Can the UN survive?

On Inside Geneva this week, we ask: in a world of violent conflict, is the UN – which was founded to keep the peace – doing its job?

“On many fronts the UN is doing indispensable work every day, bringing food to hungry people and ensuring practical standards for how we cooperate on the planet. Most countries follow the UN’s rules and principles on an everyday basis, so not too bad. [Former UN Secretary-General] Dag Hammarskjöld said that the UN was not made to take us to heaven, but to prevent us from going to hell, and that’s still true: after 1945 there have been no new world wars,” says Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide. 

But with the big powers causing conflict, does the UN need a different structure?

“It’s worth remembering that when the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, 50 countries were present at the table, and today there are 193 member states. So almost three‑quarters of the UN’s membership have not had a say in the rules of the game that they are now bound by, and they are very frustrated by that lack of voice and representation,” says Heba Aly, director of Article 109.

Can a new, reformed UN restore some peace in the world before it’s too late?

“History shows that after every severe crisis we come together and try to create a better system, which is what happened after the two world wars. First we had the not‑so‑successful attempt of the League of Nations, but then the much more successful UN, learning from what had gone wrong with the League of Nations. I hope we don’t need to relearn this through a third world war or anything like that,” says Eide. 

“For the UN overall, I think it’s going to go through a very difficult and dark period. You know, sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom. I hope that, coming out of that, we can emerge with a new global social contract. And if that difficult period leads us to something better, then that is something worth fighting for,” says Aly. 

Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.

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

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:58

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Folkes, and this is a production from SwissInfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program. A key bridge in Iran severed by U.S. airstrikes.

SPEAKER_04 1:19

We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong.

SPEAKER_01 1:28

The UN Charter provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security. All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. International law and international humanitarian law must always be respected. That is why, since this morning, I have condemned the massive military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran. And I also condemn the subsequent attacks by Iran, violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

SPEAKER_00 2:29

I hope we don't need to relearn this through the Third World War or anything like that.

SPEAKER_02 2:34

For the UN overall, I think it's going to go through a very difficult and dark period. You know, sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom. I hope that coming out of that, we can emerge with a new global social contract. And if that difficult period leads us to something better, then that's something worth fighting for.

What The UN Is For

SPEAKER_03 2:58

Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Folks, and in today's program, as the selection process for a new United Nations Secretary General gets underway, we ask a senior diplomat and a UN expert, what's the point?

SPEAKER_00 3:14

On many fronts, the UN is doing an indispensable work every day, you know, bringing food to hungry people, ensuring practical standards of how we cooperate on the planet. And you know, most countries follow the UN rules and principles on an everyday basis, so not too bad. You know, Doug Hamaschol said that the UN was not made to take us to heaven but to prevent us from going to hell. And I mean that's still it, you know, after 1945, there's been no new world wars.

SPEAKER_02 3:41

It's worth remembering that when the UN charter was adopted in 1945, 50 countries were present at the table, and today there are 193 member states. So almost three-quarters of the UN's membership has not had a say in the rules of the game that they are now bound by, and are very frustrated by that lack of voice and representation.

SPEAKER_05 4:01

The signing is done. The great charter is completed. This draft of mankind's deepest hopes already a historic document, perhaps the magna carter of peace-loving humanity itself.

Norway’s Case For Reform

SPEAKER_03 4:13

The UN was founded after the Second World War, and one of the most important elements in the UN Charter is the aim to keep the peace, to prevent the horrors of that war ever happening again. So how's that working out? Every day we seem to wake up to a new conflict driven by power-hungry leaders who appear to care little, if at all, for international law or for the lives they are destroying. Where has the UN been in the efforts to resolve these conflicts? Nowhere. Not consulted, completely sidelined. Meanwhile, the UN's humanitarian arm, the aid agencies based here in Geneva, find themselves struggling to ease the pain of more and more civilians caught up in more and more violence with less and less money. So does the UN even have a future? Today we'll talk first to Norway's Foreign Minister Esben Bart Eider, who came into our inside Geneva studio to remind us that while we might focus on the big B centers like the US, Russia or China on the UN Security Council, the UN in fact has 193 member states, and many of them remain committed to the organization. Still, when I asked him how he sees the UN now, he wasn't able to give it a completely clean bill of health.

