April 14, 2026 • 39 mins
On Inside Geneva this week, we ask: in a world of violent conflict, is the UN – which was founded to keep the peace – doing its job?
“On many fronts the UN is doing indispensable work every day, bringing food to hungry people and ensuring practical standards for how we cooperate on the planet. Most countries follow the UN’s rules and principles on an everyday basis, so not too bad. [Former UN Secretary-General] Dag Hammarskjöld said that the UN was not made to take us to heaven, but to prevent us from going to hell, and that’s still true: after 1945 there have been no new world wars,” says Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide.
But with the big powers causing conflict, does the UN need a different structure?
“It’s worth remembering that when the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, 50 countries were present at the table, and today there are 193 member states. So almost three‑quarters of the UN’s membership have not had a say in the rules of the game that they are now bound by, and they are very frustrated by that lack of voice and representation,” says Heba Aly, director of Article 109.
Can a new, reformed UN restore some peace in the world before it’s too late?
“History shows that after every severe crisis we come together and try to create a better system, which is what happened after the two world wars. First we had the not‑so‑successful attempt of the League of Nations, but then the much more successful UN, learning from what had gone wrong with the League of Nations. I hope we don’t need to relearn this through a third world war or anything like that,” says Eide.
“For the UN overall, I think it’s going to go through a very difficult and dark period. You know, sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom. I hope that, coming out of that, we can emerge with a new global social contract. And if that difficult period leads us to something better, then that is something worth fighting for,” says Aly.
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
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_03 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
A key bridge in Iran severed byU.S.
(00:27):
airstrikes.
SPEAKER_04 (00:28):
We're going to hit them extremely hard over the
next two to three weeks.
We're going to bring them backto the stone ages where they
belong.
SPEAKER_01 (00:36):
The UN Charter provides the foundation for the
maintenance of internationalpeace and security.
All members shall refrain intheir international relations
from the threat or use of forceagainst the territorial
integrity or politicalindependence of any state.
International law andinternational humanitarian law
(00:58):
must always be respected.
That is why, since this morning,I have condemned the massive
military strikes by the UnitedStates and Israel against Iran.
And I also condemn thesubsequent attacks by Iran,
violating the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of
Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United
(01:21):
Arab Emirates.
SPEAKER_00 (01:38):
I hope we don't need to relearn this through the
Third World War or anything likethat.
SPEAKER_02 (01:43):
For the UN overall, I think it's going to go through
a very difficult and darkperiod.
You know, sometimes you justhave to hit rock bottom.
I hope that coming out of that,we can emerge with a new global
social contract.
And if that difficult periodleads us to something better,
then that's something worthfighting for.
SPEAKER_03 (02:07):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks, and in today'sprogram, as the selection
process for a new United NationsSecretary General gets underway,
we ask a senior diplomat and aUN expert, what's the point?
SPEAKER_00 (02:23):
On many fronts, the UN is doing an indispensable
work every day, you know,bringing food to hungry people,
ensuring practical standards ofhow we cooperate on the planet.
And you know, most countriesfollow the UN rules and
principles on an everyday basis,so not too bad.
You know, Doug Hamaschol saidthat the UN was not made to take
us to heaven but to prevent usfrom going to hell.
(02:44):
And I mean that's still it, youknow, after 1945, there's been
no new world wars.
SPEAKER_02 (02:50):
It's worth remembering that when the UN
charter was adopted in 1945, 50countries were present at the
table, and today there are 193member states.
So almost three-quarters of theUN's membership has not had a
say in the rules of the gamethat they are now bound by, and
are very frustrated by that lackof voice and representation.
SPEAKER_05 (03:10):
The signing is done.
The great charter is completed.
This draft of mankind's deepesthopes already a historic
document, perhaps the magnacarter of peace-loving humanity
itself.
SPEAKER_03 (03:21):
The UN was founded after the Second World War, and
one of the most importantelements in the UN Charter is
the aim to keep the peace, toprevent the horrors of that war
ever happening again.
So how's that working out?
Every day we seem to wake up toa new conflict driven by
power-hungry leaders who appearto care little, if at all, for
(03:45):
international law or for thelives they are destroying.
Where has the UN been in theefforts to resolve these
conflicts?
Nowhere.
Not consulted, completelysidelined.
Meanwhile, the UN's humanitarianarm, the aid agencies based here
in Geneva, find themselvesstruggling to ease the pain of
(04:07):
more and more civilians caughtup in more and more violence
with less and less money.
So does the UN even have afuture?
Today we'll talk first toNorway's Foreign Minister Esben
Bart Eider, who came into ourinside Geneva studio to remind
us that while we might focus onthe big B centers like the US,
(04:30):
Russia or China on the UNSecurity Council, the UN in fact
has 193 member states, and manyof them remain committed to the
organization.
Still, when I asked him how hesees the UN now, he wasn't able
to give it a completely cleanbill of health.
SPEAKER_00 (04:51):
Well, it depends, you know, you have to reflect on
that question.
I mean, then on many fronts, theUN is doing an indispensable
work every day, you know,bringing food to hungry people,
ensuring uh standard, practicalstandards of how we cooperate on
the planet.
And, you know, most countriesfollow the UN rules and
principles on an everyday basis,so not too bad.
But on the other hand, we haveseen the Security Council that
(05:14):
is unable to stop some of thelargest conflicts in the world,
take for instance Ukraine.
Four years on after thefull-scale invasion, there's
still a veto power that isblocking any meaningful
resolution of that conflict.
So it's uh it's a mixed bag.
You know, Doug Hamaschol saidthat the UN was not made to take
us to heaven but to prevent usfrom going to hell.
And I mean that's still after1945.
(05:35):
There's been no new world wars.
There's been relatively few warsbetween states, which was
exactly what they set up toensure that's something to
celebrate.
The war in Ukraine, uh, Russianaggression is an exception from
that principle.
But generally that has worked.
But we've seen too many otherproblems come up which we have
been struggling to deal with.
So the UN is indispensable, butit can also become better.
SPEAKER_03 (05:58):
Do you think, as some would say, that it really
has failed, for example, inconflict prevention and
resolution, or is behind thataccusation of failure more of a
kind of ideological objection tomultilateralism?
SPEAKER_00 (06:15):
Well, you know, the UN is at least uh two sets of
things.
I mean, it's the UN organizationand all the agencies, funds and
programs, and then it's theintergovernmental bodies,
including the Security Council.
And the main reason that we'renot solving the most difficult
conflicts is that uh one or moreof the permanent members of the
Security Council are vetoing.
And that sometimes it's theRussia and Federation, sometimes
(06:37):
it's the US.
So they're basically the twomain veto powers, but uh others
also occasionally have usedvetoes.
So that's not something you canblame the organization for.
That's not the SecretaryGeneral's fault, or any of the
heads of ages or all the goodemployees out there.
That's that's the member statesthat are able to agree.
Then uh of course, there's alsothings to say about the
(06:58):
organization because we've grownour United Nations, which we the
member states own.
It's grown into a flatoria of uhmany agencies, funds, and
programs, and maybe a little bittoo many, which means that there
are many people in headquarters,uh, and some of those resources
could be used in the field.
So now at uh 80 years on or 81years on uh this summer, the UN
(07:21):
is well advised to take stock ofwhether the way we organize this
world organization is optimal,and I think there is room for
improvement.
But the essential principlesthat the UN is based on they
came out of the hard lessons ofthe two world wars and the
depression of the interwaryears, and fascism and Nazism
and Holocaust and the nuclear,the first use of nuclear
(07:44):
weapons.
So the people who set up the UNwere not the Rossi idealists,
they were people who reallyunderstood that the world can be
a terrible place, and we need tohave some shared norms.
And I would I would verystrongly argue that uh the world
has did become a better placeafter 1945.
Uh, less wars, less money spenton uh armaments, and more
capacity for uh globaldevelopment.
(08:05):
We also saw the decolonizationyears where the principle of
human rights and the principleof sovereign equality led to
many new states where it used tobe former colonies.
So that's again something tocelebrate.
SPEAKER_03 (08:16):
So you're talking about the need for reform.
I have talked to some people whosay this UN 80 that that is
being talked about that's comingfrom the Secretary General, is
just not enough.
It's mainly a cost-cuttingexercise.
And that there needs to be amuch more radical rethink of how
the United Nations works.
