sustaining their is, embodies is enormous. let's say, let me see. and then they can demick the idea of giving 5 nations an unusual veto, followed in the un security council was done because of let room to serve the world has let her learn from the legal missions which was an early model of international organization. the assumption was that if any international edition hurts the interests, often the media follow each mean or for work. and there worked. we have a country and having me to order and united nation and security council have somewhat but had the site to really become effective. i think that the question, and in that sense, we have not just and the new clinton was only an example repeatedly, remember the court interest or any of these 5 national you're didn't want,

then you do in security council and other you will organs are no longer effective now that does not mean that the, the should the, you know, the story you in the system do what we have for the staged. but this definitely goes for kind of improvisation and looking for some innovation. and one, louis sion played historically that has been to google you in general assembly to find out what is the world community thinking on a particular issue. if the deadlock in your security council, in this case, even though you will, general assembly has not given the mandate. so it's a very complex issue. and the one has to be pretty effective. and that is why my argument is that, you know, what are the other alternatives other i'll go to other alternatives. i can ask you one more question about the un security council because it's traditionally referred to as the piece of 5,

which may have reflected the balance of power after the world war. but i think right now it's sort of caught between 2 opposing trans, one of expansion to include more members to reflect the genuine balance of power in the world. and another one of extreme contraction, which i think is exemplified by the american insistence of being the one and only arbiter of international affairs. which way do you think it's likely to go? definitely shrinking it would be going to promote them because if you are not able to manage, definitely one or 2 will not be able to manage at all. so perhaps the only possible innovation is an expansion and multiple physicians as to how you want to get the conflict can be more effective by expanding it. now whether you want to just simply add some more nations because the world is no longer the same as it was in 1945, there are new nation. i think i'll follow up now get into

a similar symptoms to global community. we put you in security concerns and other physician is perhaps not to give you 2 power to any singular one that she what do you know then combined a certain number of nations or regions. and therefore there is that john stability allowed to continue to hold the veto gets used. so there are multiple traditions, but of course for, for it has defied any possibility or for such a transformation or mission of you and security concerns. what you could want has again, brought that issue up front. the bit is need to, you know, sort of reform your system because it's repeatedly showing 40 or being ineffective . incapacity like this. now, i don't know if you would agree with me and let me know if you disagree. but i think one reason for dysfunctionality of the system is the formal appearance of the united nations to the so called international law and

a very practical neglect of that same international law in actual and geo politics. moreover, i think over the last couple of years, we've seen a sustained effort by western countries and more specifically by the united states to replace international law with the references to the so called rules based order with the rules be being sad and serving the united states and its allies now as revolting as the ukrainian war is, and i don't want to minimize it in any sense. and then it also sort of serving us in exposing this ugly truth. you know, the international system that wants to be seen as polite society, but is ultimately that is ultimately in reality, very unscrupulous and pretty cynical. i'm delighted you mention

the word troops in geo politics off major bobby contentions. there are often more vener than losers. but there is definitely one casualty and they're distraught. truth is always because with the middle of jupiter because the insurance because you know everyone has their own inter petitions, not just on what is law and what when it comes to more general victim of noodle for all. now, what is the rule of law and we will determine which one of the rule of law is going to be acceptable. that really creates much more confusion in international relations. and when there is a confusion, it is a brute force that comes to use and which is not the kind of an easy exempt from any situation. and therefore, group forced immediately, you know, for such in

a lingering effect with it simply and then for big promot saved. and in almost destruction on the grounds. and that's not going to phase the option for anyone to think of choosing. and this will keep saying, the only system we have, the language has more or less delivered in last to 75 years of the united nation. but there is a nice and really urgent need to reform united nation, the system. and that is in it's on, you know, on so you wouldn't have to maintain its credibility that it is focused on the system must be deformed to make it more contemporaneous to make. and so in terms of being representative of the reality on the ground. and also therefore, you know, being what effect of in resolving issues ensuring peace around the world. let me ask you 11 last question about the human system, which i think after the 2nd world war has been explicitly based on the notion of balance of power. you know,

