Hello welcome to the program. Im adrian finnegan, 5 months. So theres really strikes on gaza and the United Nations has failed to adopt a resolution calling for a 6 file. 3 votes have been held up a Security Council, but the United States has been to the old, the, you and secretary general and 20. The tanners has described the veto as an instrument. Thats power lies the council from taking action on the strip. Thats a sentiment the palestine signed by, so thats the u. N has also voice saying that americans details of cost palestinians the lives the us is one of the only 5 permanent members that can veto resolutions. And its accused of miss using it. Is use of the fee to a hindrance to Decision Making in the Un Security Council on disability so that the agenda of a select group of countries will bring in our guests and just a moment. But 1st, the report from coastal, im sure weve in october the United States veto, then i have a back and broadly supported un, 6 of to concert resolutions demanding an immediate cease fire. And casa 13 of the 15 Member Council voted in favor for the united kingdom. That stained and the us said, the initiative would into field with negotiations on the deal to free captors. And instead of proposed as riser draft, we look forward to engaging on a text that we believe will address so many of the concerns. We all share a text that can and should be adopted by the council. So that we can have a temporary cease fire. As soon as practicable, based on the formula of all hostages being released. As this temporary cease fire is critical to getting aid into the hands of Palestinian Civilians who desperately desperately need it. Since, as well as well. And also started in october. The us has vetoed 3 see 5 resolutions of the council. The u. K, upstate and getting all 3 votes prussia up stained in october. The Un Security Council has 10 elected members, and 5 permanent members who viewed the 2 pallets the u. S. U. K, from russia and china were chosen as the permanent 5 after world war 2. For the to adopt a resolution, at least 9 volts are required in favor and no re toes by any of the permanent members. The us has rejections for kohls, for the sci fi and casa, is raising questions about the uni lax republic of these countries. As long as the security concept is better lies in vitos, cost it then it is costing the Palestinian People that lives. There is no way except a ceasefire to be put in place. And even i said to the best of the United States, that there is nothing that can prevent you. If you have cloud over is that i have a uni laptop sees vibe, put in place for as long as you want. You dont need a resolution in the Security Council as well as well. And gaza has getting more than 30000 palestinians in the past 5 months. Left to this is really a strikes im from the patients have displaced most of its 2400000 people. And they have liquor, if any access to food, water medicine and shipped to the World Health Organization is born in of famine and outbreaks of disease. But despite the growing humanitarian crisis, do you want Security Council has failed to unite on calling for and immediate ceasefire. Let me close, im sure if ill just see the full inside story thats bringing all panel of experts from new york originally by origin gallon and the you and director of the International Crisis group. The think tank providing analysis of global conflicts, the policy makers of academics from montreal withdrawn by milan rabbani as a non resident fellow at present of a conflict and human to terry and studies hes worked on published any issues with you and agencies and joining us from the gun we in wales is con ross from the u. K. Diplomats of the u. N. Hes currently working on the upcoming un summit of the future. Gentleman, welcome to. Well, richard, lets start with you. Is the Un Security Council fit for purpose . In 2024. What was the thinking back in 1945, but it was decided to have these 5 permanent seats on the council. And to what extent just one guys are now forcing the Security Council to run up against its, its do political limitations as well. The Security Council has never truly fulfilled its original purpose. It was meant to be a global policing agency and the us associates, the partition, and the other permanent members were meant to be the 5 policeman who would hold crises in check and avoid a return to major power war. Ever since the 19 fortys, the counsel has failed to live up to that vision because of the tensions between the big powers. That was a period of to 1989 when cooperation improved considerably. But the Council Still fails overland to and over pulsing it. And i think what were seeing today, you credit any of it goes up. But also overall, the cases like my on my is the tensions involving the us involving the russians and involving the chinese really hobbling this organization. Which i think is sadly, inevitable. A given the very 10 states, so Global Politics today, one robotic does the world, nate, these 5 police, but us as richard put it, the parental supervision of 5. Will pallas, 2 of which you could argue, are not nearly as powerful as they once. Whats, what extent should Security Council membership be about value . Its not just about power as well. I think because as richard mentioned on the Security