ah ah ah ah ah

mm mm mm hm. hello, welcome to wells. a part of the united nations security council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. so recently body description on the you in the website. but if we look at the council's efforts to prevent or resolve major international conflicts over the last 2 decades, will find a very so re record. is the council still earning? keep? well, to discuss that, i'm now enjoined by 4 on think, professor of diplomacy and disarmament and general harlow narrow university and visiting professor at the university of british columbia. because i think it's great to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you for having me on your

program. now, professor, you wrote recently that one lesson taught by the war in the ukraine is that the insecurity council as well as other you and bodies become extremely dysfunctional. whenever the conflict involves one or 2 permanent council members, and that's hardly a new development, i wonder though, if not having this platform would, would have been any better. i t let me say that you one security council is the best that we have at this stage. and so with that being said about the un, but the bill for sustaining those embodies is enormous. let's say the, let me see and then make a demick the idea of giving 5 nations an unusual region followed in the un security council. was done because of natural to serve the world has learned from the legal nations which was an earlier model of international edition. the

assumption was that if any international edition hurts the interests of any major power each mean or so what and then worked. we have 5 countries having to order and united tradition and security council have select what had the trying to really become effective. i think the question and in that sense, we have not just and the new clinton was only an example repeatedly. remember, the court interest of any of these 5 national guard in world, then you do one security on the other. you are all going are no longer effective. now that does not mean that the should the, you know, the saw you in the system because that is what we had for the staged. but this definitely calls for kind of improvisation and looking for some innovation. and one, louis she 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 there's a deadlock in un security council, in this case, even the 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 or other routes to other alternatives? can i ask you one more question about the un security council because it's traditionally referred to as the p 5, which may have reflected the balance of power after the world war. but i think right now is sort of con, 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 counter productive 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 be considered more effective by expanding it, 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 with an important soon acceptable to global community. we put you in security consume, and other physician is perhaps not to give you. were any singular one that she was, you know, then combine a certain number of nations or regions and therefore that is, it jumps to build,

allowed to continue to hold the veto gets used. so there are multiple traditional but of course for, for it has defied any possibility or for such a transformation or mission of human security going through what you could, what has again, brought that issue up front that there 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 rep efforts 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 sat 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 these 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 mentioned the word troops in geo politics off major bobby contentions. there is often no peer vener than losers. there is definitely one casualty and they're distraught. truth is always because with the middle of jupiter to

contentions. and because you know everyone has their own inter petitions or not just on what is know and what when it comes to more generally victim of noodle role . now, what is the rule of law and we will determine which was sure 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 brute force immediately, you know, or says in a lingering effect with it simply and then for big promot saved and in almost destruction on the ground. and that's not the kind of phase the option for anyone to think of choosing. and this will keep saying the only system we have, the leverage has more or less delivered in last 5 years in the united nation. but

there is a need really didn't need to reform united nation, the system and that is in it's on you know, and you will have to maintain its credibility. it is for its own good that your system must be deformed to make it work. i don't blame you to make it so in terms of being representative off 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 your 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 quality is never the steady formulation, not the equation that is set in stone. it is constantly evolving in the collapse of former soviet union had resulted in, in almost transformation on the balance of body. there existed until the time off to the 2nd world war. and there was the need about the use of movement which was going on in the us sober. missing what was contended because, you know, no single nation can be seen as the most powerful nation has to take the nation along. and particularly when you say balance will follow the very connotation, the meaning of followed has enormously changed over time. we're talking off softball shop, followed smart ball. you have countries like india. i was a why do you think to bring in india?

