a hello welcome to worlds apart. united nations security council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security reasons, the body of description on the us website. but if we look at the council's efforts to present or resolve major international conflicts over the last 2 decades, will find a very story record is a council fil earning. keep while to discuss that i'm now joined by we're on things professor of diplomacy and disarmament. jermel huddle all natural university and visiting professor at the university of british columbia thinks 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 less than todd by the war in the ukraine is that the security 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 id. 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 bodies is enormous. let's say the, let me say as an academic, the any idea of giving 5 nations an unusual region followed in the un security council was done because of the letters that we had learned from on 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. i mean to order and united tradition and security

council have select but i did try 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 quote interest of any of these 5 national didn't want. then you don't want security gone. other organs are no longer effective. now that does not mean that the should the, you know, the story you in the system because there do 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 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 though you will, general assembly has not given the mandate. so it's a very complex issue. and the one has to be pretty effective. and that is why my

argument is that, you know, what are the other alternatives, other routes go 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 wouldn't 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 there are multiple physicians as to how you want to to guilty consider 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 into guilty, consume another physician is perhaps not to give you 2 power to any single of one machine. what do you know then combined 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 traditions, but of course for, for it has defied any possibility or for such a transformation or mission of 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 44 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 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 this ugly truth. you know, the international system that wants to be seen as polite society, but is ultimately that is ultimately in reality, very unscrupulous and pretty cynical. i'm delighted you mention the word troops in geo politics off major bobby contentions. there are often more than losers. and there is definitely one casualty and they're distraught. truth is always because with the middle of jupiter because the insurance because you know everyone has their own inter petitions or not just on what is know and what when it comes to more generally the term of noodle for all . 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, 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 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 5 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, and you will have to maintain its credibility that it is for its own good that your system must read a form to make it more contemporaneous to make it so the nerve in terms of being

representative off the reality on the ground and also therefore, you know, being more effective 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 the 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 bell. and so far there did existed until that time

off to the 2nd world war. and there was the need about the use of movement which was going on in the us super missing were metals contended because no single nation can be seen as the most powerful nation can still take other nations along. and particularly when you say balance or follow the condition of the meaning of paula has enormously changed over time. we're talking off softball and sharp powered smart ball. you have country like india and i was a why do you think to bring in india? india is no, was not just publishing country, given him all the saw that you know, most acceptable or big on the world. what is not part of the be funny or the permanent for the veto followed in the security council. that if you will have confusing, which india even as an economy, just so for boston,

indian economies not larger than that of burton britain has you want to go to the council permanent seat? i'm not saying that should be made to present or making sure and those of this, but fundamentally so many follow in the bell in football. what is the constantly changing phenomenon? and that is where we have seen, for example, expanding 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 sublimity around the world. and we're following. 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 intercession. 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 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 then it push comes to shove, united nation, boston on to you and security. and in your scholarly goal. yes, one of these 5 was equal to is not different when it comes to united,

say it's vito or any other countries we do in your security council. but of course, we have also, nor does the actual practice of you, you know, system united states and its allies in countries like france and britain. i have often warded with the united states, whether they have worked on the on or whether it has been served in the united states. never been under the bid. what it does appear over time that united states has increased, the estimates generally offered 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 exceptionalism of united states, which the legal framework of you to interest them, does not recognize where the practice of united conditions has become vulnerable to that. wouldn't that,

that change your argument because you're argued 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 off 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 the united states or the world. for

example, united states may not have exist existing. she'll try to itself. 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 is saturday and just and not the shows that are happening. it's for the distance or some other country. for example, like china, britain, france, or perhaps, unless like you to use that extensively what the validation and the power and the digital if you want veto poverty, means the frames were all the fight. except as they said, maybe united states sees need to use that. we do our work, the on issues to be on. it's on exist potential crit and stuff. they can just that makes it, they use the needle other both. they have also occasionally used it for this