there are certain members of international community that have nuclear deterrence that have tried to preserve at least a modicum of these balance during the cold war. which side is it russia or is it the west that i trying to change the balance of power when it comes to ukraine? the balance of follows is never the steady formulation, not the equation that is set in stone. it is constantly evolving and the collapse of former soviet union has in, in almost transformation of the bell. and so far there existed until the time off to 2nd world war. and there was the need about the use of movement which was going on in the us. super missing were, was contended because, you know, no single nation can be seen as the most powerful nation can still take other

nations along. and particularly when you say balance will follow the very connotation. the meaning of paula has enormously changed over time. we're talking off softball and sharp powered smart ball. you have countries like india. i was a why do you think to bring an india? what in the snow was not just publishing country, even in all the soft bar you know, most acceptable or big on the world. what is not part of the be funny or the permanent for the veto followed in the security council. that as you will have confusing, which in, even as an economy, just so for boston indian economies not larger than that of durgin has un security council, permanent seat. i'm not saying that should be made to that, but making sure and those of this but fundamentally many follow in the balance football. what is the constantly changing phenomenal. and then we have seen,

for example, medal expanding from 2 to 235. we also becoming little more disorganized and multiple voices coming out of metal again. so that's a constant work in progress. and what we order said is that the desire the united states to maintain its assumption of supremacy on the world and what they will follow. let's specify what you mean by supremacy. do you understand it correctly as the united states being the ultimate arbiter, the p, y, essentially of the, of the un security council. there is absolutely no doubt that the american, most americans would say there are a lot of people in america who also intend such an obsession. but this is a mainstream in the united states that believes the board in terms of being on the

front deals of technology, innovation being the largest economy, most powerful military. they are the most powerful work, is that feasible would be you envision the way the united nation system was created . united nation move had be created a system which in turn 5 countries as you know, equals to decide as to where the world should be going. and then it push comes to shove, united nation, boston on to you and see how the goals will end in your own community goal. so yes, one of these 5 was equal to is not different when it comes to united, say it's vito or any other countries we do in your security council. but of course, we have also, nor does the actual practice of you system united states and its allies in countries like france and britain. how often watered with the united

states, whether they have ordered on the, on whether they have been served in the united states. never been under the bid. what it does appear over time that united states has increased the estimates generally all for now, these be 5 among the b 5. he was, has really become much more bond for a little bit of time. and therefore it has to assert that gardner. exceptionalism of united states, which the legal framework of you to interest them, does not recognize what the practice of united conditions has become vulnerable to that. wouldn't that them change your argument because you're argued that the security council becomes dysfunctional whenever any of the p 5 members, interest and wall. but it seems from what you are saying right now. it become dysfunctional only when the interest of the united states i involved when the united states doesn't get when it's once, if can sabotage the system. because from my understanding of the un records,

both china, russia and even france would be amenable to certain compromises. it's only the united states that insist on its own vision. regardless of you know, the concerns of fathers, the veto follow, or be flying in un singularly constant is legally speaking equal. there is no difference between any of the fine when it comes to be toying point is on what issues they are going to be toward. and something in that case, even when you need your gordon just all for now, united states may not be in wall. for example, united states military exists existence. she'll try to self, but it sees it, it's in just a global. and therefore, the united states is like people used to be taught on several other issues which it cities as it's so that they can just and not the shows that are certainly it's many

of the students now with some other countries. for example, like china, britain, france sort of show, but unless like, do do use it extensively and what the validation of followed in the future if you want a veto, pollard, it means the same all the fight. except, as i said, maybe united states he's need to, you know, that we don't work on issues to be on its own existence shall print and it started to control us that makes it to you will that the 2 other follows may have also occasionally used it for this started in just what united states spectacle perhaps is that we're doing to and so you want to some relatively little bit more than others. ok, well i think let me use my read her power in the show and the call for a little break, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. a

b aah! in 1884. the german empire began its colonial invasion into nam may be from the very start. berlin encouraged the white colonists to settle in south west africa and take away the best land from the local tribes. the germans were actively draining natural resources and using the local population as a cheap labor source. this was causing major protests and led to a rebellion. in 19 o 4, the hero and nama tribes rebelled against german colonial rule. kaiser wilhelm,

the 2nd was fully determined and ordered to suppress the rebellion with the utmost severity against the inhabitants of namibia. germany through is 15000 well equipped army. all around the country concentration camps were built. in humane medical experiments over citizens were conducted within the period of 4 years. the germans killed up to 60000 people, among which there were 80 percent of the hero tribe, and 50 percent of the nama tribe. the events in south west africa are called the 1st genocide of the 20th century, and not without reason are compared to the holocaust just 2 decades later after the massacre in namibia hitler's assault unit put on the same brown colonial uniform which push the world into the chasm of the 2nd world war ah,

