February 3, 2026 • 39 mins
On Inside Geneva this week, we take an in-depth look at US President Donald Trump’s new ‘Board of Peace’. Experts on conflict resolution are sceptical.
“The US circulated an invitation to about 60 countries to join a new board of peace that would not just focus on Gaza but would instead be a global conflict prevention organisation, complete with a pre-baked charter that looks a bit like President Trump took the protocols for a golf club in New Jersey,” says Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group.
Still, the new board could be a challenge to the United Nations (UN).
“I don’t really think this is a credible international institution that will have the capacities of the UN, but I do think that it is a very worrying signal for the UN,” Gowan says.
We also hear about a new report on growing disrespect for international law.
“People only have to look around at the conflicts that they’re seeing today, and the extent of devastation both of civilian life and of civilian property, to know that we are in very bleak times. Disregard of international law is not new. What I think is new is the extent to which it’s being flouted,” says Stuart Casey-Maslen from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law.
Are governments swapping international obligations for short-term political gain?
“We look at what’s happened in Gaza. We see the destruction of hospitals in Sudan. We see that people do this and are not held to account. We have institutions, we have the International Criminal Court, but even there, there’s an attempt to undermine it. It becomes a political decision rather than simply a legal one: respect for the law,” says Casey-Maslen.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva to listen to the full episode.
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_07 (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.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_06 (00:21):
What is the purpose of the United Nations?
The president claimed to haveended seven wars and said he got
no help from the UN.
For the most part, at least fornow, all they seem to do is
write a really strongly wordedletter.
SPEAKER_08 (00:33):
The UN has envisaged in the Charter as a space for
major power conflict resolutionand policing the world.
That has not delivered for thepeople of Ukraine.
That has not delivered for thePalestinians.
And this is leading to a realcrisis of confidence around the
organization.
SPEAKER_09 (00:50):
People only have to look around at the conflicts
that they're seeing today andthe extent of devastation, both
of uh civilian life and ofcivilian property, to know that
we are in very bleak times.
SPEAKER_03 (01:02):
The US President's newly minted Board of Peace
unveiled at the World EconomicForum in Davos.
SPEAKER_01 (01:10):
Congratulations, President Trump.
The Board of Peace is now anofficial international
organization.
SPEAKER_08 (01:16):
I do think that for all the fuss and bother, there
is a very real scenario whereall that happens is the US will
announce that it is establishinga headquarters for the Board of
Peace.
Probably that will be inFlorida.
Lots of gold.
There will be lots of gold.
SPEAKER_04 (01:34):
So will the ceasefire make genocide harder
to prove?
And is there enoughinternational political will to
investigate war crimes in Gaza?
SPEAKER_02 (01:43):
Russian soldiers had massacred civilians and left
their bodies out in the open.
All potential war crimes.
So can the Russian state, alongwith President Vladimir Putin,
be put on trial by theInternational Criminal Court?
SPEAKER_09 (01:57):
Everybody can do something.
There is no one on this planetthat cannot have a voice,
whether it's their own orthrough their elected
representatives.
Write to them.
Tell them that you want to seeaction.
SPEAKER_07 (02:33):
Could it be a threat to the United Nations?
SPEAKER_08 (02:36):
The US circulated an invitation to about 60 countries
to join a new Board of Peacethat would not just focus on
Gaza, but would instead be aglobal conflict prevention
organization, complete with apre-baked charter that looks a
bit like President Trump tookthe protocols for a golf club in
New Jersey.
(02:56):
I don't really think this is acredible international
institution that will have thecapacities of the UN, but I do
think that it is a very worryingsignal for the UN.
SPEAKER_07 (03:09):
And we'll get all the details about a brand new
report on conflict, and what theauthors warn is growing impunity
for war crimes.
SPEAKER_09 (03:18):
We look at what's happened in Gaza, we see the
destruction of hospitals inSudan.
We see that people do this andare not held to account.
We have institutions, we havethe International Criminal
Court, but even there there's anattempt to undermine it.
It becomes a political decisionrather than simply a legal one,
(03:39):
respect for the law.
Disregard of international lawis not new.
What I think is new is theextent to which it's being
flouted.
SPEAKER_07 (03:48):
The Warwatch report coming up later in the
programme.
But first, listeners to InsideGeneva might be wondering why we
haven't covered PresidentTrump's Board of Peace yet.
Announced with great fanfare atthe World Economic Forum in
Davos, many UN watchers werequick to warn that the new board
could be a rival to, or evenundermine, the United Nations.
(04:13):
Well, we decided to let the dustsettle a little bit and then
turn to another well-establishedinternational body which aims to
prevent and resolve conflict,the International Crisis Group.
Richard Gowan is its directorfor global issues and
institutions.
I sat down with him and askedhim what his reaction was when
(04:36):
the Board of Peace was unveiled.
SPEAKER_08 (04:38):
Well, I think the best word to describe my
reaction and the reaction of alot of diplomats I spoke to
might be befuddlement.
Befuddlement.
Befuddlement.
A fine old English word.
Because we had been waitingsince November for details on
the Board of Peace and how itwas going to oversee the
(05:00):
ceasefire in Gaza.
I think there was somefrustration around the turn of
the year that we weren't gettingmore details more quickly about
the US approach to stability inGaza.
But then what came out was very,very different to what I think
the Security Council and mostobservers had expected when they
(05:22):
initially endorsed the boardback in November.
Because the US circulated aninvitation to about 60 countries
to join a new Board of Peacethat would not just focus on
Gaza, but would instead be aglobal conflict prevention
organization, complete with apre-baked charter that looks a
bit like President Trump tookthe protocols for a golf club in
(05:45):
New Jersey and converted theminto a charter for an
international organization.
SPEAKER_07 (05:50):
As you say, the initial proposal was for Gaza,
which is not really mentioned inthe eventual charter.
I mean, should the UN beconcerned that this could be a
replacement for the UnitedNations?
SPEAKER_08 (06:07):
I think it depends what you mean by replacement,
because if you look at the thecharter for the Board of Peace,
which a bunch of leaders didsign off on at a ceremony at
Davos at the World EconomicForum, it is not a plan for a
full-scale replacement for theUN.
(06:27):
There is nothing in thisdocument that replicates the UN
Charter's provisions around theuse of force.
There's nothing that suggeststhat the board has the same
legal powers as the SecurityCouncil to intervene in
conflicts.
Actually, there's very littledetail about what the board will
do outside of the specific caseof Gaza.
(06:49):
I think that uh the charterpromises that members will offer
best practices for peacebuilding.
SPEAKER_07 (06:56):
We don't know what they they haven't defined them
though.
What are we doing?
SPEAKER_08 (06:59):
What that means is completely unclear.
I mean, my organization, theInternational Crisis Group,
offers best practices onpeacebuilding.
So I don't really think this isa credible international
institution that will have thecapacities of the UN, but I do
think that it is a very worryingsignal for the UN, because
(07:20):
obviously we have seen the Trumpadministration continuing to
distance itself from a lot ofmultilateral bodies.
Just this month, Washingtonannounced it was going to
boycott about 30 different UNoffices and entities.
Washington has confirmed itsformal withdrawal from the World
Health Organization.
(07:41):
And now we have the Trumpadministration floating this
trial balloon of a forum whereleaders will come together and
they will talk about peacepotentially in various conflict
zones, completely outside of UNstructures.
SPEAKER_07 (07:56):
So as you say, it it could be worrying for the UN,
not a complete replacement,perhaps a kind of degradation.
I'm just wondering, a lot of thereporting that I've read and
listened to on this, from my owncolleagues, people that I know,
I heard one just the other daysay, well, let's face it, the UN
(08:17):
does do bugger all.
That's what she said, which Ithought from a Geneva
perspective was a bit harsh.
But if a lot of people thinkthat, it's already worrying for
the UN, isn't it?
SPEAKER_08 (08:31):
I mean, it is worrying.
Again, your your colleague isflat wrong.
The Security Council has beengoing through obviously a very
difficult period in the last fewyears over Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan,
and other wars.
