the, the, there's no limit to have a dream container, stuff in your own adventure, no counter avenues. research and skill level conflicts indicates that more countries are wor today. then at any time it seems to be an incoming us present. donald trump, nato, on the e u. for one to increase another to spending which record levels worldwide again last year. once all the implications, this is inside sort of the

program i remember on con, the world's experiencing levels of war and not seen in decades, according to research from organizations to track and global trends every day. people in gaza, ukraine. so dawn and the democratic republic of congo, amongst many of those all suffering, the consequences of politics and diplomacy, failing political military spending hit record levels last year. however, nato, the, you and the next that us present donald trump up pushing for the increases. but others like islands, presidents, a moment of translation just means a more risk of will as the profits of all these companies rise. so to do levels of global hunger and poverty often linked to the conflict. so where does the world stand ready for great to defense or poised for more violence is the specter of world war 3, the stuff of fiction, or near reality?

most things well i guess shortly, but 1st the support from victoria guiding the russians invasion of ukraine and israel's war on gaza. a 2 reasons why the world is less peaceful now that it any all the time since world war 2. that's according to the institute for economics and peace. it says there are currently $56.00 conflicts globally. 92 countries are involved in fighting outside that boat is and in recent years militarization has increased the move in 90 countries. a trend us president elect donald trump appears to be encouraging. well, i think nato should have 5 percent. yes. well, you can't do it or to, i mean it to present every country. if you're going to have a country and a regular military, you are 4 percent. i think they should be, you know, they're in dangerous territory. i think it should be, they could all afford it, but they should be at 5 percent. not 2 percent. i'm the one they got to pay 2 percent. a divided international community has had little success in ending the

conflict since the den yemen garza or ukraine. meanwhile, the number of civilians killed either directly by the violence or in direct me from starvation and disease continues to increase. some say moment that true spending will just mean mobile. it is important that we respond to the spectrum at the coast of war. as a stage of mind, including the recent appalling comments from national calling in for as a more on them and spending to be a treat. this may, we were told cause pain in the present. so is to change security in the future as the damage closed as a result of fighting comes with a hefty price tag. $19.00 trillion dollars in 2023, representing moving 13 percent of label g, d, p. the human cost is catastrophic. in the same year, more than

a 160000 people were killed and a 110000000 forced to flee the homes. victoria gave some b. l, g 0 for inside story. that's bringing out guess from still kind way joined by down smith, the director of the stop kind of international piece research institute separate a think tank of focusing on global security in yield. robbie audrey was the editor in chief of foreign policy. it magazine and a montville is boeing regarding a known resident fellow at the center for a conflict on humanitarian studies. welcome to inside story. let's start and stop came with dan smith. then why is the world more dangerous than ever? on the one hand, you've got the conflicts that your opponent was talking about are combined with that, although the levels of nuclear warheads have countered on folding for the last 25

to 30 years. unfortunately, we've seen a slight uptake in the number of operational heads that have been deployed, and that is probably pressure doing a new turnarounds rise. we also have the levels of military spending that we're talking about. um, each year for the past 9 years has, has broken a record, and the 9 year round of increase is, is the longest the out data bases can show. and then i think lastly, you're going to think of in the background tool. this is an ecological process. of standing proportions, not just about climate change, but about the loss of biodiversity or about air pollution, about many other issues. so these things combined to create, to kind of cocktail of risk that the world leads us do not yet show really clear signs of being able to handle. are you talking about? well leaders, let's bring in a radi ogden,

while one of your latest articles has been talking about donald trump and transactional. elizabeth, um, he's about to come back into a pallet. he's already said he wants more military spending. the little ministry spending isn't necessarily going to lead to peace or the end of these complexes complex. going to go on because of local factors and international factors. right? oh, absolutely. i mean, i think the trump administration, when it does start on january 20th, the whole point is that you can build peace through strength. and so that's sort of the ration now between the military build up not only in the united states, but among all of its allies in nato and elsewhere. and i think if you set back a bit from, from all of that, what we're seeing is over the last 75 years or so, the world order as it existed with the united states as a clear hedge, a mon, you know, one of the only super powers has begun to see that so the power road in relative

term is not enough. so we have tons in relative tons and you see that most clearly now with china is rise, which the united states clearly seizes a threat. you see that also with the rise of other swing states, countries like india and other countries in the global south, which feel that they have more power. they want to test that power. think of russia, for example. and in this moment where countries are looking to test and see whether they can take more risks, whether they can test the extent and limits of the rules that exists, the norms that exist, as well as, as accusations fly, that the united states itself doesn't follow the rules and has double standards. it creates a climate of impunity. it creates a climate where the leaders countries can try to typically, truly test the boundaries of conflict. and i think that that's sort of the backdrop to why we are where we are and it creates a climate then of adventure,

