0:00

Hey everyone, so as you may

0:02

have heard, we are launching a

0:04

new podcast under the Global Dispatches

0:06

brand called To Save Us From

0:09

Hell. It is

0:11

a weekly chat show in which

0:13

my co-host Anjali Dail and I

0:15

discuss the latest news and happenings

0:17

from around the United Nations and

0:19

the broader UN system. In

0:22

lieu of a regular Global Dispatches

0:24

episode, I am sharing with you

0:26

the debut episode of To Save

0:28

Us From Hell. I

0:31

am so, so excited about this

0:33

new show. If you're a regular

0:35

Global Dispatches listener, To Save Us From

0:37

Hell is a bit different. It's

0:39

not an interview show like Global

0:41

Dispatches, rather it's a chat show in

0:43

which Anjali Dail and

0:45

I give our own takes and

0:48

opinions and views about happenings around

0:50

the UN. Anjali Dail is a

0:52

UN expert and professor of international

0:54

relations at Fordham University, and I've

0:56

been covering the UN as a

0:58

journalist for about 20 years at

1:00

this point. To Save

1:03

Us From Hell has its own

1:05

separate podcast feed, but for the

1:07

next couple of weeks I'll be

1:09

dropping episodes right here in the

1:11

Global Dispatches feed. However, I'd strongly

1:13

encourage you to search for To

1:16

Save Us From Hell on Apple

1:18

Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get

1:20

your podcasts. The best

1:22

way to follow the new show,

1:24

To Save Us From Hell, is

1:26

by visiting globaldispatches.org. Unlike

1:30

Global Dispatches, To Save Us From

1:32

Hell is relying entirely 100% on

1:34

paid subscribers. We

1:39

are crowdfunding this new effort and I would

1:41

love your support. If you

1:43

like what you hear today and want

1:45

full access to all episodes of To

1:47

Save Us From Hell

1:50

going forward, please visit globaldispatches.org and

1:52

get a paid subscription. I'd

1:54

so love and appreciate your

1:56

support in this new venture.

2:00

Now here is the debut episode of our

2:02

new podcast about the United Nations to

2:04

save us from hell. Enjoy!

2:08

Looking for a trustworthy podcast to

2:10

bring you unfiltered viewpoints and experiences

2:12

on global health? Tune

2:14

into Global Health Matters, the

2:16

podcast that connects silos and

2:18

amplifies diverse voices to give

2:21

you a holistic picture. Each

2:24

month, Dr. Gary S. Lanyon from

2:26

the World Health Organization hosts discussions

2:28

with guests spanning former ministers of

2:31

health, award-winning journalists and authors, and

2:33

frontline public health workers. Join

2:36

listeners from across 180 countries

2:39

for an exciting season four,

2:41

launching in June. Global

2:44

Health Matters is available on Apple

2:46

Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. Welcome

2:55

to To Save Us From Hell,

2:57

our new podcast about the United

2:59

Nations. I'm Marc Leon Goldberg, an

3:01

international affairs journalist, the editor-in-chief of

3:03

UN Dispatch, and I run Global

3:06

Dispatches. I'm Anjali Thayal. I'm an

3:08

international relations scholar and an author at Fordham

3:10

University in New York. I am

3:12

really excited for the debut of this

3:14

weekly podcast in which Anjali and I

3:17

will discuss news and happenings around the

3:19

United Nations and the entire UN system.

3:23

And it's going to be a good one. Welcome

3:25

to our new show. I'm really excited

3:27

to be able to contribute to the conversation about

3:29

the UN, which could not be more timely. This

3:32

is a project of Global Dispatches.

3:34

To support our work, please follow

3:36

the link in the show notes

3:38

of this episode where you can

3:40

buy a subscription to Global Dispatches,

3:42

which will get you full access

3:45

to all episodes of To Save

3:47

Us From Hell. Each

3:49

week, we are going to discuss some

3:51

timely and important issues around the world

3:53

as they relate to the United Nations

3:55

and, of course, the latest news and

3:58

events and happenings around the UN. itself.

4:01

And our debut is timely. As

4:03

we speak of Vladimir Putin is

4:05

being feted in North Korea by

4:07

Kim Jong Un. They have revived

4:10

a Cold War era security act,

4:12

which has very big ramifications for

4:14

the United Nations. And

4:16

in the last 10 days, we've seen action in

4:19

the Security Council on the two worst crises in

4:21

the world, Gaza and Sudan, including

4:24

a rather heated confrontation on Tuesday between

4:26

representatives of Sudan and the United Arab

4:28

Emirates, who were pretty awkwardly sitting right

4:30

next to each other the whole time.

4:33

And we'll discuss who should replace Martin

4:36

Griffiths, the outgoing Undersecretary General for Humanitarian

4:38

Affairs, who is leaving his post at

4:40

the end of the month. Jan

4:43

Egeland, who previously served in that

4:45

role, joins the show to offer

4:47

his advice for the next top

4:49

UN humanitarian official. So

4:52

my successes were all good,

4:54

but the principle of

4:56

having hegemony for certain posts

4:58

is wrong. So

5:01

Anjali, you and I are

5:03

sitting in our respective offices.

5:05

Vladimir Putin is in Pyongyang

5:07

getting feted by Kim Jong

5:10

Un, rolled out the red

5:12

carpet. You saw like rapturous

5:14

applause at every gathering for

5:16

which Putin attended. They

5:19

are all in, in this

5:21

new partnership between Russia and

5:23

North Korea. And this actually

5:25

has very big implications for

5:27

the United Nations in general

5:29

and the Security Council in

5:31

particular. Just a

5:34

little bit of a background

5:36

here. This new alliance between

5:38

Russia and North Korea is

5:40

one of convenience. North

5:42

Korea wants Russian advanced

5:45

technological know-how as it

5:47

develops its weaponry. Russia

5:49

wants North Korea's decidedly very

5:52

old and somewhat antiquated stockpiles

5:55

of Soviet-era artillery that it

5:57

can use on the battlefield

5:59

in Europe. Ukraine. And

6:01

indeed, a few months ago, we

6:03

saw really for the first

6:05

time North Korean artillery

6:07

ending up on Ukrainian battlefields.

6:10

And that followed a previous

6:12

trip by Kim Jong-un to

6:14

Russia. But here we are

6:16

now, Putin in North Korea.

6:18

This is a big deal

6:20

for the UN. It

6:22

is a big deal for the UN in part

6:24

because, you know, as we know, Russia is one

6:26

of the permanent members of the

6:29

UN Security Council. It has a veto

6:31

in the chamber. And it also is

6:33

in theory, one of the key enforcers

6:36

of United Nations Security Council sanctions

6:39

against North Korea. And so this

6:41

puts us in a really complicated

6:43

position vis-a-vis North Korea,

6:45

vis-a-vis the legitimacy of UN

6:47

Security Council action and vis-a-vis

6:49

the sort of possibility of

6:52

UN Security Council action. Yeah, like

6:54

let's be clear. Russia voted for

6:56

a series of sanctions

6:59

against North Korea over the

7:01

last nearly 20 years, ever

7:03

since North Korea first detonated

7:05

or tested a nuclear weapon

7:07

in 2006. And, you know,

7:10

since then, the Security Council had

7:13

been the forum for applying pressure

7:15

to North Korea to ramp down

7:17

its nuclear activities, behave more responsibly

7:19

on the international stage. And you

7:21

saw over the last couple of

7:23

decades just a series of

7:25

increasingly forceful sanctions against North

7:28

Korea for its nuclear program.

7:31

And, you know, as you noted, Russia

7:33

voted for each of these sanctions regimes

7:35

or at least didn't block them. And

7:38

now Russia is very

7:40

directly violating the very

7:42

UN security sanctions that

7:44

it has imposed on

7:46

North Korea. This is like

7:48

a problem. Yeah, it's a huge problem. As,

7:51

you know, long time UN watchers

7:53

or people who know something about

7:55

the organization will know, we have

7:57

this like big post-Cold War thought.