SPEAKER_00 5:42

Well, it depends, you know, you have to reflect on that question. I mean, then on many fronts, the UN is doing an indispensable work every day, you know, bringing food to hungry people, ensuring uh standard, practical standards of how we cooperate on the planet. And, you know, most countries follow the UN rules and principles on an everyday basis, so not too bad. But on the other hand, we have seen the Security Council that is unable to stop some of the largest conflicts in the world, take for instance Ukraine. Four years on after the full-scale invasion, there's still a veto power that is blocking any meaningful resolution of that conflict. So it's uh it's a mixed bag. You know, Doug Hamaschol said that the UN was not made to take us to heaven but to prevent us from going to hell. And I mean that's still after 1945. There's been no new world wars. There's been relatively few wars between states, which was exactly what they set up to ensure that's something to celebrate. The war in Ukraine, uh, Russian aggression is an exception from that principle. But generally that has worked. But we've seen too many other problems come up which we have been struggling to deal with. So the UN is indispensable, but it can also become better.

SPEAKER_03 6:50

Do you think, as some would say, that it really has failed, for example, in conflict prevention and resolution, or is behind that accusation of failure more of a kind of ideological objection to multilateralism?

SPEAKER_00 7:06

Well, you know, the UN is at least uh two sets of things. I mean, it's the UN organization and all the agencies, funds and programs, and then it's the intergovernmental bodies, including the Security Council. And the main reason that we're not solving the most difficult conflicts is that uh one or more of the permanent members of the Security Council are vetoing. And that sometimes it's the Russia and Federation, sometimes it's the US. So they're basically the two main veto powers, but uh others also occasionally have used vetoes. So that's not something you can blame the organization for. That's not the Secretary General's fault, or any of the heads of ages or all the good employees out there. That's that's the member states that are able to agree. Then uh of course, there's also things to say about the organization because we've grown our United Nations, which we the member states own. It's grown into a flatoria of uh many agencies, funds, and programs, and maybe a little bit too many, which means that there are many people in headquarters, uh, and some of those resources could be used in the field. So now at uh 80 years on or 81 years on uh this summer, the UN is well advised to take stock of whether the way we organize this world organization is optimal, and I think there is room for improvement. But the essential principles that the UN is based on they came out of the hard lessons of the two world wars and the depression of the interwar years, and fascism and Nazism and Holocaust and the nuclear, the first use of nuclear weapons. So the people who set up the UN were not the Rossi idealists, they were people who really understood that the world can be a terrible place, and we need to have some shared norms. And I would I would very strongly argue that uh the world has did become a better place after 1945. Uh, less wars, less money spent on uh armaments, and more capacity for uh global development. We also saw the decolonization years where the principle of human rights and the principle of sovereign equality led to many new states where it used to be former colonies. So that's again something to celebrate.

SPEAKER_03 9:07

So you're talking about the need for reform. I have talked to some people who say this UN 80 that that is being talked about that's coming from the Secretary General, is just not enough. It's mainly a cost-cutting exercise. And that there needs to be a much more radical rethink of how the United Nations works. You mentioned uh countries that weren't even there at the the start of the UN because they were colonies. Can you envisage something which is which is somehow much more inclusive?

SPEAKER_00 9:37

So I think the the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General are doing as good as they can given their mandates, because they are, after all, secretaries of the organization. It's we, the member states, who have to take the real lead on this. And I very much belong to those countries who think that precisely because we like the UN, precisely because we want a strong UN, we need to take a lead looking for how we can make the organization leaner and more effective. And I think uh yes, I think we need an even tougher approach to the number of agencies, funds, and programs, not because we shall stop doing things, but because we want to do things in a more cost-effective manner. It's not only about savings, it's also ensuring that what at the end of the day are taxpayers' money is are used as effectively as possible. And that could include uh an acceptance that sometimes the UN maybe is best at setting norms and standards and not necessarily always being the one that shall do the delivery, for instance, and see if delivery can be delegated, allow other organizations to do more of the field work, but then retaining the role of uh of ensuring common standards, common principles, and and overall coordination.