You mentioned uh countries thatweren't even there at the the
(08:39):
start of the UN because theywere colonies.
Can you envisage something whichis which is somehow much more
inclusive?
SPEAKER_00 (08:45):
So I think the the Secretary General and the Deputy
Secretary General are doing asgood as they can given their
mandates, because they are,after all, secretaries of the
organization.
It's we, the member states, whohave to take the real lead on
this.
And I very much belong to thosecountries who think that
precisely because we like theUN, precisely because we want a
strong UN, we need to take alead looking for how we can make
(09:09):
the organization leaner and moreeffective.
And I think uh yes, I think weneed an even tougher approach to
the number of agencies, funds,and programs, not because we
shall stop doing things, butbecause we want to do things in
a more cost-effective manner.
It's not only about savings,it's also ensuring that what at
the end of the day aretaxpayers' money is are used as
effectively as possible.
(09:30):
And that could include uh anacceptance that sometimes the UN
maybe is best at setting normsand standards and not
necessarily always being the onethat shall do the delivery, for
instance, and see if deliverycan be delegated, allow other
organizations to do more of thefield work, but then retaining
the role of uh of ensuringcommon standards, common
principles, and and overallcoordination.
SPEAKER_03 (09:52):
But the thing is, you know, you're in Geneva right
now, uh um, which is the headthe humanitarian headquarters of
the United Nations, and a lot ofthese aid workers that I see
every day will just bang theirheads against the wall and say,
guys, we'll cut back when youguys do something about conflict
prevention and resolution,because there are just more
needs all the time.
SPEAKER_00 (10:12):
Absolutely.
No, that's absolutely true.
And I think the the the mainreason that things are getting
more difficult is that uh toomany states, although I said and
I I withhold that most statesapply almost all the rules
almost all the time.
That's good, but there are toomany states who are not
respecting the core principlesand violating some of the
(10:34):
essential uh foundations of theUN.
And that's uh creates costs, ofcourse.
I mean, it creates costs inhuman lives, but also uh it
makes it more expensive to lookafter what happens next.
Because if countries actuallylistened to the charter, meaning
that they did not invade othercountries, that they promoted
and respected human rights sothat you would have less
internal conflicts andcollaborated on solving
(10:56):
everything from economicdevelopment to health and
climate, we there will simply beless reason to quarrel.
So basically, it's memberstates' failure to do so that
creates many of the problems.
Sometimes that is not byintention but by lack of
capacity, which means we alsoneed to help build capacity to
deliver.
But sometimes it's intentional,and what we are sadly seeing is
(11:20):
that after a few decades afterthe Cold War, a few decades
after the Cold War, we sawappear a time where a local
conflict was allowed to be alocal conflict and we could
solve it locally.
Now we are again in an era whereany local or national conflict
in some country is also beingtrapped into a more sort of
(11:42):
regional or global powerdynamic, which tends to make it
more difficult.
SPEAKER_03 (11:46):
Does it ever make you frustrated that you're, you
know, you're from a nice, mild,rule-abiding country, Norway,
you're sitting in another one,Switzerland, by and large, and
yet these big guys are justripping up the rule book.
I mean, do you have anyinfluence on them?
SPEAKER_00 (12:04):
Well, I think so because I mean uh Norway and
Switzerland alone have some butlimited influence.
But when many countries worktogether, and this is very much
what uh you know, in the nowfamous uh speech of Mark Carney
in Davos, you know, that middlepowers have to rise to the
occasion.
And the majority of us stillbelieves that the rules-based
order is good for us.
(12:24):
And frankly, we think it's goodfor everybody, because the law
of the jungle is actually notgood for anyone in the long run.
It might look attractive for agreat power as long as they're
great, but uh history has shownthat uh what's the great power
can change and then you'll bechallenged and so on.
So, so you know, I think if someof the big guys, as you refer
to, are becoming lessresponsible, the rest of us have
(12:45):
to take more responsibility andtry to find common common ground
that goes for the UN.
It also goes for uh goes foradjacent organizations like the
WTO, the World TradeOrganization.
There's a lot of focus on trade.
So there's a tendency to look ateverything that goes bad, but uh
that's why I remind everyonethat uh you know most countries
actually think that therules-based order is good for us
(13:06):
and can be saved.
SPEAKER_03 (13:08):
Well, fingers crossed.
Um we're gonna have a new UNSecretary General.
We've got the the selectionprocess coming up in the next
few months.
I mean, this is gonna be areally challenging job, isn't
it, for whoever gets it.
SPEAKER_00 (13:24):
Absolutely.
It's I think there's never beena time where the role of
Secretary General has been easy.
I think uh anybody who triedthat would agree, but I think
it's particularly challenging.
I think it's already challengingfor Antonio Guterres, whom I've
also had the pleasure of servingbecause I was also been in the
UN.
But uh I think we this time itwill be a hard one, which is but
(13:45):
I think that also means thatthere is an understanding that
we need a strong and experiencedSecretary General and somebody
who is able to deal with whatmost of us see as uh the core
business of the UN.
I'm not gonna uh say anythingabout who that should be right
now, but we we need to have agood transparent process and
take it um forward in uh in away that is as transparent and
(14:06):
as inclusive as possible.
SPEAKER_03 (14:07):
Okay, last question then just take the risk of
looking into the future a littlebit for me.
You said that Doug Hamskott saidthat you the UN is not supposed
to take us to heaven, but it'sto stop us descending into hell.
I have to say, some people thinkthat's exactly where we're
going.
Um do you how do you see the UNten years from now?
(14:30):
You see it thriving?
Is this going to be a struggle?
SPEAKER_00 (14:33):
I I definitely think it's here.
I mean the UN is around in 10years and in 20 years and in 30
years too.
Uh I hope it's a good UN and Ithink that if we are able to
manage these years that we'reliving in now in the in a good
manner, where we recommit to theprinciple, but also demonstrate
willingness to uh to be creativeand and to kill some darlings
and you know be able tostreamline and focus and
(14:56):
prioritize.
I think we could have a strongerUN.
You know, the history is thatevery after every severe crisis
we come together and try to makea better system, which is what
happened after the two worldwars.
With the you know, first theyhad the not so successful uh
attempt of the League ofNations, but then the much more
successful UN, also learningfrom what was wrong with the
(15:17):
League of Nations.
I hope we don't need to relearnthis through you know a third
world war or anything like that.
And I actually think thatthere's a lot of people who draw
parallels from what we're seeingnow to what people experienced
in the 30s, and and there aresome parallels which are
historically interesting, and asMark Twain said, history does
not repeat itself but it tendsto rhyme.
(15:38):
But our benefit is that we'veseen this film before and we
didn't like the ending, so uhthere's also serious reason to
think that uh smart people willprevail, and the idea that we
need a global order that we canshare still matters.
Actually, we need it more thanever.
I think the pandemic showed usthat it was a very dramatic uh
global health crisis, but youknow, we were also able to solve
(16:01):
it within a few years, uh,thanks to good research on on uh
on generic vaccines, which thatcould then be adapted to what
was happening, and thanks to astrong World Health
Organization, for instance.
And you know, any anybody whoargues that I will fix my own
health in my own country to justlook at the experiences from
that is likewise climate.
Climate and nature crisis areshared problems.
(16:24):
There is nobody has their ownclimate, we need to solve them
together.
But I think also that insighthas actually led us to being in
a not where we should be, but ina much better space than we were
before Paris.
And the projections of globalwarming are too high, but much
lower than before 2015 and theParis Agreement.
So these processes and and evenChina now starts cutting.
(16:46):
I mean, emissions are down, notup in China, even if
productivity continues to grow.
Why?
Because they've investedmassively in renewable energy,
and and I think you know itdemonstrates that change to the
better can actually happen.
SPEAKER_03 (17:04):
Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Bart Eda there
expressing hope for the futureof a reformed United Nations,
but also fear that we might beclose to having to endure a
world war again before werealize the UN's value.
And that interview, like ournext one, was in fact recorded
(17:26):
before the US and Israelattacked Iran.
To me, listening again, Mr.
Ida's fears sound uncannilyprescient.
But while, as Norway and manyother countries hope the UN has
a future, they also think itmust reform and be more
streamlined, more effective, andabove all more reflective of its
(17:49):
193 member states, not just thesuperpowers on the Security
Council.