8:00

where the former Soviet Union,

8:02

Russia, right, and the US start

8:04

to cooperate on things like global

8:06

sanctions regimes and UN peacekeeping

8:09

missions and levels that are sort of

8:11

unprecedented in the history of

8:13

the organization. But in the last decade

8:15

or so, basically following the sort of

8:18

start of the Syrian civil war and

8:21

Russia's use of the chamber to sort

8:23

of start protecting the Syrian government, we've

8:25

started to see cooperation at the Security

8:27

Council grind to more of a halt

8:29

on some critical issues. Critical

8:31

issues getting with Syria, but

8:33

carrying all the way through, obviously through

8:36

the two invasions of Ukraine, through to

8:38

the war in Gaza today, and then

8:40

now with the sort of

8:42

increased Russian-North Korean cooperation on

8:44

the horizon, what we're really seeing is how

8:47

the portfolio of the Security Council might be

8:49

shrinking. How the places where the

8:51

Security Council can be most effective and

8:53

can agree to be most effective might

8:56

be occupying a smaller and smaller space

8:58

on issues of real importance around the

9:00

world. Yeah, like this trip

9:03

to me is the death knell

9:05

of the ability of the Security

9:07

Council to take any meaningful action

9:09

on North Korea. I mean, it

9:11

was getting more and more difficult

9:13

over the years,

9:15

particularly since Russia's invasion

9:17

of Ukraine, where all the trends you

9:19

described have accelerated. But it's also worth

9:21

keeping in mind that while

9:24

the track record is not perfect

9:26

on North Korea, the fact is

9:28

North Korea has not tested a

9:30

nuclear weapon since 2017. This has

9:32

been seven years now, so

9:36

at least in part, I think

9:39

that's a consequence of a unified

9:41

international response to North Korea's nuclear

9:43

development that appears to be completely

9:46

eroding right now. And the idea

9:48

that the Security Council would do

9:50

anything about, say, a future North

9:53

Korea nuclear test seems really

9:55

much in question now that you're

9:57

seeing this closer alliance between who.

10:00

Putin and Kim. Yeah, I think one

10:02

thing for us to keep watching is

10:04

what China does in response, because

10:06

China traditionally has been the key

10:08

security partner for North Korea, that

10:11

Russia is stepping up as part of a sort of

10:14

politically convenient set of moves,

10:16

I think makes us sort of pay attention to

10:18

what China is going to do with the Security

10:20

Council, because China, you know, a strategically

10:23

pragmatic actor at the Security Council does not

10:25

want to face Security Council sanctions, or it

10:27

doesn't want to be sort of subject to

10:29

the kinds of sanctions that Russia is

10:31

courting or is under because of these

10:33

moves, right? And so taking

10:36

a look at what that kind of diplomacy can accomplish in

10:38

the Security Council, I think is going to be an important

10:40

thing for us to watch. And you know,

10:42

most recently on June 12, China

10:45

joined Russia in

10:47

trying to block a Security Council

10:49

meeting dedicated to human rights in

10:51

North Korea. Now like the vote

10:53

was a procedural vote. So it's

10:55

not one in which there's a

10:57

veto. So the meeting happened despite

10:59

Russia and China's objections. And I

11:01

think their objection is more they

11:03

don't like when the Security Council

11:05

focuses on human rights in certain

11:07

situations. But it was still notable.

11:10

And also notable was the fact

11:12

that in March, really in like

11:14

a harbinger of what is to

11:16

come and what is really to

11:18

befall North Korea at the Security

11:21

Council, Russia blocked the renewal of

11:23

the mandate of the panel of

11:25

experts who are monitoring the

11:27

sanctions on North Korea. Now,

11:29

for those who are unaware, you

11:31

know, when you have a Security

11:33

Council imposes sanctions on an entity,

11:35

a country in this case, they

11:37

will hire like outside experts, independent

11:39

experts who know things about like

11:42

financial crimes or smuggling routes, and

11:44

they'll hire them to monitor

11:46

the effectiveness of these sanctions.

11:49

And this group now no longer

11:52

exists. Their mandate has expired without

11:54

renewal. Yeah, this is one of

11:56

those things that can seem sort of incidental,

11:58

right? So often the top storyline story that

12:00

we read coming out of the UN is what

12:02

the Security Council did or didn't do. But

12:05

one of the revolutionary functions of the

12:07

UN system is these

12:09

reporting mechanisms, right? These sort of

12:12

big bodies that can provide

12:14

multilaterally credible information and reporting

12:16

about human rights situations, about

12:18

arms control, about a whole

12:20

host of issues that every

12:22

country has an interest in

12:24

knowing as close to the

12:26

truth as possible about. So

12:29

the fact that we're seeing sort of Russia being

12:31

willing to step up and kill that kind of

12:33

mechanism, that's not a great sign,

12:35

right? It's not a great sign beyond the sort

12:37

of traditional gridlock of the Security Council, which we

12:39

expect based on the way that the Security Council is

12:41

set up. Yeah, I mean, to

12:44

me, like just bottom line here that

12:46

this is like the debut segment of

12:48

the debut episode of our new podcast

12:50

about the United Nations. And this could

12:52

feel like very well be the last

12:54

time we could talk about North Korea

12:56

at the Security Council just because I

12:59

don't see any meaningful action happening at

13:01

the Security Council on North Korea now

13:03

that you have this real almost formal

13:05

alliance between Russia and North

13:07

Korea. You know, as you mentioned earlier,

13:10

this is just emblematic of the

13:12

Security Council's ever shrinking portfolio

13:14

of issues that it can

13:16

meaningfully address, which is just

13:19

like a consequence of rising

13:21

geopolitical tensions between the West

13:23

and Russia and China. It's

13:26

part of a trend, but also I think like the most

13:29

deepest manifestation of that trend that we've

13:31

seen thus far. We're in

13:33

a space where the sort of big global

13:35

institution that we have for multilateral action is

13:37

going to have to weather a period

13:40

of real geopolitical tension. And we're seeing

13:42

that on so many fronts. And today

13:44

North Korea has entered the chat. This

13:47

is actually a really good segue into

13:49

something else I wanted to discuss with

13:52

you. Which is actually

13:54

meaningful action on Gaza

13:56

and Sudan that we've seen at the Security

13:58

Council. You know, we're discussing the Security

14:00

Council's shrinking portfolio. But over the

14:03

last 10 days, we

14:05

have seen the first meaningful action

14:07

from the Security Council

14:09

on the Israel-Gaza crisis and on

14:11

the Sudan crisis, and both happened

14:14

within short order of each other.

14:16

I think maybe let's first talk

14:18

about Gaza, and it's worth, I

14:20

think, going through the TikTok of

14:22

this over the last few days.

14:25

And surprisingly to me, the timeline

14:27

kind of starts with Donald Trump's

14:29

criminal conviction in the state of

14:31

New York on May 30th, which

14:33

was a Thursday. That was all

14:35

the talk of all like the

14:38

international news, political punditry. Then the

14:40

next morning, Biden and the White

14:42

House teased this surprise announcement about

14:44

the Middle East, and that got

14:46

everyone's head scratching, why is Biden

14:48

going to talk about one of

14:50

the most divisive issues in American

14:52

politics and not jump on the

14:54

Trump as a felon bandwagon, but

14:56

he indeed announced a ceasefire deal

14:58

that he said came from

15:01

the Israelis was sent to Hamas that

15:03

basically included a three-part ceasefire.

15:05

Phase one was an immediate

15:08

six-week ceasefire, followed by a

15:10

permanent ceasefire, followed by reconstruction

15:12

and some broader kind of

15:14

political resolutions around the Israel-Palestine

15:17

conflict. So as we speak,

15:20

the status of these

15:22

negotiations is unclear, but

15:25

on June 10th, the

15:27

Security Council took a vote

15:29

and endorsed this Biden slash

15:32

maybe an Israeli ceasefire proposal

15:34

and did so in an

15:36

overwhelming vote of 14 in

15:39

favor and one abstention, which was Russia, which we can

15:41

talk about in a bit. But I

15:44

am curious to learn from you,

15:46

Anjali, what is your big takeaway

15:48

from this Gaza ceasefire vote? So

15:51

the resolution basically calls on Israel

15:54

and Hamas to accept the U.S.

15:56

sled plan. It rejects

15:58

the reduction of Gaza's as territory

16:01

and demographics, and it

16:03

affirms support for a two-state solution

16:05

in line with international law and

16:07

in line with previous UN resolutions.

