and then we will of course, keep you posted many thanks for joining us here. and i'll see international this sunday with that was sent to you more than 30 minutes. see you then the, [000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to wells of course,

certain years ago as to tell him bloody that our erupt in syria are very to reign supreme. killing became a spectacle for, to the consumption. and the international community was here. so we divided it sounds like the worst war ever for today, the syrians favor isn't just standing, it's recovering, rebuilding ties with former adversaries and look into the future. is such a scenario likely for the construct in ukraine world to discuss that i'm now joined by around the little doing ramsey and egyptian diploma as a former senior official at the united nations. as a ramsay, it's a great to see your again, thank you very much. for your time, thank you very much for invite. now your most recent position within the united nations was that of deputy and boy for syria, for 2014 till 2019 and this conflict is 0 to my heart as well. i cover that from the ground and i remember at the time when it was raging,

it seems like the worst nightmare ever. but they were least some efforts public efforts and cleaning by the united nations to mediated alike in the ukraine. or even the share mentioning of talks is unable nation is least for the western side. which of these 2 calls makes you find more challenging as far as these prospects are concerned? well, i mean, if you look at what happened in syria and trying to, to draw the comparison up when things, when there was a prospect of progress on syria, it was because moscow in washington were able to agree on something. and they agreed on resolution 2118 which pick which basically was to get rid of the chemical weapons. and then a few years later, resolution 24542554. again was the result of an agreement between russia and the united states. and that is,

it remains the framework for settlement and syria in the ukraine. it is different. i mean, what has changed? because i remember at the time it was very challenging, nobody believed him to piece prospects, but there was, as well as me some whole that those talks in between a bama dash is russian counterparts were somewhat genuine. and nowadays, there is no wish if even appearances, what has changed to make a war a far more preferable option? well, i mean, as you know, the situation in syria today in terms of hostilities, has that have been reduced enormously. but of course, there is a defacto, i would say division live inside syria. so the fact because there is no host, ongoing austerity, so at least intensified hostilities. the international community is not as engaged as it used to be the engaged at all. well, unfortunately kind of close doors as well. yes,

i mean of course the activity now is less than it was before because then the war was raging. there was a humanitarian issue. there was a political issue and the world wanted, at least to give the impression that it was trying to do something. of course the one was trying to do something, but the security council, as you know, was deadlocked today. because for a number of reasons, one, because like i said also that these are much less 2nd because the russians and the americans after ukraine on speaking terms literally. uh, so given that there is much less interest of course, with gaza. now, all the focus is on gaza at to try to resolve this tragedy. so unfortunately, there isn't much attention being paid to syria. the one positive development

that happened in syria over the years has been an arrow be engagement in syria. and i think that was very important, but unfortunately, unfortunately after syria has been, uh how its membership has been pushed towards in the air bleed. uh, there was some momentum, but it seems to have been lost over the past few months. so let's see what, there is an opinion here in russian long experts that i, because of the political ration of proxy wars that may fueling or force indirect fueling a force possible for many actors without necessarily incurring the losses. uh, conflict resolution is no longer the only no longer possible. it doesn't make any sense because it's not only proxy word but southern proxy supplement of conflicts as well. a, do you have any ideas of perhaps any constructive way of putting in that to the franchising or for when both war and peace are essentially by license there,

you know, given on off to somewhere that somebody else. well, i mean, i'm glad you bring up this point because it's, this allows me to introduce another element, which i think is implicit in what you're saying. wars now are, are simply not or between countries or civil wars which means within the country. but there is the non state actors who have become extremely active and have entered and complicated whatever conflict, whether it's internal or external. and that is an issue that is very, i think dangerous, if allowed to continue. and you can see that in a rock, you can see that in syria, you can see that in the palace time bass. so i, i think this is an issue that the international community has to focus on. well, hopefully it does. and now in one of your articles, you made a very interesting point the,

despite its extensive military involvement in your claim to russia hasn't fully withdrawn its military assets from syria. in fact, it's essentially demonstrating its capability on its resolve to fight or participate in to worse simultaneously. what do you think it means beyond me or appearances that well, i mean, uh, you, right, i mean, russia has made an enormous investment in syria. it's an investment that dates decades has increased, of course, since 2015. and i think there's every reason i mean, looking at from a russian point of view not to give up this investment. clearly the focus now is on ukraine, which is understandable, but i don't think russia and it has demonstrated that it will not reduce its footprint in syria. but i mean, let's also not exaggerate. thanks. i mean,

