Inside Geneva
A podcast from SWI swissinfo.ch, a multilingual international public service media company from Switzerland, where Imogen Foulkes puts big questions facing the world to the experts working to tackle them in Switzerland’s international city.
Inside Geneva
Can the UN's Summit for the Future tackle today’s toughest challenges?
This month the United Nations (UN) will host the ‘Summit of the Future’ in New York. What's the point of this high-level event? Inside Geneva investigates.
“The UN is not an entity that does anything. I mean, we can all blame it, but what is the UN? It’s just the sum of its parts: the governments,” says Christiane Oelrich, journalist for the DPA German Press Agency.
Is the UN’s 1945 structure even fit for purpose?
“Historically the UN for many people is still associated with the West. And the question of including the global south still haunts the UN,” continues analyst Daniel Warner.
Does the UN have an answer to today’s brutal, intractable conflicts?
“Since World War Two there have been plenty of conflicts, but what we have seen in the last three or four or five years is the use of aggression and violence as an instrument of foreign policy. Yes, that’s right,” says Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor for the New York Times.
Can more peaceful nations rescue the UN’s purpose?
“The fact that some countries follow the path of aggression doesn't mean that all the rest of the world has to talk about failure now,” adds Oelrich.
And is the summit a gamble for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres?
“We should tip a hat to Antonio Guterres for even trying to do this given all of the stuff that's going on,” says Imogen Foulkes, Inside Geneva presenter.
Join us on Inside Geneva to find out more about what we can expect from this summit.
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 programme, Today's global order is not working for everyone. In fact, I would go further and say it's not working for anyone.
Speaker 4:The UN is not an entity that does anything. I mean, we can all blame it, but what is the UN? It's just the sum of its parts the governments.
Speaker 5:Historically, the UN for many people is still associated with the West and the question of including the global South still haunts the UN.
Speaker 1:The summit of the future is not going to change the world overnight, but hopefully it will be a springboard to the kinds of change we need and a fairer, more sustainable world for everyone.
Speaker 6:Since World War II there have been plenty of conflict, but what we have seen in the last three or four or five years is the use of aggression and violence as an instrument of foreign policy.
Speaker 2:That's right. We should tip a hat to Antonio Guterres for even trying to do this, given all of the stuff that's going on.
Speaker 4:So if there's one or two and especially the permanent members of the Security Council blocking progress or a country blocking progress on anything on climate change and so on it's not going to happen.
Speaker 2:Hello and welcome to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Fowkes and now, in just a week's time, over in New York, the United Nations is holding what's being called a summit of the future. Ambitious title, ambitious target. Apparently, it's to safeguard the future for present and coming generations. Here in Geneva, we're going to discuss exactly what that might mean, how realistic it is. I'm joined by journalist Christian Ulrich of the German Press Agency, Nick Cumming-Bruce, contributor to the New York Times, and our analyst Daniel Warner. First of all, thank you all for being here. Before I start asking you to unpick this summit, let's hear a little bit of I suppose we could call it motivational mood music about the summit from the United Nations.
Speaker 1:The summit of the future is not going to change the world overnight, but hopefully it will be a springboard to the kinds of change we need and a fairer, more sustainable world for everyone. That we would have a fairer and more effective international financial system and much more financing for the SDGs, for climate action and for all of our agreed goals. That we would have a collective security system that more effectively tackles conflict and prevents conflict.
Speaker 2:And on it goes. Those goals are not the only ones. There's climate change and all sorts of other things. Before we look at the goals specifically, I'd quite like to ask you all what you think of the idea of even holding such a summit. Is it worthwhile? Is it going to be just another UN event? Costs a lot but achieves little. Christiane.
Speaker 4:What do you think? I do think it's a great idea because it's a reaffirmation of the founding principles of the United Nations and this is a time in the world where we desperately need it, with multilateralism under attack. And I think it's great to reaffirm the principles that were once, more than 75 years ago, formulated to guide the work. Does it help?