16:10

And one way to look at this is

16:12

to see it as the Biden

16:14

administration trying to leverage the

16:17

enormous support at the Security Council

16:19

already from everyone except the

16:21

United States, right, in favor of

16:23

a ceasefire towards building multilateral political

16:26

pressure on the warring parties

16:28

after months of mostly gridlock, right? So

16:31

this is a tactic that Kofi

16:33

Annan used to use a lot,

16:35

where he would sometimes announce a

16:38

deal in advance of clear support

16:40

from either party in order

16:42

to build public pressure for

16:45

the parties to accept that deal. And

16:47

I obviously don't know what the behind the

16:49

scenes are between the Biden administration and the

16:52

Israeli government, for example. It doesn't seem great at

16:54

the moment to be honest, but yeah. It doesn't seem great,

16:56

right? And it certainly doesn't seem great given

16:58

the response the resolution got from the Israeli

17:00

delegation to the United Nations, right? But

17:03

all of that points us towards thinking about a

17:06

way that the Security Council chamber

17:08

is being used as a pressure

17:10

point to try and help build

17:13

global consensus and pressure for this

17:15

deal, which is sort of US-led

17:18

but globally backed, right?

17:21

And that's sort of, I think, a

17:23

really fascinating way to think about using

17:25

that chamber, especially in light of having

17:27

been the key obstruction point to

17:30

previous ceasefire resolutions.

17:32

I totally agree. I think it

17:34

really does demonstrate the utility of the Security

17:36

Council in this situation. You give like the

17:38

patina, not just the patina, but the actual

17:40

international legitimacy to what

17:43

is essentially a US ceasefire

17:45

proposal and deal. And

17:48

you have now the entire

17:50

world supporting ostensibly this deal,

17:53

and it's really up to the two

17:55

warring parties now to withstand whatever pressure

17:57

the world is applying to them. and

18:00

the international community is applying to them as

18:02

reflected in the fact that this Security

18:05

Council resolution passed. It just adds

18:07

political pressure to the warring

18:09

parties in a situation where

18:12

that kind of pressure has

18:14

been to date rather muted.

18:16

I mean, and I think it also helps to see

18:18

the limits of Security Council action, right? Because a

18:21

UN spokesperson said yesterday that, you know,

18:23

more aid actually hasn't passed into

18:26

Gaza since Israel agreed to

18:28

institute the daily humanitarian pauses. And

18:31

so building legitimacy and consensus towards something

18:33

like a ceasefire is important. But at

18:36

the end of the day, nothing

18:38

but straight repeated political pressure

18:41

from Israel's key allies is actually going

18:43

to make it accept the

18:45

terms of the ceasefire agreement. I

18:47

obviously don't have very much insight on what would make

18:49

Hamas accept the terms of the ceasefire agreement, right? But

18:52

like in terms of what we see at

18:54

multilateral diplomacy, it seems like we're seeing

18:56

both the possibilities and the limits of what the Security

18:58

Council can do here. Yeah, like

19:00

a Security Council resolution is as

19:02

good as the piece of paper

19:04

it's written on, if there's no

19:06

political will to enforce it. You

19:08

know, just like Russia buying arms

19:10

from North Korea in violation of

19:12

Security Council resolutions, you know, that

19:14

just is one demonstration of the

19:16

fact that these resolutions like don't

19:19

enforce themselves. They don't implement themselves.

19:21

It requires political will to do

19:23

so. And, you know,

19:25

that's like TBD on the Gaza

19:27

ceasefire deal. That's right. And I

19:29

also think it shows us

19:31

very clearly, right, both the North

19:34

Korea situation and the Gaza situation,

19:36

how dependent the Security Council's legitimacy

19:38

and work is on the permanent

19:41

five members, at least acquiescence, right?

19:43

When they are the key stumbling

19:45

blocks to action, we're not going

19:48

to see enforcement, right? We're not

19:50

going to see the ability to

19:52

sort of operationalize

19:54

these resolutions. But I think

19:57

in particular, the Gaza ceasefire

20:00

resolution also shows us the importance of

20:02

the other members of the council. Because

20:05

elected members to

20:07

the Security Council did so much groundwork

20:09

laying those first sort of resolutions

20:12

for a Gaza ceasefire beginning in

20:14

the fall, beginning with the sort

20:16

of first humanitarian resolution that

20:18

Malta spearheaded, which is the first one

20:20

the US didn't veto, right, abstained on

20:22

that one. We need to see that

20:24

the Security Council is more than just

20:27

those five, that the ideas about what

20:29

can work and what can't sometimes have to come

20:31

from members that don't have the same

20:33

kind of veto power, but do

20:36

have expanded ideas about security,

20:38

about peace, about diplomacy.

20:41

And speaking about Malta, the

20:44

Maltese ambassador to the United Nations,

20:47

Vanessa Frazier, has been I think

20:49

like the star of this Security

20:51

Council session. When she speaks, when

20:53

she addresses the council, people like

20:55

stop what they're doing and actually

20:58

listen to what she's saying. She

21:00

has been just an absolute impressive

21:02

and dynamic diplomat at the council

21:04

these days. Yeah, this is

21:06

such an unusual feature of the UN

21:08

system, right, that a small state like

21:11

Malta can punch so far

21:13

above its weight in terms of

21:15

sort of diplomatic prowess, in terms of sort

21:17

of like effect on humanitarian

21:19

situations around the world. And it's

21:21

a really fascinating thing to watch

21:23

unfold in a real testimony to

21:25

how good the diplomats that so

21:27

many states send UN are. So

21:38

there's another bit of Israel related

21:40

news I think it's worth mentioning

21:42

a bit just because I think

21:44

it demonstrates this downward spiral we're

21:46

seeing at the United Nations between

21:49

Israel, the Israeli government, and the

21:51

Office of Antonyo Guterres and the

21:53

Secretariat in general. So the

21:55

background here is that every

21:57

year the UN special... representative

22:00

for children in armed conflict, writes

22:02

a report that kind of discusses

22:05

broadly how children are faring in

22:07

armed conflict around the world, whether

22:09

they're being used as child soldiers

22:11

or whether they're being targeted in

22:14

unseemly ways. It makes for a

22:16

grim reading, but it's one of

22:19

those annual reports happens every year,

22:22

but there is always a bit

22:24

of trepidation around the UN because

22:26

in addition to this report, there

22:29

is an annex to

22:31

the report that lists the

22:33

countries that the

22:35

special representative for children

22:37

in armed conflict believe

22:40

is violating laws related

22:42

to protecting children in armed conflict.

22:44

This is kind of known around

22:46

the UN as the list of

22:48

shame. Countries try their darnedest to

22:50

stay off of it. In

22:52

fact, there is this anecdote

22:54

from Ban Ki-moon's memoir in

22:57

which he recalls getting a

22:59

huge amount of pressure by

23:01

the government of Saudi Arabia

23:03

to keep its name out

23:05

of the index for actions

23:07

in relation to the

23:09

conflict in Yemen. They're basically gonna

23:11

like to spend a lot of

23:13

humanitarian funding and he admits in

23:16

his memoir to doing the politically

23:18

expedient thing and not

23:20

including Saudi Arabia in that

23:22

list, fearing that it would harm the overall good

23:24

of the organization. That's just like a anecdote

23:27

that demonstrates how much countries want off

23:29

this list. Well, needless to

23:31

say, Israel made the list this

23:33

year and things turned

23:36

very sour very quickly.

23:39

We had the Israeli ambassador to the

23:41

United Nations released a video of himself,

23:44

presumably answering the phone

23:46

to the Secretary-

23:48

General's Special Advisor and explaining

23:50

that Israel should not be on

23:52

that list according to him, right? And

23:54

that the real sort of person who

23:56

should be on this black list was

23:59

Secretary-General. I can't tell you another

24:01

thing. The only one who is

24:03

blacklisted today is the Secretary General

24:05

whose decisions since the war started

24:07

and even before are rewarding

24:10

terrorists and incentivizing them to use

24:12

children for terror acts. And now

24:14

Hamas will continue even more to

24:17

use schools and hospitals because

24:19

this decision, shameful decision of the

24:22

Secretary General will only give Hamas

24:24

hope to survive and will only

24:26

extend the war and extend the

24:28

suffering. Shame on him. And

24:32

this is the kind of thing where the

24:34

UN system has been a pretty

24:37

clear object of

24:39

the Israeli government's ire since October

24:41

of this year. It

24:43

also shows us, I think, a

24:45

little bit about the power of

24:47

these norms and values, even so.

