UN security council couldnt even stop the US attacking Iraq, I just dont know what do you expect from it. It has always been a means for stronger countries to impose their will on the weaker countries.
@@eksiarvamus BULLS#!# Global protests erupted before the Iraqi invasion. In the United States, those that questioned the intelligence and legality were disparaged and labeled as "Anti-American" and even "Pro-Terrorist". Remember FREEDOM FRIES????
@@victoremmanuel_ not as useless. Thanks to them, we beated smallpox, and covid as well (shout out to the WHO). They even offer humanitarian aid to people, especially in Africa. Although, I wish they are more effective in their peacekeeping missions.
Yeah,Big and Powerful Non Member Countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil who actually could do something about this are all allies of Permanent Members. And they won't tarnish they're relationship for a useless seat
The big five veto exists because these are major powers with the capacity to ignore the UN and in essence, make the UN pointless. For example if the UN wants to investigate US for war crimes over 2003, the US can just say "make me". That's a *real* veto. The one at the council is symbolic. China first showed this back during the Korean War when they had no veto, and still fought the entire UN army to a standstill.
I agree with many that the 5 permanent Veto power needs to address. The Security Council needs a restructuring and a counter-veto system. It is tough for the Secretary-General hold criticism primarily because it is Security Council that put him in that position.
I really liked the interviewer; he was asking the right questions, placing significance on the really urging matters without crossing the line into confrontational! Would love to see more!
We urgently need a global citizen assembly with decision right, leaders in most countries care very little about the common people, our urgent calls for peace, prosperity for all, fairness of wealth distribution, removal of poverty, ethical economies, equality and sensible upkeep of our environment. I think we people can work together but our leaders have forgotten how to they are to drawn into narcissistic power hunger.
If that happend people from each contry would just feel like they are taken advantage of and the world would became even more nationalist. People want to help the world if themselves don't loose anything.
@@paulgotik what is your proof for that ? Have we actually even tried it or just assume again that things will be bad or difficult because we tell ourselves this all the time or maybe because others tells us it has to be this way?
@@NJ-xp4eb I didn't try it I don't have power over the world. This is what has happend and it's happening right now. If someone says:" We will put some of the taxes we take from the people and use it to better countries who are developing right now instead of using that money to invest in our own contry there's not a single contry in the world who would agree with this." People always want a better life for themselves above helping others, that's human nature that's how we survive.
@@paulgotik I understand your way of thinking however distribution of wealth does not necessarily mean taking taxes from one country and give them to another it means everybody gets a fair chance to prosper. Also if we start eliminating all these senseless wars and find a way to create more environmentally friendly economic principles for a start we eliminate a huge chunk of the current refugee crisis. You have as much right and power to change the world for the better than anybody else.
The UN like the League of Nations should be dissolved and replaced , it is outdated , ineffective , and very expensive . Since WW@ it has been ineffective in almost all its actions , and in many cases has created more problems than it has resolved
Thank you for the video. On a production level, why is the image quality so low? A suggestion, you don't have to capture and use the zoom / skype footage. You could set up any phone from the last three years and use its camera, either as a primary one or just recording alongside the interview. This is not live and there is no excuse for the poor quality.
I agree. There are so many issues and concerns that the UN must fix for the sake of humanity, democracy, peace, development, and so on. If not, what other organization will all countries unite for a better future of all people for the betterment of the world, the environment, and more?
The questions asked were great. But why does the success of the U.N. hinge on the participation of the U.S.? There are other countries with better democracies at this point. What I'm grappling with is the inherited power of top countries based on military might. Why not other countries with more success in trade, infrastructure, health, education, etc.? Seems like a better model to me.