Speaker 2:That's a totally different question Depends on the commitment I mean. I would agree with you. I think God knows we need to be reminded why multilateralism could be good for us, given the challenges that the world is facing. What about you, Nick? Because I think you were maybe slightly more cynical about it or less optimistic.
Speaker 6:I mean, I agree that it's, in many ways, a great idea to revisit these fundamental questions at a time when the international system, in so many respects, isn't fulfilling the role that it was intended to and we see a lot of the values and standards being challenged in ways that question them relevance to the future. So that's great. The problem is that quite a lot of the tools needed to address some of these issues already exist, and it's a question of whether these member states have the political will to make them work, and I think the danger is that you wind up with a session that produces broad platitudes rather than meaningful, specific actions.
Speaker 2:Danny, you arrived in the studio with the kind of wearing the badge. I'm Mr Cynical.
Speaker 5:I mean, you put me in that position several times which I don't mind my accent from the Bronx I have to live up to.
Speaker 5:The one thing that bothers me is this question of reaffirmation. It seems to me that a realistic summit would say where we are, where the problems are and what can we do about that. There was a meeting in Geneva of former international civil servants and it was just a pep talk and I stood up and said look, in the Palais des Nations, where we are now, the lights are turned off, the escalators are turned off, the heat is. Can we talk about reality? But again, maybe that's the Bronx and me coming out, and if the summit doesn't deal with the real challenges, then I think it will be a waste of time and money.
Speaker 2:Well, let's talk a little bit about the reality because I think to be fair to us, in Geneva we are reporting on the real failures of multilateralism and the consequences of those failures over and over again. If we look at, say, the COVID-19 pandemic, we didn't see the solidarity that the WHO, the World Health Organization, for example, had called for. We see many really brutal but also dangerously kind of escalatory conflicts going on, whether it's in the Middle East or Sudan or Ukraine. What do we think Is this summit going to remind people? That if they work together, they could do something about these things?
Speaker 1:I mean.
Speaker 2:Christiane. Your country, germany, is one of the kind of leaders in organizing this summit.
Speaker 4:You know, Germany always has a special history. Of course that comes with organizing such a summit. Germany is always trying to promote itself as the most multilateral of all countries, because it's all about cooperation. Because of the history of the Second World War, I do think it's a good idea to come together, because what would we do in the absence of this? It's a good idea to remind ourselves and for the countries to remind each other of what they should strive to do. I think the big danger is that, as Nick said, everyone can hide behind the platitudes and point the finger at someone else. So that is the part that is missing. But I'm not sure that a summit like this would be able to come up with really concrete steps of things that need to be done. It's more of a sort of a lofty circus of ideas, right Well?
Speaker 2:theoretically a circus of ideas oh dear, I mean, possibly you're absolutely right or a circus of amendments and papers. They are supposed to come up with a pact, a pact for the future, although even that, the kind of drafts that I've seen, don't tell me very much. Now, Danny, you had your hand up.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I want to give a concrete example. We're coming up to the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law and there is a celebration, several celebrations coming up in Geneva and the Swiss government, city of Geneva and Canton have invited all members of the UN Security Council. And Russia is not coming. So behind the general title of multilateralism is the notion of international law. So if we can agree that we'll go ahead with following international law, human rights, humanitarian law then I think that has a repercussion for the whole system. So instead of talking about solidarity, imogen did an excellent conference at the Graduate Institute on the role of international law, also an Inside Geneva podcast Right you could go back and listen to it On the role of international law.
Speaker 2:Also an Inside Geneva podcast Right you can go back and listen to it.
Speaker 5:On the role of international law. So if we can't agree on that, what kind of pact are we going to have? All the countries signed on to the Geneva Conventions and Russia is not coming to Geneva to celebrate the 75th anniversary.
Speaker 2:Would it be better for the UN to focus on?