SPEAKER_03 10:44

But the thing is, you know, you're in Geneva right now, uh um, which is the head the humanitarian headquarters of the United Nations, and a lot of these aid workers that I see every day will just bang their heads against the wall and say, guys, we'll cut back when you guys do something about conflict prevention and resolution, because there are just more needs all the time.

SPEAKER_00 11:04

Absolutely. No, that's absolutely true. And I think the the the main reason that things are getting more difficult is that uh too many states, although I said and I I withhold that most states apply almost all the rules almost all the time. That's good, but there are too many states who are not respecting the core principles and violating some of the essential uh foundations of the UN. And that's uh creates costs, of course. I mean, it creates costs in human lives, but also uh it makes it more expensive to look after what happens next. Because if countries actually listened to the charter, meaning that they did not invade other countries, that they promoted and respected human rights so that you would have less internal conflicts and collaborated on solving everything from economic development to health and climate, we there will simply be less reason to quarrel. So basically, it's member states' failure to do so that creates many of the problems. Sometimes that is not by intention but by lack of capacity, which means we also need to help build capacity to deliver. But sometimes it's intentional, and what we are sadly seeing is that after a few decades after the Cold War, a few decades after the Cold War, we saw appear a time where a local conflict was allowed to be a local conflict and we could solve it locally. Now we are again in an era where any local or national conflict in some country is also being trapped into a more sort of regional or global power dynamic, which tends to make it more difficult.

SPEAKER_03 12:37

Does it ever make you frustrated that you're, you know, you're from a nice, mild, rule-abiding country, Norway, you're sitting in another one, Switzerland, by and large, and yet these big guys are just ripping up the rule book. I mean, do you have any influence on them?

SPEAKER_00 12:55

Well, I think so because I mean uh Norway and Switzerland alone have some but limited influence. But when many countries work together, and this is very much what uh you know, in the now famous uh speech of Mark Carney in Davos, you know, that middle powers have to rise to the occasion. And the majority of us still believes that the rules-based order is good for us. And frankly, we think it's good for everybody, because the law of the jungle is actually not good for anyone in the long run. It might look attractive for a great power as long as they're great, but uh history has shown that uh what's the great power can change and then you'll be challenged and so on. So, so you know, I think if some of the big guys, as you refer to, are becoming less responsible, the rest of us have to take more responsibility and try to find common common ground that goes for the UN. It also goes for uh goes for adjacent organizations like the WTO, the World Trade Organization. There's a lot of focus on trade. So there's a tendency to look at everything that goes bad, but uh that's why I remind everyone that uh you know most countries actually think that the rules-based order is good for us and can be saved.

SPEAKER_03 13:59

Well, fingers crossed. Um we're gonna have a new UN Secretary General. We've got the the selection process coming up in the next few months. I mean, this is gonna be a really challenging job, isn't it, for whoever gets it.

SPEAKER_00 14:16

Absolutely. It's I think there's never been a time where the role of Secretary General has been easy. I think uh anybody who tried that would agree, but I think it's particularly challenging. I think it's already challenging for Antonio Guterres, whom I've also had the pleasure of serving because I was also been in the UN. But uh I think we this time it will be a hard one, which is but I think that also means that there is an understanding that we need a strong and experienced Secretary General and somebody who is able to deal with what most of us see as uh the core business of the UN. I'm not gonna uh say anything about who that should be right now, but we we need to have a good transparent process and take it um forward in uh in a way that is as transparent and as inclusive as possible.

SPEAKER_03 14:59

Okay, last question then just take the risk of looking into the future a little bit for me. You said that Doug Hamskott said that you the UN is not supposed to take us to heaven, but it's to stop us descending into hell. I have to say, some people think that's exactly where we're going. Um do you how do you see the UN ten years from now? You see it thriving? Is this going to be a struggle?