24:50

The accusation isn't, oh, this list is

24:52

meaningless, right? Or we don't agree with

24:54

these values. The accusation is we shouldn't

24:56

be on it because we're moral. And

24:59

that's an acceptance of the underlying

25:01

value. And that sort of

25:03

shows us where the space for diplomatic

25:06

action might be, even

25:08

though the ultimate conclusion is essentially a

25:10

bit of a showboating

25:12

kind of, we don't need to be

25:14

on this list. And I

25:16

just like this incident though, of

25:19

like the Israeli ambassador filming himself

25:21

reacting to this and posting it

25:23

on Twitter. Then Steph Dujaric, the

25:25

UN spokesperson, kind of reacted strongly

25:27

to that, kind of calling out

25:30

the Israeli ambassador for posting publicly,

25:32

you know, at least his half

25:34

of this conversation. And it just

25:36

kind of demonstrates this downward spiral

25:39

of relations between Antoine Guterres and

25:41

the Israeli government. I mean, like

25:43

the Israeli government, this ambassador has

25:46

called on Secretary General to step down.

25:48

Things are not good in their relationship

25:51

at the moment. I didn't realize that

25:53

was actually a recording of his half of

25:55

the conversation. I actually thought it was a

25:57

reenactment. It looks like a reenactment,

25:59

but he's- like professing that it's like

26:01

a recording of his half. Either

26:03

way, I think it does show us something really

26:06

interesting. Just as this is a unique forum

26:08

for this kind of high political

26:11

stuff of countries talking directly to

26:13

each other, it's also a real political

26:15

theater at every level. And

26:18

you would not be the

26:20

first UN diplomat to record a video

26:22

that didn't actually happen in real

26:24

time to make a diplomatic point. So

26:28

I'm glad you brought up the

26:30

opportunity for high politics because we

26:33

saw some very high politics this

26:35

week at a Security Council meeting

26:37

on Sudan. And the meeting that

26:40

happened on Tuesday, June 18th was

26:42

about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

26:44

But that followed a Security Council

26:48

vote the week prior, in

26:50

which for the first time since

26:52

the outbreak of full scale civil

26:54

war in Sudan in April of

26:56

2023, the Security Council passed a

26:58

resolution calling in this narrow

27:01

case for a cessation of hostilities

27:03

and for a militant group,

27:05

the Rapid Support Forces, not to attack

27:07

the last major city in Darfur that

27:09

they have not yet attacked called El

27:12

Fashir. It's a city of 800,000 at

27:14

least. It's completely surrounded by this RSF

27:19

group, which just happens to

27:21

be the rebranding of

27:23

the old John Jaweed group that

27:25

carried out the Darfur genocide 20

27:27

years ago. So there is

27:30

like high expectation that if this

27:32

major city falls to the RSF,

27:34

you're going to have a really

27:36

horrible mass atrocity event. And

27:39

the Security Council voted last

27:41

week on the RSF

27:43

to not go forward with this

27:45

looming offensive. Yeah, the resolution

27:48

was basically calling for member states to

27:50

stop arming Sudanese armed actors and demanding,

27:52

as you said, the RSF halt the

27:54

siege of El Fashir. And it called

27:56

for an immediate halt to the fighting

27:58

and a de-escalation in and around

28:00

the capital city of Darfur. And

28:02

that vote was 14-0-1. So 14 votes in favor, no

28:08

votes against, one abstention, Russia.

28:11

And they followed that this week

28:13

with a sort of really contentious

28:15

meeting. Part of this meeting

28:18

today was a real

28:20

set of arguments between

28:22

the Sudanese representative to

28:25

the UN and the United Arab Emirates

28:27

representative to the UN. They were sitting

28:29

next to each other. And the back

28:31

and forth in this chamber was about

28:35

the United Arab Emirates arming of

28:37

the RSF. And

28:39

the back and forth from Sudanese

28:41

representative was essentially that the United

28:43

Arab Emirates was showing up at this

28:46

meeting despite arming the RSF.

28:49

The United Arab Emirates counter

28:51

was essentially the Sudanese government refused to

28:53

participate in the Jeddah talks that have

28:55

been ongoing to try and negotiate an

28:58

end to this conflict with varying degrees

29:00

of sort of frequency and

29:02

success and actually assembling the

29:04

parties. One thing that's

29:06

notable about the resolution last week is

29:08

that it doesn't call out any member

29:11

states by name. It doesn't specifically say,

29:13

for example, you, the United Arab Emirates,

29:15

stop arming the RSF, right? That calls

29:17

on member states to stop arming the

29:19

factions of this war. Even though we

29:22

should note there is ample evidence produced

29:24

by the UN corroborated in

29:26

media outlets or vice versa, you

29:28

know, in media outlets corroborated by

29:30

UN panel of experts that indeed,

29:32

the United Arab Emirates is arming

29:34

the rapid support forces and

29:37

backing that half of the civil

29:39

war in Sudan. They are a

29:42

partner in this conflict, not

29:44

necessarily a partner in peace.

29:47

And, you know, I think that's why you

29:49

saw just like this really awkward

29:52

exchange, frankly, between the

29:54

UAE representative and the

29:56

Sudanese representative because the

29:58

Sudanese representative, accused the

30:00

UAE, rightly so, of fueling

30:03

this conflict. The UAE

30:05

representative shot back and said, didn't

30:08

even call him the representative of

30:10

the government of Sudan, but rather

30:12

called him the representative of the

30:14

Sudanese armed forces, which is the

30:16

other belligerent of this civil war.

30:18

It's the Sudanese armed forces versus the

30:21

RSF. UAE is backing the RSF and

30:23

the UAE representative just called him the

30:25

representative of the Sudanese armed forces, implying

30:27

that indeed he is a belligerent in

30:30

this role. And frankly, he's not incorrect.

30:33

These are our two sides of a horrible civil

30:35

war. But it was just fascinating to

30:37

see that play out in the council this

30:39

week. Yeah, and usually when you get

30:41

this kind of back and forth in the council,

30:43

it's back and forth of statements

30:45

to the sort of president and then back

30:47

and forth. And you end up in these

30:50

strange stilted situations where the president will have

30:52

to say, I thank the representative from X

30:54

state for their thoughts after this screed, right?

30:57

But in this particular situation, they were sitting next

30:59

to each other. So they were turning to speak

31:01

to each other, which is unusual

31:04

opportunity for these parties to face

31:06

each other directly, which is at

31:08

odds with the kind of delicate

31:10

diplomacy a lot of people around

31:12

the UN system are doing where

31:14

they're not directly calling out the

31:16

UAE, despite, as you said, ample

31:18

evidence that the UAE is

31:20

actively involved in arming the RSF.

31:23

We saw a little hint of this afterwards,

31:25

I think during the press pool, a

31:28

reporter asked the secretary

31:30

general special representative about

31:32

the UAE's role. And he basically made

31:35

some noises and walked away, right? Because

31:37

it is not the easiest diplomatic thing

31:40

to engage in that

31:42

public call out and have

31:44

the private diplomacy work as well. And

31:47

it's notable that this conflict in

31:49

Sudan erupted in April, 2023, but

31:51

it's not till now that we

31:54

have any actual security council action

31:56

on it. And I think that's

31:58

at least a consequence. of the

32:00

fact that up until January 1st

32:02

of this year, the UAE was

32:05

a member of the Security Council.

32:07

Yeah. And they're like a

32:09

very effective diplomats. And frankly, the US

32:11

needed the UAE and the West needed

32:14

the UAE to help them on the

32:16

Gaza portfolio. And

32:18

Sudan, I think, fell by

32:20

the wayside. But now UAE

32:22

is off. The situation in

32:24

Sudan is deteriorating mightily. And

32:27

so we saw this resolution penned

32:29

by the British to

32:32

essentially call for expanded

32:34

humanitarian aid. And it

32:36

should be noted that the government of

32:38

Sudan or the Sudanese armed forces are

32:41

blocking a key aid route from Chad

32:43

into Darfur, just as their

32:45

opponents in this horrible civil war

32:47

are committing all sorts of mass

32:49

atrocities. There's no good guys here.