Speaker 6:let's reaffirm, or sign in blood, our commitment to the body of law we already have, that's what this summit is already doing, and what's disappointing is that it starts off in the zero draft, if you'd like, basically going back to the three pillars of the United Nations From 1945. Peace and security, sustainable development and human rights. And where are we with any of those three? I mean here, as Danny just said, 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, and we have the president of the ICRC marking the occasion by saying essentially, they are being undermined and pushed aside by violent conflict. You know, since World War II there have been plenty of conflict, but what we have seen in the last three or four or five years is the use of aggression and violence as an instrument of foreign policy.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 6:Not simply as an accident of the collapse of relationships.
Speaker 4:But the fact that some countries follow that path, like Russia, like Sudan, like many others in the world, the fact that some countries follow the path of aggression doesn't mean that all the rest of the world has to talk about failure now. I mean that they could still use that occasion to reaffirm that those countries that do are outcasts and do not fulfill the collective wish of the peoples of the world.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that that's a very good point. Then, of course, a country like Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and there's this argument you hear from UN diplomats that we need to keep talking to them. Big power, dangerous country, dangerous government, but the UN is for everybody. We need to keep talking to them, Danny.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I think there's a problem. Historically, the UN, for many people, is still associated with the West and the question of including the global South still haunts the UN, and the fact that the Security Council, the five permanent members, have not been expanded for countries in the South, brazil, whatever they're saying, this is not what we wanted and we have to be included, and I think that's a problem the UN has not solved.
Speaker 2:And I don't think reform of the Security Council is going to get a look in at this summit of the future. And yet it would be a key thing to make the UN fit for the present and the future would be that reform. But it fails at the hurdle of the big P5.
Speaker 5:And has been failing for years.
Speaker 4:And I think this is a very important point that we are just discussing now it's the countries. The UN is not an entity that does anything. I mean, we can all blame it, but what is the UN? It's just the sum of its parts, the governments. So if there's one or two, and especially the permanent members of the Security Council, blocking progress, or a country blocking progress on anything, on climate change and so on, it's not going to happen. We can. All you know, it's easy for us, it's easy for populists, it's easy for conspiracy theorists. It's easy for us, it's easy for populists, it's easy for conspiracy theorists, it's easy for dictators. It's also easy for ministers of democratically elected governments to point fingers at the United Nations, whereas it's us it and accountability from themselves.
Speaker 2:I actually want to come on to the lack of trust and conspiracy theories in a moment, but you mentioned climate change because this is the one the current UN Secretary General, antonio Guterres. He wanted to make climate change a key thing for his time in office. He's in his second term now. I think he's focusing quite a lot of attention on this summit of the future. Now, climate change, you would think, would be the one thing where the UN could unite countries, or that countries would unite about understanding that this is a global challenge, and yet they are fighting like rats in a sack, in a way, about how much greenhouse gas emissions and what they should have to give up, and so on.
Speaker 5:One of the things about states is that generally not many new ideas come out of states, and it does seem to me we're in a period of accelerated change. To me we're in a period of accelerated change and it used to be that they I'm speaking now as a former academic that there were people like John Ruggie, michael Doyle, andy Mack, who were around the Secretary General, who had new ideas, and if the Summit for the Future is only reaffirming certain basic things, then there's not much new coming out, and I think that what the world would like to see is that the UN would come up with something new, dynamic and energize the governments and people in general, and for the moment I haven't heard that.
Speaker 2:But how Every time a UN Secretary General tries to come up with something new, it founders on domestic policy of different governments. I mean, look at, for example, when Kofi Annan, he had a big program for UN reform. The one thing he managed to reform was the UN Human Rights Commission, which became the UN Human Rights Council, but with massive opposition and reluctance and truculence, in particular from the United States, which wields a lot of power still at the United Nations.
Speaker 5:I can give a silly answer, imogen Go ahead. Leadership means convincing people who are not on your side that they should be, and there is a question of leadership not only at the head of the UN, but also in certain countries, important countries, and I do think the concept of multilateralism is confronted today with what I call anti-globalization. People are going back to their countries, their tribes, and they're not looking for any kind of solidarity.
