ah mm mm mm mm mm mm mm. hello, welcome to wells. a part of the united nations security council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security reasons, the bodies 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 is keep. well,

to discuss that, i'm now enjoined by 4 on think, professor of diplomacy and disarmament. deborah 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 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 bodies is enormous. let's say the, let me say as an academic, the idea of giving 5 nations an unusual veto followed in the un security

council, was done because of lettering that we had learned from the legal nations which will deny the model of international edition. the assumption was that if any international edition hurts the interests, often the major, our mentors for work and they worked. we have 5 countries having to order and united nation and security council have select but had to try to have to really become effective. i think that the question, and in that sense we have not, and the nuclear war is only an example repeatedly, remember the court interest of any of these 5 national guard in world. then you do security council and other organs are no longer effective. now that does not mean that the, the should the, you know,

the saw over you in the system because there do what we have for the staged. but this definitely goals for kind of improvisation and looking for some illusion. and one, louis sion played historically that has been to go 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 man there. 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 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 counterproductive because if you are not able to manage and 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 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 that i think are far more capable and important soon, acceptable to global community. we put you on security consent and the 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 a larger contents of the hall, the veto gets used. so there are multiple traditions, but of course for far it has defied any possibility or for such a transformation or mission of you and security concerns. what you want has again, brought that issue up front that there is need to, you know, sort of reform your system because it's repeatedly showing 14 or being ineffective in comparison 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 their references to the so called rules based order with the rules be 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 in 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's often no clear winner than losers. what there is definitely one can be and they're distraught. truth is always because the middle of job to conventions 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 for all. now, what is the rule of law and who 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 so in a lingering effect with it simply ends in 4 big promote sides. and in almost destruction on the grounds. then 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 in 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 for its own good that your system must be to form to make it more contemporaneous to make it 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 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 are 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 in the collapse of former soviet union had resulted in, in almost transformation of the balance of body there existed until that time after the 2nd world war. and there was the need about the use of movement which was going on in the us super missing what was contended because, you know, no single nation can be seen as the most powerful nation have to take other nations along. and particularly when you say balance will follow the very connotations, the meaning of follow has enormously changed over time. we're talking off softball

and shall fall, smart, follow your countries like india and i was a why do you think to bring an india? what in the snow was not just publishing countries, even in all the soft bar you almost acceptable or did it on the world? what is not part of the be funny or the permanent for the veto followed in the security council. that if you will have confusing, which india even as an economy, just so for boston, in economies not larger than that of certain has you and security concerns permanent seat. i'm not saying that should be made that are making sure and those of them, but fundamentally so many follow in their balance. hope all is the constantly changing phenomenon. and this is where we have seen, for example, mental expanding 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 noticed, said, is that the desire the united states to maintain its assumption of sublimity on the world and follows the piano. so let's specify what you mean by supremacy. do you understand it correctly as the united states being the ultimate arbiter, the p one essentially of the, of the un security council. there is absolutely no doubt that the american, most americans, i 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 lot in terms of being on the frontier of technology, innovation being the largest economy, most powerful military. they are the most powerful on 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 where it had 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 the un security council. and if you recall, the yes board 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 own security council. but of course, we have also, nor did the actual practice of you let system united states and its allies in countries like france and britain. i have often wondered where the united states, whether they were on the, on whether there had been certain floors or united states. that means under the bid,

what it does appear would be a lot of time that united states has increased the estimated tree all for now. these b 5 among the b 5 was, has really become much more bond for a little bit of time. and therefore, it has sort to assert that gardner, exceptional of united states, which the legal framework of heating system does not recognize where the practice of 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 becomes dysfunctional only when the interest of the united states i involved when the united states doesn't get what it wants, if can sabotage the system. because from my understanding of the u and 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 the concerns of others. the veto power or be fighting in un singular recon still is legally speaking. there is no difference between any of the flies when it comes to retailing point is on what issues they are going to be toward. and something in that case, even when you're just of united states may not be involved. for example, united states may not have exist existing to try to sell. but you see that it's in just a global and therefore the united states is likely to use. we do on several other issues which is saturday and just and not the shows that are needed for the list of those are some other countries, for example, like china, britain,

france or show but helps unless like, you do use that extensively. what the validation and the power and the digital if you want veto quality means the same for all the fight. except as they said, maybe united states chief need to use that we do our work, the on issues to be on. it's on exist potential pit and it certainly can just that makes it use the needle. other po's 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 for me. i

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

a welcome back to all the parts with what i'm saying, professor of diploma in disarmament. hello, natalie university and also a visiting professor at the university of british columbia. now professor sinks, as you 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 meet the ukraine conflict and possibly some other international upheavals . why do you think 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 the united nation system is ineffective and is not delivering to any crisis assumption then, is that the major powers were tied to 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, a scenario is building which is really good. certainly, i remember that job identity is more so a speech a mention that he has put together lucian of 50 countries. now that i wanted to support your grid. that sorta sign off for b escalation. and i'm sure i should say is also not willing to enter this stage. and that is why i said the only option then is perhaps for another big deal 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 rather than the general assembly on security concerns or largely abstaining and not thinking to blame either side.