Our next guest agrees that theUN, whose charter and structure
are virtually unchanged since1945, can only survive if it
undertakes radical review andreform.
SPEAKER_02 (18:09):
My name is Heba Ali, and I'm the director of a new
coalition called Article 109that mobilizes governments to
try to update the UN Charter.
SPEAKER_03 (18:18):
So we might be at the headquarters of the United
Nations in Europe, but I stillthink quite a few of our
listeners don't really know whatArticle 109 is.
So let's start with that.
What is it?
SPEAKER_02 (18:29):
They're not alone.
Uh I think many people haven'tread that far into the founding
document of our internationalrelations, but Article 109 is a
provision in the charter thatallows for a review to take
place and for the rules of theUN to be updated.
And it was both a concession in1945 to the many countries who,
(18:51):
upon being invited to or sign upto this new organization, were
opposed to the idea of fivecountries, the permanent members
of the Security Council, havinga veto.
And so they were promised justsign up for now, and within 10
years we will revisit the thisarchitecture and this
distribution of power.
But it was also a recognitionthat this new international
(19:13):
organization would evolve overtime and that as they learned
from experience, they would needto update it.
SPEAKER_03 (19:20):
So let's just remind ourselves the UN Charter has
some good stuff in it, but youthink it's neat in it needs a
changing and that a discussionof that change should have
happened ages ago and hasn't.
SPEAKER_02 (19:33):
In line with the Charter itself should have
happened 70 years ago andhasn't.
Uh yeah, of course it has goodthings in it.
And I think the reason that manyof us are doing this work is is
that we believe in the UN andthe principles of the UN and
want to safeguard and protectthem.
But I believe, and many others II think agree that the best way
to do so is to renew andrevitalize the UN for the
(19:55):
future, and that by trying tohang on to the past, we're
actually going to accelerate theUN's decline and likely move it
into a state of of irrelevanceor total collapses, is the
current trajectory.
SPEAKER_03 (20:07):
So most companies, for example, would have a
strategy review every five orten years.
Governments also have policyreviews.
What is it that stopped theUnited Nations doing this?
SPEAKER_02 (20:21):
In the words of one former UN Under Secretary
General, the UN has alwaysfeared that change could lead to
something worse.
And therefore they hang on towhat they have and they slide
further and further intoirrelevance.
I think in the current context,that fear is very legitimate
that if you reopen such animportant set of norms, given
(20:45):
the polarization, given the moveaway from uh respect for human
rights and international law,that you could this is the fear,
end up with something worse.
And I think that is what hasheld certain countries back.
Others are worried that thepowerful will always impose
their will.
And so what's the point ofreform if anyway, you know, this
(21:08):
has to, in order for changes totake effect, they need to be
agreed by the P5, the fivepermanent members of the
Security Council.
And so there's a certainhopelessness that, you know, we
can't do anything because it allalways run up against that that
challenge, which I don't thinkis fully true.
SPEAKER_03 (21:23):
Let's just go back to that point you made that
things have to get through theP5.
Because although Article 109,this review has never happened,
there have been attempts toreform, particularly the UN
Security Council.
The Swiss tried it more than adecade ago.
It failed because of theresistance from the P5.
(21:46):
So it's it's kind ofunderstandable, isn't it, if
member states are thinking, justopening a can of worms.
SPEAKER_02 (21:52):
Absolutely, it's understandable.
I think the question is what'sthe alternative?
And the alternative right now isas we've seen and as you've
discussed.
This podcast, creation ofparallel structures, because
people think the UN isirrelevant.
So they go off and create theBoard of Peace.
And that I think is an evenbigger threat than the kinds of
challenges that you're referringto, where yes, it's going to be
(22:14):
difficult, but at least thatleads us in a direction where
we're trying to improve auniversal, legitimate
institution rather thanabandoning it and going to other
fora.
So that I think the cost of nottrying is getting higher and
higher by the day.
We've seen presidents like uhWilliam Ruto of Kenya saying if
(22:36):
there isn't serious reform,we're gonna, he said, I'm gonna
lead a delegation of Africanstates to pull out of the United
Nations altogether.
We've seen, of course,proliferation of fora like the
BRICS and the G20 and so on.
So already we're seeing such afragmentation that if we
continue down this path, the theresult, I think, is one that the
(22:58):
vast majority of countries willnot benefit from.
So I think on the one hand, wedon't get anything if we don't
try, and the political cost ofblockage by the P5 increases the
more the rest of the worldstarts to put demands on the
table.
We've seen examples historicallywhere the P5 have eventually
made compromises.
(23:20):
But I think we're also in adifferent uh context now where
for those members of the P5 whovalue the privilege they have in
the current institution, it isin their interest to ensure that
it survives.
Because if it doesn't, if thewhole thing crumbles, then the
power they once had within theSecurity Council means nothing.
And I actually heard a formerBritish ambassador and official
(23:43):
say something to that effectquite recently that the United
States actually is going to beworse off in a world in which
the UN is completely destroyed.
So there is some self-interestnow, given the situation that
the UN is in, for the P5 to givea little in order to maintain an
institution that ultimatelyprivileges them.
SPEAKER_03 (24:03):
I think you have quite a selling job to do here,
though.
I mean, you have to think thatsome of the countries who have
some power in the United Nationsnow, particularly the United
States, but there are movementsin Britain this way as well, in
France, in the developedEuropean countries.
The phrase global governance isan anathema to them.
(24:25):
They are not interested.
They don't see the relevance ofthe United Nations.
In fact, they see it in someways as a hindrance.
So, you know, people think theydon't want global governance.
Why should they want it?
I mean, give us give ourlisteners some concrete
examples.
SPEAKER_02 (24:41):
I think we need to be careful when we talk about
the perceptions of globalgovernance because it's actually
a minority of countries thatdon't want global governance.
The vast majority of countriesdepend on a functioning
international system for theirown survival and security.
We hear that constantly inEurope, increasingly so now,
where the recent events, thethreats to annex Greenland, what
(25:05):
happened in Venezuela, aremaking it very clear that if
there is no rules-based order,so-called rules-based order, and
that comes with a lot ofwell-deserved critique, but if
there is no system in which aset of rules can be dependent
upon, they are for the taking.
And particularly small Europeancountries feel that very
strongly right now.
(25:26):
So the idea that globalgovernance is not in their
interests is laughable.
And I think most countries uhabsolutely recognize that.
The question is, how do you thenbuild support for a new vision
of global governance?
But we know that small uh LatinAmerican countries, that African
(25:47):
countries, all they all dependon a universal system in which
they can be protected and inwhich their rights vis-a-vis
more powerful countries can beguaranteed.
Does that system always workperfectly?
No.
But is it better than having thelaw of the jungle?
I think the vast majority ofcountries would tell you
absolutely yes.
(26:07):
What does that look like inpractical terms?
If you had a functional systemthat was actually able to
maintain peace and security,what would the outcome have
looked like for Gazans?
You know, if you were able tocome to a resolution at the
Security Council for a ceasefirein the early days, you would
have saved 70,000 lives.
What would that look like forUkrainians?
There are many people who aredealing with the consequences of
(26:30):
the failure of the system towork.
And for them, yes, of course,regular people don't think of
terms like global governance,but the what it actually
provides is security and safetyand a world in which we can all
thrive when it works well.
And that is not currently thecase, obviously.
SPEAKER_03 (26:47):
Well, I'm glad you you mentioned Gaza and Ukraine
because that's what I wanted toask you about.
You said it would be so muchworse if we had the law of the
jungle.
We do have the law of thejungle.
They're on the Security Council.
SPEAKER_02 (26:58):
Who's on the Security Council?
SPEAKER_03 (26:59):
The jungle lions, the beasts.
The predators.
SPEAKER_02 (27:03):
Yes.
I think that's precisely thekind of dysfunction that an
update and a review processshould seek to address.
We clearly don't have a systemtoday that is capable of
maintaining peace and security,which was the UN's founding
purpose.
So what are we doing here?
And if that is the case, whatcan we imagine that would work
better?
(27:24):
And let again, let's rememberthat in 1945, it wasn't as
though the world was in aperfectly amicable state of
affairs.
You had a world war raging, youhad a colonial power, you had
racist countries, and yet theymanaged to come up with
something that was much betterthan what they had then.
And out of that crisis emerged avision for the future that would
(27:44):
be better.