32:52

In terms of going back to this

32:54

idea that these Security Council resolutions don't

32:56

enforce themselves, it doesn't

32:59

seem clear that the Rapid Support

33:01

Forces, the RSF, are in fact

33:03

relenting on their assault on this

33:05

major city of al-Fashir. Yeah,

33:08

it doesn't. And in theory, right,

33:10

Security Council resolutions are binding. When

33:12

you sign up to the UN

33:15

system, you agree to enforce the

33:17

resolutions of the UN Security Council.

33:20

You treat them as though they have the force of international

33:22

law. Now international lawyers tend

33:24

to yell at me when I say

33:26

this, right? But it is true that

33:29

international law, its enforcement depends on the

33:31

willingness of state parties. So

33:33

it only exists insofar as state parties

33:35

are willing to enforce it. And

33:38

in that sense, because all

33:40

international legal obligations are voluntarily

33:42

adopted, all Security

33:44

Council resolutions are voluntarily enforced. You

33:47

have to be willing to step up

33:49

and actually enforce the resolution that this

33:52

15-member council agreed on, whether

33:54

you are a permanent member or whether

33:56

you are another member of the UN

33:59

system. So in this particular case, right,

34:01

the resolution doesn't enforce itself. It depends,

34:03

for example, on the United Emirates deciding

34:05

to stop the flow of arms, the

34:08

RSF. It depends on the sort

34:10

of partners of these armed

34:12

actors pressuring these parties

34:15

to step up and to protect the

34:18

civilians of Sudan

34:20

who are paying the cost

34:22

for this war overwhelmingly, right,

34:25

more than any other place they're living

34:27

in situations that are

34:29

not getting the amount of attention they need

34:31

commensurate to the humanitarian disaster that they are facing.

34:34

And I suspect that Sudan will

34:36

be an issue that we revisit

34:38

often on this new show for

34:41

the fact that it is a rapidly

34:44

deteriorating humanitarian crisis

34:47

on the brink of one of the

34:49

worst famines the world has seen since

34:52

Ethiopia in the

34:54

1980s. It's really that bad,

34:57

and it's getting worse. And

35:00

on top of it, all the

35:02

United Nations official who is most

35:05

responsible for coordinating humanitarian relief in

35:07

and around the world, including Sudan,

35:10

is leaving at the end of

35:12

the month. Martin Griffiths is stepping

35:14

down as the Undersecretary General for

35:17

Humanitarian Affairs and the Emergency Relief

35:19

Coordinator. It's kind of two titles

35:21

for the same person. He's stepping

35:24

down for health reasons. He said

35:26

earlier, and it's been reported that

35:28

he's been suffering from long COVID,

35:31

and he, after about three and a

35:34

half years on the job, is leaving

35:36

at the end of June. And

35:38

as part of his departure, this week,

35:41

Martin Griffiths penned an op-ed in the

35:43

New York Times giving a rather grim

35:46

overview of the state of humanitarian

35:49

affairs around the world. Yeah,

35:51

his op-ed says, you know, in his entire

35:53

career working on humanitarian affairs, he's never faced

35:55

worse situation than he sees around the world

35:57

today. And his op-ed It

36:01

places the blame on leaders for this.

36:03

And it says, the ultimate failure is

36:05

a failure of leaders to their people.

36:08

Just to sort of quote a little bit

36:10

from the piece, he tells us

36:13

that precisely the situation we see around the

36:15

world right now with all of these global

36:17

humanitarian crises, he says, this is precisely the

36:19

situation that the modern global order created

36:22

in the aftermath of World War II and embodied

36:24

with heartfelt ambition the United Nations Charter was meant

36:26

to prevent. The suffering of millions of

36:28

people is clear evidence that we're failing, he says. But

36:31

he says he doesn't believe this failure at heart lies

36:33

with the UN because he says

36:35

the body is only as good as the commitment,

36:37

effort and resources that its members put in. For

36:40

me, this is a failure of world leaders,

36:43

he says. They are failing humanity by breaking

36:45

the compact between ordinary people and

36:47

those whom power is vested. I

36:50

mean, on the humanitarian front, the

36:52

UN is only as effective as

36:54

the resources at its

36:57

disposal, both financial humanitarian goods

36:59

and also political resources, the

37:02

ability to cross

37:04

battle lines or enter certain

37:06

territories with humanitarian aid. And

37:10

to me, the departure

37:12

of Martin Griffiths and speculation

37:14

over who might replace him

37:17

is of such consequence at the

37:20

United Nations because I mean,

37:22

these days, the

37:24

Under Secretary General for Humanitarian

37:26

Affairs, in my mind, is

37:28

arguably the second most important

37:31

person in the United Nations

37:33

system behind the Secretary General

37:35

himself. I think

37:37

it's just for the fact

37:39

that the ability of the

37:42

United Nations to prevent conflicts

37:44

and to manage conflicts has

37:46

been muted as geopolitical tensions

37:48

rise. So as a consequence,

37:50

the UN is being turned to increasingly

37:52

to look after

37:54

the fallout of these conflicts,

37:56

which is humanitarian crises and

37:59

humanitarian disasters. And it is

38:02

up to the top UN

38:04

humanitarian official to coordinate responses

38:07

not only from across the UN system,

38:09

but across NGOs, things like Save the

38:12

Children and Oxfam. They all kind of

38:14

work with the Office of

38:16

the Under Secretary General for

38:18

Humanitarian Affairs to coordinate the

38:20

responses to these crises around

38:22

the world. So this person,

38:25

this position is really significant

38:27

in the UN system. Yeah,

38:29

absolutely. You know, we started out talking

38:31

about how the political space for things

38:33

like mediation in conflicts

38:36

shrinks as geopolitical

38:38

tensions between the P5 rise. But

38:41

as that geopolitical space shrinks, as

38:43

the diplomatic space shrinks, it doesn't

38:45

shrink the fact that the UN

38:48

remains the only organization that at

38:50

scale can tackle some of

38:52

these humanitarian disasters and serve this coordinating

38:55

function. This is particularly the

38:57

case because we live in a world where

39:00

civil wars are lasting longer with

39:02

fewer negotiated settlements and more cost

39:04

to civilians. That's something we

39:06

see international relations scholarship

39:08

telling us, right? Volker Turk yesterday

39:10

at the opening of the 56th

39:13

annual session of the UN

39:15

Human Rights Council noted

39:17

that international humanitarian law and human

39:20

rights norms are in decline worldwide

39:22

in wars, right? With around the

39:24

world as seeing civilians paying the

39:27

blood cost for war in

39:29

ways that are prohibited under international law and

39:31

ways that are prohibited by the resolutions of

39:34

the UN Security Council, right? In ways that

39:36

states sign on to preventing

39:38

when they sign on to the UN Charter. And

39:40

in the face of that, the UN humanitarian work

39:42

becomes increasingly important. It becomes

39:45

the organization's biggest, most

39:47

visible and most vital role

39:50

for people living worldwide. It's like the

39:52

most impactful thing the UN does these

39:54

days. Yeah. And I think that's why

39:56

there is so much focus and attention

39:58

on the race. to replace him. Yeah,

40:01

we used to say that peacekeeping

40:03

was the signature activity of the

40:05

United Nations system, right? But we're

40:07

now 10 years from the last

40:09

authorization of a new peacekeeping mission.

40:11

And we can see in that

40:13

sort of decline of political resolutions

40:15

to conflict. And in

40:18

the face of that, what we see is

40:20

humanitarian action becoming the signature activity of

40:22

the UN system. Yeah, if you were to ask

40:25

me 10 years ago, who the second most

40:27

important figure in the UN system would be,

40:29

I'd say, maybe the head of what was

40:31

then called the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Yeah.

40:34

Now, no longer. Yeah. Can you just explain

40:36

to listeners and frankly, walk me through what

40:38

is the actual process or procedure in

40:41

selecting these top posts? The

40:44

selection process is not at all transparent. So

40:46

that's why I don't know it. Yeah, it's necessarily, it's

40:48

not, maybe not necessarily opaque, but it

40:50

is opaque. So this position was established

40:52

in 1991. It's

40:54

a comparatively new position on the

40:57

scale of UN positions, but it

40:59

is one of the big

41:01

positions that was traditionally reserved for one

41:04

of the permanent five members of the Security

41:06

Council. In a sort of

41:08

big political grand bargain that characterizes all

41:10

the different parts of the UN system,

41:12

the Secretary General is never a member

41:14

of a P5 nation. But

41:16

as a trade off, right? Each

41:18

of the P5 gets one of

41:20

the big offices for one

41:23

of their own nationals. And

41:25

in the last couple of cycles, this

41:27

office has gone to a British national. This

41:31

idea of the office is being reserved

41:33

for a member of the P5 is

41:35

one that has gotten a lot of

41:37

backlash around the world from countries

41:40

in the global South, from countries

41:42

who are the recipients of humanitarian aid, in

41:45

part because the overall move of

41:48

the UN system, especially under Antonio

41:50

Guterres, has been about thinking

41:52

about local solutions to problems. And

41:55

it's very hard to adopt a local

41:57

set of solutions to problems, people say.

