Inside Geneva
Inside Geneva is a podcast about global politics, humanitarian issues, and international aid, hosted by journalist Imogen Foulkes. It is produced by SWI swissinfo.ch, a multilingual international public service media company from Switzerland.
Inside Geneva
Multilateralism, the Global South and the future
On Inside Geneva this week, we ask whether the United Nations (UN) and multilateralism have a future.
“Is the UN anachronistic? I mean, it was formed after the Second World War. Obviously, it’s getting a little bit dusty,” says political analyst Daniel Warner.
Younger generations from the Global South tell us where
they see the UN’s flaws.
“The countries of the Global North have not stood up to the ideals that they have created in an equitable manner. It’s simply like preaching water and drinking wine,” says Pratyush Sharma from the Global South Centre of Excellence in Dehli.
“The United Nations Security Council is absolutely inefficient in dealing with the reality of people, especially from the Global South,” continues Marilia Closs from Plataforma CIPÓ in Brazil.
“The Global South cannot exist on its own. Likewise the Global North also cannot exist on its own,” says Olumide Onitekun from the Africa Policy and Research Institute in Nigeria.
But the UN was created for very good reasons.
“When you think about the end of the Second World War and how the UN was created, the world was so sick and tired of war, they wanted it to end. It’s a different mindset. You know, it just makes me think, is that what we’re going to need?” says Dawn Clancy, UN journalist in New York.
Can the UN survive? Join host Imogen Foulkes on our Inside Geneva podcast to find out.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Foulkes, and this is a production from Swissinfo, the international public media company of Switzerland.
Speaker 3:In today's program. Is the UN anachronistic? I mean it was formed after the Second World War. Obviously it's getting a little bit dusty.
Speaker 4:The countries of the Global North. They themselves have not stood up to the ideals that they have created in an equitable manner. It is simply like you know, you're preaching water and drinking wine.
Speaker 5:The United Nations Security Council is absolutely inefficient to deal with the reality of people, especially from the Global South.
Speaker 6:The Global South cannot exist on its own, and likewise the Global North also cannot exist on its own.
Speaker 7:When you think about the end of World War II and how the UN was created. You had the world. They were so sick and tired of war, they wanted it to end. It's a different mindset, you know. It just makes me think is that what we're going to need?
Speaker 2:Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. And in today's program we're going to take a deep breath, be brave and ask whether an institution we report on regularly, the United Nations, may be on its last legs. Under Donald Trump we've seen unprecedented disengagement from the United States, with multilateral institutions and massive cuts in US funding to UN aid agencies. So can the UN survive without the United States? Some listeners may know, others may not, that the UN in Geneva was, until 1946, home to the League of Nations.
Speaker 1:The Council of the League of Nations at Geneva met to consider the appeal of gallant little Finland against the aggression of Soviet Russia. The Emperor Haile Selassie rose to make his final appeal before the League of Nations at Geneva, and his appearance was the signal for an extraordinary outburst of catcalls and jeering from Italian journalists in the gallery. The story of the League of Nations comes to an end when, at the Palace of Geneva, the delegates of many lands meet for the last time.
Speaker 2:In the run-up to the Second World War, tensions and divisions between member states destroyed the League. So today, to discuss the future of the UN and of multilateralism, I'm joined by Daniel Warner, specialist in international affairs here in Geneva, and journalist Dawn Clancy, who covers the UN in New York, and a little later in the programme we'll talk to young people from the global south and hear what their hopes for multilateralism are. But first I'm going to start with you, danny. You've got a long historical perspective about this. Does the United Nations in Geneva now have a kind of terminal feel about it? Could it go the way of the League of Nations?
Speaker 3:Well, I wrote an article where I began by saying the League is dead. Robert Cecil solemnly declared on April 18th 1946, addressing delegates from 34 countries at the League headquarters here in Geneva what is interesting about that moment was that, right after he declared, the United Nations was being born. So, although the League died, there was something to replace it. If the United Nations is on its last legs today, we have nothing to replace it now, and that has to be remembered.
Speaker 2:Let me ask you that, don, from the New York perspective, because in his first term Donald Trump did engage with the UN from time to time. Some people say he did actually see it as useful from time to time, but this time it's really hard to tell, and a lot of those around him really seem devoted not just to this idea of America first, but America alone. What's your feeling in New York? Is the US starting a walk away?
Speaker 7:I don't think it would be a full-on, 100% walk away. But here's based on you know what I've been paying attention to, what I do see. So Elise Stefanik she was the nominee for the US ambassador to the UN. She had her confirmation hearing. There was never a vote and then, of course, president Trump pulled her nomination.