So we're in a similar situationnow where the rules of the game
are clearly crumbling around us.
And if a majority of countriescan come together and say, we
need a system that works better,here's what it could look like.
Yes, will you face resistancefrom the big powers who don't
have any interest in followingthe rules?
Of course you will.
But can you create a consensusamong a critical mass of
(28:07):
countries for a new way forward?
SPEAKER_03 (28:09):
Tell us about who's involved and how you see this.
I mean, it sounds good to me.
I'm a fan of the United Nations.
I think even Americans have saidto me, if we didn't have it,
we'd have to invent it.
So probably we should be a bitoptimistic and think this
institution is staggering, butit's not on the ropes quite yet.
(28:31):
So who's on your side and how doyou see this progressing?
SPEAKER_02 (28:35):
A number of countries have come out in favor
of a Charter Review Conference.
Among them, and the first wasBrazil, with President Lula
calling for uh invoking Article109 uh about uh a year and a
half ago in September of 2024.
He has been followed by otherheavyweights, I would say, like
South Africa and smallercountries like the Gambia,
(28:58):
Kazakhstan, who feel the systemisn't serving them well.
We recently briefed the agrouping of Caribbean
ambassadors here in Geneva, andthey immediately said, we don't
need convincing.
This makes perfect sense.
We have long complained that,and particularly for countries
hard hit by climate change, thatglobal governance on this isn't
(29:19):
just a question of peace andsecurity, but much more broadly
isn't working for them.
So there are a number ofcountries that have publicly
endorsed the idea, and thenbehind closed doors, we're in
conversations with many otherswho, yes, it takes some time to
talk through the risks and thescenarios and so on, but who are
increasingly open-minded becausethe alternative right now looks
(29:41):
so much worse.
It's worth remembering that whenthe UN charter was adopted in
1945, 50 countries were presentat the table.
And today there are 193 memberstates.
So almost three-quarters of theUN's membership has not had a
say in the rules of the gamethat they are now bound by and
are very frustrated by that lackof voice and representation.
(30:01):
So there's that alone creates acertain, you know, uh support by
by default.
We have had former leaders likeMary Robinson, the former uh
president of Ireland, formerHigh Commissioner for Human
Rights at the UN come forwardand support, uh, Helen Clark,
former Prime Minister of NewZealand, um Alexander DeCrue,
the former UNDP administrator,Gordon Brown, the former British
(30:23):
Prime Minister, is working onprinciples of a new world order.
And so there's a range of peopleout there who have come to the
conclusion that if we do nottake radical, ambitious, bold
action to reimagine thisinstitution, this might be the
end of it.
And Mark Carney's speech, theCanadian Prime Minister at uh at
the World Economic Forum inDavos, I think was a real
(30:43):
turning point in that regard insaying the world order that we
have known since World War II isover.
And by the way, it wasn't thatgreat to begin with.
It had a lot of flaws.
It was inequitable, it wasunfair and hypocritical in many
ways, and now we have anopportunity to build something
better and more just movingforward.
Emmanuel Macron of France hasmade global governance reform a
(31:05):
priority of his G7 presidency.
Even China now is leading a newinitiative on global governance.
So the recognition of theproblem is clear.
I think the next step is what isthe vision for a solution to
that problem and what is afeasible pathway to bring that
solution into being?
And we think this can be atleast one option on the table
(31:25):
for discussion.
SPEAKER_03 (31:26):
Well, it sounds great, but right now we're in a
geopolitical situation where itsuits the big powers to go for
spheres of influence.
We've heard the United Statestalk about the Western
Hemisphere.
That's ours.
China can have its bit, Russia,arguably a superpower, perhaps
not, can have its bit, whichmany in Europe fear.
(31:50):
They're getting sucked intothat.
So you talk very well, but isn'tthere a danger that the people
who are on your side, if youlike, are just going to get
marginalized by this juggernaut?
SPEAKER_02 (32:03):
What is it that allows major powers to do what
they want?
Well, I have been amazed inrecent months in seeing
countries trying to negotiateone-on-one with the world
superpower.
It's an inequitable relationshipfrom the get-go.
You have very little chance ofsuccess.
The alternative is buildingcollective power.
There are 193 members of theUnited Nations.
SPEAKER_03 (32:25):
Which is what Mark Carney kind of suggested.
Exactly.
SPEAKER_02 (32:28):
The middle powers, he puts it.
I would look to something alittle bit more inclusive that
isn't just about middle powers,but small states as well,
cross-regionally.
But there are a majority ofcountries that could come
together with a common visionaround a better way forward, and
then by coming together, havemore leverage, more negotiating
(32:49):
power against these so-calledleaders of the spheres of
influence.
So, how do you build collectivepower to be able to better
position yourself against amajor power that isn't going to
follow the rules or that wantsto pursue this route?
I don't think that going intothese tiny, mini coalitions is
(33:10):
what's going to save us.
What we need is to come togetheraround something where every
country has a seat at the table,and then you've got a different
dynamic, a different powerdynamic in particular, through
which to have these kinds ofconversations.
And I remember one country inparticular saying, you know, we
are too small to go head to headwith the US.
(33:30):
That's why we turn tomultilateralism, because there
we can, as a bloc, achievesomething that we can't in a
bilateral one-on-onerelationship.
SPEAKER_03 (33:39):
Very last question.
2026, we're going to get a newUN Secretary General later on
this year.
Well, what kind of vision areyou looking for from that
individual?
I guess you want whoever getsthe job, possibly poison
chalice, but whoever gets it toshow some real sense of purpose
for this organization to get itsrelevance back.
SPEAKER_02 (34:02):
I think what we have absolutely been lacking in the
last year or so as discussionsabout UN reform have taken place
is a vision for what role the UNshould play in the 21st century.
Everyone recognizes that thearchitecture is outdated, but we
haven't put a vision on thetable of what should replace it
or how it can be better suitedfor today.
(34:24):
So I think an USG needs to comein with a clear answer to that
question, or at least thecapacity and willingness to
corral countries in developingthat vision.
Because right now, what we'rewhat we're seeing is an
uncoordinated and unstructuredand unstrategic set of
cost-cutting exercises without adirection of where we're trying
(34:47):
to go and what I hope a charterreview process or at least
discussing a movement in thatdirection creates is an opening
for that bigger pictureconversation about what role do
we want the UN to play?
And the SG should be at theforefront of driving that.
What is that vision?
Of course, that's going to befor member states to negotiate,
(35:08):
but we have certainly laid outfive principles that we think
need to be at the core of aserious conversation about true
fundamental UN reform.
How do we ensure that the UN canplay and is empowered to play
its principal role ofmaintaining peace and security?
How do we enable the UN toaddress emerging challenges like
climate change and artificialintelligence, which are not
(35:29):
currently properly governed,fragmented governance structures
without any kind of enforcement?
How do we more equitablydistribute power among
countries?
How do we ensure and strengthenrespect for international law
and human rights?
And how do we more meaningfullyinclude non-government,
non-state actors in globalgovernance?
(35:50):
You have private sectorcompanies today that have more
power than nation states.
You have civil society movementsthat are able to create much
more change in nationalpolicies.
So we're we're just in a verydifferent world today.
And what we need, I think, froman SG is someone who can start
to position the organization inthat new landscape and then help
us move towards a reform processthat actually can deliver, allow
(36:13):
the UN to deliver for peoplearound the world.
SPEAKER_03 (36:15):
And you're hopeful?
SPEAKER_02 (36:17):
Oof.
I'm honestly I'm a bit nervousabout the SG process.
I think for for obvious reasons,as you are well aware, the the
candidate will need to be uhsigned off by by the US and
Russia in particular, and thatcreates quite a number of
constraints.
And that's one of the things Ithink that needs to change and
(36:37):
how the UN rules operate, howthe Secretary General is
selected.
For the UN overall, I think it'sgoing to go through a very
difficult and dark period.
I hope that coming out of that,you know, sometimes you just
have to hit rock bottom, thatcoming out of that we can emerge
with what I often refer to as anew global social contract.
(36:57):
And if that difficult periodleads us to something better,
then that's something worthworth fighting for.
But I I just hope to God that asthe Brazilians and South
Africans and others have said,we don't have to go through
World War III before we're readyto reimagine something more
functional for the future.
SPEAKER_03 (37:20):
Heba Ali, longtime UN analyst, now leading a
campaign to reform the UN.