Speaker 6:Yeah well, I think it's very difficult to disagree with that statement. And again, you know the global response to humanitarian crises is another conspicuous example. You know the whole purpose of UN humanitarian aid agencies is to essentially address a common good. Look at the funding for these organisations.
Speaker 2:It's always been bad but now it's really dismal. It's catastrophic. Look at the aid workers that are getting killed as well, and aid workers getting killed.
Speaker 6:But I mean, you know you take an organisation like OCHA. They have a central emergency fund to facilitate quick responses to particularly egregious crises. As Martin Griffiths said before he stepped down, you know, this has been widely admired by many donor countries and yet they put out an appeal last year for a billion dollars, which is peanuts in the scheme of things. They raised less than half. China gave less than half a million dollars, less than Iceland. Yeah, you know. Singapore, 15th richest country in the world, it gave $50,000. These are derisory sums which basically expose a desire not to go through multilateral agencies but to go where individual states feel that they can get the best bang and political sort of profile and kudos from their buck.
Speaker 2:That's right. So that Otter, by the way, for listeners who don't know is the UN's Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs, basically the agency that steps in when a big humanitarian crisis hits.
Speaker 5:Can I just footnote that? Yeah, because we're in Switzerland, we're in Geneva, and the Swiss government is now considering cutting back its development aid to give more money to the military. So the example which should be here with the headquarters of the ICRC, the headquarters of Human Rights Council they're going to cut back on humanitarian aid. So if the Swiss are cutting back Singapore and other countries, it's not surprising.
Speaker 6:Yeah, it's just the pitifully small sums of money. For a very rich country, a country like China, you know, the second biggest economy in the world to produce less than half a million dollars, I mean.
Speaker 2:Particularly as the Chinese have made a big play of being the last man standing in support of multilateralism. They've been doing that in Geneva and you start to suspect that it's not the last man standing in support of multilateralism. It's the last man standing in support of China.
Speaker 6:One could take this further to the whole human rights institution. I mean, again, it's supposed to be one of three pillars of the UN, identified, you know, as such in these documents for the summit of the future the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, which is created by the world to look after our best interests and defend us against egregious abuse, and their core budget is what? Less than half Cristiano Ronaldo's salary? I mean, you know, we're in.
Speaker 2:It's very skewed. It's a crazy world. It is a very, very crazy world.
Speaker 4:To take it back to the United Nations. I think the Secretary General is very good at producing the right soundbites. We have a database of Guterres' soundbites on climate change that we put in here and there because he has a fantastic speech writer who comes up with all these great quotes about how the earth is on fire and stuff like that. But can he go beyond that? I wonder whether, dan, you think he should have more power to persuade people who don't believe we're on the wrong side.
Speaker 4:Or isn't that? Maybe is that his role to come up with these bold, you know great quotes that we can all use all the time? Isn't that maybe the role that he has as a secretary general?
Speaker 5:I don't think so. I think he's the moral compass and I think politically he has limited role. But if he bangs on the table, I think of Cornelio Someruga, the former head of the Red Cross. When he spoke you felt a certain moral compass behind him and people listened, and it does seem to me that Kofi Annan to some extent had that. But when you look at peace and security, when you look at the situation in the Middle East, you see absolutely no mention of the United Nations involved in the discussions about ceasefire. You see Qatar, egypt, etc. But you don't see the UN. Why aren't they there If peace and security are probably the highest thing on their agenda? We have the Middle East, we have Ukraine and we don't see Guterres or the United.
Speaker 2:Nations. They got pushed out of Syria negotiations as well, but this is partly to do with the big powers. They're jockeying for their own place in the limelight. You know to say we achieved it again. It's like let's, let's be the hero here. We don't need the UN. I'm sure the UN would love to have a sensible role in all of these conflicts, but the big powers don't want them. Israel doesn't want the UN anywhere near the Middle East negotiations, russia doesn't want the UN near Ukraine negotiations and they didn't want the UN near the Syria negotiations.