42:00

if the sort of lead

42:02

actor on this stage is a

42:05

British man, is

42:07

highlighting a sort of colonial dynamic

42:10

that can look and

42:12

be incredibly problematic. The

42:14

flip side of that, of course, is that

42:17

it's a way of investing the P5 in

42:19

the process of humanitarian aid. And it's a

42:21

way of putting in that position someone who

42:23

can rally the richest governments in the world

42:25

to try and contribute to the cause. And

42:28

so there are real trade-offs when we think

42:30

about what this informal system of reservation for

42:32

the P5 does, and how

42:34

the lack of transparency and how this person

42:37

is selected enables the secretary general to essentially

42:39

play up what they think are going to

42:41

be the most politically and operationally salient features

42:43

of the job. So

42:46

since 2004 or

42:48

2005, I can't remember which one. It was

42:50

right around when I started covering the UN. Every

42:54

lead humanitarian official, every undersecretary general for

42:56

humanitarian affairs has been British. Not only

42:58

have they been British, but they've kind

43:00

of been like the same type of

43:02

Brit. They've all kind

43:05

of been just very competent,

43:07

skilled diplomats who rose through

43:09

the ranks of either the

43:12

British Diplomatic Corps or British

43:14

government or UN system

43:16

by dint of their competence

43:19

and by dint of their ability

43:21

to get things done. They've

43:24

not been like household names, right? They've

43:26

not been anyone that if you're outside

43:28

the bubble, you've ever heard of in

43:31

any other context. I just

43:33

wonder if that's like part of the problem. One

43:35

of the key challenges facing UN

43:38

humanitarian issues, and I put this

43:40

question to Jan Egeland as well,

43:43

is the fact that the

43:45

requirements for paying for

43:48

humanitarian relief and disaster

43:50

recovery around the world

43:53

are astronomical and only getting bigger

43:55

as climate change takes hold and

43:57

as conflicts last longer. the

44:00

money available to pay

44:02

for all that humanitarian assistance

44:04

is getting scarcer and scarcer.

44:07

So I just wonder if

44:09

instead of like having a

44:11

very competent, skilled humanitarian operator

44:13

and skilled diplomat, you need

44:15

someone whose primary skill set

44:17

is fundraising and being like

44:19

a more prominent political face

44:21

of the UN. It's

44:24

interesting because another way we could think

44:26

about that, right? Is to think about

44:28

the role that a politically visible person

44:30

might play for fundraising. So if we

44:32

take, for example, the office of the

44:34

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that

44:38

person has historically been

44:40

someone with a little bit more visibility or

44:42

someone who heads of state traditionally

44:44

recognize as being someone on par

44:47

with the UN secretary general. So

44:49

Michelle Bachelet is the classic case of

44:51

this, right? Former head of state, someone

44:53

with household recognition around the world.

44:56

Mary Robinson as well, Ireland's

44:58

former president. Yeah. Prince

45:00

Yod, right? Yeah. Prince Zaid Radol

45:02

Hussein, who is a very senior

45:04

Jordanian diplomat member of the Jordanian

45:07

royal family. Everyone knew

45:09

him. And now you

45:11

mentioned him earlier, it's Volker Turk, but I've

45:13

never heard of. Well, so he's

45:15

done remarkable work around the UN for years,

45:17

but he's not a household name, right? Exactly.

45:20

And it is the kind of

45:22

thing where if we're thinking

45:24

about what might balance the political

45:26

role, you know, Martin Griffiths talks

45:28

at length about in his op-ed,

45:30

but also, you know, in other

45:32

interviews he's given over the years

45:34

about the importance of humanitarian mediation,

45:36

how mediation, this political dimension of

45:38

humanitarian aid and access is actually

45:40

key to success. And

45:43

in that sense, someone with

45:45

a more visible profile might

45:47

serve the function of drawing

45:49

attention to this job, also

45:52

perhaps being able to rally countries to

45:54

fundraise for it, because I think the

45:56

danger in looking for someone who's just

45:58

good at fundraising might be

46:00

that fundraising is a skill that

46:03

as organizations everywhere know

46:05

is not immediately transferable

46:07

from charisma or from

46:10

political savviness or from deep

46:13

operational knowledge. And this

46:15

position needs someone who can do all of these

46:17

things. In part because

46:20

we said just a second ago that

46:22

peacekeeping used to be the signature activity

46:24

of the UN system. The peacekeeping budget

46:26

is separate from the UN's operating budget.

46:29

It is a dedicated separate budget that used

46:31

to be larger than the UN's

46:33

general operating budget. In some years it

46:35

was almost twice the UN's entire operating

46:38

budget. It was still enormously small. At

46:40

the peak I think they were running

46:42

16 operations on one half,

46:44

one tenth of all global defense spending.

46:46

It was like a rubber band level

46:49

budget still. It's like where the Pentagon loses in its

46:51

couch cushions in any given year. Like

46:54

you sneeze and you lose that at the Pentagon. But

46:56

that was a dedicated

46:58

large budget that was separate from

47:00

the UN's budget that didn't rely

47:03

on sort of like circulating

47:06

the offering bowl

47:08

every time there was a crisis

47:10

around the world. And so thinking

47:13

about like how to offset increased

47:15

humanitarian need in a world

47:17

of decreased willingness to sort of invest

47:19

in multilateral organizations. I think it's a

47:22

critical way to think about what kind

47:24

of skill set this next leader might

47:26

need to have. It hearkens

47:28

back to the decision to put a former

47:30

head of state at the helm of the

47:32

UN or a former head of state at

47:34

the helm of the United Nations High Commission for

47:37

Human Rights. So how

47:39

would you like assess Griffith's record

47:41

as Under Secretary General

47:43

for Humanitarian Affairs? I mean

47:45

to me at least the

47:47

signature accomplishment in his tenure

47:50

was the Black Sea Grain

47:52

Initiative which permitted the export

47:55

of Ukrainian grain from

47:57

the Black Sea ports that you.

48:00

Ukraine occupied, but a lot of

48:02

the Ukrainian territorial waters around which

48:04

were patrolled by Russian military. So

48:06

there was this complex arrangement in

48:09

which Ukrainian goods

48:11

and grain would be sent to Turkey

48:14

where it would be inspected and then sent

48:16

on to the rest of the

48:18

world. And if you

48:21

remember at the time, this

48:23

came in the midst of

48:25

real spiking food costs around

48:27

the world and a real

48:29

deep concern that Ukraine, which

48:31

was a global breadbasket, would

48:33

be unable to supply

48:35

food, particularly to the developing

48:38

South, which relied and required

48:40

Ukrainian food. So

48:43

this worked. It was a

48:45

huge accomplishment. And it's

48:47

one that really relies on

48:49

extensive, deep, quiet diplomacy over

48:52

many months. The key piece on this

48:54

is from last year, a column Lynn

48:56

Chedd piece in DevEx that went through

48:58

the deep negotiations that went into the

49:00

Black Sea Grain Initiative. One

49:03

key connection here was Martin Griffith's connection

49:06

with the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue in

49:08

Geneva, which does a lot of the

49:10

initial backdoor negotiation.

49:13

And it's a dynamic that we should

49:15

see a lot in situations where the

49:17

Security Council won't act because one of

49:19

the permanent members is a key party

49:21

to the conflict or a key stumbling

49:23

block to action, which is

49:25

that some group of diplomats did

49:28

a ton of negotiation very quietly outside

49:30

the umbrella of the UN. And

49:33

once it was clear that that

49:35

sort of diplomacy would take root,

49:38

then the UN could attach its political capital

49:41

and its sort of umbrella of credibility

49:43

to the negotiations without necessarily

49:45

paying the political cost upfront

49:47

for initiating the dialogue. And

49:50

if at that point that dialogue didn't work, the

49:52

UN wouldn't pay the cost for that. And

49:55

that's something we know from watching him for the

49:57

last couple of years that Antonio Gutierrez is very

49:59

sensitive to. doesn't like paying political

50:01

costs for engaging in risky negotiations.