Too optimistic. I think everyone would prefer your proposal but the UN doesn't have that much weight if it is at odds with the greater powers. In my opinion the UN is majorly flawed as a security mechanism but as a charity it is doing great. The UN is basically ignored by major powers and these powers can use it to their advantage.
try looking at fundamentals, or maybe if you do your own research and not watch CNN everyday, you'll realize the U.S contributes more than half the U.N,NATO combined, without the U.S funding these coalitions they would fall faster than a house of cards, its a charity bank for europe and asia
How did the interviewers not directly question him on the veto, which is clearly the biggest problem in the UN? This is the reason why more people aren't taking the UN or The Economist seriously
Vito powers were established and granted around the same time the UN was created, none of the States with veto privileges are ever going to give them up. What exactly is questioning him about the Veto going to achieve. He has no power over the veto.
This video served as an insightful discussion between very capable individuals. Most of all I enjoyed the very eloquent words of the Secretary General on the current power struggle amongst the three current super powers. My concern and the subject of my question involves the bargaining position of the United Nations in the current Security Council. Does the UN serve as a solely diplomatic and nonpartisan entity and if so, how is any result agreed upon and enforced given the sovereignty of the parties involved? I doubt the fact that without real bargaining power that the UN can accomplish its objectives if deterrence serves a more fearful motivator than diplomacy.
The united nations were made by and for the west, to defend the ideals of the west, which is where the lady's questions were directed, as long as that continues it will never work correctly because countries that do not follow the ideals of the west will never be Accordingly, the priority of the United Nations must be to avoid wars and nothing else, to mediate between the great powers of the world and to avoid these conflicts, it cannot be aligned with one of the parties or with China, with Russia or with the West (united states, united kingdom or france) On the other hand, in this select group of countries the European union is necessary, France can fulfill that role but there is no doubt that the leader of Europe is Germany and I sincerely prefer that it is the European union that governs the world than China, Russia or the United States
4:28 "How do you handle this question of China having a very different view of human rights?" That may be the most oblivious question ever. China doesn't have a different view of human rights, they don't recognise human rights. That is way Chinese citizens don't have the right to self-determination through a democratically elected government. If even The Economist won't speak out about China's human rights abuses enough, how can they expect the UN to do so?
UN is more than security council, They offer Humanitarian packages. - UN must do a top down monitoring instead of bottom up (wiping up the mess) It’s not that simple.. we know, we know!
Maybe we should have The Economist run the U.N. They seem to know more about what’s going on than the UN and don’t have any diplomatic skin in the game to be corrupted.
I disagree, an American corporation shouldn't be allowed to run the UN. They would be incredibly biased. Just because they seem to know what they're doing doesnt mean they do
As never before, the nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called “the factual interdependence of the world.” No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide.
"Insulin was invented at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 1921" Please support ! Please Donate！Invest! help me! Hello World! ! I want to eradicate diabetes type 1 from the world I want to help eliminate pain from people around the world with diabetes please donate your money develop the Cure for Diabetes. The complete cure of diabetes is a dream for humanity of 100 years! please invest and Donate for diabetes cure New Technology And Talk about diabetes with family (^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ＼(^o^)／（＾w＾）ノシ
Pull a resolution recommendation with the security council passed hand it over to the Veto powers to scrap of Veto clause overturn it to general consensus so that the Hague can have power to prosecute all kinds of violations to give UN its powers and submission to its authority
@@joannehartley122 well, as far as I see it the goal is: superpowers cannot fight each other. So the Veto existst when a superpower wants to invade a small country. Take example like Irak, Siria, Hong Kong. I have a narrow view please share yours.