Plenty of food for thought therefor whoever becomes the next UN
Secretary-General.
I talked to Heba too before thestart of the Iran conflict, and
she also, as we heard there,already shared Espen Bart Edda's
(37:43):
concerns that we might beheading irrevocably towards
another horrific world war.
We all hope that common senseand above all humanity will
prevail.
My thanks to Hebba Ali and toEspen Bart Edda for joining us
on Inside Geneva, and to you forlistening.
Join us again on April 28th forour next episode.
(38:07):
In the meantime, if there's atopic you'd like us to cover, or
questions you have onInternational Geneva, write to
us at insigeneva at Swisinfo.ch.
A reminder (38:23):
you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
(38:47):
I'm Imogen Folks.
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.
In today's program.
A key bridge in Iran severed byU.S.
(00:27):
airstrikes.
SPEAKER_04 (00:28):
We're going to hit them extremely hard over the
next two to three weeks.
We're going to bring them backto the stone ages where they
belong.
SPEAKER_01 (00:36):
The UN Charter provides the foundation for the
maintenance of internationalpeace and security.
All members shall refrain intheir international relations
from the threat or use of forceagainst the territorial
integrity or politicalindependence of any state.
International law andinternational humanitarian law
(00:58):
must always be respected.
That is why, since this morning,I have condemned the massive
military strikes by the UnitedStates and Israel against Iran.
And I also condemn thesubsequent attacks by Iran,
violating the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of
Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait,Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United
(01:21):
Arab Emirates.
SPEAKER_00 (01:38):
I hope we don't need to relearn this through the
Third World War or anything likethat.
SPEAKER_02 (01:43):
For the UN overall, I think it's going to go through
a very difficult and darkperiod.
You know, sometimes you justhave to hit rock bottom.
I hope that coming out of that,we can emerge with a new global
social contract.
And if that difficult periodleads us to something better,
then that's something worthfighting for.
SPEAKER_03 (02:07):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks, and in today'sprogram, as the selection
process for a new United NationsSecretary General gets underway,
we ask a senior diplomat and aUN expert, what's the point?
SPEAKER_00 (02:23):
On many fronts, the UN is doing an indispensable
work every day, you know,bringing food to hungry people,
ensuring practical standards ofhow we cooperate on the planet.
And you know, most countriesfollow the UN rules and
principles on an everyday basis,so not too bad.
You know, Doug Hamaschol saidthat the UN was not made to take
us to heaven but to prevent usfrom going to hell.
(02:44):
And I mean that's still it, youknow, after 1945, there's been
no new world wars.
SPEAKER_02 (02:50):
It's worth remembering that when the UN
charter was adopted in 1945, 50countries were present at the
table, and today there are 193member states.
So almost three-quarters of theUN's membership has not had a
say in the rules of the gamethat they are now bound by, and
are very frustrated by that lackof voice and representation.
SPEAKER_05 (03:10):
The signing is done.
The great charter is completed.
This draft of mankind's deepesthopes already a historic
document, perhaps the magnacarter of peace-loving humanity
itself.
SPEAKER_03 (03:21):
The UN was founded after the Second World War, and
one of the most importantelements in the UN Charter is
the aim to keep the peace, toprevent the horrors of that war
ever happening again.
So how's that working out?
Every day we seem to wake up toa new conflict driven by
power-hungry leaders who appearto care little, if at all, for
(03:45):
international law or for thelives they are destroying.
Where has the UN been in theefforts to resolve these
conflicts?
Nowhere.
Not consulted, completelysidelined.
Meanwhile, the UN's humanitarianarm, the aid agencies based here
in Geneva, find themselvesstruggling to ease the pain of
(04:07):
more and more civilians caughtup in more and more violence
with less and less money.
So does the UN even have afuture?
Today we'll talk first toNorway's Foreign Minister Esben
Bart Eider, who came into ourinside Geneva studio to remind
us that while we might focus onthe big B centers like the US,
(04:30):
Russia or China on the UNSecurity Council, the UN in fact
has 193 member states, and manyof them remain committed to the
organization.
Still, when I asked him how hesees the UN now, he wasn't able
to give it a completely cleanbill of health.
SPEAKER_00 (04:51):
Well, it depends, you know, you have to reflect on
that question.
I mean, then on many fronts, theUN is doing an indispensable
work every day, you know,bringing food to hungry people,
ensuring uh standard, practicalstandards of how we cooperate on
the planet.
And, you know, most countriesfollow the UN rules and
principles on an everyday basis,so not too bad.
But on the other hand, we haveseen the Security Council that
(05:14):
is unable to stop some of thelargest conflicts in the world,
take for instance Ukraine.
Four years on after thefull-scale invasion, there's
still a veto power that isblocking any meaningful
resolution of that conflict.
So it's uh it's a mixed bag.
You know, Doug Hamaschol saidthat the UN was not made to take
us to heaven but to prevent usfrom going to hell.
And I mean that's still after1945.
(05:35):
There's been no new world wars.
There's been relatively few warsbetween states, which was
exactly what they set up toensure that's something to
celebrate.
The war in Ukraine, uh, Russianaggression is an exception from
that principle.
But generally that has worked.
But we've seen too many otherproblems come up which we have
been struggling to deal with.
So the UN is indispensable, butit can also become better.
SPEAKER_03 (05:58):
Do you think, as some would say, that it really
has failed, for example, inconflict prevention and
resolution, or is behind thataccusation of failure more of a
kind of ideological objection tomultilateralism?
SPEAKER_00 (06:15):
Well, you know, the UN is at least uh two sets of
things.
I mean, it's the UN organizationand all the agencies, funds and
programs, and then it's theintergovernmental bodies,
including the Security Council.
And the main reason that we'renot solving the most difficult
conflicts is that uh one or moreof the permanent members of the
Security Council are vetoing.
And that sometimes it's theRussia and Federation, sometimes
(06:37):
it's the US.
So they're basically the twomain veto powers, but uh others
also occasionally have usedvetoes.
So that's not something you canblame the organization for.
That's not the SecretaryGeneral's fault, or any of the
heads of ages or all the goodemployees out there.
That's that's the member statesthat are able to agree.
Then uh of course, there's alsothings to say about the
(06:58):
organization because we've grownour United Nations, which we the
member states own.
It's grown into a flatoria of uhmany agencies, funds, and
programs, and maybe a little bittoo many, which means that there
are many people in headquarters,uh, and some of those resources
could be used in the field.
So now at uh 80 years on or 81years on uh this summer, the UN
(07:21):
is well advised to take stock ofwhether the way we organize this
world organization is optimal,and I think there is room for
improvement.
But the essential principlesthat the UN is based on they
came out of the hard lessons ofthe two world wars and the
depression of the interwaryears, and fascism and Nazism
and Holocaust and the nuclear,the first use of nuclear
(07:44):
weapons.
So the people who set up the UNwere not the Rossi idealists,
they were people who reallyunderstood that the world can be
a terrible place, and we need tohave some shared norms.
And I would I would verystrongly argue that uh the world
has did become a better placeafter 1945.
Uh, less wars, less money spenton uh armaments, and more
capacity for uh globaldevelopment.
(08:05):
We also saw the decolonizationyears where the principle of
human rights and the principleof sovereign equality led to
many new states where it used tobe former colonies.
So that's again something tocelebrate.
SPEAKER_03 (08:16):
So you're talking about the need for reform.
I have talked to some people whosay this UN 80 that that is
being talked about that's comingfrom the Secretary General, is
just not enough.
It's mainly a cost-cuttingexercise.
And that there needs to be amuch more radical rethink of how
the United Nations works.
You mentioned uh countries thatweren't even there at the the
(08:39):
start of the UN because theywere colonies.
Can you envisage something whichis which is somehow much more
inclusive?
SPEAKER_00 (08:45):
So I think the the Secretary General and the Deputy
Secretary General are doing asgood as they can given their
mandates, because they are,after all, secretaries of the
organization.
It's we, the member states, whohave to take the real lead on
this.
And I very much belong to thosecountries who think that
precisely because we like theUN, precisely because we want a
strong UN, we need to take alead looking for how we can make
(09:09):
the organization leaner and moreeffective.
And I think uh yes, I think weneed an even tougher approach to
the number of agencies, funds,and programs, not because we
shall stop doing things, butbecause we want to do things in
a more cost-effective manner.