And we are a long way from the1990s when the Security Council
(08:54):
was very ambitious and there wasa high degree of cooperation in
New York.
But even so, the council isstill overseeing 60,000
peacekeepers around the world.
The Trump administration hasturned to the UN to help it with
a new stabilization force inHaiti.
The Security Council oversees adozen, maybe slightly more,
(09:15):
sanctions regimes around theworld.
I mean, this is actually still apretty high level of work.
I think the problem is thatprecisely because the UN has
tripped up appallingly overUkraine and especially Gaza,
there is a crisis ofconversation.
SPEAKER_07 (09:32):
Well, has it, though, it's the the UN as a as
a an identity, is it has ittripped up or has it just been
been prevented in those two?
I mean, we never consultedreally, in either Ukraine or
Gaza.
SPEAKER_08 (09:46):
I mean, I think what one can safely say is that the
UN, as envisaged in the charteras a space for major power
conflict resolution and policingthe world, that has not
delivered for the people ofUkraine.
That has not delivered for thePalestinians.
And this is leading to a realcrisis of confidence around the
organization, which isexacerbated a lot by the US
(10:09):
budget cuts.
And so I think a lot of thecommentary around the Board of
Peace reflects this crisis ofconfidence.
People are pointing at this, youknow, complete Farago of
diplomatic nonsense that the UShas put on the table.
And they are taking itincredibly seriously.
SPEAKER_07 (10:27):
From a Geneva perspective, some people in
Geneva, the aid agencies, ofcourse, battered though they are
by funding cuts, they would saywe're the part of the UN that is
working, you know, despite theparalysis of the Security
Council.
And there we can look at, youknow, the countries who are also
causing a lot of problems in theworld, like Russia, like perhaps
(10:50):
the United States.
The charter for this new board,as you say, people are taking it
seriously and paying a lot ofattention.
It makes no mention of some ofthe fundamental things that the
UN has in its charter to do withhuman rights, to do with
non-aggression.
SPEAKER_08 (11:06):
No, I mean, I it it and it is concerning that the US
would set up an internationalorganization without making any
reference at all to any of thecore principles of the UN
Charter, or indeed the UNCharter itself.
And it's also, to be honest,attracting quite a lot of
(11:27):
countries that are dismissive ofinternational law or have poor
human rights records.
The offer on the table is if acountry wants a permanent seat
on the Board of Peacedecision-making uh body, it
needs to pay one billiondollars.
SPEAKER_07 (11:45):
Where is that money going, do you think?
SPEAKER_08 (11:47):
No one is quite sure where the money is going.
But it, you know, there'scertainly no suggestion that you
have to live up to any uh anycriteria as a member of the
international community.
So this probably does reflecthow President Trump would like
the world to work.
I think he would like the worldto work on the basis of
transactional diplomacy betweenbig bold leaders like himself,
(12:10):
unconstrained by the niceties ofinternational law and diplomatic
process.
I mean, I do think that for allthe fuss and bother, there is a
very real scenario where allthat happens is the US will
announce that it is establishinga headquarters for the Board of
Peace.
Probably that will be inFlorida.
(12:31):
Lots of gold.
There will be lots of gold.
Because yeah, President Trumphas gone on and on about how he
doesn't like the quality of thefurnishings of the UN.
Well, this is his opportunity tobuild his dream international
institution.
But even once that is built, itmay be very little more than a
sort of country club where everyyear Victor Orban and other
(12:54):
friends of the president gettogether for a big chat about
the state of the world.
SPEAKER_07 (12:59):
Yeah, I was thinking, and again, this is
perhaps from a Genevaperspective, that the precedent
we have in front of us for theUnited States and this
particular administrationcircumventing the UN and
offering a quick replacement wasthe Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation, which caused, Ithink we have to be honest, an
(13:22):
awful lot of damage and an awfullot of deaths and an awful lot
of misery.
And finally disappeared.
And basically, when theceasefire came, the UN agencies
were supposed to come back inand do the job.
SPEAKER_08 (13:33):
Yes.
And, you know, one area where inthe last month we have seen the
US tiptoeing back towardsworking with the UN has been in
the humanitarian space becausejust at the turn of the year,
the US finally agreed to put$2billion into UN humanitarian
work in a deal with TomFletcher, uh, the head of the
(13:55):
office for the coordination.
SPEAKER_07 (13:57):
Yeah, I I attended that that press conference.
I mean, there are a lot ofstrings attached to this money,
political strings.
SPEAKER_08 (14:02):
There are lots of political strings, but the mere
fact that the US is putting$2billion on the table and has
indicated that there may be moreto come, I think is a reflection
of the fact that burned by theexperience of the Gaza
Foundation, even thisadministration has to admit
there are certain things thatthe UN does well, and one of
(14:23):
them is humanitarian delivery atscale.
I mentioned Haiti, where the UNis providing administrative
logistical backstopping for anew gang suppression force in
Port-au-Prince.
Interestingly, in in Africa, inthe Democratic Republic of
Congo, the US is trying to workwith the UN peacekeeping force
(14:43):
there to prop up a very weakceasefire deal in the east of
Congo that Washington helpedbroker.
I mean, actually, in pragmaticterms, whatever its ideological
predisposition, you know, theTrump administration will work
with the UN.
But again, I think that Trumpneeds his own shiny thing.
He needs his own shinyorganization of which he is the
(15:05):
chairman.
And we should have said thatunder the protocols of the Board
of Peace Charter, Trump has apretty much total veto on every
single decision this body willmake.
SPEAKER_07 (15:17):
And he's chairman for a life.
SPEAKER_08 (15:19):
Uh, yes.
So this does look a bit like aneffort to make him world
emperor.
SPEAKER_07 (15:27):
King of the world.
That's the phrase that came outinto my head.
SPEAKER_08 (15:30):
But I think again, let's let's let's try and
distinguish, although it's verydifficult, between the US
creating this uh sort of cosplaymultilateral institution and the
fact that in reality there aresome places where I think saner
people inside the US system areactually looking to work with
the UN because they do see thatit has capacities that they're
just not going to be able toreplicate.
SPEAKER_07 (15:52):
Do you think also perhaps within the people who
still have some faith in theUnited Nations, there perhaps
needs to be a recognition?
Well, don't no don't justdismiss this whole thing out of
hand.
Since most people do accept theUN needs reform.
Maybe not a replacement likethis, but it it does need
reform.
SPEAKER_08 (16:13):
Yes, I think that it's not specifically the Board
of Peace, but you know, theBoard of Peace and all the other
US moves against the UN, youknow, like leaving the World
Health Organization, likeleaving a lot of UN agencies
involved with gender work andwith environmental work.
You know, all of this togethermeans that those of us who still
(16:36):
believe in the UN system have tostart thinking very, very hard
about how that system is goingto survive and how that system
can be reinforced in a periodwhere resources are extremely
short and at least one big poweris now becoming very
(16:56):
semi-detached from theorganization that it created.
I mean, it's it's interesting.
Last year, when we started tosee the US take aggressive moves
against the UN in January andFebruary of 2025, most UN member
states were just not able toprocess what was going on.
Because simultaneously you hadthe US rolling out tariffs, you
(17:19):
had the US raising questionsabout security guarantees with a
lot of its allies.
I mean, in my experience,ambassadors in New York and
probably in Geneva were saying,well, this is all very bad, but
our capitals have otherpriorities.
Now, what I'm encountering isstill capitals have other
priorities, but I'm hearing alot of diplomatic colleagues
(17:41):
saying, okay, we've got toaccept this as a reality.
You know, it's clear that theTrump administration at least is
not going to turn back from itsbroad anti-UN strategy.
We now need a really seriouspolitical debate about what this
organization is for.
Um, we should have had thatpolitical debate a year ago.
Well, we didn't have it.
(18:02):
But I think that going forward,given the ongoing US pressure,
uh, I do feel that there's sortof a bit more energy around the
idea of having a proper UNreform discussion this year than
there was 12 months ago.
SPEAKER_07 (18:13):
What would you say to Antonio Guterres, the UN
Secretary General?