mm mm hm . welcome back to wells fargo smith, what i'm think professor of diplomacy and his argument as to what, hello narrow university and also visiting professor, the university of british columbia. now, professor thinks, as he suggested in one of your articles with all the dysfunctionality and i would say, abuse and manipulation of the you and system. the honest now is on the middle powers to mediate the ukraine conflict and possibly some other international upheavals. why do he has, has there been so little progress so far, despite, as we know, some efforts by various leaders to get themselves involved? usually when you say that the united nation system is ineffective and is not delivering just any crisis assumption then, is that the major powers were tied to law. that crisis said the, you know,

that obviously has not happened. what we are noticing here is indeed as completion of the conflict other than mitigation or the reduction of the violence in any gift this then if that's kind of you know, scenario is building, which is really to me. i remember that job identity is more so speech mentioned that he has put together 50 countries and all that they want to support your grid that sorta sign off for b escalation. and i'm sure she said is also not willing to enter this stage. and that is why i said the only option then is perhaps for another car, bigger your was which much more visible in last decade or so. and these are either called being economies or something called middle bottles. and from these middle powers have shown it done in the united systems, are awarding,

whether in the general assembly on security concerns or largely abstaining. unlocked, thinking to blame, either side. and i think that kind of creates a position of neutrality and in the are also called it said for the following your position or to like the new trying to be reachable grierson opportunity for these countries. and there mostly countries in the toki even when you are china that are in communication. what through the united states and european powers, but also to shiners friends can ask when we talk about these potential mediators. are we talking about nationally driven diplomacy, or rather the personal weight and perhaps dexterity for certain leaders like let's say a turkish present paper or the on, on into a prime minister in the rent or more that is it more about national power or rather

the national leadership, i think it's a combination or go to national power or so on. if i had a bite, an employee leader who carries that the mandate of the country in again forward to that country. them just that international platforms, but also then being able to intervene, influence and gauge with certain national crisis. and it was, for example, the sultan's and the one being able to, at some stage, you know, sort of a bargain between now and then sort of follows. and you and the question both and then clearly showcase as an example that it is possible for the middle, but it wasn't until the west intervened and told the ukrainians to scrapple the agreements. i mean, you know, that they actually reach the preliminary agreement there, but it was an old by the ukrainian side buzzle coffee agreements that are assigned

in international relations are often sort of begin to layer please one side later. and so this is not something that should stop any country from pursuing solution, but professor thinks it's a very, it's a very crucial argument because you've seen the american reaction to the recent mediation of. busy china and trying to bring together the saudis and the iranians and the, you know, they attitude to that was very welcoming from the american side. do you think the united states, which again we discussed before, sees itself as they were one and only arbiter of what's going on into well do you think it would welcome the involvement of. busy jan involvement and authentic enrollment of middle sized powers wound that diminished american influence. that's true, that is definitely a dom tuition in the united states to assert its being the most powerful nation on the planet of law, but definitely cannot use it any course. there are still the international

community and it off for days to be a certain number of friends and i live long. and then often there is something called a pollution of the willing kind of a network. so it's not possible for united states to singularly that will even on a smallest mission today, because that's not the kind of where we live in. and but guess given it's unusual advantage or what other nation is often entered to do that. but when it comes to other countries being a certain role, i don't think, you know, i didn't states to be seen or would like to be seen a thing that kind of initiative because they're going to be called the because at least at the level of lip service, even the united states wants to make sure this conflict comes to an end practice may of course we don't know. so if any nation like each i'mma in the or any other

countries trying to engage with this one to find it's early end or at least mitigation. i don't think united states will be willing to believe nor discourage that. forgot completely opposing it. now speaking about india, it's long served as a major international balancer, but i think since the stars of their russian operation, military operation in ukraine and the western campaigns to ostracize russia its value as a partner, it's valerie isn't associate, has increased dramatically. i wonder how big of a challenge has been for and new delhi, do you think it's sort of, it's positioning of itself on the international stage stage. did a change in any way due to all the sensibilities and complexities of the ukrainian crisis? clearly, united states and its land, certain things that in there actually is signing with russia, which of course is not how india looks at it in the describes. it's the position