50:03

And so something that we really

50:05

see from Martin Griffith's particular skill

50:07

set, I think, is the

50:09

ability to engage in that kind of

50:12

quiet humanitarian diplomacy with other kinds of

50:14

parties and then to attach the sort

50:16

of credibility of the UN to it.

50:19

There's just like a coda to the Black Sea

50:21

Grant initiative that's worth mentioning, which is that it

50:23

died after a year. Russia pulled

50:25

out of it, but incidentally,

50:27

the impact on global food

50:29

prices of Russia's decision

50:31

to pull out of the agreement

50:33

was not huge for the fact

50:36

that by the time that Russia

50:39

pulled out, Ukraine had

50:41

already secured militarily through

50:43

victories on the ground

50:45

a sea corridor for which it could

50:47

export Ukrainian grain without

50:49

having to negotiate with Russia.

50:51

So Martin Griffiths did buy

50:53

global food markets enough

50:56

time in order for that sea corridor

50:58

to be established. And I think, you

51:00

know, not every deal is going

51:02

to be a long-term success, but

51:04

part of the effort of a humanitarian

51:07

coordinator is trying to secure deals

51:09

even when they might fail because

51:12

the short-term gain is

51:14

worth it for people who are living

51:16

under crisis. Next

51:24

up, Mark interviews Jan Egland, Secretary General

51:26

of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Jan

51:42

Egland, thanks so much for joining me. Thank

51:44

you. I want to

51:46

kick off just by talking about

51:48

the position of Under Secretary General

51:51

for Humanitarian Fairs. But before

51:53

we get there, why do you

51:55

think that you were the last

51:57

non-British national to serve in that

51:59

region? all. Because

52:02

there has been a tradition

52:04

in the United Nations actually

52:06

ever since the first Secretary

52:08

General, which was in Norwegian

52:10

by the way in 1946,

52:12

that the permanent five

52:16

nations in the Security Council would

52:19

not have the Secretary General, but

52:21

they would be having at

52:23

least one Under

52:25

Secretary General in

52:27

a key position in the

52:29

Secretariat so-called surrounding the Secretary

52:31

General of the UN. So

52:34

it's been mostly Frenchmen

52:36

having peacekeeping, the Americans

52:38

had administration, which is

52:41

also the purse, and

52:43

limiting the cost, the

52:46

Brits had the political Under

52:48

Secretary General, the Russians often

52:50

had the director for all

52:53

operations in Geneva, and the

52:55

Chinese had the General Assembly

52:58

here for example. Then there was

53:00

a shift under Ban Ki-moon

53:03

and the US wanted another

53:05

position, they got the

53:08

political post, and then the Brits

53:10

wanted to have the humanitarian post,

53:12

which had gotten a high profile

53:15

in my time as a humanitarian

53:17

Under Secretary General, and since that

53:19

time it's always been a Brit.

53:23

I don't like this tradition of P5

53:25

having the unique

53:28

privilege of having

53:31

certain posts without the

53:33

world being able to compete for

53:36

these posts. Yeah, I mean it

53:38

seems to limit the number of

53:40

candidates, not to knock any prior

53:42

Brit who served in the post,

53:44

but when you're only choosing amongst

53:46

our country, the quality of candidates

53:48

from which you can choose is

53:50

necessarily limited. And that means you

53:53

cannot then get perhaps a

53:55

fresh non-Western view or a

53:57

fresh Southern view on that.

53:59

John? But of course,

54:01

Britain, thank God, has been

54:03

an important humanitarian actor, and

54:06

they do follow humanitarian principles,

54:08

so my successes were all

54:11

good, but the principle of

54:14

having hegemony for certain posts

54:16

is wrong. So in your

54:19

experience, what qualities make for

54:21

a successful humanitarian affairs coordinator?

54:23

I think you have

54:26

to be a courageous diplomat and

54:28

advocate for people in great need.

54:30

Well, I remember having covered the

54:32

United Nations when you were the

54:34

Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs,

54:36

you got in a bit of

54:38

trouble for your outspokenness following the

54:40

Indian Ocean tsunami. You sort of

54:42

dinged the Western world and the

54:45

United States in general for being

54:47

stingy following that massive disaster, and

54:49

President Bush himself came down hard

54:51

on you. I think that was

54:53

a slight misunderstanding because the Americans

54:55

interpreted the rich world as the

54:57

United States, which it

54:59

would be Norway having a higher

55:01

per capita income or the Gulf countries

55:03

or any Western countries. So you're really

55:05

talking about Norway, I see. But I

55:07

mean, it just shows that my

55:10

press conferences at the time were

55:12

really listened to. I

55:14

remember the President Bashir of

55:16

the Sudan, President Mugabe of

55:19

Zimbabwe, President Bagbo of Ivory

55:21

Coast at the time, Museveni

55:23

in Uganda, they all attacked

55:26

me for my outspokenness

55:28

on suffering in the

55:31

countries. And I

55:33

was proud to have a Secretary General

55:35

Kofi Annan that defended my right

55:37

to call a spade a spade. So

55:40

I think that using the pulpit

55:43

of the United Nations on behalf

55:45

of the big trodden, those

55:48

who are abused by

55:50

armed violence and of

55:52

neglect, that is one

55:55

important quality. And another one is to

55:58

really be a leader also. for

56:00

proactive action and immediate action

56:02

and get a diverse

56:05

humanitarian system to march in

56:07

the same direction is

56:09

important. Do you see

56:11

there to be tension between being

56:14

an active and outspoken advocate

56:16

on the behalf of the betrodden

56:18

as you say it, and also

56:20

on the other hand the need

56:22

to do the kind of quiet

56:24

humanitarian diplomacy necessary to do things

56:26

like securing humanitarian corridors in wartime?

56:28

You don't necessarily want to call

56:30

out malicious actors when you as

56:32

a humanitarian are trying to work

56:35

with these very malicious actors to

56:37

get to populations in need. Yeah,

56:39

I mean you need to do

56:42

things that are not counterproductive for

56:44

the people whom you represent

56:47

them, speak for, but

56:49

it's two different things. I mean the emergency

56:51

relief coordinator, as the position is called, is

56:53

not the one sitting down to speak to

56:56

the colonels in rebel

56:58

armies or in government armies

57:00

for that matter. That

57:02

is the local national

57:05

representatives of humanitarian

57:07

organizations doing. In many

57:09

cases it could be the International Red Committee of

57:11

the Red Cross for that matter, which

57:14

means that I think the main importance

57:16

here of the position is to go

57:19

to the Security Council, to go to

57:21

world media, to go to heads of

57:23

state and say the way

57:25

it is now it cannot continue. Your

57:28

site is killing

57:31

as many civilians as

57:33

any of the on the other side.

57:35

Stop it really. It's a little bit

57:37

like in Gaza now. I

57:39

mean what Hamas did on the

57:41

7th of October had nothing

57:43

to do with resistance or

57:46

of occupation or anything. It

57:48

was massacring innocent Israelis,

57:51

but the totally indiscriminate

57:54

military campaign that was actually

57:57

done with indiscriminate American arms.