as in the thoughts of the say, i wrote and thank you for mentioning it. it's the cover story of foreign policy magazine. this time is really about how trump is defined by opportunism and transactional lives and and you know 2025 is not going to be like 2017. i think this time a lot of countries look at trumps opportunism. and they say wait a minute. how do we make use of this for ourselves? the thing is the countries that can make use of it are going to be countries with size, salience and strength, big countries, powerful countries to dance point earlier. the countries that get ignored are the smaller ones, the ones that have no real agency to battle, a climate in which we have more conflict. climate challenges are worsening, of food crises are everywhere. and we are entering a more an equal world because of all of that motor. bonnie: that is an argument to be made i think. and i'd like to ask you whether there is

that the 2nd world war didn't really comes when the old that really happened is we broke into was in the world, rather than any kind of rules based or any kind of institutions that could deal with the world's problems all we stage where the united nations, for example, has clearly failed. well, i think transition enough people always tend to to go together and i think the question we need to ask ourselves, are we seeing a growing number of challenges to the existing order? or are we seeing a fundamental transformation of that order towards something new? and yet on known with respect to your question, i would disagree with the premise. i mean a very clear bipolar international system was put in place and and 1945. and you had to know the cold war of the united nations security council proxy

wars throughout the 3rd world, whether in southeast asia or elsewhere, those were very much on the norms and rules of the game. but then that began to disintegrate. with the end of, of the cold war, but i would say disregarding this report, you know, it seems to go out of its way to recruit any evidence to make its case. so for example, the report claims there are $45.00 arms conflicts in the middle east. well, considering that the author is don't consider sudan as part of the middle east. 45, i think will be news to many specialists and observers to the reach it. but just to add to, to what this previous speakers do, you know, this combination of, of instability of transition of growing into quality. one could of the multiplication of the number of states, for example, with the disintegration of versus soviet union. and then you can slowly,

so once again, what are we simply seeing growing challenges to the existing system by powers that believe themselves to be able to access complete impunity? like the united states and great britain, then the rock are, is real now the gaza strip, or are we seeing a genuine disintegration of the international system that was put in place in 1945 . and we're seeing the of peebles that go along with the transition to something that is, as the new one unknown. well, let me pull that down. so we have times for it the idea that the entire international institutions, like united nations, like the security council, which is the parts of the united nations that have failed. because that is this idea that the big countries, the permanent members, for example, all the security council can do what they wish. but they try and impose that will on smaller countries that are looking at them and just saying, well actually you don't do so we can do we want. well, i mean, as you know,

as you're suggesting, we have to take a to look at this in terms of a historical perspective. so if you think of the past 70 is also 80, is since the end of the, the 2nd world war and compare that to the, into war period between the 1st and 2nd of all was what you see is that there was an effort after the 1st world war to create a world order which essentially collapsed within about 12 or 13 years. right? so then, a revised effort was made with a lot of the same principles, but different operating methods. and the idea of the security council, the permanent members at fountains, insistence upon the members for the have a veto of security council resolutions. and that has created something which i think is, was cooling a world order, which has been flawed,

but which has got some real achievements behind the universal declaration on the human right. say genocide, convention the refugee convention, a whole set of agents as the world health organization, human development organization of a program. i've been more recently you and women and so a whole set of achievements have been registered. but that have also been many floors in failure time. one of the key flaws in fact is in the view of many observers, myself included is the un security council because there are 5 permanent members because they have a veto on resolutions of the security council. they operated under one rather flexible loose set of laws open to interpretation so they can push against the rules every now and again. and the rest of the world operates under another much tighter set. now i think what is happening now and probably will accelerate during

the coming for years, because trump is back in power. i'm because he has as many objections to the world order of the last 8 decades as china, the leaders of china and russia. do i think we're going to see an acceleration of the framing of the international hold of the weakening of it? i'm really concerned about this. i mean, i don't see at the moment international institutions you and board is able to intervene to manage conflicts as was happening in the 1990s. and the north says hasn't happened for the last decade or so. i think that the capacity to get through agreements on the ecological prices and to implement them is, is visibly weakening. so i think that you and agents are still carry on doing a terrific sometimes i run the job. i mean, think of the international atomic energy agency and the work it's been doing to try

and ensure some degree of nuclear safety and ukraine in the midst of all, despite the good work of some of the agents and says, i think yes, the international order is moving towards a, a moments of historic transition. i wanna take that to the other guess, right? so that it is flawed, but it's the only system that we've got that is the united nations and therefore it needs to be protected and more now. so than ever, is that right? i think it's right, but i thought done, put it really well right now. and i would go a little bit further and i say that, you know, without throwing the baby out with the box, what i did, it has significant achievements of the last state decades. it is just no longer fits about this and that is okay. it is time to talk about how to reform not just the un security council, but to make the united nations more effective, more equitable. i think we're in this strange moment of global transition of global

