[MUSIC] One of the issues, I mean the use of the veto is one of the hindering, I mean in relation to Aleppo, I mean it's one of the hindering factors. And this is sadly, I mean don't throw away the bath water with the baby. You don't throw the baby out with the water, I mean, you can all see because of this. I mean what's the alternative? The important thing is to reform it. To remove the veto? >> We live in an era where there's very significance demographic change, some quite significance political instability and complex. So if anything that need for a source of policy, how it responds is going to continue and might even be magnified. In terms of changes to the political structure, to the U.N. Security Council, perhaps making the General Assembly more important. There doesn't seem to be any great appetite for that. And it's significant, I think that now we're beginning to see the recession of the nation states some critic of what have been going in terms of globalization, global institutions. And it's almost, that if some of the proponents of those ideas can't really be powered to give the UN a kicking. The UN rather avoid some these criticisms that perhaps the EU or NATO are, and that's probably an indication of weakness. >> There have been long periods when the UN has had really quite limited relevance, but it always is the case that you can look at this institution from if you like, the top down or the bottom-up. And by the top, I mean the big powers who have been in their own ways always pretty casual use of the UN. They've chosen from the menu of things the UN can do in a very selective, often hypocritical way, whereas the smaller countries looking up so to speak have always seen the UN as a vital institution for their protection and their rights. It's the one place the UN General Assembly, where their voice can be raised as loud of that as the United States, or Russia, or China. And so, it has a huge source of moral legitimacy and a huge reservoir of historic sympathy. And many countries, because there were only 48 when the UN started and it's now 193. Many of those new members came to independence through a process of decolonization in which the UN was instrumental. So they look at the UN as very much part of the history of their independence and nationhood and sovereignty. So it's got a much greater reservoir of support than may look the case from London or Washington with the slightly supercilious selective view of the utility of the organization. But if the US or other big powers choose to all but pull out of it, cut their funding, go to other places to mediate problems. Then, it is obviously extraordinarily weakened, and what does weakness lead to? When the US didn't join the League of Nations, having nevertheless been a founder, it wasn't that the League of Nations failed because of that, it failed because it was subsequently unable to stop a war. And so, I think American or other sort of withdraw from the institution would be a body blow. The death blow would come if it leads to a new, generalized global conflict of some kind. >> So the UN can provide a framework for accountability which ultimately does need to be about states and people. >> Yes. >> So people need to know that there's something behind that. And also, I think the second hesitation I would have is how quickly we can get to that stage. The UN is still a vital lifeline for millions of people around the world. And I am not sure that I can think of even a consortium of organizations that can easily step into the breach. So what I think needs to happen is a transition. The UN needs to recognize where it is really adding value, and in my view, it is creating the framework, creating the space, providing opportunities for partnerships, providing opportunities for funding. But recognize that increasingly, direct delivery so the real provision of service is on the ground or coordination of aid, etc., can come from local organizations from bigger NGOs and from the private sector. And I think there's a need for us to stop thinking like this because the UN is horrendously overstretched and under funded. Some agencies, The World Food Programme, they have to raise every year, all of their funding, they don't get a sort of handout from governments. It's all voluntary funding. They have to fight for it. That makes it really, really difficult to plan. And if an unanticipated emergency comes along, that mean it that mean, they're screwed. And the UN can say no, it can't say well we're not going to deal with drought and this hell, sorry, you were all tied up in Syria. It doesn't work like that. There's still that expectation. So I do think we need to think much more creatively about how the UN works and how it can step back from certain things. >> So you're quite optimistic about the future of the UN? You don't think its time to shop up shop and have a shut up shop and have a coalition of democracies, instead after all UN is full of fairly obnoxious dictatorships and absolute monarchies. How do we reconcile that with the values that you and I might hold dear? >> I mean, I suppose that's sort of the point to the UN, of course. If you start excluding people, what's the point of having this cozy club where everyone agrees and we just talk to each other? The whole purpose of the UN is to engage everyone. You're not going to reduce the incidence of war if you're just hanging out with your friends, for want of a better phrase. But I think also, what are we going to put in its place? I talked about 15 transition on the humanitarian side. There are some functions that you cannot easily give to anyone, mediation, conflict resolution, who is the honest broker there? If we were to start from scratch. I'm not sure that the current set of world leaders that we have, have the imagination or the sense of urgency that leaders did in 1945 to create an organization. We haven't really been able to design anything better and you can see that in the fact that although there are all these regional organizations and different groups, you still look to the UN for that ultimate seal of legitimacy. So the climate agreement has to go the UN, an agreement in development has to go to the UN. No member state has left the UN, not even North Korea, they all want to engage. So I think it's still fulfills a really, really important function. As the only universal platform we have, as the center of norms and standards and as the provider of with goods and services. But it does need to change. And I think we have a real opportunity with the new secretary general who was selected I think in the most open and transparent process in the UN's history. I'm proud to say UNA, you played a real role in that. He's got a real opportunity to set a much more realistic vision for the UN. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be ambitious, but it means really look at where the UN can add value. For me, that's in peace and security terms, more UN action and mediation, conflict resolution, peace keeping, peace building, stepping back a bit from the development and humanitarian assistance provision which others can do. >> I mean, to be optimistic, or maybe a little bit of forced optimism, I think that Trump's desire to have America pay less of the bill for international operations might translate into a preference for doing things multilaterally than unilaterally. And therefore, recognizing the value of the UN as a multiplier of dollars and effectiveness and letting it operate. It might it get a little complicated when it comes to paying UN dues, but not necessarily. I think that Marine Le Pen has a very ambitious agenda, but certainly getting out of the EU and NATO, but I haven't the UN particularly on that list. Because France's P5 seat is a representation of a recognition of a defeated France as a great power and of the eternal glory of France, and I doubt that she's against that. The Chinese and the Russians obviously cherish their seats and the vetoes that come with them. And the recognition of their great power status. So it's all negotiable. It's a tough world we're moving into. And most of the leaders you mentioned are more nationalist than their predecessors. And the UN is about internationalism. So not to minimize the challenges, but it's all in what Trump would call the art of the deal except it's a Secretary General Gutierrez who's got, have to do the dealing. [MUSIC]