SPEAKER_00 15:24

I I definitely think it's here. I mean the UN is around in 10 years and in 20 years and in 30 years too. Uh I hope it's a good UN and I think that if we are able to manage these years that we're living in now in the in a good manner, where we recommit to the principle, but also demonstrate willingness to uh to be creative and and to kill some darlings and you know be able to streamline and focus and prioritize. I think we could have a stronger UN. You know, the history is that every after every severe crisis we come together and try to make a better system, which is what happened after the two world wars. With the you know, first they had the not so successful uh attempt of the League of Nations, but then the much more successful UN, also learning from what was wrong with the League of Nations. I hope we don't need to relearn this through you know a third world war or anything like that. And I actually think that there's a lot of people who draw parallels from what we're seeing now to what people experienced in the 30s, and and there are some parallels which are historically interesting, and as Mark Twain said, history does not repeat itself but it tends to rhyme. But our benefit is that we've seen this film before and we didn't like the ending, so uh there's also serious reason to think that uh smart people will prevail, and the idea that we need a global order that we can share still matters. Actually, we need it more than ever. I think the pandemic showed us that it was a very dramatic uh global health crisis, but you know, we were also able to solve it within a few years, uh, thanks to good research on on uh on generic vaccines, which that could then be adapted to what was happening, and thanks to a strong World Health Organization, for instance. And you know, any anybody who argues that I will fix my own health in my own country to just look at the experiences from that is likewise climate. Climate and nature crisis are shared problems. There is nobody has their own climate, we need to solve them together. But I think also that insight has actually led us to being in a not where we should be, but in a much better space than we were before Paris. And the projections of global warming are too high, but much lower than before 2015 and the Paris Agreement. So these processes and and even China now starts cutting. I mean, emissions are down, not up in China, even if productivity continues to grow. Why? Because they've invested massively in renewable energy, and and I think you know it demonstrates that change to the better can actually happen.

SPEAKER_03 17:55

Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Bart Eda there expressing hope for the future of a reformed United Nations, but also fear that we might be close to having to endure a world war again before we realize the UN's value. And that interview, like our next one, was in fact recorded before the US and Israel attacked Iran. To me, listening again, Mr. Ida's fears sound uncannily prescient. But while, as Norway and many other countries hope the UN has a future, they also think it must reform and be more streamlined, more effective, and above all more reflective of its 193 member states, not just the superpowers on the Security Council. Our next guest agrees that the UN, whose charter and structure are virtually unchanged since 1945, can only survive if it undertakes radical review and reform.

SPEAKER_02 19:00

My name is Heba Ali, and I'm the director of a new coalition called Article 109 that mobilizes governments to try to update the UN Charter.

SPEAKER_03 19:09

So we might be at the headquarters of the United Nations in Europe, but I still think quite a few of our listeners don't really know what Article 109 is. So let's start with that. What is it?

SPEAKER_02 19:20

They're not alone. Uh I think many people haven't read that far into the founding document of our international relations, but Article 109 is a provision in the charter that allows for a review to take place and for the rules of the UN to be updated. And it was both a concession in 1945 to the many countries who, upon being invited to or sign up to this new organization, were opposed to the idea of five countries, the permanent members of the Security Council, having a veto. And so they were promised just sign up for now, and within 10 years we will revisit the this architecture and this distribution of power. But it was also a recognition that this new international organization would evolve over time and that as they learned from experience, they would need to update it.

SPEAKER_03 20:11

So let's just remind ourselves the UN Charter has some good stuff in it, but you think it's neat in it needs a changing and that a discussion of that change should have happened ages ago and hasn't.

SPEAKER_02 20:25

In line with the Charter itself should have happened 70 years ago and hasn't. Uh yeah, of course it has good things in it. And I think the reason that many of us are doing this work is is that we believe in the UN and the principles of the UN and want to safeguard and protect them. But I believe, and many others I I think agree that the best way to do so is to renew and revitalize the UN for the future, and that by trying to hang on to the past, we're actually going to accelerate the UN's decline and likely move it into a state of of irrelevance or total collapses, is the current trajectory.

SPEAKER_03 20:58

So most companies, for example, would have a strategy review every five or ten years. Governments also have policy reviews. What is it that stopped the United Nations doing this?

SPEAKER_02 21:12

In the words of one former UN Under Secretary General, the UN has always feared that change could lead to something worse. And therefore they hang on to what they have and they slide further and further into irrelevance. I think in the current context, that fear is very legitimate that if you reopen such an important set of norms, given the polarization, given the move away from uh respect for human rights and international law, that you could this is the fear, end up with something worse. And I think that is what has held certain countries back. Others are worried that the powerful will always impose their will. And so what's the point of reform if anyway, you know, this has to, in order for changes to take effect, they need to be agreed by the P5, the five permanent members of the Security Council. And so there's a certain hopelessness that, you know, we can't do anything because it all always run up against that that challenge, which I don't think is fully true.