india is no. was not just publishing countries, 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 human security council. where if you will have contains a booking which in even as an economy, just so for boston. indian economies not larger than that of burton britain has the security council permanent seat. i'm not saying that should be made to that are making sure and those of that. but fundamentally many follow in the balance of power is the constantly changing phenomenon. and then we have seen, for example, medal expending from 2 to 230, partly 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 desired and

united states to maintain its assumption of supremacy around the world. and we're both 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 a fashion. but this is a mainstream in the united states that believes the lot in terms of being on the frontier of technology, innovation being the largest economy, most powerful military. they are the most part for the work. is that feasible would be you envision the way the united nation system was created? united nations move had already created a system which in turn 5 countries,

as you know, equals to decide as to where the world should be going. and when it comes to shove united nation, boston on to you and see your goals will and in your legal phil. yes, one of these 5 was equal. veto is not different when it comes to united, say it's vito or any other countries we do in your own security council. but of course, we have also, nor does the actual practice of you let you know system united states and its allies in countries like france and britain have often warded with the united states. whether they have worked on the, on whether there has been certain rules or united states that just means under the bid. what it does appear over time that united states has increased the estimated tree, or for now these b 5 among the b 5 was,

has really become much more powerful a little bit of time. and therefore, it has sort to assert that gardner exceptionalism of united states, which the legal framework of util interest um, does not recognize where the practice of united conditions has become vulnerable to that. wouldn't that then change your argument? because you're argue that the security council becomes dysfunctional whenever any of the p 5 member is interested in the 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 others, the veto power or be fighting in un singular reconciliate is legally speaking.

there is no difference between any of the flying. when it comes to retailing point is on what issues they are going to be toward and something in that case, even when you need your gordon just of now united states or the world of example, united states may not have exist existing to try to itself. but in see that it's in just a global and therefore the united states is likely to be due on several other issues which is saturday. and just and not the shows that i think it's for the industrials or some other countries. for example, like china, britain, france, or perhaps unless like you do use that extensively what the validation and the power and the digital if you want to follow the main thing was all the way except

as they said, maybe united states fif need to use that. we do our work, the on issues to be on. it's on exist potential crit and certainly can just that makes it the use that the other follows. may have also occasionally used it for this started in just what united states, particularly perhaps they were going to. and so you and system relatively little more than others. ok, well for has, i think let me use my view, her power in the show and the cold for a little break, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. me i choose ah

ah, he welcome back to was a part with what i think professor of diplomacy disarmament as a university and also visiting professor at the university of british columbia. now professor cynthia, as he suggested in one of your articles with all the dysfunctionality and i would say abuse and manipulation of the year. and system, they honest now is on the middle powers committee,

the ukraine conflict and possibly some other international upheavals. why did he has, has there been so little. 7 progress so far, despite, as we know, some efforts by various leaders to get themselves involved. usually when you say the united nations system is in effect and is not delivering just any crisis assumption then, is that the major ball was we're trying to resolve that crisis outside the, you know, that obviously has not happened. what we are noticing here is certain indeed as completion of the conflict other than mitigation, order reduction of violence in any case then if they can offer, you know, what scenario is building, which is that you could certainly, i remember, or joe biden is more. so a speech i mentioned that you just put together lucian, or 50 countries and all that they want to support your grid. that's not

a sign off for the 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 category or 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 of awarding rather than the general assembly on security concern author largely abstaining unlocked, seeking to blame, either side. and i think that kind of creates the position of neutrality and in the are also called it said for the following your position or to like the new trying to be rich. but i guess an opportunity for these countries, them the mostly countries in the toki even into china that are in communication to the united states and european powers,

but also with russia. hundreds friends. can i ask you 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 on, on, into a prime minister and render 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 is that the mandate of the country in going forward to that country than just that international platforms, but also then being able to intervene, influence, engage with certain international crisis. and for example, the sultan's and i look on being able to, at some stage, you know, sort of

a bargain between motion and sort of follows and you and the question both and then clearly showcase as an example that it is possible for me. 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. but the call for the agreements that are signed in international relations are often sort of needed 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 china and trying to bring together the saudis and the iranians. and the, you know, they attitude to that was not very welcoming from the american side. do you think the united states, which again we have discussed that before,