position of proactive neutrality, which means i'm getting bored, said to ensure certain kind of the low being possible. and what are the beast also the same thing, supplying military systems to people who need it on the ground. now when it comes to india, sort of being effective in that kind of won't be affected by the continuation of more than a year long of the sward. there is no doubt the while in continuing this law, which no one in the world and dissipated it has affected him. the other girls in gaze, absolutely not comfortable with the continuation of this kind of while and so on. and therefore in those position would be a little time has changed, i would say what it does not wish to be either st. it is driven completely laid on sensibilities or what is happening on the ground. and the last expression of in

time, mr. during his summer conduct, no, by little talk with president, put in saying that this is not a lot of war and don't want to come from any compulsion from any any, any outside actor. it comes from, it goes on civilizational understanding. and i think tactically, if you allow me to add that there's a long relationship that, and i've had a russia has stood away and on several different occasions, including him. you want to hear the goals. so in there is also important the defense partner with russia, and these are not consideration that these thing people would want to know because somebody is willing in there to say something. and finally, i think it's also important, but i think i'm being selfish. when i say that in their distancing from russia, under me brush, we've already gone to the, because we're, we're dress so much closer to china, which is not something in there would like to see. so there are multiple layers and layers of linkages. that me can be, have in the main does,

but ultimately the deciding factor as to what are declared comes from us on understanding and then build on national interest. we have only a couple of minutes left. and i would like to ask here about india as role as the, as the leader of the g 20 assumed the leadership of this organization a couple of months ago, which will culminate with the leaders summit in september. and you rode before the india 1001 the ukranian war. 2 hijack is cheap, 20 year leadership, but it's pretty clear that it's going to be a challenge to bring all those various leaders together given that striking differences on the ukrainian conflict. do you have any ideas or perhaps any tuition about how the monte government will go about it before sir? the missed will will be uncomfortable. schubert, because in the mid store that i think there's a greater understanding in united states and europe often does position on euclid

was, especially in the united states in the west need india for their own good right now . that's why they can, you know, they have no other choice but to be understanding because they need to be in the more the india and need them at this point. i think i'm happy you were saying that that brings a certain technician stored in their credentials, that international level as for the 900 people, they didn't see this issue of course led to the whole negotiations during and just didn't see her d. 20 the know finance ministers meeting the former list of meeting wasn't they were to come to any consensus. so final statement, because of these 2 paragraphs deliberately, you can kind of look at the while the side foreign minister of the law room, for example, while they were to, for the 1st time in that conversation with lincoln that i think is in almost

achievement of the presidency, and in time mr. is now also to visit the united states. and i think the attempt is to make sure that if in the meeting will also make an hon for them to achieve, went off and put in and enjoy widen. sitting together, there would be, i think, a good big to when it comes to your group, try to resolve it. now whether the 20 someone meeting achieves the final consensus document. what traits best in the inside gets missed? that would be on the cape. but i think sort of, you can trace the concern indian g for somebody meeting just like the foreign minister meeting proceed nationally, those of united central russia sitting face to face and even possibility of having a biology professors thinks it's been a pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for that. thank you very much. thank you for having you on the and thank you for watching. hope to hear again was apart

from me. ah ah. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race is on a very dramatic development. only personally, i'm getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult. time. time to sit down and talk.

march 20th 2003. the u. s. army and its allies invaded iraq, iowa. especially, i hate to say that to day. let me know. kind of was it anybody else ever? nevada. 07. how? how lim dash. and the hobby made the 1st 2003 us president george bush declared victory in the iraq war. i did the project i, you know, up i would put up for a potential hired to december, the 30th 2006 said i'm hussein was executed and we'll shut down from done december. the 15th 2011. a ceremony was held in baghdad to mark the end of the u. s. military mission. in reality, the u. s. army is still in iraq, or i don't see how the village are still

a couple people, but there are ah, to us the biggest bank, cbs and credit weights are reportedly considering a merger as a banking called lapse. and the u. s. has impacted global financial markets with good events. notable i visual relationship with custom vestments successful. saudi arabia confirmed it could very quickly start investing in iran following the deal broker by china. between the 2 former dr. able to restore their diplomatic relations with chinese president is that for.