You know, he was here in Geneva,was going to go to Davos, and
then decided quite last minutenot to, apparently because he
had a cold.
But I do wonder whether he didnot want to be in the same town
when this board of peace wasbeing unveiled by Donald Trump,
(18:34):
because that that's whathappened in Davos, the charter
and everything was unveiled.
SPEAKER_08 (18:39):
I mean, the first thing I would say is let's try
and find a bright side in thischaotic situation.
Uh, and I think one bright sideis the US invited, we think,
around 60 people to join theBoard of Peace.
It's very opaque.
SPEAKER_07 (18:55):
And nobody in Africa.
Well, certainly not inSub-Saharan Africa.
SPEAKER_08 (18:59):
Not in Sub-Saharan Africa, which I think tells you
quite a lot about how the theWhite House um views Africa,
which is very sad.
SPEAKER_07 (19:07):
Um, there are other words for it.
SPEAKER_08 (19:09):
Yeah.
Um but there are, no, it isworth saying, uh, around 20 to
25 countries so far have signedup for Shaw.
Many of them, by the way, Arabcountries that I think primarily
signed up because they wanted tohave a voice in Board of Peace
discussions over Gaza, and fairenough.
(19:29):
But a lot of countries haven'tjoined up.
Actually, almost all theEuropean invitees, like France,
Norway, and others, said no.
And one of the reasons they saidno was quite specifically that
they were concerned that thiswas an organization that was
going to infringe on theprerogatives of the UN, or at
(19:50):
least cut across the principlesof the UN Charter.
And so if I were AntonioGuterres, I would I would at
least be able to say, you know,this does show that not everyone
is so cravenly pursuing Trump'sfavour that they forget the UN
Charter.
The organization and the Charterdoes still have friends.
I'm afraid to say, though, thatGuterres, who now only has 11
(20:12):
months left in office, can'treally do very much about this
situation.
So rather than focus onGuterres, I would actually be
looking at the candidates toreplace him as Secretary
General.
And we now know that thecandidates to be the next UNSG
will have hearings in New Yorkin April with member states.
(20:36):
And I think those hearings areactually a really good
opportunity to ask the peoplewho want to be the UN's chief,
what is your long-term plan fordoing that?
SPEAKER_07 (20:44):
What's your vision for the UN?
SPEAKER_08 (20:46):
It's going to be awfully hard because to become
Secretary General, you need thesign-off of all five veto
powers.
And that means you need thesign-off of the US.
So people can't come to New Yorkand just bash Trump.
But I think that it is fair forother countries to say we see
the UN's primary founder of theUS drifting away from the
(21:07):
organization.
You know, we see a lot of othercountries, as you say, going
through a crisis of confidenceabout the organization's future.
What is your plan?
How do you get us out of thishole?
Um, and if anyone has a goodanswer to that, well, firstly,
they should become SecretaryGeneral, and then maybe they
should get the Nobel Prize, andthen they can give their Nobel
(21:27):
Prize to Trump, so he has two.
SPEAKER_07 (21:34):
Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group,
clear-eyed about the prospectsfor the new Board of Peace, and
clear eyed about the challengesfacing whoever gets the possibly
poisoned chalice of becoming newUN Secretary General.
That's a topic we will, ofcourse, be returning to in
(21:55):
future episodes of the podcast.
Before we move on to our nextguest today.
Here's a little flavor of what'scoming up on the next inside
Geneva, when we've got a wholeprogram devoted to the
polarizing topic of migration.
SPEAKER_05 (22:11):
I think we are seeing a race to the bottom.
I had hoped we would be muchbetter off in Europe.
We're rather seeing one countryafter the other erecting barbed
wire around their country andaround our continent.
SPEAKER_00 (22:30):
Selling lawful immigration policies does not
mean that you have the right tomistreat migrants, even migrants
who are undocumented.
And very sadly, that's what theUS administration is doing.
It's rounding up Venezuelanmigrants in the US and sending
them to El Salvador where theyare being tortured, where they
(22:51):
are experiencing sexual abuse.
SPEAKER_07 (22:54):
We'll be asking why this issue has become so
divisive, analyzing the facts,figures, and economic pluses and
minuses.
That's out on February 17th.
Now, as we heard from RichardGowan of the International
(23:15):
Crisis Group, there's a new kidon the block when it comes to
ending wars.
Donald Trump's Board of Peace.
Well, out this week is a brandnew report which has some grim
warnings about the way 21stcentury wars are being fought.
SPEAKER_09 (23:32):
So we're at the Geneva Academy of International
Humanitarian Law and HumanRights.
My name's Stuart Casey Maslin,and I'm head of the IHL In Focus
project, which has produced thisreport.
SPEAKER_07 (23:42):
Professor Casey Maslin's War Watch report looks
at 23 conflicts raging betweenmid-2024 and the end of 2025.
I asked him about his findings.
Your report has some quite bleakwarnings in it.
You, for example, say thatinternational humanitarian law
(24:03):
is on the brink of collapse.
Why so bleak?
SPEAKER_09 (24:09):
I think people only have to look around at the
conflicts that they're seeingtoday and the extent of
devastation, both of uh civilianlife and of uh civilian
property, to know that we are invery bleak times.
Now, of course, the multiplicityof conflicts is an issue in of
itself.
There has never been a goldenage where international law was
(24:29):
always respected, but there havebeen opportunities, and we've
seen them over the last coupleof decades, where states have
started to take civilian life,civilian harm in armed conflicts
more seriously.
What I think we've seen over thelast couple of years is there
has been a degeneration in thatlevel of respect, that there
have been governments, and theyare from all corners of the
(24:51):
world.
Uh, we know that there arecertain particularly bad
violators, but it's all cornersof the world where they accept
that they can get away withstuff that maybe they wouldn't
have dared to decades ago.
SPEAKER_07 (25:03):
Why do you think this is happening?
I mean, can you pinpoint certainexamples or people?
I mean, uh you say obviouslyinternational law has never been
a hundred percent respected.
We know that.
I think it's also probably trueto say that this trend that you
identify uh didn't just startlast year or the year before.
SPEAKER_09 (25:27):
No, that's certainly true.
We saw it in the aftermath of9-11, horrendous attacks on uh
civilians by al-Qaeda, but wesaw in the US response that uh
they were prepared, in the fatedwords of Dick Cheney, to work
the dark side, and boy did theydo that.
Uh we saw in the invasion ofIraq, although IHL was largely
(25:49):
respected by the US, we saw abreach of this general
prohibition on the use of force.
And then, of course, we've hadUkraine since 2014 and more
recently since the invasion of2022.
We look at what's happened inGaza, the obliteration of vast
swathes of Gaza.
We see the destruction ofhospitals in Sudan.
(26:13):
We see that people do this andare not held to account.
We have institutions, we havethe International Criminal
Court, but even there there's anattempt to undermine it.
It becomes a political decisionrather than simply a legal one,
respect for the law.
SPEAKER_07 (26:29):
I want to come back to the ICC and the ICJ in a
moment because they were thestart of the 21st century seen
as pillars of how we upholdinternational law and how we
hold states and individuals toaccount when they violate
international law.
But before we come to that, Iwant to talk specifically about
(26:51):
political leaders now.
You talked about 9-11 and so on,but right now we have the leader
of the so-called free world whohas openly said that he's not
too bothered about what he callsinternational niceties, that his
only guidance is his own morals.
That's what President Trump hassaid.
(27:13):
Does that feel like a tippingpoint to you?
SPEAKER_09 (27:16):
I mean, it's certainly a very serious moment,
but again, this is not, as yousaid, new.
I remember when uh drone strikesstarted to be used, again, in
the aftermath of uh 9-11, and Iremember a BBC interview with
the deputy legal advisor of theCIA, and uh she was said, No,
this is lawful under the law ofthe United States.
(27:36):
And the interviewer said, Butwhat about international law?
And uh she smiled for a momentand then she said, Yes,
international law, it's sort ofa flexible moral code, isn't it?
And unfortunately the feed wentdown and there was no
opportunity to push back.
So this disregard ofinternational law is not new.