Speaker 2:I want to bring this in before we finish. It's slightly—well, it's not lighter, it's almost darker, but it's unusual. We were talking about the lack of trust in the UN and conspiracy theories. Now I had a very weird dive down the rabbit hole of YouTube while I was researching this podcast and I basically put in UN summit of the future and I came up first with all these lovely, happy, clappy UN videos and music, mood music and motivational slogans, and then I came up with another one which is from an American lady who shows people how to pickle vegetables and can fruit and make pies. But in each of her videos, after a few minutes she goes into other stuff.
Speaker 3:People have very serious concerns about some of these organizations the UN, the WEF, the WHO, the IMF and what they're up to, and I have heard recent talk again that people are very concerned about signing away autonomous rights to the UN in September of 2024.
Speaker 2:She's talking about the summit of the future, and the reason is that, apparently, her almost 70 000 followers on youtube have been writing in saying I'm worried about the summit of the future. Should I maybe can more fruit, or something like that? But um, there is this. We hear it a lot in america. Sometimes we hear it in Britain too. Where are the people who are going to stand up boldly and explain to their voters what the UN actually does? You know, I don't see politicians doing that. I expect my prime minister or my president to do that, danny.
Speaker 5:We can take a bet Imogen between now and November 5th, neither of the presidential candidates will stand up for the United Nations, because they are unpopular.
Speaker 5:They're very unpopular. But these have gone on for years and years and I have to go back in history to Adlai Stevenson, when he confronted the Russians over Soviets over missiles in Cuba, to think that there was a really dramatic moment when the UN was in the American press. Not recently do we see that, and I don't think either of the candidates will come up and say I'm for multilateralism. We have to do more to help the United Nations.
Speaker 6:Unlike the man from the Bronx.
Speaker 2:Germany will surely defend the United Nations.
Speaker 4:I think they do. Yeah, I think they do, although they keep. How do you say that? Ihr liegt unter den Scheffe.
Speaker 2:Okay, they're not trumpeting about that right.
Speaker 4:So they have been the biggest, the largest contributor to WHO for two years, I think, when the.
Speaker 4:United States withdrew. They never themselves trumpeted about that, but yes, they do a lot for multilateralism and I think, if there's any opportunity, the government ministers would also sing the praises of UN organizations. I think they do that all the time, the praises of UN organizations. I think they do that all the time. For this lady who is talking about pickled vegetables, I think, and pies, don't forget the pies. I think it's a phenomenon of these times where everything is changing so fast and people need a scapegoat. Everything is changing so fast and people need a scapegoat. So for these housewives who are listening to the advice of this lady, they will probably find that comforting to be presented with some entity somewhere, that's the UN or the WHO I guess hardly anyone knows the abbreviations that she mentioned there, the abbreviations that she mentioned there but to have the impression oh, there is someone I can blame for all the ills and now I can carry on pickling my vegetables in peace. I guess that might be the explanation for that.
Speaker 2:I guess, but I still feel it's a failure of You're right, dani, I'm sure that the UN won't feature large in the US presidential election campaign unless it features from the more right wing side in a very negative way. But I still feel when are we going to, or how far down the abyss do we need to look, given what we've seen over the last two or three years? To come back to the conclusion we came to in 1945, that maybe a body like the UN could be helpful.
Speaker 6:I guess I have very low expectations on that front, but I think, when we're coming to this particular summit, one of the interesting features of it is that it's supposed to come up with a declaration for future generations. Come up with a declaration for future generations, which should be a way of engaging young people with all these critical issues of global security for, you know, the next 25, 50 years. But we have very little sense of what any of the content of that is or how it has been really prepared. It's been almost invisible and instead we get sort of references to forms of operationalization of our commitment to future generations. Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2:Word salad. Un word salad.
Speaker 6:It's not inspiring great hope that this is going to deliver something that will be meaningful and excite great enthusiasm on the part of the TikTok Instagram generation. Danny.
Speaker 5:I give two quick examples. If you mention Imogen, the UK, they don't even want to be part of the European Union.