in syria, a russian involvement is, is not, of course, it's minimal, but it's minimal data. exactly. it's extremely effective, but it is minimal. and they're able to maintain this, the same profile, conspire to ask for something because i mean, you're a very reputable arab diplomats, i'm sure you know the position of many arabs countries. and the time when russia was sending it's a fleet to syria. many countries welcomed other parts from, let's say, sarah, in the wrong, do you think the arab neighbors of syria, like russian being there, even in the end, it's minimal capacity now, what they like it to, to me there were those who wanted region change out more and those were supporting the regime and there were those who are neutral. and i think what has happened over the years that those who saw region change came to the conclusion that this is not

in the long term interest. because if that more continues, 2 things will happen. one, syria will explode. and that will have security uh, implications for them. and it would allow iran to become further entrenched. so they've come around finally, i think i'm a bit late. i mean, but it's never too late, but they come to realize that it is their interest to help syria maintains territorial integrity, whether it is through the turkish incursions or iranian think, well i've, i don't so i don't know if a consult incursions but well, and interference inter interference interventions in one way or the other directly or indirectly. so they've come route, they understand that they need to preserve the territory integrity into it. and if that means working with damascus, they are and that you can see that damascus is, i mean,

syria is back again in the bleak. now on your question about russian presence. i think those who wanted treating change in 2015 work stream lead disturbed by the russian intervention. but because their position has evolved, i think today they look at treasure, as in fact, an influence that a couch in maintaining the territorial integrity of states. all take legalizing factory. yeah. but also as a counterweight to iraq, which many in spite of the progress and relations and i think that is important between they are countries and iran. but of course, the arabs are very concerned about irradiance interaction to eventually sort of not since you mentioned the issue of territorial integrity, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think as things stand right now in damascus with a system as a freshman there on control is about 2 thirds of the turn, more or less. yes,

i would say so the americans and the turks being in charge of the remainder of the territory. and i think it's pretty likely at this point that the americans are not going to corporate. but what about n correct? do you see any scenario of which turkey would be sort of looking benevolently, not only of syrian reconciliation, but also our syrian we unifications. well, i mean, i think congress made it very clear. they are for preserving to turn out territorial integrity of syria because for them, any possibility of disintegration, syria immediately brings in the kurdish issue. and so the, for them maintaining the territorial integrity of syria is i think, a very important, i think again like the, our position has evolved. i think the turkish position has evolved, again, it was all about regime change. if you remember from the very beginning. and then slowly they come to realize that the regime is going nowhere. so they had to be

practical. they had to be realistic and they understood that to safeguard their borders with syria, which is more than 900 kilometers long. they need an end to look at her and, and a strong government in series. they may not like the government, but they tried to change it and they couldn't. so they had to deal with the reality . and since then, there has been contact. now, is the reality primarily about the syrian government or rather of, you know, not a very trustworthy nature of the powers that wanted to replace him? i mean, or it's what? well, i mean, super serious. i mean, if you look at the turkish brit position from initially it was basically about having a government that was uh, was it friendly to, uh, to on part is what they want to have. and this is what they had at some point of time . well, uh they had and if you remember when the syrian crisis started, uh,

the turkish government tried to mediate. but apparently they set the conditions uh that the syrian government did not accept their conditions. was basically the makeup of the syrian government to put in elements that they were comfortable with, which the, which for the syrian government were completely unacceptable. because of, you know, the muslim brotherhood until today is considered a terrorist organization in syria. so that there was no chance that this would happen. so this was the initial, it's a turkish position and they uh, for a few years we didn't want raging change. and then they came to realize that that was not going to happen. and that their primary objective was to secure their border, which means the kurdish issue and ultimately to be able to deal with the turkish issue in whatever form. i mean, i'm not going to get the details of how it's going to be resolved inside syria or

insight turkey. it had to you had to have a government in damascus. who would be responsible for the board? yeah, well, so they have to become a little bit more realistic on a little bit more humble. and which is what we are going to do right now by taking a short break. but we will be back in just a few moments statement,

the the welcome back to the part the rest around today as well during the ramsey and egyptian diplomatic and former senior official at the united nations, mister rumsey, um, before the break, we were talking about how the position of many regional actors has changed, perhaps has become more pragmatic, but not as grande was a, as before. and it's important because that ultimately, the ukrainian conflict is also about uh, finding some sort of a compromise. do you see any potential value?

