Transcripts For BBCNEWS HARDtalk 20240924 : vimarsana.com

Martin griffiths, welcome to hardtalk. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Now, you've been in that seat on this programme before, but this is the first time that you're talking to us since you stepped down from your role as the un's humanitarian chief injune this year. You have greater liberty, essentially, now to tell us what you think about the situations that you've seen. May we begin in sudan, which is just one of the crises that you've dealt with in recent times? it's a civil war that in the last 18 months has put an extraordinary 25 million people in need of support and struggling to survive. You said recently that you thought sudan could be worse than ethiopia in the 1980s. What did you mean? well, sudan is the first place now where famine has been formally declared, as you know, the first place since 2017, because there's 25 million people in need, and we don't know precisely, because of the lack of access to these people, how much in need they are. We think that there are over 20 million of those people in acute food insecurity, which means and i grew up with the ethiopian famine and band aid and the international response that we will be facing a situation where people will drift fast it always is fast, it's viral with famine into a situation where we can't see what's going on. The good thing about ethiopia, as you remember, was we could see what was happening and it attacked our consciences. It's not happening in sudan. Butjust to be clear, what ethiopia resulted in, it was a million deaths from famine. So, you are saying that sudan could cause more than a million deaths from famine? yes. Yes, of course. And i know it's very difficult to comprehend that because we don't really understand famine and we understand it probably less now in many ways than we did then when it was a very important subject of study and response. But to manage the response to famine in the middle of a war where we don't have access journalists, crucially, are not allowed to have access to these situations in sudan, nor are my community i don't think anything is off the table. I think we could have a terrible, terrible disaster, people dying on camera, etc. But we do know that 25 million people are in urgent need. And the world's most powerful countries know that, don't they? so, when they don't appear to see it as an urgent international priority, what are we supposed to conclude from that? that they are otherwise engaged. And this is just another sign of the terrible situation we face across the world. Do you remember afghanistan? that's beyond our horizon now because, of course, of ukraine and sudan and gaza. But sudan is particularly important and interesting because it's worse in many. . . The numbers are worse. It's half the population. 25 million people means half the population. Its geography is very, very important and very worrying about its outflow and its impact, and the lack of attention until recently on mediation and the fact that the humanitarian operation is now, i think, less than 40% funded. As you said, it's a famine or a threat of a famine that has been caused by war, and essentially it's a civil war. So, the backdrop is the leaders of the sudanese army and the paramilitary force, the rsf, and their struggle for power, and both sides have been accused of civilian casualties and of obstructing aid. You know these people, don't you? you know the two generals. You've talked to them. Yes. So, what did they say to you when you said, let the aid through? they said, well, we're right, because if you do that, if we let the aid through, it will just simply reinforce our enemy, and that's not good for the people of sudan. And my care is mostly for the people of sudan, and so on and so forth. Finding people who think they're right all the time is exactly what we're seeing across the world. But i think sudan is the poster boy for this. These two generals went to war against each other for their own personal ambitions. They were willing to destroy their country, to kill. . . We don't even know the numbers of those dead in sudan because we can't get access. The fact that famine. . . It's the sermon of sudan at the moment. The famine that has been declared in el fasher, it's a nobrainer. The reason famine has been present there and it's a huge threshold to get to it is because the two parties didn't allow food in. So, when they say this to you, we can't let the food through because it will help the other side, what do you say? i say that's wrong. I mean, the privilege that i have had and i will have, i think, is that i speak for a very simple value, backed up by law, but a simple value if humanity requires it, you do it. You have an obligation to do it. It doesn't matter if you're in opposition or, you know, an rsf general or the other, you all have that international obligation. By the way, so does this country, so does the us and others, to make sure it happens. And you just say, you're wrong. This is wrong. And by the way, you can avoid it by helping us get access without even losing your position. So, i disagree with you about the fact that this will help the enemy. It may, but it's your people. So, you argue with it. Now, i