SPEAKER_03 22:14

Let's just go back to that point you made that things have to get through the P5. Because although Article 109, this review has never happened, there have been attempts to reform, particularly the UN Security Council. The Swiss tried it more than a decade ago. It failed because of the resistance from the P5. So it's it's kind of understandable, isn't it, if member states are thinking, just opening a can of worms.

SPEAKER_02 22:44

Absolutely, it's understandable. I think the question is what's the alternative? And the alternative right now is as we've seen and as you've discussed. This podcast, creation of parallel structures, because people think the UN is irrelevant. So they go off and create the Board of Peace. And that I think is an even bigger threat than the kinds of challenges that you're referring to, where yes, it's going to be difficult, but at least that leads us in a direction where we're trying to improve a universal, legitimate institution rather than abandoning it and going to other fora. So that I think the cost of not trying is getting higher and higher by the day. We've seen presidents like uh William Ruto of Kenya saying if there isn't serious reform, we're gonna, he said, I'm gonna lead a delegation of African states to pull out of the United Nations altogether. We've seen, of course, proliferation of fora like the BRICS and the G20 and so on. So already we're seeing such a fragmentation that if we continue down this path, the the result, I think, is one that the vast majority of countries will not benefit from. So I think on the one hand, we don't get anything if we don't try, and the political cost of blockage by the P5 increases the more the rest of the world starts to put demands on the table. We've seen examples historically where the P5 have eventually made compromises. But I think we're also in a different uh context now where for those members of the P5 who value the privilege they have in the current institution, it is in their interest to ensure that it survives. Because if it doesn't, if the whole thing crumbles, then the power they once had within the Security Council means nothing. And I actually heard a former British ambassador and official say something to that effect quite recently that the United States actually is going to be worse off in a world in which the UN is completely destroyed. So there is some self-interest now, given the situation that the UN is in, for the P5 to give a little in order to maintain an institution that ultimately privileges them.

What Global Governance Protects

SPEAKER_03 24:54

I think you have quite a selling job to do here, though. I mean, you have to think that some of the countries who have some power in the United Nations now, particularly the United States, but there are movements in Britain this way as well, in France, in the developed European countries. The phrase global governance is an anathema to them. They are not interested. They don't see the relevance of the United Nations. In fact, they see it in some ways as a hindrance. So, you know, people think they don't want global governance. Why should they want it? I mean, give us give our listeners some concrete examples.

SPEAKER_02 25:32

I think we need to be careful when we talk about the perceptions of global governance because it's actually a minority of countries that don't want global governance. The vast majority of countries depend on a functioning international system for their own survival and security. We hear that constantly in Europe, increasingly so now, where the recent events, the threats to annex Greenland, what happened in Venezuela, are making it very clear that if there is no rules-based order, so-called rules-based order, and that comes with a lot of well-deserved critique, but if there is no system in which a set of rules can be dependent upon, they are for the taking. And particularly small European countries feel that very strongly right now. So the idea that global governance is not in their interests is laughable. And I think most countries uh absolutely recognize that. The question is, how do you then build support for a new vision of global governance? But we know that small uh Latin American countries, that African countries, all they all depend on a universal system in which they can be protected and in which their rights vis-a-vis more powerful countries can be guaranteed. Does that system always work perfectly? No. But is it better than having the law of the jungle? I think the vast majority of countries would tell you absolutely yes. What does that look like in practical terms? If you had a functional system that was actually able to maintain peace and security, what would the outcome have looked like for Gazans? You know, if you were able to come to a resolution at the Security Council for a ceasefire in the early days, you would have saved 70,000 lives. What would that look like for Ukrainians? There are many people who are dealing with the consequences of the failure of the system to work. And for them, yes, of course, regular people don't think of terms like global governance, but the what it actually provides is security and safety and a world in which we can all thrive when it works well. And that is not currently the case, obviously.

SPEAKER_03 27:38

Well, I'm glad you you mentioned Gaza and Ukraine because that's what I wanted to ask you about. You said it would be so much worse if we had the law of the jungle. We do have the law of the jungle. They're on the Security Council.