Speaker 7:But if you listen to her her hearing, she spoke a lot about Israel and defending against anti-Semitism. She really went hard against China and there was this really strong idea that we have to push back against China. We have to keep them in line at the UN. So meanwhile she's not the nominee anymore. Her nomination has been pulled. We still don't know who Trump may nominate for the ambassadorship for that position, but that just tells me that there is concern and I think there's acknowledgement from Trump that it would be silly to pull out completely from the UN. But that may only mean that he's only interested in where, in the spots of power, which one of those would be, of course, the Security Council. You know, in addition to China, there's also Iran, there's also Russia, but I think China is going to play and decisions about China is going to play a huge role in how the Trump administration interacts with the UN.
Speaker 2:Well, that's interesting because, from the Geneva perspective, what I see is a United States that's doing all this stuff related to China, related to Russia, etc. Etc. Without the United Nations at all. There has been zero role for the UN in the discussions about Ukraine, zero role for the UN in the discussions about Gaza and with China. A trade war has been launched, a unilateral trade war has been launched. The only engagement we see with the UN in Geneva is what appears to be a very ideologically driven funding cut, that even the funding, the little funding from the US that might be retained, seems to have to conform to particular US ideologies. Now, from both of you, this is just not how the United Nations works. It's not a tool for the United States to impose whatever particular ideology it has at the moment.
Speaker 3:Most of the criticisms you've mentioned deal with New York and the Security Council, Gaza, Ukraine, etc. And the League of Nations went under after Italy invaded Abyssinia, Japan invaded China, Soviet Union invaded Finland. So the element of peace and security is a great weakness of both the League and the UN. The fact that the United States is coming out of the World Health Organization is extraordinarily worrying because that means it's also looking down on certain specialized agencies here in Geneva. But I would not expect the United States to withdraw from most of those specialized agencies.
Speaker 7:I think the one thing with Trump that's concerning and we're certainly well, there are many things, but we've seen this just recently with the tariffs is that he's highly unpredictable, and it would appear that all decisions get funneled down into whether or not Trump sees it as a benefit. Not necessarily. You know, the United States helps fund the WHO and that's important because we can keep track of diseases that are rotating around the planet and we can keep them in check. Keep them in check. Does Trump really think about that, even though he's a human being too, and at any point, any disease anywhere I mean, look at COVID could impact all of us.
Speaker 7:It doesn't matter if you're the president of the United States, it doesn't matter if you're the secretary general of the United Nations, it can get to you. What I sense from him is that it's about power. I don't think that he puts a lot of value in the power that being part of the WHO would have, or even the WFP. There was just news recently that funding was being pulled, but it's back on again, but not for funding for Afghanistan, not for Yemen. So again, that's where the unpredictability comes in. So I'm looking at it as where there's power when Trump sees it heard off the record from some diplomats here.
Speaker 2:European diplomats is that in some way it's better under this administration for the United States to be disengaged, because a Germany or a France or a Holland or a United Kingdom does not want to go head to head with the United States at, for example, the Human Rights Council, where they'll be on opposite sides, possibly about human rights in Russia or Ukraine or about rights around gender, so that in some ways it could be easier. And just coming to your point about the World Food Programme utter confusion. Nobody in Geneva really knows. Have we got a waiver? If so, where is the money? It was supposed to come back. It's not back. They don't even have people to call because USAID has been dismantled. Just coming back to the point of could it be easier without the United States Just coming back to the point of could it be easier without the United States?
Speaker 3:if they disengage, could it give space to countries which traditionally have really not had much of a voice? Well, in principle, as a Democrat with a small d, I agree with you, imogen. The difficulty is there's a difference between participation and efficiency. There are two complaints about the UN. One is that the Global South is not involved enough, but the second is it doesn't function well. The two things are not the same. You can have lots of people at the table, but it doesn't work well. You can have an organization working well, but there's not many people at the table. So the question of integrating and being inclusive, I agree with. Being more efficient, I also agree with, but it's not necessarily the same thing.
Speaker 2:No, indeed not. But since you mentioned the Global South and I did say we were going to hear voices from the Global South there has been an interesting project going on right here in Geneva In the midst of this crisis of multilateralism. There's a think tank in Geneva looking at what the future of multilateralism is, and I've been dipping in and out of those discussions so we can hear now what I found out. In a quiet corner of Geneva, intense but enthusiastic discussions are taking place.
Speaker 8:If not now, when I mean the news are crazy every day. I'm almost afraid sometimes to open the news.