think what's very striking now is the absence of consequence for great powers who say, we need to have the right thing done there, and they don't seem to have the leverage, or they haven't worked enough on the leverage on both parties to make it happen. But who does have the leverage? because you spoke recently about the warring parties and their backers and we know, don't we, from reports from amnesty international and human rights watch, that there are weapons flowing into the conflict in sudan that come from countries from china, to russia, to turkey, to the uae? so, are these the countries which have the leverage? yes. And choose not to use it? and have not been mobilised to use it in a suitable way. Now, it's an extraordinary omission because the aim here at this point and i think this is important is not actually to stop and resolve the conflict. That will come. It's essential that we get to that. We need a ceasefire. But the aim at this point is to feed the people. This is a global commons. Surely, all these states can gather around that. What they need. . . I was contacted by one of them just this morning to get some advice on this. What they need is a plan, a pathway, which shows how good can be done. This is what we did in the black sea. You know, we did the grain deal and it worked for a while, and we had an agreement between ukraine and russia. As they said, we can sign this because it's for a global welfare. It's humanitarian, so we can do it. So, the obligation on people like me and others is to offer that incentive and have that coalition of leverage. But if countries are not interested enough about the welfare of some of the most vulnerable people, people who don't have food in front of them, then how does caring about global welfare make a difference? i mean, that sounds short of real pressure. That sounds like appealing to people's better instincts, which we know often aren't there. It's the better angels, isn't it? and, you know, my life has been spent trying to appeal to the better angels, me and many other people. And sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I still think that we had an opportunity last year in syria, which didn't work out, but it's an incentive. It's not a pressure. It's an incentive to show people they can do the right thing, even in the middle of doing the wrong things. And that hasn't worked. Number two this is perhaps more important. We see in gaza, as well as in sudan, the failure of the usual powers the us, obviously, and others to actually find their way. President biden complains about what's happening in sudan. He's totally right. Well, you know, tony blinken has been in and out of the region for these many, many months. Why hasn't that worked? why isn't the traditional sources of power and leverage a source, using humanitarian incentive of creating dialogue and enforcing that? so, what's your answer to that? well, i think the answer is this. And, of course, i've thought quite a lot about this and, again, sudan is the real case. Why wouldn't you go to war these days? there's going to be no accountability for it. You might win it and you'd be better off. Yes, of course, people would die, but it's all in a good cause. Impunity is all over the place. War. . . Sorry, law is abused. You know, it's not there. And we have allowed this to happen so long and so consistently that people take note and people say, i'll do this now. You know, why not? why not invade ukraine? what's the problem? i'll be invited, says mr putin, but it won't mean anything. Do you think that the overall lack of international attention or care for sudan is because of race? that's what the head of the world health organization suggested to me recently, that he thinks race is a factor, that conflicts in africa just do not get the attention they deserve. Well, i do. I'd frame it differently because i don't think it's just about africa and i don't think it's just about race, but, you know, it's a. . . It is not a wrong labelling of it. The truth is that the consequence of the attention to ukraine, and appallingly invaded by russia, nobody has any question about that. . . The massive response from the west in armaments and in aid, which has not been applied elsewhere, of course, has led, as you know better than me, to a disaffection globally with western double standards and so forth. And so you can call it about race. I call it about only looking after our near abroad, only looking after our neighbours. And that's just not good enough. The obligation is global. Do you come to the conclusion that ultimately wars are just a more compelling place to be? you can see that in the flow of money, can't you? i think you yourself said that, in 2023, which was a terrible year for humanitarian crises, military expenditure rose above $2 trillion, and the un and other agencies got about 2k billion for their work. And it's going down. And it's a shocking. . . It's a shameful comparison. And, you know, i have many. . . Because i've worked a lot in ukraine and in the mediation with them and russia, and many of them say, please, help us make this war end. Feed our people. Please do that, obviously. But not an indefinite endless war where we're getting savaged on the front lines. I think