Council reflects the world, does that exist at the 1945 and it has failed to evolve since then for the simple reason that the Security Council reform is an incredibly complex process which requires the consent of those who stand to gain the least from any change . And i, and therefore we can, i think, have a discussion proposing all kinds of manner in which a Security Council could operate more effectively and more efficiently. But i also think we have to recognize that the chances of this happening are exceedingly small. And now with israels war on the gaza strip, i think that the un, or at the very least, the Security Council is facing its abas cindy. A moment on that time in the 1930s, when the league of nations failed to confront it as rios, sorry italys aggression against ethiopia. Because those on the receiving end of aggression were, were too dark to have any concern. And what was that in the International Community . And actually what were seeing is increasingly in the International Community seeking remedies outside and beyond the scope of the Security Council. Most recently with south africas application to the International Court of justice, the General Assembly resolutions which are non binding. But yet, and i think the relevance of the Security Council is diminishing with every passing day, the colorado should any nation have a palace, a veto decisions made by a majority of the others at the you. And in general, the not just the, the Security Council, i mean, why is that the global south given a much more influential voice on the Security Council . Why dont india and brazil have a permanent seat countries in africa while they represented a permanent plate on the Security Council . Well, the simple answer is they didnt win. The 2nd level, it was the victims of the 2nd level who decided the machinery of the United Nations and determined that the 5 of them, the current permanent 5 would have that the tire in order to protect their interests. Richard gallon is entirely right that they were set top is kind of global policeman, but the b type was to protect the interest and they are not going to get that out any time soon. But that has been literally decades of debate about reform at the Un Security Council debate, which is really coming to a head at the moment because of what is happening in gaza. And the us be veto of sci fi resolutions. But also because the russians of v type resolutions on ukraine in a similar way, that seems to be bro consensus, that african needs to needs more representation. Asia to perhaps wins in the joining as a permanent member and brazil from latin america. But the trouble with reform is that nobody can agree which countries to become new, permanent members. So there are ideas of semi permanent members, things like that to try to get round this. But the basic problem at the moment is that each of the prospective permanent members light in the brazil, etc, has very fast opposition from other countries. So there is no consensus on who should join a reformed Security Council are gone. Why dont we, why, why does the Security Council need permanent . Ben does a tool, why count, itll be just on the, on a rotating or the, or democratic basis. Democratic doesnt really fit with the you and its not a democratic organ. It is, it is a body of states, many of which are not democratic. The General Assembly is a place where things are debated and motions of pos, according to a majority or 2 thirds majority. But the Security Council is different by a bubble because the resolution for the policy is the decision. So that makes a blinker treat on oh, a 193 Member States of the of the u. N. So that gives it an extraordinary importance. Switched the General Assembly. Oh ok. You play a more Democratic Party at least in state times. It gives it a power that the General Assembly does not have an as rich a gallons the department of 5. Im not going to give up the power to block obligatory decisions on the rest of the well, that is that is not going to happen any time. Say why the richard . Why isnt that going to happen any time soon . I as well because quite frankly, for the us, china and russia, this is a very happy situation to be that you have 3 powers with huge differences. But nonetheless, they have a common interest in maintaining control over the un system in the way the com describes, i mean, i think it is worth saying that we are seeing the why the un membership, both the mounting reform in a way we havent really heard for these 20 is since the rock war, and secondly, were seeing the General Assembly becoming more active. And the General Assembly has spoken. Allison passed resolutions on by a few crane and garza and which expressed the frustration of most young members with the way the Security Council is working now. So that is a bit of an uprising, but the rules of the un shot to make it very clear that the current permanent 5 members have to agree to any small change to the child to such as the leasing to be so well changing composition of the Security Council. So at the end of the day, washington and most go in beijing can prevent any reforms that they find on comfortable rich events, september un secretary general until the chatters wont that a great fracture in the Global Governance system was lubing. But what does he