Speaker 2:Marie Hurleyman is co-director of the Swiss think tank Voraus and, in the middle of global crisis and upheaval, she's invited young people from think tanks in the global south to come to Geneva to discuss the future of multilateralism and to try to hammer out solutions to some of the common challenges facing our world.
Speaker 8:I'm really proud that we are able to provide this, actually creating space for dialogue, creating space for disagreement, creating space for thinking long-term, creating space for differences. And when such crises come, I think it's even more important to hear the silent voices, the ones we hear way less, and that's what even more important to hear the silent voices, the one we hear way less, and that's what we're trying to do with this project.
Speaker 4:My name is Pratyush Sharma. I work in a think tank in Delhi and in there I work on issues of international development, specifically South-South cooperation.
Speaker 2:The young people taking part come from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Pratyush Sharma is from Delhi's Global South Centre of Excellence. His first few days in Geneva and a visit to Geneva's Graduate Institute highlighted for him what he already suspected the perspectives between North and South remain often very different.
Speaker 4:Just yesterday we were meeting a few people from the Graduate Institute and we were discussing about what do they think about the Global South?
Speaker 4:So they have this futures programme that they conduct in the university and they were saying that, oh, we don't even want to get into the ideas of Global South because we are imagining the era of 2050 or 2070, where the Global South has already been integrated into the world community and we are thinking of as one community going forward. And my point was but how can you not discuss about the present when the global south has not been integrated into the world economy? And and they said oh, no, no, we don't want to get into the uh, you know this revengeful ideas of global south. I was like this is where you don't understand what global south is. Global south is not about taking revenge from the global north. It is how we come together and work towards and go towards the developmental solutions that is going to be good for everyone, that multilateralism should work for everyone when you say multilateralism should work for everyone, do you ever get?
Speaker 2:multilateralism should work for everyone. Do you ever get frustrated then when you look at the UN Security Council and who's on it and they're not helping.
Speaker 4:I mean, one of the major issues that I feel where multilateralism or the rules-based order lacks is not that not all countries are on the table to discuss things, but my issue is that the countries of the global north, they themselves, have not stood up to the ideals that they have created in an equitable manner. If that is the case I don't think so anyone would be crying foul towards multilateralism or United Nations or Bretton Woods institutions. It is simply, like you know, you're preaching water and drinking wine, and that has been a problem all throughout. So I think that needs to be solved, and if countries of the global south can come to the high table and make these necessary changes, why not?
Speaker 2:Over at another discussion table is Olamide Onetikun, a researcher at Nigeria's Africa Policy and Research Institute. He too sees the need for more listening from the Global North and less dictating of solutions, however well-meaning.
Speaker 6:I have a perception of the Global North as a community that comes to explore and the Global North, on the other hand, probably see the Global South maybe as a place to go to just pick up some of the key resources in the Global South. So I think the world system should operate in a way whereby we have this level of interdependencies with ourselves. The Global South cannot exist on its own, and likewise the Global global south cannot exist on its own, and likewise the global north also cannot exist on its own.
Speaker 2:And especially right now, there is frustration. It's not as if, says Marilia Closs of the Brazilian research institute Plataforma Chipo, those who invented the rules-based order have been doing a great job.
Speaker 5:When we think of the reality that we are living, I think it's offensive when we think of the institutions that we have to deal with it, Because it's not been two years that we know that this is not enough, that the way that we organize ourselves collectively internationally is not enough. It's been decades that we know that this is not enough. So we are facing some conflicts. The same regions have been struggling with conflicts for so many decades, so we do know that the international governance has not been enough to deal with this kind of situations. So that's why I say it is offensive for us from the Global South to think of this.
Speaker 5:The kind of organization that we have the United Nations, to deal with conflict, the United Nations Security Council, is absolutely inefficient to deal with the reality of people, especially from the Global South. We do know that its structure and its ways of representativeness are anachronic. They are absolutely anachronic. It's like a photography of the past. So it is not enough. We've been knowing this for decades and what we are seeing now in the Middle East, especially what's happening to people in Gaza, well, that's the image of it.
Speaker 2:Both Marilia and Olamide are focused on climate change. For Olamide, a key obstacle to tackling the challenges which the global south is already feeling the brunt of are the multilateral financial institutions set up at the end of the Second World War. The Bretton Woods institutions, as they are known, were supposed to regulate a fairer, more equitable global economy, but Olumide reminds us they were set up by the advanced economies of the 1940s with little thought to the development of the global south.