"Insulin was invented at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 1921" Please support ! Please Donate！Invest! help me! Hello World! ! I want to eradicate diabetes type 1 from the world I want to help eliminate pain from people around the world with diabetes please donate your money develop the Cure for Diabetes. The complete cure of diabetes is a dream for humanity of 100 years! please invest and Donate for diabetes cure New Technology And Talk about diabetes with family (^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ＼(^o^)／（＾w＾）ノシ
nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called “the factual interdependence of the world.” No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide. Former Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze observed: “The United Nations can function effectively if it has a mandate from its members, if states agree on a voluntary and temporary basis to delegate to it a portion of their sovereign rights and to entrust it with performing certain tasks in the interests of the majority.” He added: “Only in this way can we make the period of peace lasting and irreversible.” If this could be done, then the UN’s voice of jurisdiction could authoritatively denounce any nation threatening the peace of the world. With real power at its disposal, it could suppress such aggressors forcefully and swiftly. But will UN member nations ever give it this mandate, ‘making available their armed forces, assistance and facilities’ to secure peace? (Article 43(1)) They might-if a crisis threatened to undermine the very foundation upon which their respective national sovereignties rest. If the nations see that ‘uniting their strength to maintain international peace and security’ under UN auspices could remove such threats, this might increase their respect for it. Perhaps you are wondering, ‘Was the UN’s role in the Persian Gulf crisis a start in this direction?’ It could be. Many nations were confronted with the possible calamitous collapse of their economies. And if their interwoven economies crashed, so would the entire world’s. So the nations rallied together under the United Nations. The Security Council passed a series of UN resolutions to end the crisis peacefully, and when this failed, it backed a UN resolution on the use of force in the Gulf. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, in calling for this resolution, said: “History has now given us another chance. With the cold war behind us, we now have the chance to build a world which was envisioned by the founders of . . . the United Nations. We have the chance to make this Security Council and this United Nations true instruments for peace and for justice across the globe. . . . We must fulfill our common vision of a peaceful and just post-cold-war world.” And he observed concerning their debate about the use of force in the Gulf: “[It] will, I think, rank as one of the most important in the history of the United Nations. It will surely do much to determine the future of this body.”
6:58 These other actions like COVID support "packages" are all entirely reactive. They wouldn't be necessary if the UN had the capability to act pro-actively.
The UN should be redesigned why should the current members of the PSC be there simply because they won WW2. Members of the PSC should be voted in by all the sitting members of the UN
It's not like he could do much more.. the UN is a forum of countries, and democracy has nothing to do with international relations. Having the UN doing what it is doing for poverty, food programs, educational programs and, security wise, in CAR, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and so on, is already a major accomplishment. In the end, big powers will do what big powers want, and having the UN as a ruled-based stage is, again, already a great achievement. With all this anti-multilateralism moviment in Russia, China, Brazil, UK and US, of course the UN's work will be harder. May I remind that the UN isn't a thing on its own? it will be what the countries in it want it to be... having this in mind, I actually think this Secretary-General is doing what is possible to do, while trying to sail this boat in such stormy weather (this analogy works wonders, him being Portuguese)
Because members of the Security Council such as United States, Russia, China, France and the UK have the right to VETO UN's resolutions. So basically, all of these countries can do what they want with minimal consequences💀
Let first understand: why un?, the answer is to purchase peace or manage peace for a considerable amount of time. Now with the building blocks, USA.. And others, changing their roles, the foundation of un is shaking. Don't make bureaucrats of un, bunching bags, let the sincere people around the world in authority, come together to get/ manage peace for future generations. Otherwise be prepared for a disaster unforeseeable for now. I don't feel bad for people in command around the world but do feel bad for innocent, arguably who has nothing to do with grand politics of world, if the peace is lost due to lack of vision of the people in charge of power game around the world. Peace and coolness what world needs!
Not the Better Way Yet Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact-the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations. Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.” Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.” The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’-Article 2(3,7). Not only have nations ignored UN peace procedures but they have flouted and openly defied its rulings for settling conflicts. And their statesmen have frequently mounted the UN rostrum and delivered long speeches trying to justify their acts of aggression. This skirting of rules that were enacted to maintain peace has all too often paralyzed the UN at critical times and has severely damaged its credibility. UN officials who sit through such sessions are often frustrated. In the end, such talk usually proves to be mere sophistry that attempts to minimize or justify the violence and bloodshed taking place. No wonder UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar said that the UN “was regarded in some circles as a tower of Babel and at best a venue for often fruitless diplomatic parleys.” There is another reason why the UN has had difficulty proving itself to be that better way. When it began functioning on October 24, 1945, “no coherent strategy of peace was put in place,” observed Pérez de Cuéllar. Without this, how could the United Nations become the viable force for securing world peace that it was intended to be?