What I think is new is theextent to which it's being
(27:57):
flouted.
And uh you have the RussianFederation, you have the United
States, you have Israel, allseemingly pushing international
humanitarian law to the verybrink, with, in certain cases in
uh parts of Ukraine, systematicwar crimes.
Why I would not accept thatinternational humanitarian law
(28:21):
is over, that has no utility, isbecause that is demonstrably
false.
If you look at Ukraine, on theone hand, as I said, you have
these systematic violations byRussia, but you do not have
systematic violations byUkraine.
Why not?
Is it because Ukrainians areinherently better people?
Well, maybe in some cases it'strue, but it's also the case
(28:43):
that they are being held toaccount by their allies.
So what that means is if statestake compliance with IHL,
international humanitarian law,seriously, they can influence
many, not all, but many cases.
It's a choice that we make topush compliance or to just sit
back and watch it go out thewindow.
SPEAKER_07 (29:05):
So, but how do we pull it back from the window
ledge then, when the world'ssuperpower is actively working
against it?
I mean, we've seen in the last12 months these sanctions
against judges at the at theInternational Criminal Court,
which is really, I think, manystates in in Europe or in Latin
(29:26):
America, it's quite a shockingmove by the US.
SPEAKER_09 (29:30):
It is a shocking move.
Um, again, it's not new.
There was the legislation thatwas adopted in the US a few
years ago that said if ever a USserviceman was put before the
ICC, then the United Stateswould use military force to
release them.
So again, these these things arenot new.
They're getting worse, they'regetting more uh repetitive.
That's where other states stepup.
(29:52):
They defend the ICC, they defenduh other tribunals, they say
everybody is held to account forserious violations of
international humanitarian law.
Again, it's a choice that wemake.
SPEAKER_07 (30:03):
Are there enough countries making that choice,
though, right now?
And we do see in Europe morecases under the universal
jurisdiction.
SPEAKER_09 (30:11):
Uh universal jurisdiction uh is certainly one
tool in our armory.
We've seen uh cases in Germany,for example, in Switzerland, in
France.
States are trying are startingto take this more seriously, and
that is an important element.
But it's also the duty of thestates where these violations
take place to do their part.
(30:33):
Look at Syria.
We've had a change of uh regime.
We have the opportunity to stopthe massive violations of the
past.
And yes, there have been someproblems over the last uh year,
very serious problems by the newadministration, but they have an
opportunity to join theInternational Criminal Court and
to make their forces responsibleas well as those of the former
(30:57):
regime.
Again, that's a choice that wemake.
Let's turn to another uhconflict.
This is one that in our reportwe identified for the first time
this year.
That's Haiti.
Gang violence, as we know, hasbeen appalling for several
years.
The absence of state governancehas been filled by the gangs,
and we are now at a stage wherethere is a non-international
(31:20):
armed conflict within at leastPorto Prince or the vast
majority of Porto Prince.
That means that internationalhumanitarian law is applicable
and also that war crimes arecommitted when the law is
seriously violated.
Again, Haiti is only asignatory, not a state party, to
the International CriminalCourt.
(31:40):
They need to join, and then thecourt needs to start looking and
investigating what is going on.
SPEAKER_07 (31:46):
Since you're talking about Haiti, a slightly slightly
off-topic, but the otherinterview in this episode is
with Richard Gowren of theInternational Crisis Group.
We were talking about theprospects for this board of
peace, which Donald Trump hashas proposed.
But behind the scenes, the US isalso looking for UN help in
(32:08):
Haiti.
So do you think that is oneplace where you could say, look,
the norms and standards we haveand the institutions we have are
the things that can solve this,not maybe quick fixes like this
this board of peace?
SPEAKER_09 (32:22):
The idea that this is purely going to be resolved
by the use of force, whether itbe military force or or law
enforcement operations, I'mafraid is for the birds.
It is the lack of governance,the lack of provision of basic
services to the people in thecapital and in other uh parts of
Haiti that has led to thissituation.
(32:43):
So, yes, there will be a need toprotect people against
massacres, and we've seenseveral of them over the last
two years, but that has to becombined with a serious plan to
provide resources because wherethere's a void, groups will step
in and they will not be groupsthat have human rights at their
heart.
SPEAKER_07 (33:00):
Do you think that the conversation around human
rights and respecting eachother's rights has really
changed, actually, in the lastfew years?
People are much more for theirown selves and their own nation
states.
The language around respectingother people's rights has
(33:22):
changed.
We also see quite dehumanizinglanguage becoming quite common.
It's included in the speeches ofpowerful politicians these days.
Do you feel that this is alsopart of the thing that's
undermining international law?
That's just becoming moreacceptable to not respect the
(33:43):
other?
SPEAKER_09 (33:44):
I'm not so sure.
Again, I don't think this isnew.
What we've seen in the genocidein Gaza, this is not the first
genocide.
We saw it in the 90s inparticular, in Srebrenica,
arguably in other parts ofBosnia-Herzegovina.
We've seen it, of course, inRwanda.
That kind of dehumanizinglanguage is not new.
(34:05):
It's as human as it can possiblybe.
What we need is for politicalleaders, for community leaders,
to speak out and say this is notacceptable.
We are all human beings.
We have all the right to haveour lives and integrity
protected.
And I'm not sure that we are sovery much worse, we're certainly
(34:25):
not better, but we're not sovery much worse than we were in
previous decades.
I just think we're livingthrough a particularly difficult
time in terms of globalgeopolitics.
SPEAKER_07 (34:36):
We heard a very interesting, powerful speech
from Canada's Prime MinisterMark Carney at the World
Economic Forum just a week or soago.
He described international law,human rights, and so on, that it
had always been a partialfiction and that powerful states
upheld it sometimes, but didn'tto their own convenience.
(35:00):
I think we both know that'strue.
If you watch the Human RightsCouncil in Geneva, you'll see
that that's true.
But he seemed to be suggestingthat maybe we need to accept
that these things aren'tuniversal and that there needs
to be an alliance of like-mindedstates who can at least uphold
them just on their ownterritories, which seems a bit
sad to me, but do you thinkthat's the way we're going?
SPEAKER_09 (35:23):
I think it's always been the way.
I mean, let's take one specificexample.
When I first came to uh Genevain uh 1993, my work was
supporting a campaign that wasthen uh starting out against
anti-personnel mines.
And again, you had the keystates.
The United States said no,Russia said no, China said no.
We need these things, we can'tdo without them.
(35:44):
And it was an alliance of middlepowers, and Canada played an
important role, as did SouthAfrica, as did Norway, as did
Mexico, and they got togetherand they created a law that has
saved thousands of lives.
There are problems now becauseof non-state actors, Islamic
State, and whatever, but thereare thousands of people who are
alive and with limbs as a resultof that effort.
(36:06):
Now that's a narrow, small area,but it's still a contribution.
There are plenty of otherweapons out there, there are
plenty of other situations thatcan be addressed.
We can make progress even inthis difficult geopolitical
climate if we have thedetermination to do so.
SPEAKER_07 (36:23):
Very last question, then.
There are many people around whodo really support international
law and want to be able to standup for it.
Just ordinary people, probablyour listeners to this podcast.
What advice would you would yougive them?
SPEAKER_09 (36:40):
Everybody can do something.
There is no one on this planetthat cannot have a voice,
whether it's their own orthrough their elected
representatives.
Everybody has parliamentaryrepresentatives representing to
them.
Write to them, tell them thatyou want to see action.
Let's just take one specificexample: the arms trade.
(37:00):
We are seeing a massive rampingup in the arms trade.
And there is a need for statesto defend themselves.
That's uh, of course, uhaccepted.
But what we should not be doingis providing weapons to those
who demonstrably violateinternational humanitarian law.
And sadly, we've seen over thelast few years that there have
been instances where, again,political, narrow political
(37:24):
considerations have overriddenthe law.
We have the United Nations ArmsTrade Treaty.
It sets down clear standards forwhen a transfer is lawful and
when it and when it's not.
Those standards need to beimplemented, and everyone in
every state can push theirgovernment to join the treaty
and then to implement itfaithfully.