there's a couple of things here that are important. I would say this. Number one, i don't. . . There is a massive decrease in international mediation of conflicts. And mediation of conflicts, as i know directly, is not a matter of action from those who have interests. It's got a whole discipline and principles. It's not there. We look around the world as humanitarians, but it's not mediation. Number two and i know this from all over the world, conflicts it's difficult to end a war, not least for the reason that those generals are good at war. They're not so understanding of peace, and they have to take their constituency with them who've lost their family members and who now said, well, it's over. Sorry. It's like the last man killed in the first war and so forth. So, we've become completely untethered, and across the world it's notjust in the places of our focus. And we're not doing enough. Look at what's happening in venezuela. Why aren't we sorting this out? there was a potential there, and it's gone badly wrong. Gaza is a place where there's a huge amount of diplomacy. What, tony blinken is on his 10th trip? yeah, and a huge amount of international attention. Huge amount of international attention. So, then it's probably the polar opposite in terms of international. . . It is. . . Attention. It's just around the corner from sudan. It's an extraordinary sort of coincidence. Although the lack of external journalistic access is common. It's common. Exactly. And that's crucial. I think it's because it's not only diplomacy and international attention we need. It's professional mediation which encourages dialogue. And you used to do that work. Iwonder, though, overall it is a very bleak picture you are painting, and you've seen the system from the inside and you're now on the outside. That system is not working, or arguably is failing. It's not working as it should. And i'm not blaming the secretariat for this. I'm blaming the governments who've made. . . Of course, the security council are divided and unproductive. The five permanent members of the security council. Well, you know, i've been public about that. Of course, these institutions are not fit for purpose at the moment. By the way, i think the renewal and reenergising of the general assembly because of this inadequate performance by others is very telling and very important, so that's true. But there are two more things i want. . . That i think are relevant to this. One is we see very clearly because of the double standards, because of ukraine and so forth, the anger in the global south, who paid their price for the war in ukraine as well through indebtedness and prices, and so that's why the black sea tried. The power is draining out of the west and towards the global south. It's an inchoate process at the moment. It is not adequately, properly, systematically addressed. And it's not a matter of having a global dialogue. It's a matter of actually doing some listening. The new mediators are not in the north. They're in the gulf, they're elsewhere. And look at south africa's role, for example, in the gaza. That's one. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, and it was part of what the founders talked about. They talked about saving succeeding generations the scourge of war. My experience in the last years has been consistent that we ordinary people, we local people, retain exactly the same values globally that we always have. We always want to help our neighbours. We want to provide better for our families. That hasn't diminished. The impunity, the anger, the belligerence comes from the top, not from this great majority, this silent majority. You know, i was in tigray. I was in sahel. Who helps displaced people first? communities bankrupt themselves. It's notjust a nice thought. It's a fact. So, that also is a rescue point. . . Not necessarily out of choice. Sometimes because people have just come across borders and it's. . . Well, it's. . . They might. . . Sometimes they resent them. Of course. I would. But they have this sort of residual sense of what's proper because they see it for their own communities. So, enlisting these new peoples and states is the way to bring back the relevance of the un. So, you've been prepared to talk to anyone, really, in the course of your work. Are there ever times when you feel that does go against principles? i'm wondering about when you talked to the taliban at a time when you know that there are afghan girls who are sitting at home, not only unable to go to school, but unable to go anywhere and unable to speak in public. Unemployed. How do you think. . . Well, how do you think those girls feel when they see pictures of you sitting with the taliban? well. . . I checked, of course, when i, on my various visits to kabul, tried to fight back against this edict. And what i was told consistently, notjust me, but by womenled afghan organisations providing help to women and girls in this terrible, constrained set of edicts, they said, don't go away. Keep funding us. Keep helping us. We don't want to suffer twice for what the taliban are doing. You see this in other countries too, but afghanistan is particularly true. So, the answer is not if you face a problem is not to leave and go away. It's to