mean by that . Whats, whats the mood among diplomats after you in a day is frustration for the organizations ability to respond to the crises as, as the rest of us. Yes, i mean, one thing that i hear from diplomat, some old books, old groups in new york is that they increasingly struggle to convince that political mazda is back in that conference. It was the, the us, and really massive. I think there is a feeling amongst western nations that the un has shown profound limitations of ukraine. And thats certainly a feeling around was that the un struggling profound limitations. So because it and so a lot of diplomats sitting in midtown manhattan. Yeah, i do sense that they are pretty motional to well, the fads now and that leaves a pretty solid lude around the organization. I think that im telling you a guitar when he talked about a great fact fracture was actually envisaging even broad problems. I think its our steves that there are issues about power and already and the Security Council, but also in other multi lot for bodies such as the world bank. And i am ass. Guitar is worried that if the current big power has done at least allow some reform, think about a little bit of federal authority. But youre just going to see a lot of countries drifting away from the multi doubtful system altogether. Because its so clearly biased and also so frequently ineffective, bon romani, coming back to what you were saying about the chances of a phone being strongly small is, is most or less the age of multilateralism dead as i wouldnt say. So i think were beginning to see the different forms of multilateralism, and i think youre beginning to see 2 developments. The 1st is, for example, um the establishment an expansion of bricks as, as alternatives or, or supplements to the existing Multi Lateral system. And, and the other is, is youre seeing increasing tensions between the roll western designs, rules based International Order on the one hand and international law, the will of the International Community on the other. And i think this is being expressed very clearly, for example, in the very different resolutions that are being adopted or not adopted by the Security Council on the one hand and the General Assembly of on the other hand, i should of, weve been talking a lot about the use and abuse of, of, of the veto by the permanent 5 members of the Security Council. And thats an entirely appropriate discussion to have. But i think we also need to look at the, those resolutions that have been adopted and that are being violated even by the permanent 5 or some of the permanent 5 members. So for example, the United States relocated its embassy to israel from tel aviv to jerusalem. An open and direct and brazen violation of a Security Council resolution from our belief. 1980 calling upon Member States to remove their Diplomatic Missions from jerusalem. You know, the latest Security Council resolution calling upon states to observe distinction in their dealings with as well between israel and the occupied territories is primarily longer than the breach. So i think the problem again, as, as, as, as my colleagues have been saying, goes much deeper than simply the Security Council and the as an abuse of, of utah to con. How then do i mean to the seemingly and practical per intractable problem here . A, its almost impossible to, to perform the Un Security Council given the permanent members. No one is to give ground the you in charge that we discussed. Somehow majority of patients wanted some reform is gonna have to happen. We talked at the beginning of the program about the you and some of the future that, that, that youre working on. Is it, i mean, is there anything likely to come out of that and tell us about about what that somebody aims to do . And so, i mean, just a quick comment on what marian said, im in there. Awesome. Most of that true success is for instance, i mean i find it remarkable. But a 10893 Member States are able to agree on climate change, bio diversity, things like that. So there is some life left in the multilateral system. The un summit of the future was cooled by the sex you general to discuss the future of multilateralism, future global institutions. Its happening the september at the most senior head of state level. And it is supposed to cover everything from Sustainable Development to the governance of out to space, to Security Council reform. And what were saying, talking, what im hearing talking to diplomats, is that there is a real appetite to do something on the Security Council or a form. Everybody knows is really intractable. But maybe they can agree, for instance, to have a deadline on agreeing reform. There is already an inter governmental discussion that happening at the un, which is very company to some proposals for reform. So you can put the deadline on those actually being agreed that the u. N. A they need a 2 thirds majority of the General Assembly to all to the child to and then as others have been saying, they need to be ratified by particularly the p 5 themselves. That i would know also the legislatures. So whatever on the phone, we might see proposed that the un would then have to be rectified by the us congress im, im sure youll view is can imagine how difficult that might be, but the you and some of the future is a p