Speaker 6:My group. We focused on climate finance and we are bringing up innovative ideas on how to reform the global financial architecture. And we drew back to 1944, when the Bretton Woods institutions were constituted. You know this was largely exclusive of the global south. Currently, the voting system in the Bretton Woods institutions is skewed towards the advanced economy. That could be a challenge, but, yeah, the world is changing, power is shifting, so it's important that we begin to rethink how we create an inclusive institutional framework that allows for impactful outcome and solutions, especially now in the context of climate change that is ravaging the world.
Speaker 2:And Marilia, from Brazil, also wants to see different approaches to tackling climate change.
Speaker 5:So I'm here trying to discuss how we can deal with this international governance regarding climate, which is so I don't know how to say that in English, but so stuck. When we see the negotiation process, for example, in climate agenda, we are facing a crisis but at the same time, the international system does not give the answers that we need in the urgency that we need, in the speed that we need. So I'm here with this focus how can we see the South-South cooperation regarding the climate agenda to solve a problem in which we have urgency, but, at the same time, that international system does not give enough, not only for the global south, but for the whole world, does not give us enough money, answers and resources to answer the crisis, Do you?
Speaker 2:think it's unbalanced, the kind of power and influence of the global north versus the global south, countries from the global north versus the global south.
Speaker 5:Countries from the global north do have more responsibility, historical responsibility, of what we are facing right now. Countries from the global north, of course, do have more resources to deal with it, but, at the same time, countries from the global south do have responsibilities as well, but it's not the same amount of responsibilities and it's's not the same amount of responsibilities and it's definitely not the same amount of power. We from the Global South have important goals that we have to tackle, but at the same time, we don't have the kind of power that the Global North has. So that's why we're here specifically.
Speaker 2:Voices from the Global South with crucial points to make, but in the noisy chaos of our current world, will they be heard? Marie Hurleyman again.
Speaker 8:How am I hopeful that people can make a difference and how am I hopeful that those participants can make a difference? Well, they have great ideas, they have great input. They are amazing professionals, extremely talented, and I do think their voices is worth hearing, so I'm trying to keep hope.
Speaker 2:yes, and Pratyush Sharma says no one expects things to change overnight. At least he and his colleagues from the Global South have youth on their side.
Speaker 4:These are slow changes. These processes are slow. It takes time. These are slow, small incremental steps, but ultimately we are going to reach there. But this is a good start.
Speaker 2:I have to say I found those young people very inspiring. Now, some of the things they brought up the frustration with the current system, particularly around the UN Security Council are not new, and I should say that these young people discussed way more topics than I was able to include in that short report. Frustration with the anachronistic structure, as one of them said, of the United Nations stood out for me, and also the real concern about the need for a concerted, global, multilateral approach to climate change. Now, dawn, that's something you've been working on. You attended a conference on the small island states not so long ago. Tell us about that, because the concern now is that climate change has dropped completely off the global agenda Right.
Speaker 7:That conference was in Antigua and it was a really interesting turn of events because they were going through a major heat wave. Now, for example, I've been to Qatar. I've spent time in Doha in August where it's arguably like 120 degrees. I've lived in Houston, texas, where it's just hot all year round and it's humid. But when I was in Antigua for that conference, the heat just made you angry, and not because of any ideas about climate change. It was just so hot and you couldn't get away from it.
Speaker 7:And when I would talk to people, there was so many people said to me now do you see what we're talking about when we say we're being impacted by climate change? You feel that heat? Well, it's right there, all of these small island developing states in the global South. These places have so many different vulnerabilities that, when it comes to climate change, they could be wiped out by a hurricane and then have to recover from that, and it's just like the global north doesn't understand what situation they're in. I don't think that the countries of the global south are being heard. So would the answer to that be bringing them to the Security Council? I will say that the Biden administration did suggest adding a seat to the Middle East are the preoccupations of the most powerful nations.
Speaker 2:Again, that doesn't mean to say they're not important, but climate change is one. This current UN Secretary General, antonio Guterres, identified as the biggest most existential challenge facing the planet. Identified as the biggest most existential challenge facing the planet. Many scientists and people in small island states, dawn, would agree with him, but it's right at the bottom of the agenda, danny. What do you think we can do about that? I mean, we have the United States telling UN agencies it will not fund any projects which are to do with climate change mitigation or things like that. So we're going backwards.
Speaker 3:There are two points I have. First of all, is the UN anachronistic? I mean, it was formed after the Second World War and it hasn't really adapted to what's going on. Secondly, is it too northern oriented? How universal is it? So a real reform of the institution is difficult to imagine, but obviously it's getting a little bit dusty and needs an uplifting in many different areas. Can it do that, or is it going to become just something from the past, anachronistic? And that, to me, is the greatest worry.