It's not only about savings,it's also ensuring that what at
the end of the day aretaxpayers' money is are used as
effectively as possible.
(09:30):
And that could include uh anacceptance that sometimes the UN
maybe is best at setting normsand standards and not
necessarily always being the onethat shall do the delivery, for
instance, and see if deliverycan be delegated, allow other
organizations to do more of thefield work, but then retaining
the role of uh of ensuringcommon standards, common
principles, and and overallcoordination.
SPEAKER_03 (09:52):
But the thing is, you know, you're in Geneva right
now, uh um, which is the headthe humanitarian headquarters of
the United Nations, and a lot ofthese aid workers that I see
every day will just bang theirheads against the wall and say,
guys, we'll cut back when youguys do something about conflict
prevention and resolution,because there are just more
needs all the time.
SPEAKER_00 (10:12):
Absolutely.
No, that's absolutely true.
And I think the the the mainreason that things are getting
more difficult is that uh toomany states, although I said and
I I withhold that most statesapply almost all the rules
almost all the time.
That's good, but there are toomany states who are not
respecting the core principlesand violating some of the
(10:34):
essential uh foundations of theUN.
And that's uh creates costs, ofcourse.
I mean, it creates costs inhuman lives, but also uh it
makes it more expensive to lookafter what happens next.
Because if countries actuallylistened to the charter, meaning
that they did not invade othercountries, that they promoted
and respected human rights sothat you would have less
internal conflicts andcollaborated on solving
(10:56):
everything from economicdevelopment to health and
climate, we there will simply beless reason to quarrel.
So basically, it's memberstates' failure to do so that
creates many of the problems.
Sometimes that is not byintention but by lack of
capacity, which means we alsoneed to help build capacity to
deliver.
But sometimes it's intentional,and what we are sadly seeing is
(11:20):
that after a few decades afterthe Cold War, a few decades
after the Cold War, we sawappear a time where a local
conflict was allowed to be alocal conflict and we could
solve it locally.
Now we are again in an era whereany local or national conflict
in some country is also beingtrapped into a more sort of
(11:42):
regional or global powerdynamic, which tends to make it
more difficult.
SPEAKER_03 (11:46):
Does it ever make you frustrated that you're, you
know, you're from a nice, mild,rule-abiding country, Norway,
you're sitting in another one,Switzerland, by and large, and
yet these big guys are justripping up the rule book.
I mean, do you have anyinfluence on them?
SPEAKER_00 (12:04):
Well, I think so because I mean uh Norway and
Switzerland alone have some butlimited influence.
But when many countries worktogether, and this is very much
what uh you know, in the nowfamous uh speech of Mark Carney
in Davos, you know, that middlepowers have to rise to the
occasion.
And the majority of us stillbelieves that the rules-based
order is good for us.
(12:24):
And frankly, we think it's goodfor everybody, because the law
of the jungle is actually notgood for anyone in the long run.
It might look attractive for agreat power as long as they're
great, but uh history has shownthat uh what's the great power
can change and then you'll bechallenged and so on.
So, so you know, I think if someof the big guys, as you refer
to, are becoming lessresponsible, the rest of us have
(12:45):
to take more responsibility andtry to find common common ground
that goes for the UN.
It also goes for uh goes foradjacent organizations like the
WTO, the World TradeOrganization.
There's a lot of focus on trade.
So there's a tendency to look ateverything that goes bad, but uh
that's why I remind everyonethat uh you know most countries
actually think that therules-based order is good for us
(13:06):
and can be saved.
SPEAKER_03 (13:08):
Well, fingers crossed.
Um we're gonna have a new UNSecretary General.
We've got the the selectionprocess coming up in the next
few months.
I mean, this is gonna be areally challenging job, isn't
it, for whoever gets it.
SPEAKER_00 (13:24):
Absolutely.
It's I think there's never beena time where the role of
Secretary General has been easy.
I think uh anybody who triedthat would agree, but I think
it's particularly challenging.
I think it's already challengingfor Antonio Guterres, whom I've
also had the pleasure of servingbecause I was also been in the
UN.
But uh I think we this time itwill be a hard one, which is but
(13:45):
I think that also means thatthere is an understanding that
we need a strong and experiencedSecretary General and somebody
who is able to deal with whatmost of us see as uh the core
business of the UN.
I'm not gonna uh say anythingabout who that should be right
now, but we we need to have agood transparent process and
take it um forward in uh in away that is as transparent and
(14:06):
as inclusive as possible.
SPEAKER_03 (14:07):
Okay, last question then just take the risk of
looking into the future a littlebit for me.
You said that Doug Hamskott saidthat you the UN is not supposed
to take us to heaven, but it'sto stop us descending into hell.
I have to say, some people thinkthat's exactly where we're
going.
Um do you how do you see the UNten years from now?
(14:30):
You see it thriving?
Is this going to be a struggle?
SPEAKER_00 (14:33):
I I definitely think it's here.
I mean the UN is around in 10years and in 20 years and in 30
years too.
Uh I hope it's a good UN and Ithink that if we are able to
manage these years that we'reliving in now in the in a good
manner, where we recommit to theprinciple, but also demonstrate
willingness to uh to be creativeand and to kill some darlings
and you know be able tostreamline and focus and
(14:56):
prioritize.
I think we could have a strongerUN.
You know, the history is thatevery after every severe crisis
we come together and try to makea better system, which is what
happened after the two worldwars.
With the you know, first theyhad the not so successful uh
attempt of the League ofNations, but then the much more
successful UN, also learningfrom what was wrong with the
(15:17):
League of Nations.
I hope we don't need to relearnthis through you know a third
world war or anything like that.
And I actually think thatthere's a lot of people who draw
parallels from what we're seeingnow to what people experienced
in the 30s, and and there aresome parallels which are
historically interesting, and asMark Twain said, history does
not repeat itself but it tendsto rhyme.
(15:38):
But our benefit is that we'veseen this film before and we
didn't like the ending, so uhthere's also serious reason to
think that uh smart people willprevail, and the idea that we
need a global order that we canshare still matters.
Actually, we need it more thanever.
I think the pandemic showed usthat it was a very dramatic uh
global health crisis, but youknow, we were also able to solve
(16:01):
it within a few years, uh,thanks to good research on on uh
on generic vaccines, which thatcould then be adapted to what
was happening, and thanks to astrong World Health
Organization, for instance.
And you know, any anybody whoargues that I will fix my own
health in my own country to justlook at the experiences from
that is likewise climate.
Climate and nature crisis areshared problems.
(16:24):
There is nobody has their ownclimate, we need to solve them
together.
But I think also that insighthas actually led us to being in
a not where we should be, but ina much better space than we were
before Paris.
And the projections of globalwarming are too high, but much
lower than before 2015 and theParis Agreement.
So these processes and and evenChina now starts cutting.
(16:46):
I mean, emissions are down, notup in China, even if
productivity continues to grow.
Why?
Because they've investedmassively in renewable energy,
and and I think you know itdemonstrates that change to the
better can actually happen.
SPEAKER_03 (17:04):
Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Bart Eda there
expressing hope for the futureof a reformed United Nations,
but also fear that we might beclose to having to endure a
world war again before werealize the UN's value.
And that interview, like ournext one, was in fact recorded
(17:26):
before the US and Israelattacked Iran.
To me, listening again, Mr.
Ida's fears sound uncannilyprescient.
But while, as Norway and manyother countries hope the UN has
a future, they also think itmust reform and be more
streamlined, more effective, andabove all more reflective of its
(17:49):
193 member states, not just thesuperpowers on the Security
Council.
Our next guest agrees that theUN, whose charter and structure
are virtually unchanged since1945, can only survive if it
undertakes radical review andreform.
SPEAKER_02 (18:09):
My name is Heba Ali, and I'm the director of a new
coalition called Article 109that mobilizes governments to
try to update the UN Charter.
SPEAKER_03 (18:18):
So we might be at the headquarters of the United
Nations in Europe, but I stillthink quite a few of our
listeners don't really know whatArticle 109 is.
So let's start with that.
What is it?
SPEAKER_02 (18:29):
They're not alone.
Uh I think many people haven'tread that far into the founding
document of our internationalrelations, but Article 109 is a
provision in the charter thatallows for a review to take
place and for the rules of theUN to be updated.