SPEAKER_02 27:49

Who's on the Security Council?

SPEAKER_03 27:50

The jungle lions, the beasts. The predators.

SPEAKER_02 27:55

Yes. I think that's precisely the kind of dysfunction that an update and a review process should seek to address. We clearly don't have a system today that is capable of maintaining peace and security, which was the UN's founding purpose. So what are we doing here? And if that is the case, what can we imagine that would work better? And let again, let's remember that in 1945, it wasn't as though the world was in a perfectly amicable state of affairs. You had a world war raging, you had a colonial power, you had racist countries, and yet they managed to come up with something that was much better than what they had then. And out of that crisis emerged a vision for the future that would be better. So we're in a similar situation now where the rules of the game are clearly crumbling around us. And if a majority of countries can come together and say, we need a system that works better, here's what it could look like. Yes, will you face resistance from the big powers who don't have any interest in following the rules? Of course you will. But can you create a consensus among a critical mass of countries for a new way forward?

SPEAKER_03 29:00

Tell us about who's involved and how you see this. I mean, it sounds good to me. I'm a fan of the United Nations. I think even Americans have said to me, if we didn't have it, we'd have to invent it. So probably we should be a bit optimistic and think this institution is staggering, but it's not on the ropes quite yet. So who's on your side and how do you see this progressing?

SPEAKER_02 29:27

A number of countries have come out in favor of a Charter Review Conference. Among them, and the first was Brazil, with President Lula calling for uh invoking Article 109 uh about uh a year and a half ago in September of 2024. He has been followed by other heavyweights, I would say, like South Africa and smaller countries like the Gambia, Kazakhstan, who feel the system isn't serving them well. We recently briefed the a grouping of Caribbean ambassadors here in Geneva, and they immediately said, we don't need convincing. This makes perfect sense. We have long complained that, and particularly for countries hard hit by climate change, that global governance on this isn't just a question of peace and security, but much more broadly isn't working for them. So there are a number of countries that have publicly endorsed the idea, and then behind closed doors, we're in conversations with many others who, yes, it takes some time to talk through the risks and the scenarios and so on, but who are increasingly open-minded because the alternative right now looks so much worse. It's worth remembering that when the UN charter was adopted in 1945, 50 countries were present at the table. And today there are 193 member states. So almost three-quarters of the UN's membership has not had a say in the rules of the game that they are now bound by and are very frustrated by that lack of voice and representation. So there's that alone creates a certain, you know, uh support by by default. We have had former leaders like Mary Robinson, the former uh president of Ireland, former High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN come forward and support, uh, Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, um Alexander DeCrue, the former UNDP administrator, Gordon Brown, the former British Prime Minister, is working on principles of a new world order. And so there's a range of people out there who have come to the conclusion that if we do not take radical, ambitious, bold action to reimagine this institution, this might be the end of it. And Mark Carney's speech, the Canadian Prime Minister at uh at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I think was a real turning point in that regard in saying the world order that we have known since World War II is over. And by the way, it wasn't that great to begin with. It had a lot of flaws. It was inequitable, it was unfair and hypocritical in many ways, and now we have an opportunity to build something better and more just moving forward. Emmanuel Macron of France has made global governance reform a priority of his G7 presidency. Even China now is leading a new initiative on global governance. So the recognition of the problem is clear. I think the next step is what is the vision for a solution to that problem and what is a feasible pathway to bring that solution into being? And we think this can be at least one option on the table for discussion.

SPEAKER_03 32:17

Well, it sounds great, but right now we're in a geopolitical situation where it suits the big powers to go for spheres of influence. We've heard the United States talk about the Western Hemisphere. That's ours. China can have its bit, Russia, arguably a superpower, perhaps not, can have its bit, which many in Europe fear. They're getting sucked into that. So you talk very well, but isn't there a danger that the people who are on your side, if you like, are just going to get marginalized by this juggernaut?

SPEAKER_02 32:54

What is it that allows major powers to do what they want? Well, I have been amazed in recent months in seeing countries trying to negotiate one-on-one with the world superpower. It's an inequitable relationship from the get-go. You have very little chance of success. The alternative is building collective power. There are 193 members of the United Nations.