SPEAKER_07 (37:50):
Professor Stuart Casey Maslin of the Geneva
Academy, with a rousing pleathere to all of us to hold our
governments, our militaries, andarmed groups everywhere to
account.
We do have some checks on whatis allowed in war for good
reason, the protection of all ofus.
So let's all try to make surethose rules are upheld.
(38:14):
And if you want to know moreabout the Warwatch report,
including why the authors sayNicolas Maduro, Venezuela,
should be legally classed as aprisoner of war in the United
States, you can find all thedetails on the WarWatch.ch
website.
(38:52):
Thanks 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.
SPEAKER_06 (00:21):
What is the purpose of the United Nations?
The president claimed to haveended seven wars and said he got
no help from the UN.
For the most part, at least fornow, all they seem to do is
write a really strongly wordedletter.
SPEAKER_08 (00:33):
The UN has envisaged in the Charter as a space for
major power conflict resolutionand policing the world.
That has not delivered for thepeople of Ukraine.
That has not delivered for thePalestinians.
And this is leading to a realcrisis of confidence around the
organization.
SPEAKER_09 (00:50):
People only have to look around at the conflicts
that they're seeing today andthe extent of devastation, both
of uh civilian life and ofcivilian property, to know that
we are in very bleak times.
SPEAKER_03 (01:02):
The US President's newly minted Board of Peace
unveiled at the World EconomicForum in Davos.
SPEAKER_01 (01:10):
Congratulations, President Trump.
The Board of Peace is now anofficial international
organization.
SPEAKER_08 (01:16):
I do think that for all the fuss and bother, there
is a very real scenario whereall that happens is the US will
announce that it is establishinga headquarters for the Board of
Peace.
Probably that will be inFlorida.
Lots of gold.
There will be lots of gold.
SPEAKER_04 (01:34):
So will the ceasefire make genocide harder
to prove?
And is there enoughinternational political will to
investigate war crimes in Gaza?
SPEAKER_02 (01:43):
Russian soldiers had massacred civilians and left
their bodies out in the open.
All potential war crimes.
So can the Russian state, alongwith President Vladimir Putin,
be put on trial by theInternational Criminal Court?
SPEAKER_09 (01:57):
Everybody can do something.
There is no one on this planetthat cannot have a voice,
whether it's their own orthrough their elected
representatives.
Write to them.
Tell them that you want to seeaction.
SPEAKER_07 (02:33):
Could it be a threat to the United Nations?
SPEAKER_08 (02:36):
The US circulated an invitation to about 60 countries
to join a new Board of Peacethat would not just focus on
Gaza, but would instead be aglobal conflict prevention
organization, complete with apre-baked charter that looks a
bit like President Trump tookthe protocols for a golf club in
New Jersey.
(02:56):
I don't really think this is acredible international
institution that will have thecapacities of the UN, but I do
think that it is a very worryingsignal for the UN.
SPEAKER_07 (03:09):
And we'll get all the details about a brand new
report on conflict, and what theauthors warn is growing impunity
for war crimes.
SPEAKER_09 (03:18):
We look at what's happened in Gaza, we see the
destruction of hospitals inSudan.
We see that people do this andare not held to account.
We have institutions, we havethe International Criminal
Court, but even there there's anattempt to undermine it.
It becomes a political decisionrather than simply a legal one,
(03:39):
respect for the law.
Disregard of international lawis not new.
What I think is new is theextent to which it's being
flouted.
SPEAKER_07 (03:48):
The Warwatch report coming up later in the
programme.
But first, listeners to InsideGeneva might be wondering why we
haven't covered PresidentTrump's Board of Peace yet.
Announced with great fanfare atthe World Economic Forum in
Davos, many UN watchers werequick to warn that the new board
could be a rival to, or evenundermine, the United Nations.
(04:13):
Well, we decided to let the dustsettle a little bit and then
turn to another well-establishedinternational body which aims to
prevent and resolve conflict,the International Crisis Group.
Richard Gowan is its directorfor global issues and
institutions.
I sat down with him and askedhim what his reaction was when
(04:36):
the Board of Peace was unveiled.
SPEAKER_08 (04:38):
Well, I think the best word to describe my
reaction and the reaction of alot of diplomats I spoke to
might be befuddlement.
Befuddlement.
Befuddlement.
A fine old English word.
Because we had been waitingsince November for details on
the Board of Peace and how itwas going to oversee the
(05:00):
ceasefire in Gaza.
I think there was somefrustration around the turn of
the year that we weren't gettingmore details more quickly about
the US approach to stability inGaza.
But then what came out was very,very different to what I think
the Security Council and mostobservers had expected when they
(05:22):
initially endorsed the boardback in November.
Because the US circulated aninvitation to about 60 countries
to join a new Board of Peacethat would not just focus on
Gaza, but would instead be aglobal conflict prevention
organization, complete with apre-baked charter that looks a
bit like President Trump tookthe protocols for a golf club in
(05:45):
New Jersey and converted theminto a charter for an
international organization.
SPEAKER_07 (05:50):
As you say, the initial proposal was for Gaza,
which is not really mentioned inthe eventual charter.
I mean, should the UN beconcerned that this could be a
replacement for the UnitedNations?
SPEAKER_08 (06:07):
I think it depends what you mean by replacement,
because if you look at the thecharter for the Board of Peace,
which a bunch of leaders didsign off on at a ceremony at
Davos at the World EconomicForum, it is not a plan for a
full-scale replacement for theUN.
(06:27):
There is nothing in thisdocument that replicates the UN
Charter's provisions around theuse of force.
There's nothing that suggeststhat the board has the same
legal powers as the SecurityCouncil to intervene in
conflicts.
Actually, there's very littledetail about what the board will
do outside of the specific caseof Gaza.
(06:49):
I think that uh the charterpromises that members will offer
best practices for peacebuilding.
SPEAKER_07 (06:56):
We don't know what they they haven't defined them
though.
What are we doing?
SPEAKER_08 (06:59):
What that means is completely unclear.
I mean, my organization, theInternational Crisis Group,
offers best practices onpeacebuilding.
So I don't really think this isa credible international
institution that will have thecapacities of the UN, but I do
think that it is a very worryingsignal for the UN, because
(07:20):
obviously we have seen the Trumpadministration continuing to
distance itself from a lot ofmultilateral bodies.
Just this month, Washingtonannounced it was going to
boycott about 30 different UNoffices and entities.
Washington has confirmed itsformal withdrawal from the World
Health Organization.
(07:41):
And now we have the Trumpadministration floating this
trial balloon of a forum whereleaders will come together and
they will talk about peacepotentially in various conflict
zones, completely outside of UNstructures.
SPEAKER_07 (07:56):
So as you say, it it could be worrying for the UN,
not a complete replacement,perhaps a kind of degradation.
I'm just wondering, a lot of thereporting that I've read and
listened to on this, from my owncolleagues, people that I know,
I heard one just the other daysay, well, let's face it, the UN
(08:17):
does do bugger all.
That's what she said, which Ithought from a Geneva
perspective was a bit harsh.
But if a lot of people thinkthat, it's already worrying for
the UN, isn't it?
SPEAKER_08 (08:31):
I mean, it is worrying.
Again, your your colleague isflat wrong.
The Security Council has beengoing through obviously a very
difficult period in the last fewyears over Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan,
and other wars.
And we are a long way from the1990s when the Security Council
(08:54):
was very ambitious and there wasa high degree of cooperation in
New York.
But even so, the council isstill overseeing 60,000
peacekeepers around the world.
The Trump administration hasturned to the UN to help it with
a new stabilization force inHaiti.
The Security Council oversees adozen, maybe slightly more,
(09:15):
sanctions regimes around theworld.
I mean, this is actually still apretty high level of work.
I think the problem is thatprecisely because the UN has
tripped up appallingly overUkraine and especially Gaza,
there is a crisis ofconversation.
SPEAKER_07 (09:32):
Well, has it, though, it's the the UN as a as
a an identity, is it has ittripped up or has it just been
been prevented in those two?