And it was both a concession in1945 to the many countries who,
(18:51):
upon being invited to or sign upto this new organization, were
opposed to the idea of fivecountries, the permanent members
of the Security Council, havinga veto.
And so they were promised justsign up for now, and within 10
years we will revisit the thisarchitecture and this
distribution of power.
But it was also a recognitionthat this new international
(19:13):
organization would evolve overtime and that as they learned
from experience, they would needto update it.
SPEAKER_03 (19:20):
So let's just remind ourselves the UN Charter has
some good stuff in it, but youthink it's neat in it needs a
changing and that a discussionof that change should have
happened ages ago and hasn't.
SPEAKER_02 (19:33):
In line with the Charter itself should have
happened 70 years ago andhasn't.
Uh yeah, of course it has goodthings in it.
And I think the reason that manyof us are doing this work is is
that we believe in the UN andthe principles of the UN and
want to safeguard and protectthem.
But I believe, and many others II think agree that the best way
to do so is to renew andrevitalize the UN for the
(19:55):
future, and that by trying tohang on to the past, we're
actually going to accelerate theUN's decline and likely move it
into a state of of irrelevanceor total collapses, is the
current trajectory.
SPEAKER_03 (20:07):
So most companies, for example, would have a
strategy review every five orten years.
Governments also have policyreviews.
What is it that stopped theUnited Nations doing this?
SPEAKER_02 (20:21):
In the words of one former UN Under Secretary
General, the UN has alwaysfeared that change could lead to
something worse.
And therefore they hang on towhat they have and they slide
further and further intoirrelevance.
I think in the current context,that fear is very legitimate
that if you reopen such animportant set of norms, given
(20:45):
the polarization, given the moveaway from uh respect for human
rights and international law,that you could this is the fear,
end up with something worse.
And I think that is what hasheld certain countries back.
Others are worried that thepowerful will always impose
their will.
And so what's the point ofreform if anyway, you know, this
(21:08):
has to, in order for changes totake effect, they need to be
agreed by the P5, the fivepermanent members of the
Security Council.
And so there's a certainhopelessness that, you know, we
can't do anything because it allalways run up against that that
challenge, which I don't thinkis fully true.
SPEAKER_03 (21:23):
Let's just go back to that point you made that
things have to get through theP5.
Because although Article 109,this review has never happened,
there have been attempts toreform, particularly the UN
Security Council.
The Swiss tried it more than adecade ago.
It failed because of theresistance from the P5.
(21:46):
So it's it's kind ofunderstandable, isn't it, if
member states are thinking, justopening a can of worms.
SPEAKER_02 (21:52):
Absolutely, it's understandable.
I think the question is what'sthe alternative?
And the alternative right now isas we've seen and as you've
discussed.
This podcast, creation ofparallel structures, because
people think the UN isirrelevant.
So they go off and create theBoard of Peace.
And that I think is an evenbigger threat than the kinds of
challenges that you're referringto, where yes, it's going to be
(22:14):
difficult, but at least thatleads us in a direction where
we're trying to improve auniversal, legitimate
institution rather thanabandoning it and going to other
fora.
So that I think the cost of nottrying is getting higher and
higher by the day.
We've seen presidents like uhWilliam Ruto of Kenya saying if
(22:36):
there isn't serious reform,we're gonna, he said, I'm gonna
lead a delegation of Africanstates to pull out of the United
Nations altogether.
We've seen, of course,proliferation of fora like the
BRICS and the G20 and so on.
So already we're seeing such afragmentation that if we
continue down this path, the theresult, I think, is one that the
(22:58):
vast majority of countries willnot benefit from.
So I think on the one hand, wedon't get anything if we don't
try, and the political cost ofblockage by the P5 increases the
more the rest of the worldstarts to put demands on the
table.
We've seen examples historicallywhere the P5 have eventually
made compromises.
(23:20):
But I think we're also in adifferent uh context now where
for those members of the P5 whovalue the privilege they have in
the current institution, it isin their interest to ensure that
it survives.
Because if it doesn't, if thewhole thing crumbles, then the
power they once had within theSecurity Council means nothing.
And I actually heard a formerBritish ambassador and official
(23:43):
say something to that effectquite recently that the United
States actually is going to beworse off in a world in which
the UN is completely destroyed.
So there is some self-interestnow, given the situation that
the UN is in, for the P5 to givea little in order to maintain an
institution that ultimatelyprivileges them.
SPEAKER_03 (24:03):
I think you have quite a selling job to do here,
though.
I mean, you have to think thatsome of the countries who have
some power in the United Nationsnow, particularly the United
States, but there are movementsin Britain this way as well, in
France, in the developedEuropean countries.
The phrase global governance isan anathema to them.
(24:25):
They are not interested.
They don't see the relevance ofthe United Nations.
In fact, they see it in someways as a hindrance.
So, you know, people think theydon't want global governance.
Why should they want it?
I mean, give us give ourlisteners some concrete
examples.
SPEAKER_02 (24:41):
I think we need to be careful when we talk about
the perceptions of globalgovernance because it's actually
a minority of countries thatdon't want global governance.
The vast majority of countriesdepend on a functioning
international system for theirown survival and security.
We hear that constantly inEurope, increasingly so now,
where the recent events, thethreats to annex Greenland, what
(25:05):
happened in Venezuela, aremaking it very clear that if
there is no rules-based order,so-called rules-based order, and
that comes with a lot ofwell-deserved critique, but if
there is no system in which aset of rules can be dependent
upon, they are for the taking.
And particularly small Europeancountries feel that very
strongly right now.
(25:26):
So the idea that globalgovernance is not in their
interests is laughable.
And I think most countries uhabsolutely recognize that.
The question is, how do you thenbuild support for a new vision
of global governance?
But we know that small uh LatinAmerican countries, that African
(25:47):
countries, all they all dependon a universal system in which
they can be protected and inwhich their rights vis-a-vis
more powerful countries can beguaranteed.
Does that system always workperfectly?
No.
But is it better than having thelaw of the jungle?
I think the vast majority ofcountries would tell you
absolutely yes.
(26:07):
What does that look like inpractical terms?
If you had a functional systemthat was actually able to
maintain peace and security,what would the outcome have
looked like for Gazans?
You know, if you were able tocome to a resolution at the
Security Council for a ceasefirein the early days, you would
have saved 70,000 lives.
What would that look like forUkrainians?
There are many people who aredealing with the consequences of
(26:30):
the failure of the system towork.
And for them, yes, of course,regular people don't think of
terms like global governance,but the what it actually
provides is security and safetyand a world in which we can all
thrive when it works well.
And that is not currently thecase, obviously.
SPEAKER_03 (26:47):
Well, I'm glad you you mentioned Gaza and Ukraine
because that's what I wanted toask you about.
You said it would be so muchworse if we had the law of the
jungle.
We do have the law of thejungle.
They're on the Security Council.
SPEAKER_02 (26:58):
Who's on the Security Council?
SPEAKER_03 (26:59):
The jungle lions, the beasts.
The predators.
SPEAKER_02 (27:03):
Yes.
I think that's precisely thekind of dysfunction that an
update and a review processshould seek to address.
We clearly don't have a systemtoday that is capable of
maintaining peace and security,which was the UN's founding
purpose.
So what are we doing here?
And if that is the case, whatcan we imagine that would work
better?
(27:24):
And let again, let's rememberthat in 1945, it wasn't as
though the world was in aperfectly amicable state of
affairs.
You had a world war raging, youhad a colonial power, you had
racist countries, and yet theymanaged to come up with
something that was much betterthan what they had then.
And out of that crisis emerged avision for the future that would
(27:44):
be better.
So we're in a similar situationnow where the rules of the game
are clearly crumbling around us.
And if a majority of countriescan come together and say, we
need a system that works better,here's what it could look like.
Yes, will you face resistancefrom the big powers who don't
have any interest in followingthe rules?
Of course you will.
But can you create a consensusamong a critical mass of
(28:07):
countries for a new way forward?
SPEAKER_03 (28:09):
Tell us about who's involved and how you see this.
I mean, it sounds good to me.
I'm a fan of the United Nations.
I think even Americans have saidto me, if we didn't have it,
we'd have to invent it.
So probably we should be a bitoptimistic and think this
institution is staggering, butit's not on the ropes quite yet.
(28:31):
So who's on your side and how doyou see this progressing?