engage and try to change it, so. . . And again, it's a privilege of the humanitarian. We are not supposed to confer legitimacy by meeting people. That's a privilege. It is questioned, as you say, and you need to be very careful about it. I met president assad frequently last year and had a lot of criticism of that. I met the regime in naypyidaw and i was criticised a lot for that. Myanmar. But i don't repine from it because if you don't talk to these people, there's no chance. Would you have met isis? i have had an occasion on which i thought very carefully about that. I was engaged with them for some time back in 2018 with the raqqa case and i realised it was a real challenge for me in my principles and thinking. I realised it was a nonstarter, that they weren't open to any proper discussion. And it's not true of all. There are terrorist organisations and there are nonterrorist organisations. Some of them are open for dialogue, some not. In mali now, which is dominated by isis groups or alqaeda groups, we find that it's more easy to talk to the alqaeda groups. How would that happen? you've had to make choices in. . . Amid the very difficult chief injune <\/a>this year. You have greater liberty, essentially, now to tell us what you think about the situations that you've seen. May we begin in sudan, which is just one of the crises that you've dealt with in recent times? it's a civil war <\/a>that in the last 18 months has put an extraordinary 25 million <\/a>people in need of support and struggling to survive. You said recently that you thought sudan could be worse than ethiopia in the 1980s. What did you mean? well, sudan is the first place now where famine has been formally declared, as you know, the first place since 2017, because there's 25 million <\/a>people in need, and we don't know precisely, because of the lack of access to these people, how much in need they are. We think that there are over 20 million <\/a>of those people in acute food insecurity,<\/a> which means and i grew up with the ethiopian famine and band aid <\/a>and the international response that we will be facing a situation where people will drift fast it always is fast, it's viral with famine into a situation where we can't see what's going on. The good thing about ethiopia, as you remember, was we could see what was happening and it attacked our consciences. It's not happening in sudan. Butjust to be clear, what ethiopia resulted in, it was a million <\/a>deaths from famine. So, you are saying that sudan could cause more than a million <\/a>deaths from famine? yes. Yes, of course. And i know it's very difficult to comprehend that because we don't really understand famine and we understand it probably less now in many ways than we did then when it was a very important subject of study and response.<\/a> But to manage the response to famine in the middle of a war where we don't have access journalists, crucially, are not allowed to have access to these situations in sudan, nor are my community i don't think anything is off the table. I think we could have a terrible, terrible disaster, people dying on camera, etc. But we do know that 25 million <\/a>people are in urgent need. And the world's most powerful countries know that, don't they? so, when they don't appear to see it as an urgent international priority, what are we supposed to conclude from that? that they are otherwise engaged. And this is just another sign of the terrible situation we face across the world. Do you remember afghanistan? that's beyond our horizon now because, of course, of ukraine and sudan and gaza.<\/a> But sudan is particularly important and interesting because it's worse in many. . . The numbers are worse. It's half the population. 25 million <\/a>people means half the population. Its geography is very, very important and very worrying about its outflow and its impact, and the lack of attention until recently on mediation and the fact that the humanitarian operation is now, i think, less than 40% funded. As you said, it's a famine or a threat of a famine that has been caused by war, and essentially it's a civil war. So, the backdrop is the leaders of the sudanese army and the paramilitary force, the rsf, and their struggle for power, and both sides have been accused of civilian casualties <\/a>and of obstructing aid. You know these people, don't you? you know the two generals. You've talked to them. Yes. So, what did they say to you when you said, let the aid through? they said, well, we're right, because if you do that, if we let the aid through,<\/a> it will just simply reinforce our enemy, and that's not good for the people of sudan. And my care is mostly for the people of sudan, and so on and so forth. Finding people who think they're right all the time is exactly what we're seeing across the world. But i think sudan is the poster boy <\/a>for this. These two generals went to war against each other <\/a>for their own personal ambitions. They were willing to destroy their country, to kill. . . We don't even know the numbers of those dead in sudan because we can't get access. The fact that famine. . . It's the sermon of sudan at the moment. The famine that has been declared in el fasher,<\/a> it's a nobrainer. The reason famine <\/a>has been