a "witness" documentary, on al jazeera. ♪ nick: russia has assumed the presidency of the u.n. security council. it is taking on the position while waging war on more on ukraine. so what does this mean for the u.n., and can it still play the role its founders hoped for, in seeking world peace? this is "inside story." ♪ hello there and welcome to the program. i'm nick clark. so, russia has taken over the

presidency of the un's most important body, the security council. its ascension on the 1st of april, was mocked as a world worst april fools joke by ukraine's foreign minister given russia's invasion. in the past, other countries such as the u.s. and the u.k. have also presided over the security council while waging war on iraq, for example. the makeup of the council was put together in the aftermath of world war ii with vetoes for all five permanent members. but is it fit for today's world? we will be discussing this and more in a few moments with our guests, but first, fintan monahan reports on the debate over russia's presidency of the security council. reporter: for the next month, russia will chair the u.n. security council. the council's presidency rotates every month, and that gives the holder some influence in shaping its agenda. but some members are objecting to russia chairing a body dedicated to peace and security as it wages war in ukraine e. >> yesterday the russian army

killed another ukrainian child, a five-month-old boy. the parents are wounded. one of the hundreds of artillery attacks that the terrorist state carries out today. and at the same time russia , presides over the u.n. security council. it is difficult to imagine anything that proves the complete bankruptcy of such institutions. reporter: the ukrainians are pushing for russia to be removed from the council. but even kiev's allies admit that's effectively impossible. >> unfortunately russia is a , permanent member of the security council, and no feasible international legal pathway exists to change that reality. that is what we are living with currently. as impalpable as it may be to see russia presiding over the council, the reality is that this is a largely ceremonial position. reporter: russia's presidency has emboldened some critics of the u.n. vito--- vito-wielding

members like russia and the united states often prevent the council from acting. but there have also been breakthroughs. the u.n. successfully brokered a deal in july allowing ukrainian grain to pass through the black sea. u.n. officials have also been active at europe's largest nuclear power plant, which has been cut in the crossfire. but both sides are gearing up for a new offensive in ukraine. the war has brought big challenges to the u.n., and many are questioning what role it can play during the largest scale conflict in europe since world war ii. finton monahan, al jazeera. ♪ nick: let's bring in our guests. in moscow, we have stanislav mitrakhovich, international relations researcher at the financial university under the government of the russian federation, moscow. in helsinki, rasmus handren, head of international relations at the european centre of excellence for countering hybrid threats. and over in brussels, is steven erlanger, chief diplomatic correspondent in europe for the

new york times. welcome to all of you. stanislav, if i could start with unique in moscow. let's get this straight. a country in the act of fighting a war that has killed thousands of people, it is now the head of an organization that was set up to promote these and security. it's absurd, isn't it? guest: well, the u.n. was organized to prevent a third world war, a super big war. everything else is just a question of interpretation. i think the u.n. plays this role in preventing the third world war. everything else, you know, america has waged war, russia waged wars, many other countries waged wars, including countries that are considered to be permanent members of the security council, and countries that are just part of security council, not being permanent members. so i wouldn't say it's absurd. it would be absurd to get russia out of united nations because this new united nations will not be recognized by china, possibly by india.

so still it is a space for discussion. it's a square where we can meet. it was possible to use the u.n. even in the period of the cold war. why not use it now? guest: -- nick: rasmus, what do you think? is it right that russia should head the security council? what is prosecuting this war in ukraine? guest: absurd is one good way to describe it. we have a country that has been designated an aggressor state by the u.n., and a country whose leader is an accused work ca --a accused war criminal. so in those terms, it's fair to call the situation absurd. nick: so in practical terms, what will russia bring to the table in its role as presiding over the un security council for this time? guest: sure. of course it is mostly a

symbolic position, but of course , the princi has an agenda-setting power, it has a narrative power, and i think that is where russia will try to be most active, to bring their version of the narrative to the forefront, to spread disinformation as they did in february of 2022 when they last held the presidency. nick: we will explore that in a little bit. steven, first of all, there is precedent, as mentioned in the introduction, the u.s. held a chair at the time of the invasion of iraq. so really, nobody can complain about who takes the chair now. guest: i agree with that. these are just rules. this is life. this is the way the u.n. works. the u.n. was set up basically to give special privileges to the big powers that sort of that won the second world war. one could ask quite rightly, are