I mean, we never consultedreally, in either Ukraine or
Gaza.
SPEAKER_08 (09:46):
I mean, I think what one can safely say is that the
UN, as envisaged in the charteras a space for major power
conflict resolution and policingthe world, that has not
delivered for the people ofUkraine.
That has not delivered for thePalestinians.
And this is leading to a realcrisis of confidence around the
organization, which isexacerbated a lot by the US
(10:09):
budget cuts.
And so I think a lot of thecommentary around the Board of
Peace reflects this crisis ofconfidence.
People are pointing at this, youknow, complete Farago of
diplomatic nonsense that the UShas put on the table.
And they are taking itincredibly seriously.
SPEAKER_07 (10:27):
From a Geneva perspective, some people in
Geneva, the aid agencies, ofcourse, battered though they are
by funding cuts, they would saywe're the part of the UN that is
working, you know, despite theparalysis of the Security
Council.
And there we can look at, youknow, the countries who are also
causing a lot of problems in theworld, like Russia, like perhaps
(10:50):
the United States.
The charter for this new board,as you say, people are taking it
seriously and paying a lot ofattention.
It makes no mention of some ofthe fundamental things that the
UN has in its charter to do withhuman rights, to do with
non-aggression.
SPEAKER_08 (11:06):
No, I mean, I it it and it is concerning that the US
would set up an internationalorganization without making any
reference at all to any of thecore principles of the UN
Charter, or indeed the UNCharter itself.
And it's also, to be honest,attracting quite a lot of
(11:27):
countries that are dismissive ofinternational law or have poor
human rights records.
The offer on the table is if acountry wants a permanent seat
on the Board of Peacedecision-making uh body, it
needs to pay one billiondollars.
SPEAKER_07 (11:45):
Where is that money going, do you think?
SPEAKER_08 (11:47):
No one is quite sure where the money is going.
But it, you know, there'scertainly no suggestion that you
have to live up to any uh anycriteria as a member of the
international community.
So this probably does reflecthow President Trump would like
the world to work.
I think he would like the worldto work on the basis of
transactional diplomacy betweenbig bold leaders like himself,
(12:10):
unconstrained by the niceties ofinternational law and diplomatic
process.
I mean, I do think that for allthe fuss and bother, there is a
very real scenario where allthat happens is the US will
announce that it is establishinga headquarters for the Board of
Peace.
Probably that will be inFlorida.
(12:31):
Lots of gold.
There will be lots of gold.
Because yeah, President Trumphas gone on and on about how he
doesn't like the quality of thefurnishings of the UN.
Well, this is his opportunity tobuild his dream international
institution.
But even once that is built, itmay be very little more than a
sort of country club where everyyear Victor Orban and other
(12:54):
friends of the president gettogether for a big chat about
the state of the world.
SPEAKER_07 (12:59):
Yeah, I was thinking, and again, this is
perhaps from a Genevaperspective, that the precedent
we have in front of us for theUnited States and this
particular administrationcircumventing the UN and
offering a quick replacement wasthe Gaza Humanitarian
Foundation, which caused, Ithink we have to be honest, an
(13:22):
awful lot of damage and an awfullot of deaths and an awful lot
of misery.
And finally disappeared.
And basically, when theceasefire came, the UN agencies
were supposed to come back inand do the job.
SPEAKER_08 (13:33):
Yes.
And, you know, one area where inthe last month we have seen the
US tiptoeing back towardsworking with the UN has been in
the humanitarian space becausejust at the turn of the year,
the US finally agreed to put$2billion into UN humanitarian
work in a deal with TomFletcher, uh, the head of the
(13:55):
office for the coordination.
SPEAKER_07 (13:57):
Yeah, I I attended that that press conference.
I mean, there are a lot ofstrings attached to this money,
political strings.
SPEAKER_08 (14:02):
There are lots of political strings, but the mere
fact that the US is putting$2billion on the table and has
indicated that there may be moreto come, I think is a reflection
of the fact that burned by theexperience of the Gaza
Foundation, even thisadministration has to admit
there are certain things thatthe UN does well, and one of
(14:23):
them is humanitarian delivery atscale.
I mentioned Haiti, where the UNis providing administrative
logistical backstopping for anew gang suppression force in
Port-au-Prince.
Interestingly, in in Africa, inthe Democratic Republic of
Congo, the US is trying to workwith the UN peacekeeping force
(14:43):
there to prop up a very weakceasefire deal in the east of
Congo that Washington helpedbroker.
I mean, actually, in pragmaticterms, whatever its ideological
predisposition, you know, theTrump administration will work
with the UN.
But again, I think that Trumpneeds his own shiny thing.
He needs his own shinyorganization of which he is the
(15:05):
chairman.
And we should have said thatunder the protocols of the Board
of Peace Charter, Trump has apretty much total veto on every
single decision this body willmake.
SPEAKER_07 (15:17):
And he's chairman for a life.
SPEAKER_08 (15:19):
Uh, yes.
So this does look a bit like aneffort to make him world
emperor.
SPEAKER_07 (15:27):
King of the world.
That's the phrase that came outinto my head.
SPEAKER_08 (15:30):
But I think again, let's let's let's try and
distinguish, although it's verydifficult, between the US
creating this uh sort of cosplaymultilateral institution and the
fact that in reality there aresome places where I think saner
people inside the US system areactually looking to work with
the UN because they do see thatit has capacities that they're
just not going to be able toreplicate.
SPEAKER_07 (15:52):
Do you think also perhaps within the people who
still have some faith in theUnited Nations, there perhaps
needs to be a recognition?
Well, don't no don't justdismiss this whole thing out of
hand.
Since most people do accept theUN needs reform.
Maybe not a replacement likethis, but it it does need
reform.
SPEAKER_08 (16:13):
Yes, I think that it's not specifically the Board
of Peace, but you know, theBoard of Peace and all the other
US moves against the UN, youknow, like leaving the World
Health Organization, likeleaving a lot of UN agencies
involved with gender work andwith environmental work.
You know, all of this togethermeans that those of us who still
(16:36):
believe in the UN system have tostart thinking very, very hard
about how that system is goingto survive and how that system
can be reinforced in a periodwhere resources are extremely
short and at least one big poweris now becoming very
(16:56):
semi-detached from theorganization that it created.
I mean, it's it's interesting.
Last year, when we started tosee the US take aggressive moves
against the UN in January andFebruary of 2025, most UN member
states were just not able toprocess what was going on.
Because simultaneously you hadthe US rolling out tariffs, you
(17:19):
had the US raising questionsabout security guarantees with a
lot of its allies.
I mean, in my experience,ambassadors in New York and
probably in Geneva were saying,well, this is all very bad, but
our capitals have otherpriorities.
Now, what I'm encountering isstill capitals have other
priorities, but I'm hearing alot of diplomatic colleagues
(17:41):
saying, okay, we've got toaccept this as a reality.
You know, it's clear that theTrump administration at least is
not going to turn back from itsbroad anti-UN strategy.
We now need a really seriouspolitical debate about what this
organization is for.
Um, we should have had thatpolitical debate a year ago.
Well, we didn't have it.
(18:02):
But I think that going forward,given the ongoing US pressure,
uh, I do feel that there's sortof a bit more energy around the
idea of having a proper UNreform discussion this year than
there was 12 months ago.
SPEAKER_07 (18:13):
What would you say to Antonio Guterres, the UN
Secretary General?
You know, he was here in Geneva,was going to go to Davos, and
then decided quite last minutenot to, apparently because he
had a cold.
But I do wonder whether he didnot want to be in the same town
when this board of peace wasbeing unveiled by Donald Trump,
(18:34):
because that that's whathappened in Davos, the charter
and everything was unveiled.
SPEAKER_08 (18:39):
I mean, the first thing I would say is let's try
and find a bright side in thischaotic situation.
Uh, and I think one bright sideis the US invited, we think,
around 60 people to join theBoard of Peace.
It's very opaque.
SPEAKER_07 (18:55):
And nobody in Africa.
Well, certainly not inSub-Saharan Africa.