present there and it's a huge threshold to get to it is because the two parties didn't allow food in. So, when they say this to you, we can't let the food through because it will help the other side, what do you say? i say that's wrong. I mean, the privilege that i have had and i will have, i think, is that i speak for a very simple value, backed up by law, but a simple value if humanity requires it, you do it. You have an obligation to do it. It doesn't matter if you're in opposition or, you know, an rsf general <\/a>or the other, you all have that international obligation. By the way, so does this country, so does the us and others, to make sure it happens. And you just say, you're wrong. This is wrong. And by the way, you can avoid it by helping us get access without even losing your position. So, i disagree with you about the fact that this will help the enemy. It may,<\/a> but it's your people. So, you argue with it. Now, i think what's very striking now is the absence of consequence for great powers <\/a>who say, we need to have the right thing done there, and they don't seem to have the leverage, or they haven't worked enough on the leverage on both parties to make it happen. But who does have the leverage? because you spoke recently about the warring parties and their backers and we know, don't we, from reports from amnesty international <\/a>and human rights watch,<\/a> that there are weapons flowing into the conflict in sudan that come from countries from china, to russia, to turkey, to the uae? so, are these the countries which have the leverage? yes. And choose not to use it? and have not been mobilised to use it in a suitable way. Now, it's an extraordinary omission because the aim here at this point and i think this is important is not actually to stop and resolve the conflict. That will come. It's essential that we get to that. We need a ceasefire. But the aim at this point is to feed the people. This is a global commons. Surely, all these states can gather around that. What they need. . . I was contacted by one of them just this morning to get some advice on this. What they need is a plan, a pathway, which shows how good can be done. This is what we did in the black sea. You know, we did the grain deal <\/a>and it worked for a while, and we had an agreement between ukraine and russia.<\/a> As they said, we can sign this because it's for a global welfare. It's humanitarian, so we can do it. So, the obligation on people like me and others is to offer that incentive and have that coalition of leverage. But if countries are not interested enough about the welfare of some of the most vulnerable people, people who don't have food in front of them, then how does caring about global welfare <\/a>make a difference? i mean, that sounds short of real pressure. That sounds like appealing to people's better instincts, which we know often aren't there. It's the better angels, isn't it? and, you know, my life has been spent trying to appeal to the better angels, me and many other people. And sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I still think that we had an opportunity last year in syria, which didn't work out, but it's an incentive. It's not a pressure. It's an incentive to show people they can do the right thing, even in the middle of doing the wrong things. And that hasn't worked. Number two this is perhaps more important. We see in gaza, as well as in sudan, the failure of the usual powers the us, obviously, and others to actually find their way. President biden <\/a>complains about what's happening in sudan. He's totally right. Well, you know, tony blinken <\/a>has been in and out of the region for these many, many months. Why hasn't that worked? why isn't the traditional sources of power and leverage <\/a>a source, using humanitarian incentive of creating dialogue and enforcing that? so, what's your answer to that? well, i think the answer is this. And, of course, i've thought quite a lot about this and, again, sudan is the real case. Why wouldn't you go to war these days? there's going to be no accountability for it. You might win it and you'd be better off. Yes, of course, people would die, but it's all in a good cause. Impunity is all over the place. War. . . Sorry, law is abused. You know, it's not there. And we have allowed this to happen so long and so consistently that people take note and people say, i'll do this now. You know, why not? why not invade ukraine? what's the problem? i'll be invited, says mr putin,<\/a> but it won't mean anything. Do you think that the overall lack of international attention or care <\/a>for sudan is because of race? that's what the head of the world health organization <\/a>suggested to me recently, that he thinks race is a factor, that conflicts in africa just do not get the attention they deserve. Well, i do. I'd frame it differently because i don't think it's just about africa and i don't think it's just about race, but, you know, it's a. . . It is not a wrong labelling of it. The truth is that the consequence of the attention to ukraine, and appallingly invaded by russia, nobody has any question about that. . . The massive response from the west in armaments and in aid, which has not been applied elsewhere, of course, has led, as