flux, where a range of players, whether it's countries in the global south or countries in the rich world. whether it is people on the left or people on the right. there is an agreement that things aren't working as they are. and part of this diagnosis, whether it is the end of neo liberalism, the end of neo conservatism. whether it is a sneaking suspicion that globalization went too far and isn't quite working anymore. whether it is a sense that post cold bed country need to secure their borders and focus on being protectionist. yeah, there's a real sense of agreement that the system as it is, isn't working. there is not much agreement on how to fix it. and this is where the left and the right smaller countries and bigger countries have no real sense of consensus. and part of the problem is, i mean the edits root is the un security council where you have 5 countries that

have a veto power and refused to give up that power. and that lends itself to accusations of double standards. it lends itself to accusations of trying to horde power and not share around when all of the crises we have right now are so global. require a global cooperation and global solutions. and we know this from the pandemic. we just haven't learned the lesson. well in rabbani it's a very good point. the un security council does need reform. there have been books written about this sort of in millions of gigabytes put on the, into the about this very same topic. but ultimately, the 5 permanent members don't want any change because the system works for them. once again, it's in the quality that's driving decision making. what are your thoughts on that? what is that sustainable? like like any? yes, like any power structure that can only be reformed through one of 2 ways. either

by the initiative or with the consent of those holding power within the system. and in the case of the security council up, we know that that's simply never going to happen. or by effective challenges to that system and that i think we, we have seen and it's been very clear and very successful in the united states is illegal. 2003, occupation invasion and occupation and ultimately destruction of the rock was icing by, by the accounts of most observers. anomalous. the most clear cut and brazen violation of the un charter since 1945. and if you know, in terms of the discussions that were in terms of discussion we're having today, i think we need to also look at the current moment as in part of the outcome of

what has come before it. we wouldn't be where we are today with, for example, is real enjoying total impunity and what it is doing to the gaza strip without, let's say i'm the president and the precursor of, of the rock 2 decades ago. and, and again, do you want security council is not going to reform itself. and unfortunately, the most effective challenges that are changing the admittedly very flogged into national order. we have has been to week and it even further to make it even more of an effective to make it even in greater service of those determined to violate the fundamental rights of, of, of people who are off part of that power structure. rather than to strengthen it and to make it more equal for all concerned down, i want to take the discussion in a slightly different direction. but the elephant in the room here has always been

the trade money. money is a huge driver of the was that we're saying around the planet, even from your own website and you're in research. the industry is $632000000000.00 worth of trade. in 2023. we're looking at a 13 percent of spending on well and then reconstruction of both of global g d p tests, 19 trillion dollars is the, is the money a driving factor and is the driving factor? i'll start with you to i would. yes. a probably, i'm a little bit unfashionable about this because i think i went on. so i know it's not the driving factor. i think it's political ambition is the driving factor that we say whether you look at the kind of war of you, ukraine, straightforward invasion by one sovereign state against another. if you look at say,

the will that israel is carrying out against the palestinians of gaza and now the westbank or you look at the civil war in syria, both from the side of the now the feet to the side and the now the victoria is what used to be on the start of ever that, sir, with this jihad the roots. if you look on said don, and the rivalry of 2 generals and 9 militias, that i think persistently you see politics is that the core of that power is on the how to the clouds of it's the german military for lots of a sudden, wars, the extension opponents expire the means that i think that, that is it, that has stood the test of time and become a cliche only because it's true. that said, money then starts to exacerbate issues. both the result is which i spend on military preparations, which are as a full time high level. i don't think we've mentioned the figures yet, but just let's do just for the for the front of it. $2.00 trillion us dollars in

print. 223 people sometimes asked me, why do i go new edition, use the 3 decimal points? and the answer is because those last 2. oh $43.00, that's $43000000000.00 us dollars. and that is something like a itself, 3 or 4 times as much as a spend on peace operations from faced building worldwide. and then the thing, you're sorry that we're running out of time, and i want to get to that very, very, very important point. because i like to other guess we're spending trillions of $1.19 trillion $1.20 things a mind with any on um on the wall window spending anywhere near the on peace building page structures on solving complex that has to be the 5, the war is more profitable, surely, that's going to be the simple reason well it's, it's not only the more is more profitable, but that we also see that those waging war, i often conclude that lore as