sees itself as they are one and only arbiter of what's going on into well do you think it would welcome the involvement of. busy genuine involvement and authentic enrollment of middle sized powers. wouldn't that diminish the american influence? that's true. that is definitely at them. tuition in the united states, to assert its being the most powerful nation on the planet does of law, but definitely cannot ease any course. there are still the international community and it often days to be a certain number of friends and i live long. and therefore, often there is something called a pollution of the willing kind of a network. now. so it's not possible for united states to singularly, and that's will even honest wallace mission today because that's part of the kind of war we live in. but guess, given it's unusual advantage or what other nation is often tempted to do that from . but when it comes to other countries being a certain rule, i don't think,

you know, i didn't, states will be seen or would like to be seen opposing 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 be different. so if any nation like each i'mma in the does a lot of any other countries trying to engage with this one to find its early end or at least mitigation. i don't think united states would be willing to believe nor discourage that. forgetting 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 the ukraine and the western campaigns to ostracize russia its value as a partner, its valley is an associate has increased dramatically. i wonder how big of

a challenge has been for you 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 india actually is signing with russia, which of course is not how in the looks of it in the described. it's a position position of proactive neutrality, which means i'm getting good grades to ensure certain kind of a low being possible. and what are the beast also the same thing for playing? i'm going to do it in the systems to people who need it on the graph. now when it comes to 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, no. the while in continuing this law, which no one in the world and dissipated,

it has affected him, the other girls engaged. absolutely not comfortable with continuation of this kind of while and took a look around and therefore in those positions would be a little time has changed. i would say what it does not wish to be either st. it is driven completely by song sensibilities or what is happening on the ground. and the last expression of in time, mr. during his summer conduct known by la to talk with president, put in saying that this is not of war and don't want to come from any compulsion from any any, any outside actor. it comes from indians on civilized, additional understanding. and i think practically sure, we do. there's a long relationship that i've had a russia has sort of a deal on several different divisions including him. you want to give the goals. so in this is also important,

the defense partner with russia. and these are not consideration that these thing people would look now, because somebody is willing in there to say something. and finally, i think it's also important. i think i'm being selfish, when i say that, in their distancing from russia, under the pressure we really go to because we're, we're just show 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 behaving the way it does, but ultimately the deciding factor as to what are declared comes from us on understanding and then deals 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. it 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 to hijack his

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 more the government will go about it? let me 1st say the rest will smoothly uncomfortable, does the shimmer, because in the mid stored that i think there's a greater understanding in united states. and europe often does pollution 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 them more the india needs them at this point. i think i'm happy you were saying that that brings a certain technician store in their credentials, that international level as for the 900 people, they didn't see this issue has sort of of course led to the whole negotiations

during and just didn't think of the 20 the know finance ministers meeting the foreign ministers meeting. it wasn't that they were to come to any consensus. so final statement, because of these 2 paragraphs, validity and crisis would look at the while the do side foreign minister of the law group. for example, while they were to have for the 1st time in that conversation with new lincoln, that i think in almost as she went off in the presidency. and in the meantime, mister is now also to visit the united states. and i think the attempt is to make sure that if in the doing with meeting will also make an hon for them to achieve one of the put in and enjoy when sitting together there would be, i think, a great big to when it comes to your group try to resolve it now whether the 27th meeting achieves the final conferences document you can deal with traits best in the inside gets missed. that would be on the kid. but i think

you can trace my concern in jesus or somebody meeting just like the foreign minister meeting or seat the nationally bills or feel. i do search and rush up 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. what have you on the problem? and thank you for watching cope this. here again, was apart from me . ah, well,

i a to all the switzerland's biggest bang, cbs and credits, we're starting talks to merge as the contagion from the recent banking collage in the u. s. president nationally. also ahead and i didn't see any issue of that would prevent normalization of the relationship across investments except for saudi arabia says the path is cleared to restore bilateral ties with iran. the following a deal broke by china, which brought the 2 former rivals back together. a chinese president sheeting thing is set to visit moscow on his 1st inter.