58:00

on civilians in Gaza

58:02

is equally condemnable. So

58:05

this is the kind of a language I

58:07

think one has to have in

58:09

place of the place so

58:11

that there is no doubt about

58:14

what's really happening. And you have

58:16

seen Martin Griffiths indeed do that

58:18

over the course of the last

58:21

several months, issue very strong, condemnatory

58:23

language. You know, I think

58:26

of Martin Griffiths and I think of you and

58:28

I think of Mark Locock and Valerie Amos and

58:30

all those who have served in this role over

58:32

the last couple of decades as

58:34

being high level, very competent

58:37

diplomats who do the things

58:39

that you just said, who

58:41

are able to articulate condemnations,

58:43

who are able to coordinate

58:46

the humanitarian provisions throughout the

58:48

UN system. One

58:50

thing though that I think has been also

58:53

perhaps the downside of the fact that you

58:56

all have been very competent operators

58:58

and diplomats is that there's been

59:00

very paltry fundraising compared to the

59:02

need. The humanitarian gaps have always

59:04

been profound. And I do wonder

59:06

as we're facing this just ever

59:09

increasing gap between what is appealed

59:11

for and what is contributed if

59:13

like a different kind of person

59:15

might ought to be undersecretary for

59:17

humanitarian affairs, someone who's just like

59:19

a pro-digits fundraiser instead of a

59:21

prejudice diplomat. Perhaps I don't

59:24

think one person is going

59:27

to convince the

59:30

growing economies in Asia and

59:32

for that matter in

59:35

the Gulf to become

59:37

as predictable donors as the

59:39

Scandinavians have been for

59:41

40 years. I think that has

59:44

to be the member

59:46

states working in

59:48

between themselves. I've been many

59:51

times going to Gulf countries, I've

59:53

gone to Asian countries, I've been

59:55

going to these growing economies and

59:57

trying to encourage them to be.

1:00:00

as much in solidarity with Burkina

1:00:02

Faso as my own country has

1:00:04

been for 40 years. We were

1:00:07

giving 1%

1:00:09

of a gross national income when

1:00:12

we were much poorer than several

1:00:15

of the ASEAN countries in the

1:00:17

Southeast Asia, for example. But there

1:00:19

isn't that kind of a tradition.

1:00:21

And I wonder

1:00:23

if there are other mechanisms also

1:00:25

to get the private sector more

1:00:27

involved in providing funding. In our

1:00:30

report from NRC, we pointed to

1:00:32

the fact that 5% of

1:00:36

the profit of

1:00:39

the five largest multilateral

1:00:41

private corporations would

1:00:43

more than cover all humanitarian

1:00:46

needs in the world of

1:00:49

neglect. So lastly, at time

1:00:51

of recording, we don't yet know who

1:00:53

will replace Martin Griffiths as the next

1:00:55

Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs. What advice

1:00:57

would you give that person as he

1:01:00

or she takes up the new job?

1:01:03

My advice would be to

1:01:05

listen to a very competent

1:01:08

staff that you have around the

1:01:10

world and perhaps say

1:01:12

which are the places where

1:01:15

we are failing the most today.

1:01:17

I did that myself when I

1:01:19

took the job in 2003 and

1:01:21

asked which is the place

1:01:24

on earth which were really failing. And

1:01:26

to my surprise, they said northern Uganda

1:01:28

where the Lord's Resistance Army, as it was

1:01:31

called, created havoc. And I didn't even

1:01:33

know there was this havoc there. So

1:01:35

that was one of my first

1:01:37

trips. And I called

1:01:39

it the biggest forgotten emergency on

1:01:42

earth. And we were able to

1:01:44

reboot and strengthen operations there. So

1:01:47

focus on neglect, try to

1:01:49

get new donors on board and

1:01:51

be courageous and don't have

1:01:53

any of the great powers

1:01:56

power you because you speak on behalf

1:01:58

of people in need. Well,

1:02:00

Jan, thank you again so much for your time.

1:02:03

Thank you. Thank

1:02:07

you for having

1:02:09

me. So,

1:02:22

Mark, that was super interesting. And

1:02:24

I am really curious to know

1:02:26

what you think the possibility of

1:02:29

there actually being a non-British humanitarian

1:02:31

coordinator is, as Jan and

1:02:34

Gwyn mentioned. It's

1:02:36

like, because as you noted, this process

1:02:38

is so opaque, it's really hard to

1:02:40

make any sort

1:02:42

of educated guess here. I mean, it

1:02:45

would seem probably it'll be a

1:02:47

Brit just because it has been

1:02:49

and there is some expectation that

1:02:52

will be. But there's also like

1:02:54

a good deal of civil society

1:02:56

pressure. And frankly, Guterres, to his

1:02:58

credit, has been responsive to civil

1:03:00

society pressure over the course

1:03:02

of his term against

1:03:04

having a Brit, even from groups like

1:03:06

the United Nations Association of the United

1:03:08

Kingdom. I mean, they have like this

1:03:10

petition out, like, you know, don't ring

1:03:13

fence the Ocha chief

1:03:15

position for a Brit.

1:03:17

Open it up to everyone. Yeah.

1:03:20

Another really interesting thing I thought he

1:03:22

brought up was this idea that under

1:03:24

Kofi Anand, he was empowered to call

1:03:26

out heads of state as

1:03:29

the coordinator. And he got in trouble. Oh,

1:03:31

man, he got in trouble with George

1:03:33

Bush. Who didn't? Yeah. I

1:03:36

mean, like, he kind of mentions

1:03:38

this in passing, but, you know,

1:03:40

so like in the wake of

1:03:42

the Indian Ocean tsunami, which people

1:03:45

like forget now, but it was

1:03:47

like a horrible, horrible humanitarian disaster

1:03:49

and impacted dozens of countries around

1:03:51

the world. You know, he

1:03:53

kind of called out or was in

1:03:55

his view interpreted to call out the

1:03:57

Bush administration for its stinginess and respect.

1:04:00

bonds and George Bush himself

1:04:02

like mentioned Jan Eagle and didn't kind of

1:04:04

dressed him down and it's just like so

1:04:06

odd for the President of

1:04:08

the United States to single out like

1:04:11

someone of the Jan Eagle and level like

1:04:13

the head of the humanitarian affairs, which is

1:04:15

not like the top position, you'd expect maybe

1:04:17

he dressed down like the Secretary General but

1:04:19

not like the OCHA chief. And

1:04:22

that was just like a really weird power dynamic

1:04:24

that happened at the time. I

1:04:26

love that even now he's like, who said I was

1:04:28

talking about him. I was talking about Norway. If

1:04:32

you think I'm talking about you when I say rich people

1:04:34

are stingy. I gotta say

1:04:37

I've interviewed Jan Eagle in a few times

1:04:39

now. And he's like very direct.

1:04:42

And I do appreciate that he's not

1:04:44

like one of those dissembling diplomats. Do

1:04:47

you know the Jan Eagle in song? I

1:04:49

have heard told of its legend. So

1:04:54

listeners may be aware of this group. I

1:04:56

don't even know how to pronounce their name.

1:04:59

wildvis or illvis. It's basically Elvis with a

1:05:02

Y. They are most famous for

1:05:04

the viral video. What does the

1:05:06

Fox say, which has like 1.1

1:05:08

billion YouTube

1:05:10

views, but they have a

1:05:12

lesser known hint called

1:05:14

Jan Eagle and about Jan Eagle and are

1:05:16

not really about Jan Eagle and about a

1:05:18

fictionalized version of young Eagle and who plays

1:05:20

the role of like a 1980s action star,

1:05:23

defending human rights and supporting

1:05:25

the United Nations around the

1:05:27

world. The chorus is Jan

1:05:29

Eagle and United Nations superhero

1:05:31

man. It's a brilliant

1:05:34

pain to a international civil

1:05:36

servant. There are so few of those that

1:05:38

we have to celebrate the ones we have. He's

1:06:00

got boxing muscles in the night And

1:06:03

he says, boy, I think you're

1:06:05

ready To protect

1:06:07

some human rights When

1:06:10

this war and all is held Bring

1:06:14

in to eagle land Put

1:06:17

in your nice and nice

1:06:19

young super He won't win

1:06:30

Thank you for listening to To

1:06:33

Save Us From Hell The show is co-hosted by me, Mark

1:06:35

Leon Goldberg, and Anjali Dayal It

1:06:38

is edited and mixed by Levi Sharpe Our

1:06:43

cover art is by Sarah DiMichele If

1:06:46

you've not already done so, please subscribe

1:06:48

to our show via substack at globaldispatches.org

1:06:50

We are sustaining this show by selling

1:06:53

subscriptions to it via substack You

1:06:56

can get a discounted subscription by going

1:06:58

to globaldispatches.org You can

1:07:00

follow the link in the show notes as well

1:07:04

And finally, if you'd like to discuss this

1:07:06

episode with us, please visit globaldispatches.org And

1:07:10

click on chat, where we'll be around to

1:07:12

discuss what we discussed in this episode Thanks

1:07:15

and be sure to tell friends and

1:07:17

colleagues about To Save Us

1:07:19

From Hell, a new podcast about

1:07:21

the world of global dispatches And more

1:07:23

on the world of global dispatches