you know better than me, to a disaffection globally with western double standards and so forth. And so you can call it about race. I call it about only looking after our near abroad, only looking after our neighbours. And that's just not good enough. The obligation is global. Do you come to the conclusion that ultimately wars are just a more compelling place to be? you can see that in the flow of money, can't you? i think you yourself said that, in 2023, which was a terrible year for humanitarian crises, military expenditure <\/a>rose above $2 trillion, and the un and other agencies got about 2k billion <\/a>for their work. And it's going down. And it's a shocking. . . It's a shameful comparison. And, you know, i have many. . . Because i've worked a lot in ukraine and in the mediation with them and russia, and many of them say, please, help us make this war end.<\/a> Feed our people. Please do that, obviously. But not an indefinite endless war where we're getting savaged on the front lines. I think there's a couple of things here that are important. I would say this. Number one,<\/a> i don't. . . There is a massive decrease in international mediation of conflicts. And mediation of conflicts, as i know directly, is not a matter of action from those who have interests. It's got a whole discipline and principles. It's not there. We look around the world as humanitarians, but it's not mediation. Number two and i know this from all over the world,<\/a> conflicts it's difficult to end a war, not least for the reason that those generals are good at war. They're not so understanding of peace, and they have to take their constituency with them who've lost their family members <\/a>and who now said, well, it's over. Sorry. It's like the last man <\/a>killed in the first war and so forth. So, we've become completely untethered, and across the world it's notjust in the places of our focus. And we're not doing enough. Look at what's happening in venezuela. Why aren't we sorting this out? there was a potential there, and it's gone badly wrong. Gaza is a place where there's a huge amount of diplomacy. What, tony blinken <\/a>is on his 10th trip? yeah, and a huge amount of international attention. Huge amount of international attention. So, then it's probably the polar opposite <\/a>in terms of international. . . It is. . . Attention. It's just around the corner from sudan. It's an extraordinary sort of coincidence. Although the lack of external journalistic access is common. It's common. Exactly. And that's crucial. I think it's because it's not only diplomacy and international attention we need. It's professional mediation which encourages dialogue. And you used to do that work. Iwonder, though, overall it is a very bleak picture you are painting, and you've seen the system from the inside and you're now on the outside. That system is not working, or arguably is failing. It's not working as it should. And i'm not blaming the secretariat for this. I'm blaming the governments who've made. . . Of course, the security council <\/a>are divided and unproductive. The five permanent members of the security council. Well, you know, i've been public about that. Of course, these institutions are not fit for purpose at the moment. By the way, i think the renewal and reenergising <\/a>of the general assembly <\/a> because of this inadequate performance by others is very telling and very important, so that's true. But there are two more things i want. . . That i think are relevant to this. One is we see very clearly because of the double standards, because of ukraine and so forth, the anger in the global south, who paid their price for the war in ukraine as well through indebtedness and prices, and so that's why the black sea <\/a>tried. The power is draining out of the west and towards the global south.<\/a> It's an inchoate process at the moment. It is not adequately, properly, systematically addressed. And it's not a matter of having a global dialogue. It's a matter of actually doing some listening. The new mediators are not in the north. They're in the gulf, they're elsewhere. And look at south africa's role, for example, in the gaza. That's one. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, and it was part of what the founders talked about. They talked about saving succeeding generations the scourge of war. My experience in the last years has been consistent that we ordinary people, we local people, retain exactly the same values globally that we always have. We always want to help our neighbours. We want to provide better for our families. That hasn't diminished. The impunity, the anger, the belligerence comes from the top, not from this great majority, this silent majority.<\/a> You know, i was in tigray. I was in sahel. Who helps displaced people first? communities bankrupt themselves. It's notjust a nice thought. It's a fact. So, that also is a rescue point.