecial responsibilities when it
comes to international peace andsecurity.
But I don't think that thedrafters of the UN Charter
actually contemplated thesituations that we are facing
increasingly.
Basically, one of the permanentmembers being actually a party
(28:28):
to the conflict or being a closeally of a party to conflict and
paralyzing the whole process.
SPEAKER_03 (28:37):
How can the UN, though, realistically continue
doing anything significant thenif the Security Council is
paralyzed?
SPEAKER_05 (28:47):
When it comes to mistrust of multilateralism,
it's very easy to understand,right?
So we have all beendisappointed.
But I think it's very importantto contextualize some of the
problems that we have beenfacing lately and look at uh
maybe history in a long-termperspective.
(29:09):
You know, just because thesethings are happening or have
been happening the last fewyears doesn't necessarily mean
that they are unavoidable andthe future cannot be different.
I mean, we can just putourselves into the shoes of the
drafters of the UN Charter.
Let's not forget that the UNCharter was drafted when the war
(29:31):
was still not over, right?
So I don't know what theirmindset was back then.
I assume they were hopeful thatthe war would be won and um the
future would be would bedifferent.
So I think it is important tohave, especially in difficult
circumstances of that kind, it'simportant to keep our optimism
(29:52):
and maybe realize that the yuanis what we make of it, right?
SPEAKER_03 (29:58):
He made some interesting points there.
For me, Danny, because heidentified what you and I have
talked about so often, theparalysis inside the Security
Council that the people whocreated the UN didn't really
imagine necessarily the UnitedStates, Russia, and China
vetoing each other.
But he also made a moreoptimistic point that what they
(30:21):
created was something brand new,creative, aspirational,
inspirational.
And he's thinking we could dothat with the United Nations
now.
SPEAKER_07 (30:32):
I think two things have to happen, Imogen.
The first is to remember thatthe UN was started right after
the Second World War.
So behind all of the notion ofcooperation was what would
happen if we don't cooperate.
If we look at COVID, if we lookat a potential climate disaster,
(30:53):
people are going to be forced tocooperate.
And I think that's something weshould never forget.
The second thing is the questionof charisma.
I think if we have a newSecretary General coming up who
somehow restores a moral compassto the office of the Secretary
General, I think people may bemore willing to cooperate
(31:15):
because they see it's ineveryone's interest.
SPEAKER_03 (31:17):
Well, how do you feel about the current Secretary
General?
I mean, the current SecretaryGeneral does have a moral
compass.
SPEAKER_07 (31:23):
Well, he may have it, but the question is how many
people are using it.
It's a little bit like the Pope.
They have no army.
And the question also is, ofcourse, Donald Trump.
It's not simple for the head ofthe UN or any organization to
function when someone's cuttingtheir budget and seems to be
doing everything against them.
(31:45):
And I think perhaps with adifferent Secretary General,
with a different President ofthe United States, there might
be a change in the future.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_03 (31:53):
There could be.
I mean, I think the UN SecretaryGeneral, the UN is always
powered or not powered, by thecommitment of powerful nation
states.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_07 (32:04):
The infamous comment is there's a secretary but no
general.
So the question, of course,comes in: do the states have the
political will?
And there I come back to somekind of catastrophe, COVID, or
climate that people are going tohave to understand.
But I do think people make adifference.
I come back to Greta and howmany people became engaged with
(32:25):
climate issues because of her.
SPEAKER_03 (32:27):
Well, let's hear again from Corinne, because we
talked about a couple of thingsthere.
The fact that there is going tobe a new UN Secretary General in
2026, at the same time as we seea disengagement from, in
particular, the United States,from at the moment, some UN
(32:48):
bodies.
I'm thinking the World HealthOrganization, UN Human Rights
Council.
I wanted to see what Corinne,with her long experience of the
UN, had to say about that.
SPEAKER_04 (33:00):
Listen, WHO exists without the United States.
UNESCO has survived alreadytwice before without the United
States.
So the answer, yes, it could,but it just won't be the same.
And here in Geneva, we have seenthe difference when the US
engages, for instance, in theHuman Rights Council, or when it
doesn't.
(33:21):
And you can go much further whenthe US is positively engaged
than you could go without it.
But we can survive.
The organization can survivewithout it and will.
Those agencies that the US hasquit will survive because they
are indispensable.
SPEAKER_03 (33:36):
We are going to have a new Secretary General next
year.
Any advice for her or him?
SPEAKER_04 (33:42):
That's a tough one.
I want to reflect carefully onwhat the advice, because I mean
that sounds very presumptuous ofme to give advice to the new
Secretary General.
But I would say make sure tochange the composition of the UN
system in a way that youngpeople are inside the system and
not on the margins.
(34:03):
Imagine today of the whole UNsystem, all the agencies
together, only 3% of peopleemployed by this system are
younger than 30.
Half of the world is youngerthan 30.
And there's a big disconnectthere.
So a new Secretary Generalshould fix that disconnect.
SPEAKER_03 (34:19):
So that's her repeated message
inclusivity, more young people.
You want more charisma from theUN Secretary General and more
visible moral backbone.
I think we we perhaps all goalong with that.
But what about, just before wego to for some final comments to
Pratit, what about thepossibility that the United
(34:42):
States could actually leave?