SPEAKER_03 33:16

Which is what Mark Carney kind of suggested. Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 33:20

The middle powers, he puts it. I would look to something a little bit more inclusive that isn't just about middle powers, but small states as well, cross-regionally. But there are a majority of countries that could come together with a common vision around a better way forward, and then by coming together, have more leverage, more negotiating power against these so-called leaders of the spheres of influence. So, how do you build collective power to be able to better position yourself against a major power that isn't going to follow the rules or that wants to pursue this route? I don't think that going into these tiny, mini coalitions is what's going to save us. What we need is to come together around something where every country has a seat at the table, and then you've got a different dynamic, a different power dynamic in particular, through which to have these kinds of conversations. And I remember one country in particular saying, you know, we are too small to go head to head with the US. That's why we turn to multilateralism, because there we can, as a bloc, achieve something that we can't in a bilateral one-on-one relationship.

SPEAKER_03 34:30

Very last question. 2026, we're going to get a new UN Secretary General later on this year. Well, what kind of vision are you looking for from that individual? I guess you want whoever gets the job, possibly poison chalice, but whoever gets it to show some real sense of purpose for this organization to get its relevance back.

SPEAKER_02 34:53

I think what we have absolutely been lacking in the last year or so as discussions about UN reform have taken place is a vision for what role the UN should play in the 21st century. Everyone recognizes that the architecture is outdated, but we haven't put a vision on the table of what should replace it or how it can be better suited for today. So I think an USG needs to come in with a clear answer to that question, or at least the capacity and willingness to corral countries in developing that vision. Because right now, what we're what we're seeing is an uncoordinated and unstructured and unstrategic set of cost-cutting exercises without a direction of where we're trying to go and what I hope a charter review process or at least discussing a movement in that direction creates is an opening for that bigger picture conversation about what role do we want the UN to play? And the SG should be at the forefront of driving that. What is that vision? Of course, that's going to be for member states to negotiate, but we have certainly laid out five principles that we think need to be at the core of a serious conversation about true fundamental UN reform. How do we ensure that the UN can play and is empowered to play its principal role of maintaining peace and security? How do we enable the UN to address emerging challenges like climate change and artificial intelligence, which are not currently properly governed, fragmented governance structures without any kind of enforcement? How do we more equitably distribute power among countries? How do we ensure and strengthen respect for international law and human rights? And how do we more meaningfully include non-government, non-state actors in global governance? You have private sector companies today that have more power than nation states. You have civil society movements that are able to create much more change in national policies. So we're we're just in a very different world today. And what we need, I think, from an SG is someone who can start to position the organization in that new landscape and then help us move towards a reform process that actually can deliver, allow the UN to deliver for people around the world.

SPEAKER_03 37:06

And you're hopeful?

SPEAKER_02 37:08

Oof. I'm honestly I'm a bit nervous about the SG process. I think for for obvious reasons, as you are well aware, the the candidate will need to be uh signed off by by the US and Russia in particular, and that creates quite a number of constraints. And that's one of the things I think that needs to change and how the UN rules operate, how the Secretary General is selected. For the UN overall, I think it's going to go through a very difficult and dark period. I hope that coming out of that, you know, sometimes you just have to hit rock bottom, that coming out of that we can emerge with what I often refer to as a new global social contract. And if that difficult period leads us to something better, then that's something worth worth fighting for. But I I just hope to God that as the Brazilians and South Africans and others have said, we don't have to go through World War III before we're ready to reimagine something more functional for the future.

SPEAKER_03 38:11

Heba Ali, longtime UN analyst, now leading a campaign to reform the UN. Plenty of food for thought there for whoever becomes the next UN Secretary-General. I talked to Heba too before the start of the Iran conflict, and she also, as we heard there, already shared Espen Bart Edda's concerns that we might be heading irrevocably towards another horrific world war. We all hope that common sense and above all humanity will prevail. My thanks to Hebba Ali and to Espen Bart Edda for joining us on Inside Geneva, and to you for listening. Join us again on April 28th for our next episode. In the meantime, if there's a topic you'd like us to cover, or questions you have on International Geneva, write to us at insigeneva at Swisinfo.ch. A reminder: you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous 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.