SPEAKER_02 (28:35):
A number of countries have come out in favor
of a Charter Review Conference.
Among them, and the first wasBrazil, with President Lula
calling for uh invoking Article109 uh about uh a year and a
half ago in September of 2024.
He has been followed by otherheavyweights, I would say, like
South Africa and smallercountries like the Gambia,
(28:58):
Kazakhstan, who feel the systemisn't serving them well.
We recently briefed the agrouping of Caribbean
ambassadors here in Geneva, andthey immediately said, we don't
need convincing.
This makes perfect sense.
We have long complained that,and particularly for countries
hard hit by climate change, thatglobal governance on this isn't
(29:19):
just a question of peace andsecurity, but much more broadly
isn't working for them.
So there are a number ofcountries that have publicly
endorsed the idea, and thenbehind closed doors, we're in
conversations with many otherswho, yes, it takes some time to
talk through the risks and thescenarios and so on, but who are
increasingly open-minded becausethe alternative right now looks
(29:41):
so much worse.
It's worth remembering that whenthe UN charter was adopted in
1945, 50 countries were presentat the table.
And today there are 193 memberstates.
So almost three-quarters of theUN's membership has not had a
say in the rules of the gamethat they are now bound by and
are very frustrated by that lackof voice and representation.
(30:01):
So there's that alone creates acertain, you know, uh support by
by default.
We have had former leaders likeMary Robinson, the former uh
president of Ireland, formerHigh Commissioner for Human
Rights at the UN come forwardand support, uh, Helen Clark,
former Prime Minister of NewZealand, um Alexander DeCrue,
the former UNDP administrator,Gordon Brown, the former British
(30:23):
Prime Minister, is working onprinciples of a new world order.
And so there's a range of peopleout there who have come to the
conclusion that if we do nottake radical, ambitious, bold
action to reimagine thisinstitution, this might be the
end of it.
And Mark Carney's speech, theCanadian Prime Minister at uh at
the World Economic Forum inDavos, I think was a real
(30:43):
turning point in that regard insaying the world order that we
have known since World War II isover.
And by the way, it wasn't thatgreat to begin with.
It had a lot of flaws.
It was inequitable, it wasunfair and hypocritical in many
ways, and now we have anopportunity to build something
better and more just movingforward.
Emmanuel Macron of France hasmade global governance reform a
(31:05):
priority of his G7 presidency.
Even China now is leading a newinitiative on global governance.
So the recognition of theproblem is clear.
I think the next step is what isthe vision for a solution to
that problem and what is afeasible pathway to bring that
solution into being?
And we think this can be atleast one option on the table
(31:25):
for discussion.
SPEAKER_03 (31:26):
Well, it sounds great, but right now we're in a
geopolitical situation where itsuits the big powers to go for
spheres of influence.
We've heard the United Statestalk about the Western
Hemisphere.
That's ours.
China can have its bit, Russia,arguably a superpower, perhaps
not, can have its bit, whichmany in Europe fear.
(31:50):
They're getting sucked intothat.
So you talk very well, but isn'tthere a danger that the people
who are on your side, if youlike, are just going to get
marginalized by this juggernaut?
SPEAKER_02 (32:03):
What is it that allows major powers to do what
they want?
Well, I have been amazed inrecent months in seeing
countries trying to negotiateone-on-one with the world
superpower.
It's an inequitable relationshipfrom the get-go.
You have very little chance ofsuccess.
The alternative is buildingcollective power.
There are 193 members of theUnited Nations.
SPEAKER_03 (32:25):
Which is what Mark Carney kind of suggested.
Exactly.
SPEAKER_02 (32:28):
The middle powers, he puts it.
I would look to something alittle bit more inclusive that
isn't just about middle powers,but small states as well,
cross-regionally.
But there are a majority ofcountries that could come
together with a common visionaround a better way forward, and
then by coming together, havemore leverage, more negotiating
(32:49):
power against these so-calledleaders of the spheres of
influence.
So, how do you build collectivepower to be able to better
position yourself against amajor power that isn't going to
follow the rules or that wantsto pursue this route?
I don't think that going intothese tiny, mini coalitions is
(33:10):
what's going to save us.
What we need is to come togetheraround something where every
country has a seat at the table,and then you've got a different
dynamic, a different powerdynamic in particular, through
which to have these kinds ofconversations.
And I remember one country inparticular saying, you know, we
are too small to go head to headwith the US.
(33:30):
That's why we turn tomultilateralism, because there
we can, as a bloc, achievesomething that we can't in a
bilateral one-on-onerelationship.
SPEAKER_03 (33:39):
Very last question.
2026, we're going to get a newUN Secretary General later on
this year.
Well, what kind of vision areyou looking for from that
individual?
I guess you want whoever getsthe job, possibly poison
chalice, but whoever gets it toshow some real sense of purpose
for this organization to get itsrelevance back.
SPEAKER_02 (34:02):
I think what we have absolutely been lacking in the
last year or so as discussionsabout UN reform have taken place
is a vision for what role the UNshould play in the 21st century.
Everyone recognizes that thearchitecture is outdated, but we
haven't put a vision on thetable of what should replace it
or how it can be better suitedfor today.
(34:24):
So I think an USG needs to comein with a clear answer to that
question, or at least thecapacity and willingness to
corral countries in developingthat vision.
Because right now, what we'rewhat we're seeing is an
uncoordinated and unstructuredand unstrategic set of
cost-cutting exercises without adirection of where we're trying
(34:47):
to go and what I hope a charterreview process or at least
discussing a movement in thatdirection creates is an opening
for that bigger pictureconversation about what role do
we want the UN to play?
And the SG should be at theforefront of driving that.
What is that vision?
Of course, that's going to befor member states to negotiate,
(35:08):
but we have certainly laid outfive principles that we think
need to be at the core of aserious conversation about true
fundamental UN reform.
How do we ensure that the UN canplay and is empowered to play
its principal role ofmaintaining peace and security?
How do we enable the UN toaddress emerging challenges like
climate change and artificialintelligence, which are not
(35:29):
currently properly governed,fragmented governance structures
without any kind of enforcement?
How do we more equitablydistribute power among
countries?
How do we ensure and strengthenrespect for international law
and human rights?
And how do we more meaningfullyinclude non-government,
non-state actors in globalgovernance?
(35:50):
You have private sectorcompanies today that have more
power than nation states.
You have civil society movementsthat are able to create much
more change in nationalpolicies.
So we're we're just in a verydifferent world today.
And what we need, I think, froman SG is someone who can start
to position the organization inthat new landscape and then help
us move towards a reform processthat actually can deliver, allow
(36:13):
the UN to deliver for peoplearound the world.
SPEAKER_03 (36:15):
And you're hopeful?
SPEAKER_02 (36:17):
Oof.
I'm honestly I'm a bit nervousabout the SG process.
I think for for obvious reasons,as you are well aware, the the
candidate will need to be uhsigned off by by the US and
Russia in particular, and thatcreates quite a number of
constraints.
And that's one of the things Ithink that needs to change and
(36:37):
how the UN rules operate, howthe Secretary General is
selected.
For the UN overall, I think it'sgoing to go through a very
difficult and dark period.
I hope that coming out of that,you know, sometimes you just
have to hit rock bottom, thatcoming out of that we can emerge
with what I often refer to as anew global social contract.
(36:57):
And if that difficult periodleads us to something better,
then that's something worthworth fighting for.
But I I just hope to God that asthe Brazilians and South
Africans and others have said,we don't have to go through
World War III before we're readyto reimagine something more
functional for the future.
SPEAKER_03 (37:20):
Heba Ali, longtime UN analyst, now leading a
campaign to reform the UN.
Plenty of food for thought therefor whoever becomes the next UN
Secretary-General.
I talked to Heba too before thestart of the Iran conflict, and
she also, as we heard there,already shared Espen Bart Edda's
(37:43):
concerns that we might beheading irrevocably towards
another horrific world war.
We all hope that common senseand above all humanity will
prevail.
My thanks to Hebba Ali and toEspen Bart Edda for joining us
on Inside Geneva, and to you forlistening.
Join us again on April 28th forour next episode.
(38:07):
In the meantime, if there's atopic you'd like us to cover, or
questions you have onInternational Geneva, write to
us at insigeneva at Swisinfo.ch.
A reminder (38:23):
you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
(38:47):
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.