so this point, i heard of course, administer law for off today. i've been following the, the pronouncements by washington and many european capitals and i, i refer it to say that i'm not optimistic about what went on ukraine searching, not before the american elections, which is most unfortunate. so i think what needs to be done today is to avoid as a further escalation, i think that is absolutely important and then create conditions for a possible negotiating process down the road. but that's not gonna happen right away. i mean, we seen, i think just a few weeks ago last may, china and brazil put forward a proposal which isn't not line in that direction in the sense of de escalate it. and i think that's the most we can hold for a when i hear all talk about further escalation or the talk of use of nuclear weapons which, you know,

even rhetorically. i am extremely disturbing. the reason why the issue of nuclear weapons is being brought up is because as least for russia, this isn't, that's a central issue. this is very close to home. and the argument i'm hearing and most go all the time is that the americans because they have this capacity of waging proxy wars beat in syria and live their song send even in gaza in ukraine. they do not their direct losses because of that, they lost a sense of fear. and there is no other way of containing them on bringing them to census. and that may seem like a belligerent arrest. all right, but i want to ask you as an international diplomat, is here important in international relations do countries or otherwise, how would you bring uh, you know, powerful countries to, you know, a sense of responsibility to a sense of connection with that on policies? well, i mean, uh, as you know, deterrence has worked over the years. well,

at the time when uh, the soviet union and the united states were directly at the local hats. cool. so now you have proxy wars, you have non state actors. and i think, and i think i said earlier, this is an issue that the international community has to deal with in a much more serious manner. when things come to the ukraine. of course, the situation is, i think tragic for, for all involved. i think there were opportunities to reach a settlement and i think they were dashed for variety of reasons. and now i think stories are coming out and i think history will judge why this opportunity was missed. but any miscalculation is going to be ads, you know, further tragedy to what is or ukraine people and the russian people on the partner are facing. so i think this is something that i think we have to avoid at all costs

. frankly, i don't know if you would agree with that, but at least from the russian position at the core of the you're printing process, if there is a failure to agree on that original security infrastructure is something that's wouldn't be all inclusive for all countries feel, feel more or less secure, although perhaps not perfectly so on that opportunity to clearly was miss, but i heard you articulate on call for some sort of time arab security architecture. do you think that's possible and do you think our countries would be allowed to come off with such a plan? because clearly any regional security arrangements that do not involve the united states not always to it's liking in the middle east. you have israel, you have turkey, you have you right? and what i've always advocated is to have a comprehensive, comprehensive,

in the sense it has a economic to cultural, political, military dimensions. so it deals with all of these issues and at the same time, inclusively inclusive in the sense that it is not directed against anyone. on the, on the contrary, it includes all these countries. i, so it is a very complicated process. it will take, i think, a very long time until it materializes into something concrete. but you can proceed in steps. and so you said our system. yes. you have to start a serious discussion amongst the arabs as to how the envisage the future of the middle east. what are the real threats, how they're going to cooperate and articulate division that they will take to the other parties. it's not just israel, iran, it's also turkey. turkey is somewhat problematic because it is

a member of nato. so i think we will have to find a innovative way. well, it's pretty much it has managed to. yeah, exactly, exactly, but i mean, 1st, i mean, i think israel is clearly has demonstrated that it poses a genuine threat to all our countries after protests has happened. and guys, i think for, for a number of years, as you know, there was a tendency and i think this was an exaggeration, but there was a tendency to, to basically say the, the about us, any issue is not important. that israel can be integrated in the region without resulting the posting and problem. i think that is over. i think that is very clear and, but i don't think it's great that he's realise, i think the americans probably understand that, but i'm not sure they're going to act upon it. so it is really up to the countries to articulate division and then take it to the other parties in the region. so it's, it's not easy,

it's going to be difficult. and i think if you read mike articles i, i have what conditions and one of the conditions is about as danced. i want to ask you one more question or perhaps 2 more questions on, on gas. because for the time being uh, the negotiation center primarily around the particulars likes the release of hostages rather than the fundamentals of all of the conflict on the argument, is that, you know, it's so complicated that and there is no point of discussing history. we should start somewhere, preferably with the small things. do you believe in such an approach? how do you think this issue should be dealt with junior and we uh, i think in the past uh, our country is and i can speak from my country. were prepared to discuss uh, you know, principles were prepared, discuss past grievances, historical brief, but i think after garza and for the double standard that has become apparent to