<\/a> . . Not necessarily out of choice. Sometimes because people have just come across borders and it's. . . Well, it's. . . They might. . . Sometimes they resent them. Of course. I would. But they have this sort of residual sense of what's proper because they see it for their own communities. So, enlisting these new peoples and states is the way to bring back the relevance of the un. So, you've been prepared to talk to anyone, really, in the course of your work. Are there ever times when you feel that does go against principles? i'm wondering about when you talked to the taliban at a time when you know that there are afghan girls who are sitting at home, not only unable to go to school, but unable to go anywhere and unable to speak in public. Unemployed. How do you think. . . Well, how do you think those girls feel when they see pictures of you <\/a>sitting with the taliban? well. . . I checked, of course, when i, on my various visits to kabul, tried to fight back against this edict. And what i was told consistently, notjust me,<\/a> but by womenled afghan organisations providing help to women and girls in this terrible, constrained set of edicts, they said, don't go away. Keep funding us. Keep helping us. We don't want to suffer twice for what the taliban are doing.<\/a> You see this in other countries too, but afghanistan is particularly true. So, the answer is not if you face a problem is not to leave and go away. It's to engage and try to change it, so. . . And again, it's a privilege of the humanitarian. We are not supposed to confer legitimacy by meeting people. That's a privilege. It is questioned, as you say, and you need to be very careful about it. I met president assad <\/a>frequently last year and had a lot of criticism of that. I met the regime in naypyidaw and i was criticised a lot for that. Myanmar. But i don't repine from it because if you don't talk to these people, there's no chance. Would you have met isis? i have had an occasion on which i thought very carefully about that. I was engaged with them for some time back in 2018 with the raqqa case <\/a>and i realised it was a real challenge for me in my principles and thinking. I realised it was a nonstarter, that they weren't open to any proper discussion. And it's not true of all. There are terrorist organisations and there are nonterrorist organisations. Some of them are open for dialogue, some not. In mali now, which is dominated by isis groups or alqaeda groups, we find that it's more easy to talk to the alqaeda groups. How would that happen? you've had to make choices in. . . Amid the very difficult funding environment,<\/a> particularly in the last sort of 18 months before you stepped down. And that meant, didn't it, like reducing the amounts you asked for? mmhm. Historically, un appeals have not been met in full by donors, but what is the current picture? what is the difference between what's happening now and what you were used to historically? yeah, very quickly. It diminished very, very quickly over the last three years that i've been directly involved. And we're now down, each year, less percentage of the total. Of course, their needs are growing. And that's why, as you say, we've tried to focus on the priorities. But the percentage funding <\/a>is diminishing. So, it would have been 50% before quite regularly? it would have been 50 and it's going down. To? well, you know, if you look at syria, it's probably got 1820%, for example. And that kind of percentage is not uncommon? it's not that uncommon. I mean, even ukraine, with all its obvious importance for major donors, which i understand, they're below 50%, so there's just not enough money, but there's also prioritisation. And the problem with prioritisation, which of course i understand why it happens donors have interests is that, again, it doesn't respond to the principles of humanitarian aid, which is a global obligation. And so what happens is people in my community, me included, have to be god to decide on, you know, which, place will get more aid and less. We have to, you know. . . We look at persuading. . . When you say playing god, you mean that you have made choices that have meant life or death? i think that's right. I've never traced it down to, you know, the legalframework for that, but i think it must be right by logical deduction. But what we do as a community, and what i did as well, is you look at the level of need. You try to prioritise within that need. For example, in sudan, we're trying to reach 14. 7 million of the 25. We're doing the same around the world, because of the market. At the time, when the humanitarian community said and did, we will not respond to the market. We will simply state what is needed and you, the donors, can decide and you will play god. We eventually, as a group, in my time, decided that was actually leaving them to play an even more invidious role, and that we should be part of that because we are in the front line <\/a>and we can decide with people who we should listen to it's another issue, we need to listen better to them we need to decide this because god is going to be played anyway. Often it is the case, isn't it, that you did not succeed to make a significant difference. . . Yeah. . . By and large? what does that do to you? and what made you decide to, you know, pick yourself up and carry on the next day? because it feels, listening to you, as if this whole system is unsustainable now, the humanitarian aid system.