ah with oh mm hm.

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 body is 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. 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 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 bodies is enormous. let's say the, let me say as an academic, the any idea of man giving 5 nations an unusual veto power in the un security council was done because of lettering to serve the world has learned from the legal nations, which was the little model of international edition the assumption was that if any international edition hurts the core interests,

often the major power each mean or so what? and then worked. we have 5 countries having the to order and the united nation and security council have select but had to try to have to really become effective. i think the question, and in that sense that we have not just, and the new clinton was only an example repeatedly, remember the court interest of any of these 5 national didn't want. then you don't want security gone on the you will all go are no longer effective. now that does not mean that the should the, you know, the story you in the system to do what we had for the stage. but this definitely calls for kind of improvisation and looking for some innovation. and one in louis she played historically, 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 not on for the 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 it's sort of called 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 guilty 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 of that. i think i'll follow up now get into a single acceptable to global community. we put you in security consumer and other physician is perhaps not to give you 2 power to any singular one that she was, you know, then combine a certain number of nations or regions. and therefore that is that jumps to build, allowed to continue to hold their 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 going through 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 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 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 no peer vener than losers. when there is definitely one casualty and they're distraught, truth is always because the middle of geopolitical insurance 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 noodle role. now, what is the rule of law and who 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 the group 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, for us in a lingering effect with simply and then for big from one side and in almost destruction on the ground. 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 leverage has more or less delivered in last 5 years with united nation. but there is a need really urgent need to reform united nation that system and that is in it's on, you know, on. so you will have to maintain its credibility that it is for it's on go,

the human 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 more effective in resolving issues of 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 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 on the balance of their existence until their 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 can still take the nation along. and particularly when you say balance will follow the very connotations. the meaning of paula has enormously changed over time. we're talking off softball and sharp power. smart ball. you have countries like india and i was a why do you think to bring in india? india is no, 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 human security council. that if you will have gone to the booking, which in the even as an economy, just so for boston, in economies not larger than that. durgin has you on security concerns and seat, i'm not saying that should be made to present or making sure and those of that. but fundamentally so many follow in their balance football. what is the constantly changing phenomenon? and that is where we have seen, for example, medal expending from 2 to 235. we 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 where they were followed. 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 around the world. is that feasible would be you envision the way the united nation system was created? united nations move on be creating 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 your degree. and in your community goal, 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 we do in your own security council. but of course, we have also, nor did the actual practice of you 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 or whether it had been served in the united states. that just means under the bid, what it does appear over time that united states has increased the estimated tree all for now. these be 5 among the b 5. he 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 heating system does not recognize where the practice of united conditions has become vulnerable to that. wouldn't that then 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 singularly constrained, 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 joint and something in that case, even when you're just of the united states, you know, the world, for example, united states military exist existing to try to itself, but in see that it's in just of global. and therefore, the united states is likely to be due on several other issues which is sort of digging just and not the shows that are threatening it's for the distance or some other country. 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 probably means the same for 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 threat and

certainly can just that makes it the use that the other boss may have also occasionally used it for this started in just what united states practically 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, yeah, i want you was going to give me the ball and the shadow shorter one

phenomenon from this day last year. and what was your question? the find is national shylie or just when you bought, when you get on with the family up, i mean the me i welcome back to all the parts with what i'm saying, professor of diploma in disarmament, or 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 mediate the ukraine conflict and possibly some other international upheavals. why do 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 that 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 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 is the kind of, you know, scenario is building, which is where you can certainly i remember joe biden is more so speech mentioned

that he has put together a coalition of 50 countries and all that wonderful support your grid. that's sort of fine. offered be escalation and i'm sure sure site is also not willing to enter the 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 economy or something called middle followers. then from these middle followers have shown if they're 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 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 the mostly countries in the toki even when

you are china that are in communication to the united states and european powers, but also russia hundreds fence. 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, a paper or the 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 goats, it's a national power, was $25.00 and a bite and into a leader who carries 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 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 buzzle golf 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. busy china and trying to bring together the saudis and the iranians and the you know, the 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 enrollment 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 ease any of the rest of the international community and it off for days to take a certain number of friends and i live 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 it's 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 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 lip service, even the united states wants to make sure this conflict comes to an end. practice may of course me different. so if any nation like each i'mma in the was 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 will be willing to 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 ukraine, and the western campaigns to ostracize russia its value as a partner, it's valerie,

is an associate, has increased dramatically. i wonder how big of a challenge has been for and new delhi, do you think it's sort of its positioning of itself on the international stage stage? did it 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 in the looks that did it in the describes. it's the position position of proactive neutrality, which means i'm getting good grades, said to ensure certain kind of the low being possible. and what are the beast also the same thing for playing? you're going to do it in the systems to people who need it on the ground. not 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 slaughter. there is no note there the while in continuing this

law, which no one in the world and dissipated it has affected in the other girls engaged absolutely not comfortable with the continuation of this kind of while and so on. and therefore, in those positions would be a little time, has changed by which 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 little talk 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's on civilizational understanding. and i think tactically, if you allow me to add that 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,

india is also important. the defense partner with russia. and these are not consideration 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 me brushes, we really got the, the, because the, or dress 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 scum someone did of 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 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 more the government will go about it. let me 1st say that the west willow, sweaty uncomfortable in does the shimmer. because in the mid store that i think there's a greater understanding in united states and europe often does pollution on euclid was, especially the united states and the west need india 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're saying that that brings a certain technician store in their credentials, that international met them. as for the $900.00 people as it is and see this issue

has sort of, of course led to the whole negotiations during india and theater. the 20, the know finance ministers meeting, the former list of meeting wasn't that they were to come to any consensus. so final statement because of these 2 paragraphs deliberately in crisis. look at the while the side foreign minister of the law room, for example. while they were to, for the 1st time in that it conversation with new lincoln, that i think in almost achievement of the presidency in the time mister 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 wide and sitting together. that would be, i think, a great big through when it comes to your group. try how 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 cape. but i think sort of, you can trace the concern indian g to somebody meeting just like the foreign minister meeting, proceed nationally, those of united search and russia sitting face to face and even possibility raving a by that you for has since 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 program and thank you for watching hope to see her again for worlds apart. and mm hm. mm. oh,

no. ah, poet may enter the war in ukraine if yes, independent is it state that according to comment by the polish ambassador to france, however, warsaw is just saying itself from the claim with the u. s. policy trying to contain russia and china is becoming more and more assertive. that according to vladimir, put an article to a prominent chinese newspaper. it comes just to have a trip to moscow as president, with the democratic republic of the congo, asked for russia help combating terror threat as moscow post. the 2nd in russia.