sandy cause for religious rights to be preserved in today's ukraine. and that's all for now. be sure to check out our t v dot com for all the latest breaking news and updates. right back here at the top of the hour. ah, i ah. hello and welcome to wells. a part of the united nations security council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. so

read the body of description on the us 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 surreal record. is the council still earning? keep? well, to discuss that i'm now enjoined by 4 on think, professor of diplomacy and disarmament. deborah harlow narrow university and a 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 are there you and bodies become extremely dysfunctional when them for 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 want 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 say as an academic, the idea of giving 5 nations an unusual reader, followed in the un security council, was done because of lead from the world has learned from the legal nations, which was an early model of international organization. the assumption was that if any international edition hurts the interests of any major each mean or 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 just and the to clean water is only one unexamined.

repeatedly remember the quote interest of any of these 5 national get involved. then you do 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 when she played historically, that has been to go to you in general assembly to find out what is the world community thinking on a particular issue. if the deadlock in un security council, in this case, even the general assembly has not given the peer 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 routes 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 it's sort of cod 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, 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 will see the conflict 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 that i think i'll follow up with an employee soon. acceptable to global community. we put you on security, consult another 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 come to the store hall, the veto gets used. so there are multiple physicians, 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 that there is need to, you know, sort of reform your system because it's repeatedly showing 40 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 peer vener than losers. but there is definitely one casualty and they're distraught. truth is always because with the middle of geopolitical dimensions. and because you know, everyone has their own inter petitions or not just on what is know and what when it comes to more general term of neural role. now, what is the rule of law and we will determine which washing 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, or 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 leverage has more or less delivered in last to 75 years in the united nation. but there is a need really didn't need to reform united, make sure that system and that is in it's on, you know, and you will have to maintain its credibility. that it is what it's on go that your system must read a form 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 are trying to change the balance of power when it comes to ukraine? the balance of wallet is never the steady formulation, not the equation that is set in stone. it is constantly involving the collapse of former soviet union had resulted in in almost transformation on the balance of bod . 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 supremacy where that 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 or follow the congregation, the meaning of followed has enormously changed over time. we're talking off softball shop, followed smart. you have countries like india and 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 now you almost acceptable big on the world. what is not part of the be funny or the permanent for the veto followed in human security council. that if you will have confusing, which in the, even as an economy, just so for boston, indian economy not larger than that of burton britain has un security council

permanent seat. i'm not saying that should be made to that are making sure and those of this, but fundamentally many follow in the balance of qualities, the constantly changing phenomenon. and this is where we have seen, for example, expanding from 2 to 230. partly also becoming little more disorganized and multiple voices is 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 follows the let's specify what you mean by supremacy. do 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 bond for the military. they are the most powerful 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 the un security council, and in the legal, phil, yes, one of these 5 was equal to is not different when it comes to united, say it's vito or any other countries. do you want to go to the council?

but of course, we have also, nor does the actual practice of you let you are not 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 there have been certain rules of united states that just means under the bid. what it does appear will be lot of time that united states has increased the se, offer. now these b 5 among the b 5 u 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 heating system does not recognize where the practice of united conditions has become vulnerable to that. wouldn't that doesn't 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 others. the veto power or be fighting in un security concern is legally speaking. there is no difference between any of the fine 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 self,

but it's see that it's in just a global. and therefore, the united states is likely to use we do on several other issues which need fees so that they can just and not the shows that are needed 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 weight of you want. veto quality means the same for all the 5, except as they said, maybe united states fif need to use that we don't work the on issues to be on. it's on exist potential crit and certainly can just that makes it use the needle. other both 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. okay. well, perhaps 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 ah

ah, the me a welcome back to all the parts with what i'm saying, professor of diploma in disarmament, or what hello natalie university and also a visiting professor at 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 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

just any crisis assumption then, is that the major powers were tried to resolve. that crisis said the, you interesting work that obviously has not happened. what we are noticing here is to work together 50 countries and all that i wanted to support you in that sort of sign offered 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 big deal was which a 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 concerns or 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 to new trying to be reachable grierson opportunity for these countries. and they're mostly countries in the toki even into china that in communication war to the united states and european powers, but also with russia entered sense. 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 in the, on, on india and prime minister and render more that, is it more about national power or rather the, you know, national leadership, i think it's a combination or go to national power or strongly find a bite unemployment leader who get is that the mandate of the country

in going forward to that country. them just that international platforms, but also then being able to intervene, influence and gauge with certain international crisis. and it was, for example, the sultan's and i look on being able to, at some stage, you know, sort of a bargain between russian and sort of follows. and you and the question both and then clearly showcase as an example that it is possible for 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 and the 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 the 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 of law, but definitely cannot easily close the rest of the international community. and it often 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 it's network now. so it's not possible for united states to singularly and it's will even honest wallace mission 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 rule, i don't think united 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 brazil or any other countries trying to engage with this one to find its early end or at least mitigation, i don't think united states may be willing to discourage that. forgot completely

opposing it. now speaking about india as 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, it's valerie isn't 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 stay if they 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 citing with russia, which of course is not how india looks at the did it in the describe its position position of proactive neutrality. which means i'm getting bored, said to ensure certain kind of 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 on be affected by the continuation of more than a year long of the sward, there is no doubt the while in continuing the slow, which no one in the world and dissipated it has affected in the other girls in gaze, absolutely not comfortable with the 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 a song sensibilities or what is happening on the ground. and the last expression of in time, mr. during his summer conduct known by little 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 india on civilized, additional understanding. and i think practically, if you allow me to add that long relationship that i have had a russia has sort of a deal on some of the difficult decisions including him. you want to give the goals . so india is also important. the defense partner with russia and these are not consideration that doesn't, the thing people would like 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 really the sole source. when i say that in their distancing from russia, under me brushes, we really got the, the, because the show much closer to china, which is not something they 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 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 role as the, as the leader of the g 20 assumed the leadership 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 before, sir? that list will really uncomfortable. when does she would? because in the mid store that i think there's a greater understanding in united states and europe often does position on the grid, was especially 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 and then that brings a certain technician was stored in credential 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 senior d. 20 the finance minister meeting the former list of meetings wasn't they were to come to any consensus. so final statement because of these 2 paragraphs deliberately in crisis. look at the while the due side, foreign minister of the law group, for example. while they were to have, for the 1st time in that conversation with the new lincoln that i think is or in almost achievement does not of, in the us. you don't the president and see in the time mr is now all said to was in the united states. and i think the attempt is to make sure that if in there during

the summer meeting will also make a 100 of them to achieve one of those and put in and enjoy white and sitting together. that 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 that works best in the in sign gets missed. that would be on the kid pink. as soon as you can trace my concern indian jesus or somebody meeting, just like the foreign minister meeting, proceed the nationally, those of united search and russia sitting face to face. and even possibility of having a biology professor thinks it's been great pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for that. thank you very much. thank you. and thank you for watching hope this year again, worlds apart from me

. ah, well, 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 often very dramatic. that development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful. it's very difficult time to sit down and talk a

lot in america. it takes the wheel in a surprise visit to mario and russia has done that republic touring reconstruction projects in the recently devastated city with switzerland's biggest bank. if you be asked and credit suites are and talks to merge as the contagion from the recent baby and collapse and then you ask spreads internationally. also ahead i didn't see any issue with normalization of the relationship across investment. saudi arabia says the path is clear to.