everybody. whenever i speak to anyone and was prepared to seriously discuss resolving the palace thing is really issue in the wide or up is really a dispute. i say, i'm not going to talk about the past because it's clear where israel steps. there are 2 narratives and they will never meet a case intellectually. so let's talk about the future. and that's what, now we should, we talked about the future. yes, i think something can be done and should be taught. but i'm not prepared to discuss the past because i think uh israel's record over the years and has been confirmed and gaza is very clear. so that is over and done with. now how to proceed is clearly what needs to be done and i think that is almost a consensus minus one, which is israel. even the united states series, you have to have an immediate cease fire. second,

you have to ensure you monitor in a to all of gaza and then you have to pay the ground for negotiations down the road. i'm not optimistic that the negotiated it will take place, particularly with this government in israel. i think it's out of the question, but you should, international community should agree and i think most of it does, but i think more needs to be done in setting very clear parameters that will govern the future of the palestinian israeli conflict, which is centered around the balanced against you have there has been a little progress in the security council. i think much more needs to be done. i think one of the things is that there should be a bilateral recognition of, of, of the palestinian state. i think there should be it's not just declaratory, but there should be concrete action to,

to demonstrate to israel that palestine because the state enters recognized by the vast majority of the conference. now, mr. ramsey, you mentioned many students who shouldn't be the one to enforce or put forth to israel, all those trends. and i am driving this question specifically to the united nations, which as an organization was creative with a clear mandate of trying to avoid or set to conflicts which i it hasn't been doing lately, i think that's a payday. all this, do you think this organization is still capable of fulfilling what it was created for? it is capable depending on the uh, political will of its members. oh, clearly it's not there and perhaps the institution itself does not allow for. i'm not sure. i mean specifically, if you talk about policy or the palestinian issue there has been,

i mean it's very slow. it doesn't justify what's happening inside garza but the, the situation has shifted, including in the security council, not enough in my view, more needs to be done. but i don't think ultimately no matter how much and have to, i think you alluded to that, that israel acts with infinity because it has the support. and i even say it, but of course of the united states of the united states. now, i think the united states position has evolved, not enough, much more needs to be done, but the only way to bring the united states to where we would like as arabs and as international committee is to continue to put pressure on the united states to evolve in that direction, i don't think the united states ultimately no matter what the relationship between israel and the united states that, that, that got israel is almost a domestic issue in the united states. i don't think is united states ultimately would like to be left alone in the world. that's an interesting point. the growth of clearly of russia and the united states. i don't on speaking terms, as you mentioned, but the you just said that the rest of the world,

they are paul's needs to put pressure on the united states. do things in the united states is actually amenable to any kind of pressure of saw what kind of pressure may change the american possession? well, let me put it this way. going back to 1973. the arab countries were able to unite in spite of their ideological differences in spite of their political differences. they were able to my spirit items and we saw what happened and 1973 and its immediate after bath. so it is possible the united states, the whole process, the peace process, so to speak, started of course in geneva, with the americans and the russians, us a sponsors of the process in geneva, that was long before camp david. today the arab countries are in my view, in a stronger position, the newer in 1973. they carry much more economic weight that they did in 1973 today . guys that unites them. and,

and it's very clear that the palestinian issue is not going to go away and there is no way israel will be integrated in the region before this browsing issue is result . so there are things and they carry more weight today with the united states and they did in 1973 in 1973. the only thing they did was the i was the, or the embargoed today, they have at their disposal much more weapons including soft power that they can exercise. and if you look at the situation inside europe and in the united states, i mean, it doesn't say there will be a shift today. but you can see that there is almost a, a, a, a distinction between the political elite, whether in government or out, and the young population. and of course, this will take time. but at the end of the day, if you are a democracy, you have to consider that that's a big s best, a towel, towel. so rosie, it's always

a pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for this conversation. thank you very much for having. appreciate and thank you for watching hope to sir, again unable to parts the the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the time at last, when he'd expounded julie, the songs takes his son, step back colo squiggly in store, were united with his family. after a grueling 14 year long legal baffled th that's off to a judge accepted it,