SPEAKER_08 (18:59):
Not in Sub-Saharan Africa, which I think tells you
quite a lot about how the theWhite House um views Africa,
which is very sad.
SPEAKER_07 (19:07):
Um, there are other words for it.
SPEAKER_08 (19:09):
Yeah.
Um but there are, no, it isworth saying, uh, around 20 to
25 countries so far have signedup for Shaw.
Many of them, by the way, Arabcountries that I think primarily
signed up because they wanted tohave a voice in Board of Peace
discussions over Gaza, and fairenough.
(19:29):
But a lot of countries haven'tjoined up.
Actually, almost all theEuropean invitees, like France,
Norway, and others, said no.
And one of the reasons they saidno was quite specifically that
they were concerned that thiswas an organization that was
going to infringe on theprerogatives of the UN, or at
(19:50):
least cut across the principlesof the UN Charter.
And so if I were AntonioGuterres, I would I would at
least be able to say, you know,this does show that not everyone
is so cravenly pursuing Trump'sfavour that they forget the UN
Charter.
The organization and the Charterdoes still have friends.
I'm afraid to say, though, thatGuterres, who now only has 11
(20:12):
months left in office, can'treally do very much about this
situation.
So rather than focus onGuterres, I would actually be
looking at the candidates toreplace him as Secretary
General.
And we now know that thecandidates to be the next UNSG
will have hearings in New Yorkin April with member states.
(20:36):
And I think those hearings areactually a really good
opportunity to ask the peoplewho want to be the UN's chief,
what is your long-term plan fordoing that?
SPEAKER_07 (20:44):
What's your vision for the UN?
SPEAKER_08 (20:46):
It's going to be awfully hard because to become
Secretary General, you need thesign-off of all five veto
powers.
And that means you need thesign-off of the US.
So people can't come to New Yorkand just bash Trump.
But I think that it is fair forother countries to say we see
the UN's primary founder of theUS drifting away from the
(21:07):
organization.
You know, we see a lot of othercountries, as you say, going
through a crisis of confidenceabout the organization's future.
What is your plan?
How do you get us out of thishole?
Um, and if anyone has a goodanswer to that, well, firstly,
they should become SecretaryGeneral, and then maybe they
should get the Nobel Prize, andthen they can give their Nobel
(21:27):
Prize to Trump, so he has two.
SPEAKER_07 (21:34):
Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group,
clear-eyed about the prospectsfor the new Board of Peace, and
clear eyed about the challengesfacing whoever gets the possibly
poisoned chalice of becoming newUN Secretary General.
That's a topic we will, ofcourse, be returning to in
(21:55):
future episodes of the podcast.
Before we move on to our nextguest today.
Here's a little flavor of what'scoming up on the next inside
Geneva, when we've got a wholeprogram devoted to the
polarizing topic of migration.
SPEAKER_05 (22:11):
I think we are seeing a race to the bottom.
I had hoped we would be muchbetter off in Europe.
We're rather seeing one countryafter the other erecting barbed
wire around their country andaround our continent.
SPEAKER_00 (22:30):
Selling lawful immigration policies does not
mean that you have the right tomistreat migrants, even migrants
who are undocumented.
And very sadly, that's what theUS administration is doing.
It's rounding up Venezuelanmigrants in the US and sending
them to El Salvador where theyare being tortured, where they
(22:51):
are experiencing sexual abuse.
SPEAKER_07 (22:54):
We'll be asking why this issue has become so
divisive, analyzing the facts,figures, and economic pluses and
minuses.
That's out on February 17th.
Now, as we heard from RichardGowan of the International
(23:15):
Crisis Group, there's a new kidon the block when it comes to
ending wars.
Donald Trump's Board of Peace.
Well, out this week is a brandnew report which has some grim
warnings about the way 21stcentury wars are being fought.
SPEAKER_09 (23:32):
So we're at the Geneva Academy of International
Humanitarian Law and HumanRights.
My name's Stuart Casey Maslin,and I'm head of the IHL In Focus
project, which has produced thisreport.
SPEAKER_07 (23:42):
Professor Casey Maslin's War Watch report looks
at 23 conflicts raging betweenmid-2024 and the end of 2025.
I asked him about his findings.
Your report has some quite bleakwarnings in it.
You, for example, say thatinternational humanitarian law
(24:03):
is on the brink of collapse.
Why so bleak?
SPEAKER_09 (24:09):
I think people only have to look around at the
conflicts that they're seeingtoday and the extent of
devastation, both of uh civilianlife and of uh civilian
property, to know that we are invery bleak times.
Now, of course, the multiplicityof conflicts is an issue in of
itself.
There has never been a goldenage where international law was
(24:29):
always respected, but there havebeen opportunities, and we've
seen them over the last coupleof decades, where states have
started to take civilian life,civilian harm in armed conflicts
more seriously.
What I think we've seen over thelast couple of years is there
has been a degeneration in thatlevel of respect, that there
have been governments, and theyare from all corners of the
(24:51):
world.
Uh, we know that there arecertain particularly bad
violators, but it's all cornersof the world where they accept
that they can get away withstuff that maybe they wouldn't
have dared to decades ago.
SPEAKER_07 (25:03):
Why do you think this is happening?
I mean, can you pinpoint certainexamples or people?
I mean, uh you say obviouslyinternational law has never been
a hundred percent respected.
We know that.
I think it's also probably trueto say that this trend that you
identify uh didn't just startlast year or the year before.
SPEAKER_09 (25:27):
No, that's certainly true.
We saw it in the aftermath of9-11, horrendous attacks on uh
civilians by al-Qaeda, but wesaw in the US response that uh
they were prepared, in the fatedwords of Dick Cheney, to work
the dark side, and boy did theydo that.
Uh we saw in the invasion ofIraq, although IHL was largely
(25:49):
respected by the US, we saw abreach of this general
prohibition on the use of force.
And then, of course, we've hadUkraine since 2014 and more
recently since the invasion of2022.
We look at what's happened inGaza, the obliteration of vast
swathes of Gaza.
We see the destruction ofhospitals in Sudan.
(26:13):
We see that people do this andare not held to account.
We have institutions, we havethe International Criminal
Court, but even there there's anattempt to undermine it.
It becomes a political decisionrather than simply a legal one,
respect for the law.
SPEAKER_07 (26:29):
I want to come back to the ICC and the ICJ in a
moment because they were thestart of the 21st century seen
as pillars of how we upholdinternational law and how we
hold states and individuals toaccount when they violate
international law.
But before we come to that, Iwant to talk specifically about
(26:51):
political leaders now.
You talked about 9-11 and so on,but right now we have the leader
of the so-called free world whohas openly said that he's not
too bothered about what he callsinternational niceties, that his
only guidance is his own morals.
That's what President Trump hassaid.
(27:13):
Does that feel like a tippingpoint to you?
SPEAKER_09 (27:16):
I mean, it's certainly a very serious moment,
but again, this is not, as yousaid, new.
I remember when uh drone strikesstarted to be used, again, in
the aftermath of uh 9-11, and Iremember a BBC interview with
the deputy legal advisor of theCIA, and uh she was said, No,
this is lawful under the law ofthe United States.
(27:36):
And the interviewer said, Butwhat about international law?
And uh she smiled for a momentand then she said, Yes,
international law, it's sort ofa flexible moral code, isn't it?
And unfortunately the feed wentdown and there was no
opportunity to push back.
So this disregard ofinternational law is not new.
What I think is new is theextent to which it's being
(27:57):
flouted.
And uh you have the RussianFederation, you have the United
States, you have Israel, allseemingly pushing international
humanitarian law to the verybrink, with, in certain cases in
uh parts of Ukraine, systematicwar crimes.
Why I would not accept thatinternational humanitarian law
(28:21):
is over, that has no utility, isbecause that is demonstrably
false.
If you look at Ukraine, on theone hand, as I said, you have
these systematic violations byRussia, but you do not have
systematic violations byUkraine.
Why not?
Is it because Ukrainians areinherently better people?
Well, maybe in some cases it'strue, but it's also the case
(28:43):
that they are being held toaccount by their allies.