Speaker 1:Well, they're not.
Speaker 4:Breaking news.
Speaker 5:They came back. If you look at the United States, you know membership in NATO. So this is what I call the anti-globalization, going back to a kind of primitive tribalism, Except that the young in the UK did want to stay in the European Union. But they lost.
Speaker 6:Nick. They thought foolishly that their elders and betters were wiser.
Speaker 2:And they are the future. This is where I think, and we're just coming to the end. Now maybe we can go round the table and think what you would like to see the UN do to revive itself. I mean, we've all been watching the UN for years and years and years. What do we think it could do? I'm going to start with myself, since I'm on a roll.
Speaker 2:If we look at the younger generation we see in Britain, they wanted to stay in the European Union. This is a younger generation that has seen the benefits of easier travel far easier than we had it when we were teenagers, early 20s. They also are much more motivated, I think, by the challenge or engage with many of them the challenge of climate change and see that as a global, universal challenge. So maybe the UN should directly address young people, how to reach them. That's difficult with all the stuff that's out there. But I also I do feel national governments fail on this. I mean willfully. They're not such big fans that un can get in the way of domestic policy sometimes. Who else wants?
Speaker 4:um, I would throw in another little thought on what this could get us. I think it would have been great to include a part in the summit of the futures of how the United Nations can reform itself. Inward looking, not like the Security Council and the financial architecture and all that, but inward looking, it seems to be a cosmos that is expanding forever and ever. There are 125,000 employees in the United Nations and every new problem gets a new department and there's a lot of duplication. So I think, talking to my own children, you know they always have the impression it's such a huge, big block, the United Nations, and it is. If it was half the size, I think that might energize young people to think, oh, you know, there's something going and there's also the possibility, instead of expanding forever, to come back to the roots and maybe, you know, maybe that would be something that inspires young people to pay more attention.
Speaker 5:Yeah, Danny, august 19th is the anniversary of the death of Sergio Vieira de Melo, and Sergio was a star. He was High Commissioner for Human Rights, but he was much more than that, and in the world we live in today, I think the UN needs a star. I think Taylor Swift has 260 million people. If Taylor Swift comes out and says UN, someone in the UN has that kind of star power, it will speak to the young.
Speaker 2:Right, nobody's holding their breath here, nick.
Speaker 6:I have nothing to match such a vision. I think we have to give credit to Mr Guterres for the ideas behind this summit. He has, in his second term, I think, completely outshone his first term. He has spoken with great authority on climate. He has tried to draw attention to the inequities of the global financial system in a way that nobody else was in sort of major multilateral fora. He has tried to address crises in Ukraine, gaza and Sudan and get global responses. So if he can somehow pluck from UN verbiage a summit that actually brings people together to understand that they have to find better responses to these issues, then I think we'd have to give him high marks for that. But it's in the hands of states and the political will of states and it's up to them to make it work.
Speaker 2:I was actually almost about to finish your sentence there. He can make all that effort that you mentioned, and I agree with you, nick. I think we should tip a hat to Antonio Guterres for even trying to do this, given all of the stuff that's going on that you mentioned, that he has provided over Ukraine, russia, over Israel, gaza and over climate change, reminding us again and again of what our fundamental principles are supposed to be. So we will see what happens at this UN summit of the future. What I fear is that it may just get no attention at all, that a lot of people will gather in New York and have some nice chats together and so much else is going on in the world that the journalists like us might not even cover it. But at least listeners, you can say you heard about it here on Inside Geneva with a bit of cynicism, a bit of irreverence, but also a bit of, I think, insight into how the UN works and how, as one very senior US diplomat once said to me, yeah, we criticise the UN, but if we didn't have it, we'd have to invent it.
Speaker 2:That's it from Inside Geneva for this week. My thanks to Christian Ulrich, daniel Warner and Nick Cumming-Bruce. A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info production. You can email us on insidegeneva at swissinfoch and 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.
Speaker 1:Thank you.