and i think they're kind of creates a position of neutrality, and they're also call that 7 for the following your position to like the neutrality . which creates an opportunity for these countries and the mostly countries in the key even when you are china that are in communication to the united states and european powers. but also with tasha 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 of 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 of go to national power or strong fighting by an employee leader who

is the mandate of the country in going forward to that country than just that international platforms. but also then being able to intervene, influence and gauge with certain international crisis, and forgot to be sultan's and being able to at some stage, you know, sort of a bargain between the mission and then sort of follows. and you can and the question both and then clearly showcase as an example that it is possible for the renewal, 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 golf 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, the attitude to that was not very welcoming from the american side. do you think the united states, which again we discussed 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 wound that diminished american influence. that's true, that is definitely a dition in the united states to assert its being the most powerful nation on the planet law, but definitely cannot even close the rest of the international community. and it often tries to take a certain number of friends in the long and then often there's something called

a pollution of the willing kind of it's network now. so it's not possible for united states to singularly, and that's will even honest wallace nation today because that's not the kind of war we live in. but guess, given it's unusual advantage or what other nation is often to enter to do that from . but when it comes to other countries being a certain rules, i don't think, you know, i didn't, states will be seen or would like to be seen a thing that kind of initiative because that is going to be called the because at least at the level of service, even the united states was 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 a lot of any other companies trying to engage with this one to find it's early end or at least mitigation. i don't think united states may be willing to believe

discourage that. forgot completely opposing it. now speaking about india, it's long served as a major international balancer, but i think soon the stars of their russian operation, military operation in the 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 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? are clearly united states and its friends, certain things that in there actually is signing with russia, or which of course is not how in the looks of the did in the describes. it's the position of pollution of proactive neutrality, which means i'm getting bored, said said to ensure certain kind of the low being possible. and what are the beast

also the same thing, supplying imitating assistance to people who need it on the glove. now when it comes to india, sort of being effective in that kind of form or be affected by the continuation of more than a year long of the slaughter. 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 are engaged, absolutely not comfortable with the continuation of this kind of while and so on. and therefore in those positions would be the 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 the prime minister during his summer conduct known by lead to bulk with president put in now 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, it goes on civilizational understanding and i think practically to allow me to add there's a long relationship and i've had a russia has sort of a deal on several different divisions including him if you want to give the consul . so in there is also important the defense partner with russia, and these are more controversial that doesn't the same people would you 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 the brush, will be very called the, the, because that or dress show much closer to china, which is not something and they would like to see. so there are multiple layers and layers of linkages that make in the behaving the way that does, but ultimately, the deciding factor as to what the declared scum someone did of 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 a 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 i mean, tuition about how the monte government will go about it. but let me 1st say that the west willow, sweaty, uncomfortable. when does the shimmer? because in the mid store that i think there is a greater understanding in united states and europe often does position or nuclear war, especially the united states in the west need in their, for their own goods. 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 are saying that that brings a certain technician of stores in their credentials, that international level as for the 900 people didn't see this issue has sort of of course led to the whole negotiations during india and see here the 20, the know finance ministers meeting, the foreign ministers meeting was not they were to come to any consensus. so final statement because of these 2 paragraphs deliberately, crisis. look at the while the do side foreign minister of the law rule. for example, while they were to, for the 1st time that it long recession ripped and new lincoln, that i think these are in almost achievement off in 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 doing the sub with meeting will also make an 100 of them to achieve one of those and put in and enjoy white and sitting together. that would be, i think, a good big to when it comes to your group, try to resolve it now whether the 27th meeting achieves the final conferences document who writes best in the inside gets missed. that would be on the kid. but i think you can trace my concern indian jesus or somebody meeting just like the foreign minister meeting or seat the nationally, those or feel i do search and russia sitting face to face and even possible raving a bye let you. i think it's been great pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for that. thank you very much and thank you, what i think you on the problem and thank you for watching hope to see her again wells apart. and

with a d. i to business with us, do i need them? good. i didn't miss you owe it to them with key at the washington state. the process is to dealer molly complete with just the phone that's in the you get you. i need video with

you with the proxy, a professional lithium to what you put up a list of all but huge with ah ah, but even if it makes a surprise visit tomorrow, you pull in the done yet for public sewing reconstruction projects in the city, switzerland biggest bang, cbs and credit suisse or insults to merge as the contagion from the recent banking collapse. and the u. s. spreads internationally also on the program. i didn't see any issue. and that's what the events normalization of the relationship across investments. saudi arabia says the path is clear to restore by lots of sites with iran that's following a deal broken by china, which brought the 2 former.