Do you see that as realistic?
SPEAKER_07 (34:47):
I mean, realistic.
It hasn't paid and probablywon't pay for 2024 and 2025.
It got out of certainorganizations, has threatened
others.
The question is, as forSwitzerland and the rest of the
world, Europe included, how doyou disengage from the United
States?
I see the European Union incertain ways is doing that.
(35:10):
And the question is, the worldneeds a universal organization
because today we live in complexinterdependence.
So if the United States wants tobe isolationist, the rest of the
world probably has to cooperatein one way or another, whether
they're small regionalorganizations, but and the
universal one is in everyone'sinterest.
(35:33):
If the United States doesn'twant to be there, the game has
to go on.
SPEAKER_03 (35:37):
As you say, the US hasn't paid its dues.
Should it get to keep its placeon the Security Council when
it's not even paying its dues?
Because I think that's the onething the United States wouldn't
want to walk away from is itsveto on the on the Security
Council.
SPEAKER_07 (35:52):
Another possibility would moving the UN and the
Security Council out of NewYork.
Why should it still be there andthe organizations not paying?
And those are really interestingquestions, and I think they
should be raised.
We see other countries areproposing to take some of the
organizations in Geneva to bebased there.
(36:13):
Maybe to take it out of New Yorkwould be a proposal as well.
SPEAKER_03 (36:16):
Very interesting point.
I mean, we are seeing that inGeneva that some of the uh
humanitarian agencies will bemoving some of their offices to
the global south, which umalthough I know that there's a
lot of wailing and gnashing ofteeth in Geneva and some people
are losing their jobs, which isalways a tragedy, I still think
that the global south, as Pratithas said to us, needs more
(36:41):
representation.
And why shouldn't there be moreUN bodies with their
headquarters in Africa, on theIndian subcontinent, in
Southeast Asia, and make it uh,you know, a body that's properly
reflective of the world we livein.
And on that note, final wordsfrom Pratit.
I asked him how he would sellthe United Nations to his
(37:04):
friends, his relatives, peoplehe might meet over over a coffee
back home in India.
SPEAKER_00 (37:10):
I would sell the UN, telling them that their stories
have a space in developingsolutions to the crises that we
face.
So people, when I talk to peoplewho are based in India, some of
them, my very own friends, theyare at the forefront of climate
activism while going about theirdaily lives.
And my idea to them isdefinitely that their stories
(37:32):
are something that can create adifference.
Their lived experiences can beincorporated within the
multilateral system.
But then again, I'm very mindfulthat it's a two-way street.
As much as their stories andtheir practical actions around
their day-to-day lives can makea difference in the multilateral
system and in developingsolutions towards some of the
crises, the multilateral systemneeds to be receptive towards
(37:55):
these stories and livedexperiences.
And I think that's where theidea of confidence in such a
system comes from, is that if atthis moment we have to reimagine
the UN and reimaginemultilateralism, we have to
bring it in from the point ofconfidence.
And this confidence only comesonce we account for lived
realities of people, once weaccount for lived experiences
(38:15):
from the global south, and thatis when we can revitalize the
trust and confidence that isneeded for the future of the UN.
SPEAKER_03 (38:21):
I thought he made a lot of good points.
Re-inspire confidence in the UN,particularly among younger
people, and they will bring itback to the United Nations.
That inspires me.
What about you, Danny?
SPEAKER_07 (38:37):
Well, I mean, I think there's a huge
generational problem here.
I was raised with the model UN,Adley Stevenson is the American
ambassador, and it was somethingthat we accepted and look
forward to.
Why don't we have more youngpeople involved in the UN?
And I think there has to be agenerational shift.
(38:59):
It's embarrassing to see the twocandidates to run for president
of the United States over 70years old.
So the young people, most ofthem or many of them, are going
into the private sector.
So we have to give a wholedifferent perspective of what it
means to work for the commongood, to work for the community
instead of just individuals.
(39:19):
And that's why I think people,new Secretary General, a
different kind of leadership isneeded.
And I think people like Biden,Trump, and all of that age
group, uh, we've been there,we've done what we could, but
it's time for a next generationto come through.
SPEAKER_03 (39:35):
Well, I would support that, but I would also
say to the skeptics 300 millionpeople dead of smallpox in the
20th century.
And the world's Cold Warwarriors got together and said,
let's eradicate it.
And they did.
That's what you get when youwork together, that's what you
(39:56):
get when you invest in the ideaof the United Nations.
So let's just say happybirthday, UN.
Time for a long, hard look inthe mirror, time to open some
doors.
But as one uh US diplomatskeptical of the United Nations
said to me, if it didn't exist,we'd still have to invent it.
(40:37):
What do you think about theUnited Nations at 80?
What should it do to remainrelevant and useful in a very
insecure world?
Write to us at insidegeneva atswissinfo.ch to let us know.
And join us next time on InsideGeneva, where we'll be exploring
the 21st century implications ofthat old saying, in war, truth
(41:02):
is the first casualty.
We'll be looking at thechallenges of reporting what's
really happening in today'sconflicts.
Challenges faced not just byjournalists, but by aid workers
too.
That's out on the 11th ofNovember.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
(41:31):
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.
I'm Imogen folks.
(41:52):
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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.