<\/a> Yeah, i. . . You know, i've battled my way through exactly that issue, particularly when i was involved in mediation with the centre for humanitarian dialogue in geneva. When i realised, in that work in particular, not directly humanitarian, that the percentage of success that you would get out of trying to stop a war, end a conflict, was very low. You know, the percentage is down, i don't know, 2030%, if you're lucky, sort of thing. You've got to accept the level of failure, which is about human nature, and not bash yourself up about it. But what you therefore need to do is increase your experience and get it right. So, that means, one day, you hope that, perhaps even after your lifetime, sudan will come to an end. Oh, yes. Gaza will come to an end. Yes. Yes, definitely. Look at what happened to the basque conflict <\/a>and eta. You know, i mediated there for some years, 15 years ago, and the armed struggle <\/a>was declared over. A very special and different case. But, yes, of course, it can happen. There are a number of places where this. . . Kofi annan*s mediation in kenya in 2008 stopped the abyss for kenya and its people. Yes, it works. It doesn't look like it now because the record is so poor now, but that just asks you to do it harder. As i said earlier, when you face a problem, don't walk away from it, find a way to address it with the basis of human nature <\/a>behind you. So, i don't measure my work by those kind of public successes. I measure it by effort and by doing things which i think is right, and that's hard enough. Martin griffiths,<\/a> former un humanitarian chief, thank you. Thanks a lot,<\/a> mishal. Thank you very much. Hello. We have seen a lot of extreme rainfall over the last couple of days. Woburn in bedfordshire had 102mm of rain recorded on sunday. But on monday, it was really 0xfordshire*s turn to see some absolutely horrendous conditions, widespread flooding and some severe disruption. In south newington <\/a>in 0xfordshire, we recorded about 98mm through the day that's about a month and a half's worth of rain. And you can see the rain <\/a>on the radar picture <\/a>here. It is gradually easing, and over the next few hours, it will tend to become a lot lighter, a lot patchier,<\/a> before becoming confined to east anglia <\/a>and southeast england. So it is an improving very gradually kind of weather situation.<\/a> Bit of rain coming into the far north of scotland. That's a cold front <\/a>that will be bringing some colder air with it, but these are the kind of temperatures you'll have as you start off your tuesday morning.<\/a> Tuesday, still some dribs and drabs of rain left over for east anglia <\/a>and southeast england, but clearing away quite quickly. This area of more substantial rain moves southwards across scotland through the day. That's our cold front. Much colder air spreading to the far north of scotland, where there will be a few afternoon showers.<\/a> Temperatures just around 10 degrees in aberdeen. 10 as well for stornoway. Further southwards, we're around 1a to 18 celsius. Now, the middle part of the week sees an area of low pressure move <\/a>in off the atlantic,<\/a> bringing more heavy rain,<\/a> particularly targeted on england and wales. 0nce that's cleared through, well, then we start to get some colder air moving right the way across the country. And so for wednesday, it's kind of a day where we will see rain developing from the west,<\/a> so turning wet across wales, southern and western areas of england through the day. Probably a fair amount of dry weatherfurther <\/a>northwards with some sunshine, a few showers in the forecast for northern areas <\/a>of scotland, but it will continue to get colder across those northern areas. And then as we head into wednesday night <\/a>and thursday, the rain <\/a>continues to drive its way northwards and eastwards, covering most parts of england and wales with some heavy downpours. The colder air continues to flow in across scotland and northern ireland.<\/a> So temperatures in belfast, 12. 13 for edinburgh average at this time of year is 17 degrees, so we're quite a long way below average. And that colder air is going to move its way southwards across all parts of the country before the end of the week. Live from london. This is bbc news.<\/a> Fears are increasing over the threat of a fullyfledged war between israel and hezbollah <\/a>after the deadliest day of conflict across the border in nearly 20 years. Sir keir starmer <\/a>will use his first labour conference speech <\/a>as prime minister <\/a>to say there is light at the end of the tunnel. In singapore, a former minister has pleaded guilty to accepting gifts whilst in public office in the country's biggest corruption trial <\/a>in decades. And world leaders <\/a>are gathering in new york <\/a>for the un general assembly <\/a> president zelensky is expected to unveil his victory plan <\/a>to defeat russia. Hello. I'm sally bundock. We start in the middle east,<\/a> where fears are increasing over the threat of a fullfledged war between israel and hezbollah <\/a>after the deadliest day of conflict across","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia600102.us.archive.org\/28\/items\/BBCNEWS_20240924_033000_HARDtalk\/BBCNEWS_20240924_033000_HARDtalk.thumbs\/BBCNEWS_20240924_033000_HARDtalk_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240924T12:35:10+00:00"}