a more effective method of achieving their objectives. then then diplomacy, or other alternatives, and this again reflects the problems with the international system we have which rewards the powerful and punishes the powerless. arriving the same questions here while we spending more money on piece building f as one rebuilding those institutions. why we just spending it on a relentless will machine? i wish i knew the answer. i mean, i think peace building takes time. it's hard. reconstruction takes time. so solving big global problems, whether it's climate change, whether it's mitigation, whether it's infrastructure, these things take time. the rewards are unclear. war as instant. you can find them money from one source to another. their territorial conquests,

and has done pointed out as well. people with power and ambition react in strange ways. i don't think it's just money. if you wanted to make more money, you'd put it all in in video stop. so it isn't as clear cut as that. but i think over all the thing that concerns me as, as someone who is, you know, a journalist and then editor is, is the, the constant erosion of rules and norms. and the sense of impunity it creates. and the longer this goes on, the one mentioned a rock and you could draw a straight line from from that. and now in terms of it being okay to do this, it being ok to test the boundaries of the rules and norms that exist. because there aren't enough punishments and there aren't enough agreements on how to even define what is going on around the was that is a problem. it is a problem. we need to talk more about ethics than the defining thing for all generation is going to be the genocide and goals and how it was allowed to happen.

that'll be, well people are going to be talking about the same way. we talked about the whole course the same way we talked about the 2nd will, will that will be failings of institutions that people will talk about. but will there be any accountability, any piece, building a need function or organization that will arise from this, like the united nations, it off to the 2nd level? or is it arose and that's going to happen. i think the difficult thing to confirm here is that the 2 moments in the last 100 or so years when a real decisive step has been made in time. so the world, or both came off to enormously destructive, multi pontine, multi sided, was the 1st world war, which gave rise to the asset with the league of nations which failed. and then the 2nd world war, even more destructive, which gave rise to the united nations, which as we science has been a partial success. that's got some achievements. it's always been flawed. i think.

but my generation and like those bowling lights, i have not had that experience of wool which told her well, the 1945. you know what? i have a divides us. we mustn't go through this again now go. so what is happening and gaza is horrible. and i also want to draw attention to what is happening on the west bank, which in the summer time small away is also um, extremely serious and didn't to main and crew. but that is, i don't want to sound dismissive in this, but that is a localized horrendous tragedy. and i don't think that that will have that kind of a generative effect for the, for the international system. and for political leaders all around the world in the way that the 2nd world war did. so i'm a little bit skeptical about the chances that a new order will be created quickly. i think we probably thought uncomfortably to

go through some more erosion before we get the i hope i'm like just very quickly because we all were going out of time. this is just a very quick question. so to rev and tomorrow, and i'll start with mind 1st, garza isn't big enough to full a change, but it is the subject that we're going to be talking about about generation is that because is happening to brown people. and that's certainly part of the explanation . the other part, i think it's too early to tell quite how regional and international crisis is ultimately going to be. but very quickly, i think the question about guys a, is this another abas' cindy? a moment where the world order proves its ineffectiveness and collapses? because it is incessantly toothless. or is this another 1945 moment where the world looks at what has just happened does and decides you know, things need to change. and the rules are essentially rewritten to

ensure that such a thing can never happen again. my money is on this being and out to cindy a moment. robbie, what are your thoughts as well, you know, we haven't talked about missing this information here. but the truth is we can't even agree on whether gods, but as a genocide you've called it as such. but much of the west and media will never call it that the united states will not call it that. and so if you can't agree on facts i, i'm not even sure we can say that this is the defining conflicts of our generation . what i do think is going to be more indisputable. and i'm not thinking now about the scenes of wild fires in l. a. i think the big conflict and war of our generation is actually going to be climate change. i think the scenes of devastation will be so universal, so global will affect different countries and communities in different ways that

that is likely and sadly, very sadly, going to be the thing that will likely bring countries together to act in, in a way where they can agree on the scope of the problem and they will have no other option but to talk about solutions. i want to thank all gas town smith that grab the other wall and moving rabbani and i want to thank you as well for watching. now you can see the program again, any time by visiting or websites out there. don't come until further discussion goes well facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha inside story. and you could also join the conversation on x all handle is at asia inside story for me and wrong colin and the whole team here. bye for now the to examine the data center for tomorrow's discussions. international filmmakers and will cross

journalist bring program and inspire you barnowski sierra the so i'm fully back to going to high with the look at on main stories on how to 0. h lease for administer is in syria to show support for a peaceful transition of power. after the fall of the sheil aside, antonio to johnny met with the leader of serious new administration. not at all. sure. as well as with the foreign minister i found out shabani. his visit comes a day after he hosted a special meeting with us secretary of state on to me blinking and e foreign ministers in rome to align their strategies on serious transition. what i'm going.