those still the right powers to sit on the security council? said that -- should the security council still have power? should germany be part of the security council, india, et cetera. but those are reforms. i just think, you know, this is the u.n. we've had. in the past, for instance, we have had the syrian regime sitting on the u.n. human rights council, which i find as offensive as almost anything else. so i am not terribly upset by it. i know why they ukrainians are upset by it and i know why they are making, you know, rhetorical hay out of it, but i do believe the u.n. exists to have conversations. it does have its rules. and i think it is just the way it is. we can not like it or we can like it. it really does not matter.

it's going to take a lot to change, and it will not be changed by tomorrow. nick: can russia use its chairmanship to its advantage as rramus alluded to? guest: i am sure it can. it can certainly try. i know it wants to set a debate on arms control for instance, which it has its own point of view and its own narrative. but it may have other debates that it wants. the fact is i think it will not change the world's understanding of what is happening inside of ukraine. there are already some countries in the world like china who are embarrassed by it were also permanent members, who keep saying that they believe in territorial integrity and yet they do not condemn russia's invasion of southern ukraine.

so there is lots of contradictions to go around, it seems to me. nick: nick: it certainly enables pressure to prevent itself as a legitimate world player, to russians back at home. guest: well, of course, if russia is a permanent member of the security council of the united nations, it is much more important than the international criminal courts that, let's say, is not recognized by many other countries, including u.s. and china. security council is much more important than, let's say, general assembly that mostly makes just rhetorical declarations and nothing more. so definitely, it is important for the internal legitimacy of russian power inside russia. it is important for external legitimacy. russia is recognized by china, by india, by many arabic countries, by the global south, i would say, as a legitimate power of the world. and the war in the ukraine does not change it. it is necessary to understand and to and to admit that it will be necessary to have a deal with russia anyway, even after this

military conflict is somehow resolved. nick: stanislav, i just wanted to ask you as well of what you made of what dimitri polansky said, the russian deputy permanent representative of the u.n., denying that this concept that russia was becoming a pariah at the united nations. he said i think that is isolated, but not us. not russia in the general assembly. guest: i wouldn't say that western-isolated west is a very important part of the world in itself. many other countries outside of the west have trade relations and political relations and diplomatic relations and migration relations with the west. so i wouldn't say that the west is isolated, but russia is not isolated, as well. russia is not a pariah state. just recently, the chinese leader visited moscow with a three-day visit. how can you call a country a

pariah state when it was visited by the leader of the second superpower of the world? so let's say that russia and western countries both have their own narrative, they are not isolated in the world, but they are to a large extent isolated from each other. so it's true to say that russia is to a large extent is isolated from the west, but not on the global scale. let's admit it. nick: i just want to back up a little bit better to understand the role of the security council. the permanent members of the council of the u.k., us, france, china and russia. tell us more about the establishment of the security council, why it was set up and why those nations in particular? guest: well, obviously in the aftermath of the second world war, the five countries gathered, the most powerful countries, to become the permanent members. a force, russia was not originally part of that, but pretty soon they became part of it. as was already explained, there has been an attempt to reform the security council almost ever

since it was established in the first place, but reform is really difficult. so we are still stuck with this current format, and because basically any change in that system would require that all the permanent members would agree to the reform, which is why we haven't seen that reform happening. effectively and in conflicts like this russia's aggression one, against ukraine, we see that the security council immediately becomes paralyzed because it's a permanent member of the security council, that is the aggressor nation. nick: steven, there are those who question whether russia should hold a legitimate seat on the u.n. security council, given that when it was established it was the soviet union and not russia that had that seat. guest: well, i mean, russia is recognized as the legal

inheritor of the soviet union's seat, so i don't think that is really in question, frankly. it is worth saying, the united states recognizes russia as a great power. that is not the issue. and the united states recognizes russia's position on the security council. the question is rather a different one, which is the paralysis that rasmus just described of the u.n. security council, which has veto power over everything, including anything to do with it. normally in the judicial system, a party that is involved would recuse itself from the decision. but instead, any member of the security council can block anything that that it actually likes. and frankly, if russia didn't block something, china might block for it. so it is a kind of paralysis. it is just a kind of moral