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

. mm hm. welcome back to well, the part with what i think professor of diplomacy and his argument 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 here. and i would say abuse and manipulation of the year and system, they honest now is on the middle powers to maintain the ukrainian 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. but what we are noticing here is certain indeed as completion of the conflict other than and mitigation, or reduction of violence. in any case, the then if that kind of, you know, what scenario is building richard, but he could certainly, i remember, or joe biden is more. so speech mentioned that he has worked together, lucian, of 50 countries mall with other wonder to support hugh grant. that's not a sign offered b escalation, and i'm sure she said is also not willing to enter this stage. and that is why i said the only option then is perhaps for another big deal was which much more visible in last decade or so. and these are either called being economies or

something called middle powers. and from these middle powers have shown it done in the united systems of awarding rather than the general assembly organs guilty, consul author largely abstaining not thinking to blame either side. and i think that kind of creates a position of neutrality and in the are also called it said for the following your position or to like the new trying to be reachable grierson opportunity for these countries. and there mostly countries in the toki even into china that are in communication water, the united states and european powers, but also russia under the 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 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, then 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 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 call for the agreements that are signed in international relations are often sort of needed to layer please one side later. 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 before, sees itself as the one and only arbiter of what's going on into well, do you think it was 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 at them. tuition in the united states, to assert its being the most powerful nation on the planet of law, but definitely cannot use it any course. there are still the international community and it 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 a network now. so it's not possible for united states to singularly, and it's will even honest wallace mission today because that's part of the kind of where we live in and 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 you know, i did, states will be seen or would like to be seen opposing that kind of initiative because that is going to be called the because at least at the level of 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 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 may 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 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 are clearly united states and its land,

certain things that in there actually is signing with russia, which of course is not how in the looks that did in the described. it's the position position of proactive neutrality. which means i'm getting bored, said to ensure certain kind of the low being possible. and what are the beast also the same thing 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 for, on 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 in the other girls in gaze . absolutely not comfortable with continuation of this kind of while and so on. 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 little talk with president, put in saying that this is not a lot of war and don't want to come from any compulsion from any any, any outside actor. it comes from india on civilized, additional understanding. and i think practically, if you allow me to add that there's a long relationship that i've 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 these 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 what it is. so, when i say that in there distancing from russia under me brushes,

we've really got the, the, because we're, we're 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 the declared comes from 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 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 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 monte government will go about it?

let me 1st say that the west willow, sweaty, uncomfortable. when does the shimmer? because in the mid store that i think there's a greater understanding in united states and europe often goes 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 indian needs them at this point. i think i'm happy you're saying that that brings a certain technicians to in their credentials, that international level as for the 900 people that doesn't see this issue has sort of of course lead to the whole negotiations doing in just a little bit in theater. the 20, the know finance ministers meeting the foreign ministers meeting 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 side foreign minister of the law rule. for example, while they were to have for the 1st time that a longer session with new lincoln, that i think in almost achievement does not off in the presidency in them to mr. is now also to with 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 hon for them to achieve one of the put in and enjoy when sitting together there would be, i think, a great big tool when it comes to your group, try to resolve it now whether the 27th meeting achieves the final consensus document that you can deal with. traits best in the inside gets missed. that would be on the cake. but i think sort of, you can trace the concern in general, somebody meeting just like the foreign minister meeting, proceed the nationally off united search and russia sitting face to face and even

possibility raving a bye let you processing since been great pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for that. thank you very much and thank you. what i mean you under grow and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the world's apart. ah. with me not so good number. you are not in jeopardy chemical. i found it does not bring me to mary marie. she found is on is you just mean that sounds good when this once i got you going to say thank you. i'm a fan realizes him even you. she said she didn't so she didn't she actually over

the mountain, but i guess it so 2 guys could double know. i mean, she edc will follow his assistant that we neil on pretty fast. he needs it, but that's been paid. you ma'am? said dr. dead, go eat, would you bruno or we can exist to people a those aren't come. i passed this one. it is also your best. her sisters were shabby and won't care, vetted as one has one is for high surveys from the sequel me call naval. can you call navy don't exist, but now numeric. it, she never show to digest, cause city dig through full, led to mouth about enough to hope. what m. c, castles we met about was the court said, you know, when he saw this one, what you did about he, vic, hello to of the issue with ah,

[000:00:00;00] ah ah ah, ah, ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. the international criminal court is accused russia of committee, more crimes and ukraine. of course, the by did ministration, could not be more pleased. the i c, c, u. c. that's a long history of doing washington's bidding. the same court washington refuses to