So what that means is if statestake compliance with IHL,
international humanitarian law,seriously, they can influence
many, not all, but many cases.
It's a choice that we make topush compliance or to just sit
back and watch it go out thewindow.
SPEAKER_07 (29:05):
So, but how do we pull it back from the window
ledge then, when the world'ssuperpower is actively working
against it?
I mean, we've seen in the last12 months these sanctions
against judges at the at theInternational Criminal Court,
which is really, I think, manystates in in Europe or in Latin
(29:26):
America, it's quite a shockingmove by the US.
SPEAKER_09 (29:30):
It is a shocking move.
Um, again, it's not new.
There was the legislation thatwas adopted in the US a few
years ago that said if ever a USserviceman was put before the
ICC, then the United Stateswould use military force to
release them.
So again, these these things arenot new.
They're getting worse, they'regetting more uh repetitive.
That's where other states stepup.
(29:52):
They defend the ICC, they defenduh other tribunals, they say
everybody is held to account forserious violations of
international humanitarian law.
Again, it's a choice that wemake.
SPEAKER_07 (30:03):
Are there enough countries making that choice,
though, right now?
And we do see in Europe morecases under the universal
jurisdiction.
SPEAKER_09 (30:11):
Uh universal jurisdiction uh is certainly one
tool in our armory.
We've seen uh cases in Germany,for example, in Switzerland, in
France.
States are trying are startingto take this more seriously, and
that is an important element.
But it's also the duty of thestates where these violations
take place to do their part.
(30:33):
Look at Syria.
We've had a change of uh regime.
We have the opportunity to stopthe massive violations of the
past.
And yes, there have been someproblems over the last uh year,
very serious problems by the newadministration, but they have an
opportunity to join theInternational Criminal Court and
to make their forces responsibleas well as those of the former
(30:57):
regime.
Again, that's a choice that wemake.
Let's turn to another uhconflict.
This is one that in our reportwe identified for the first time
this year.
That's Haiti.
Gang violence, as we know, hasbeen appalling for several
years.
The absence of state governancehas been filled by the gangs,
and we are now at a stage wherethere is a non-international
(31:20):
armed conflict within at leastPorto Prince or the vast
majority of Porto Prince.
That means that internationalhumanitarian law is applicable
and also that war crimes arecommitted when the law is
seriously violated.
Again, Haiti is only asignatory, not a state party, to
the International CriminalCourt.
(31:40):
They need to join, and then thecourt needs to start looking and
investigating what is going on.
SPEAKER_07 (31:46):
Since you're talking about Haiti, a slightly slightly
off-topic, but the otherinterview in this episode is
with Richard Gowren of theInternational Crisis Group.
We were talking about theprospects for this board of
peace, which Donald Trump hashas proposed.
But behind the scenes, the US isalso looking for UN help in
(32:08):
Haiti.
So do you think that is oneplace where you could say, look,
the norms and standards we haveand the institutions we have are
the things that can solve this,not maybe quick fixes like this
this board of peace?
SPEAKER_09 (32:22):
The idea that this is purely going to be resolved
by the use of force, whether itbe military force or or law
enforcement operations, I'mafraid is for the birds.
It is the lack of governance,the lack of provision of basic
services to the people in thecapital and in other uh parts of
Haiti that has led to thissituation.
(32:43):
So, yes, there will be a need toprotect people against
massacres, and we've seenseveral of them over the last
two years, but that has to becombined with a serious plan to
provide resources because wherethere's a void, groups will step
in and they will not be groupsthat have human rights at their
heart.
SPEAKER_07 (33:00):
Do you think that the conversation around human
rights and respecting eachother's rights has really
changed, actually, in the lastfew years?
People are much more for theirown selves and their own nation
states.
The language around respectingother people's rights has
(33:22):
changed.
We also see quite dehumanizinglanguage becoming quite common.
It's included in the speeches ofpowerful politicians these days.
Do you feel that this is alsopart of the thing that's
undermining international law?
That's just becoming moreacceptable to not respect the
(33:43):
other?
SPEAKER_09 (33:44):
I'm not so sure.
Again, I don't think this isnew.
What we've seen in the genocidein Gaza, this is not the first
genocide.
We saw it in the 90s inparticular, in Srebrenica,
arguably in other parts ofBosnia-Herzegovina.
We've seen it, of course, inRwanda.
That kind of dehumanizinglanguage is not new.
(34:05):
It's as human as it can possiblybe.
What we need is for politicalleaders, for community leaders,
to speak out and say this is notacceptable.
We are all human beings.
We have all the right to haveour lives and integrity
protected.
And I'm not sure that we are sovery much worse, we're certainly
(34:25):
not better, but we're not sovery much worse than we were in
previous decades.
I just think we're livingthrough a particularly difficult
time in terms of globalgeopolitics.
SPEAKER_07 (34:36):
We heard a very interesting, powerful speech
from Canada's Prime MinisterMark Carney at the World
Economic Forum just a week or soago.
He described international law,human rights, and so on, that it
had always been a partialfiction and that powerful states
upheld it sometimes, but didn'tto their own convenience.
(35:00):
I think we both know that'strue.
If you watch the Human RightsCouncil in Geneva, you'll see
that that's true.
But he seemed to be suggestingthat maybe we need to accept
that these things aren'tuniversal and that there needs
to be an alliance of like-mindedstates who can at least uphold
them just on their ownterritories, which seems a bit
sad to me, but do you thinkthat's the way we're going?
SPEAKER_09 (35:23):
I think it's always been the way.
I mean, let's take one specificexample.
When I first came to uh Genevain uh 1993, my work was
supporting a campaign that wasthen uh starting out against
anti-personnel mines.
And again, you had the keystates.
The United States said no,Russia said no, China said no.
We need these things, we can'tdo without them.
(35:44):
And it was an alliance of middlepowers, and Canada played an
important role, as did SouthAfrica, as did Norway, as did
Mexico, and they got togetherand they created a law that has
saved thousands of lives.
There are problems now becauseof non-state actors, Islamic
State, and whatever, but thereare thousands of people who are
alive and with limbs as a resultof that effort.
(36:06):
Now that's a narrow, small area,but it's still a contribution.
There are plenty of otherweapons out there, there are
plenty of other situations thatcan be addressed.
We can make progress even inthis difficult geopolitical
climate if we have thedetermination to do so.
SPEAKER_07 (36:23):
Very last question, then.
There are many people around whodo really support international
law and want to be able to standup for it.
Just ordinary people, probablyour listeners to this podcast.
What advice would you would yougive them?
SPEAKER_09 (36:40):
Everybody can do something.
There is no one on this planetthat cannot have a voice,
whether it's their own orthrough their elected
representatives.
Everybody has parliamentaryrepresentatives representing to
them.
Write to them, tell them thatyou want to see action.
Let's just take one specificexample: the arms trade.
(37:00):
We are seeing a massive rampingup in the arms trade.
And there is a need for statesto defend themselves.
That's uh, of course, uhaccepted.
But what we should not be doingis providing weapons to those
who demonstrably violateinternational humanitarian law.
And sadly, we've seen over thelast few years that there have
been instances where, again,political, narrow political
(37:24):
considerations have overriddenthe law.
We have the United Nations ArmsTrade Treaty.
It sets down clear standards forwhen a transfer is lawful and
when it and when it's not.
Those standards need to beimplemented, and everyone in
every state can push theirgovernment to join the treaty
and then to implement itfaithfully.
SPEAKER_07 (37:50):
Professor Stuart Casey Maslin of the Geneva
Academy, with a rousing pleathere to all of us to hold our
governments, our militaries, andarmed groups everywhere to
account.
We do have some checks on whatis allowed in war for good
reason, the protection of all ofus.
So let's all try to make surethose rules are upheld.
(38:14):
And if you want to know moreabout the Warwatch report,
including why the authors sayNicolas Maduro, Venezuela,
should be legally classed as aprisoner of war in the United
States, you can find all thedetails on the WarWatch.ch
website.
(38:52):
Thanks 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.