conundrum, or perhaps it is simply, you know, international relations and international law, to me, have very little to do with one another. i know we want to make it so. but in my experience covering conflict, in general, international law isn't the deciding factor. what is the deciding factor is lots of things, including power. you should ask mr. putin, why he went into ukraine. i think he had every understanding that he was breaking international law, breaking the u.n. charter. it simply didn't matter to him. nick: stanislav, that what do you think of this concept of the paralysis that's created by any single member being able to veto any form of resolution, that it just means that it's toothless

, that there is never any progress. guest: well, i think it is by design. it was designed this way, to satisfy the demands of the winning powers of the second world war. the united nations security council cannot make a move against the united states, against russia and against france, and against great britain and against china. it's all by design. let's admit it, but it is better to have it. it is a way to at least resume and to deal with some differences, some different political positions. it's a way to prevent the third world war. and from this perspective, the security council was more or less successful. from the point of being a global policeman, of course, it doesn't work this way. because there are different countries with different agendas. probably some people in the

beginning of the 21st century thought that the security council would be a global policeman. but russia has its own position, china has its own position and you cannot imagine a kind of a quasi global government or global policeman in a way. the security council exists without the support of russia and china. it will not be working. and what about the india? what about brazil? by the way, it was russian idea to probably include these countries and these countries historically had a long history of debate with russia, how it is possible to include india and brazil into the security council. and i wouldn't say that it would be easy for western countries to suppress -- i don't know, the russian political regime, if india and brazil join the security council. i suppose it would be even more difficult for the western world in this case. nick: do you think that is the case, rasmus, that if you broaden the security

council, it will create more difficulty and intractability going forward? guest: i think the question of reform is a bit more nuanced. there is a question of broadening the participation in the u.n. security council. then there's another question is what to do with the veto power. then there's a question of what is the the role of the the general assembly and with that that should be increased. it's a little bit more complicated. but it is fair to say that this current setup is is not really reflecting the reality of the of the situation at the moment. i also think that what stephen was saying, that normally in these kind of situations, one would expect the country involved in the conflict, and in fact is the aggressor, to recuse itself from considerations around that conflict, but of course, that has not happened. nick: this concept of veto power , was it just an error of judgment at the establishment of the u.n. security council? is it something that looking back, the founders if they were

able to, might wish that they had done differently? guest: in our, yes. that is why the whole debate around reform has been going around for so many decades. of course, it was reflecting the realities of the moment. let's just say that the great powers, no matter how we define a great power, really relearn tenant to relinquish any of that power. and this is just the reality that we are living with. nick: we have touched on it briefly, but let's explore more now about the security council's role, especially in ukraine. steven, as far as the conflict is concerned, what has the united nations managed to achieve, first of all? guest: well, i think antonio guterres, the secretary-general, has felt kind of on the side. he has been trying to find ways to insert the u.n. into the

conflict, which is difficult for all the reasons that we have just been talking about. but the u.n. has been very much trying to be an agent for the countries that need ukrainian grain and russian fertilizer. so working with turkey, the united nations was instrumental in creating a system whereby ukraine could export some of its grain. i think the u.n.'s international has been very, very important in trying to raise the world's consciousness. not just -- and also the russian military consciousness of the dangers involved in the war around some of the ukraine's biggest atomic energy plants,

originally built on the soviet union, of course. but they are -- zaporizhzhya in particular, there is warfare all around it. it has had electricity cuts. it has been very, very dangerous. and i think that rafael grossi and his team have done a very, very good job in trying to keep it safe. so i think that is important. and i think we should not underestimate the importance of organizations like the unhcr and the world food programme and unicef in just trying to help the poor who are most affected by this war. they are not combatants, they are also victims. nick: stanislav, those are the positives that steven has just itemized. it turns of wording and has

failed as far as this conflict is concerned, i am interested to know your perspective. guest: i agree with that. there are parts of the u.n. that are important for everyone. for example of the world food programme is important for everyone. cultural, social issues are important for everyone. and once again i want to end underlying the two are still living. we were able to survive the period of cold war and you had -- and the u.n. played a role there. it was a mediator, a place for discussions for resolving conflicts. wars all over the world -- vietnam, korea, in africa and many other parts of the world. afghanistan. but there was no shooting war between soviet union and united states of america. between the soviet bloc, or and nato. and this is one of the results that can be called the great success of the u.n. organization. nick: what about this conflict in particular? guest: particularly today?