Speaker 2:I mean, I think we do know that there have been attempts over years, decades even, to reform the Security Council so that it doesn't just reflect the winners in 1945. That is the particular point. I think that the young people from the Global South I talked to said that this part of it in particular is anachronistic. That is where you need more diverse voices. But coming back again to climate change, this is the challenge that needs multilateralism and we're failing.
Speaker 3:I mean, it's not just the United Nations is failing, we are all failing Well there's really no leadership there, certainly not from the United States, and the fact that Donald Trump is the president is probably the worst situation you could find as far as the rest of the world. I mean. He's already having certain natural reserves being used to dig up oil and gas, and none of the mentions that Biden and the Obama administrations did for the environment. All of those are being repealed. So where is the leadership on climate change going to come from the young people in the South? I admire them, but they're not the ones who are going to exert the leadership.
Speaker 2:Well, they say it's a matter of time. I was actually quite inspired by their energy and, to a certain extent, their optimism, even though they are pretty, pretty frustrated by the power imbalance at the moment. But they think their countries will get there. They think they will get their voice. We are coming to the end almost of the program, dawn. I saw you had your hand up, so please do come in. But I also want to ask you both what is our gut feeling now? Is this a blip in the international system, in the rules-based order, or is this an absolute paradigm shift?
Speaker 7:Dani, you've written about how, after World War I, there was this urgency about creating a system that would prevent future wars, make the world more equitable. Then came World War II, and you get the United Nations and I know you've asked this question in your writing. And you get the United Nations and I know you've asked this question in your writing, you know is are we looking at another moment in time where we're going to need a big event, perhaps a war, to kind of shake, shake the dust off of the UN, or perhaps have something different? And I think that's a really good point to make. You know, when you think about the end of World War II and how the UN was created, you have the world. They were so sick and tired of war, they wanted it to end. It's a different mindset, so it just makes me think is that what we're going to need? So that would be my first point. Second point has to do with climate change, small island developing states and countries of the global South. One of the reasons why they often have difficulty in dealing with these issues is because their countries are burdened by immense amounts of debt.
Speaker 7:I will say that, in terms of leadership, there is someone who comes to mind. She spoke at the um, at the conference that I was at. Her name's mia motley. She's the prime minister of barbados and she's a force. She is a force.
Speaker 7:I kind of wish she would be the next Secretary General of the United Nations Not excluded. I've heard rumors. Ok, all right, well, keep an eye on that for sure. But I mean, she just says it as it is. She speaks about the colonial past of this whole Bretton Woods financial configuration of the of the world and how that needs to be dealt with.
Speaker 7:I really think that when it comes to climate because debt is connected to climate for the global South she will be the one to lead the way. I have her on my radar. I'm definitely watching her in this small island global South space. But I do want to say, as far as what the Trump administration may have in mind for the United Nations and how much of a role the United States is going to play, I have to keep in mind that we still don't know who the ambassador, who the nominee, is going to be for to replace Elise Stefanik, and I would also keep an eye on the fact that President Trump has not spoken to the secretary general, since he was sworn into office in January, they have not had a conversation, they have not met in person. So I would also keep an eye on that to gauge, I think, where the US, the Trump administration, will look to reshape the UN, reform the UN.
Speaker 2:Danny, I'm going to let you end this one. Where do you think we'll be in a year's time?
Speaker 3:We are, I should say, also waiting for a US, and whether the UN can continue functioning without American leadership, without American finances, and there can be true universal cooperation is up for grabs and it does seem to me that multilateralism has a role to play. The question is whether, without American leadership, whether it's Donald Trump or the next president, whether multilateralism can go ahead. And I'm always looking for who is Mr Multilateralism? Who can be Mrs Multilateralism? The Dog Hamishills? The Kofi Annans? Where is that generation coming from and how successful can they be?
Speaker 2:Well, on that note, we're just at the end of this edition of Inside Geneva. Thanks very much, danny and Dawn. We will actually have an election for a new UN Secretary General in 2026, not so far away. It will be very interesting to see who throws their hat into the ring. Some people are asking who would even want that job, right?
Speaker 6:now.
Speaker 2:It is such a huge, huge challenge just to defend even the concept of the institution. I think it has to function without US leadership at the moment, because this is not a multilateral administration in any shape or form. The question, I think, will be will the US post-Donald Trump return to multilateralism or will this be a real paradigm shift in how the world works At the moment? My gut is telling me the latter, but given the rapidity with which things are changing these days, I could be proved completely wrong in about two hours' time. On that note, thanks everyone. We hope you enjoyed this edition of Inside Geneva and do join us again next time. Next time episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. I'm Imogen Folks. Thanks again for listening.