well, i think this grain deal is what the u.n. can do. a deal about fertilizers. international atomic energy agency is also very important mediator here. i will not be surprised if in the end, diplomatic relations between russia and ukraine could be restored with the help of un. why not so? well, i still do believe that the u.n. is important in our world. nick: rasmus, the u.s. and has certainly failed to broker any kind of piece as of the moment. i guess, when the end, as and when the end of the conflict happens, the u.n. is going to play a key role in how things progress. guest: yes. it is possible that you and will play a role there. get the overall legitimacy of of any deal it would be important to have the u.n. involved i think. in practice there might be some smaller groups of countries that

might try to act as as mediators and go-betweens and maybe it could evolve from there. but of course in any of these plans, it will be crucial to see what ukraine is ready and willing to do, and hopefully then a solution can be worked out. nick: steven, do you think the u.n. security council could have played a a bigger role in trying to achieve some kind of resolution to the conflict as of now? guest: i wish that were true. it might have been true before february 24 of last year when russian troops crossed the border. once that happened, i think we were stuck. but it is possible that the u.n. could have done more, i think, to try to resolve the conflict. it is hard to say, because ever since the maidan in 2014, and the annexation of crimea, russia has basically violated the u.n.

charter and violated ukrainian sovereignty, which russia itself had recognized as early as 1991. so, you know, alien, you can only solve conflicts when two sides one to solve conflicts, or when they are exhausted. i think that is a moment that has not yet, and probably had not come before after 2014. so i don't really blame the u.n. for this. but i do think there was a lot of complacency about ukraine and russia after 2014, when many thousands of people were dying in the donbas in basically an undeclared war. nick: stanislav, ultimately, the ball is in president putin's court, isn't it, to find resolution to this conflict?

guest: putin is one of the most important players in the world now, including in the ukrainian crisis, but he is not alone. i think he it awaits some moves from the western world as well. he wants some kind of peace negotiations that can end this military conflict, but in a situation where russia can said it got something -- for example, it got this land corridor to crimea secured -- i think it would be enough for putin to explain to his own population but he was successful. but it is necessary to recognize it from the western world as well, that if mister biden says he is ready for this kind of deal, in this case, i think the conflict could end. nick: rasmus, we have been talking about the reformation of the u.n. security council. certainly president biden has

said he supports increasing the number of both permanent and non permanent representatives of the council. but as we have discussed it, actually making that happen is difficult. if we spin forward to say the nearest, is it going to look as it does now? because as time goes on, it looks more and more archaic. guest: i agree. i think it is -- one cannot be too optimistic at this point. in the longer term, we don't know, there might be some new avenues opening for actually making the reform happen. but i think right now is not really the time to be focusing too much on that reform. there are other pressing matters at hand. but if i could just go back also to the previous points made and whether the u.n. failed to prevent innovation i mean, i would not blame the u.n. but it was in no way unfortunate that russia had the rotating

presidency of the security council a year ago back in february of 2022, and it used that opportunity to talk about its peaceful intentions, which basically served to erode the support from other countries to have a coalition to prevent that invasion. so it was unfortunate timing in that sense, and allowed the possibility for pressure to spread that kind of disinformation. nick: appreciate that. we will have to leave it there. to all of our guests, thinking very much indeed stanislav , mitrakhovich, rasmus hindren, and to steven erlanger. thanks for joining us. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again at any time by visiting our website aljazeera.com. , and for further discussion, just go to our facebook page. that's facebook.com/ajinsidestory. and you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. for me, nick clark and the team here, it's goodbye for now. ♪

óróxór[r