"Insulin was invented at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 1921" Please support ! Please Donate！Invest! help me! Hello World! ! I want to eradicate diabetes type 1 from the world I want to help eliminate pain from people around the world with diabetes please donate your money develop the Cure for Diabetes. The complete cure of diabetes is a dream for humanity of 100 years! please invest and Donate for diabetes cure New Technology And Talk about diabetes with family (^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ＼(^o^)／（＾w＾）ノシ
Personality can help. Maybe it's time a prominent former leader like Barrack Obama or Angela Merkel once she retires, take over as the Secretary General.
Probably not, because they will realize they will have almost no power at such position (unlike their position of head of state) , plus the world will understand yet again that western countries still hold most of the world power, despite being a low % of world population (no matter their %gdp part) , and won't accept that yet again.
@@PacificTime369 well, I would say Russia and China aren't the only one doing that, when you see USA sending carriers close to China, talking only about war with China, about how they could destroy China's whole fleet in less than a day, That they can just blockade China (no oil, trade with cargo from sea, link with African resource cut - and the land belt and sea not enough to supplant trade by cargo) and that China would crumble quickly like Soviet Union, that resemble 'military action against those they disagree with' like you said! (plus you forget that sanction used against those are akin to military action, when you sanction whole pan of someone society and industry) Sending soldiers to eastern Europe like Russia was soviet union with capacity to invade the whole European continent singlely and finding some economic sense into that. (invading physically won't bring financial return, states don't hold trillion in gold somewhere to be looted by an invader)
The only Powerful Non Member Countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil who actually could do something about this are all allies of Permanent Members. And they won't tarnish they're relationship for a useless seat
The only viable strategy to end wars from happening is to have all countries that want reform, to form a new United Nations, and leave the current. Eventually all non-veto countries wind up leaving the United Nations leaving only the veto powers totally alone in their own microcosm that they themselves are not prepared to handle alone. This leads to the dissolution of the old UN as the veto nations then seek membership in the larger reformed UN. Even the mere threat of non-veto nations doing so, should be enough to secure needed reforms - especially if the veto nations want any kind of influence and voice in the structure of a new veto-less UN. Majority votes will decide whether the war continues or stops. To enforce it (can be named CO-OPERATIVE NATIONS) the new CN forces from countries occupy invading country stop the war. The COOPERATIVES takes terms from two war waging nation, resolute it in the council make votes and that should decide for them. If one country do not agree continues to war. Their armed forces should be neutralized and their leaders changed.
We have to accept that we could live the us with a second world power like China. Of course the us as the first world power, for that we have to have better relationship with the chinese
I think you guys are forgetting Indian power over UN to as they have been oppressing's and ignoring human rights since there independence, take Kashmir as an example and UN have not taken any solid action at all what are you guys doing your reason of creation is at steak.
NO, it needs to get rid of the veto power and pass a resolution where every country has to pay 1-3% of their gdp anually so the UN can have the funds and not be influenced by individual nations that is the only way to createa sustainable and strong UN. it must be centralized.
That was a disappointing interview. There are real challenges facing the United Nations in a world that seriously needs it. And instead of spending more time focusing on the Secretary-General's comments about the instability in the current geopolitical situation, the Economist spent more time wanting to discuss the flaws in the current American president.
Parabéns pelo trabalho a ONU tem que cobrar impostos dos países filiados para amenizar a fome, miséria, problemas climáticos, saúde etc..mesmo que o cidadão como eu pague essa conta não só Elon Musk.
The United Nations-A Better Way? THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.” Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.”
Danny Archer their military force needs to be the most powerful one in the world. And UN itself needs to be truly independent from all countries. I see that as the ideal UN, but it’s only a fantasy
Why there is no Role of World Largest and the Most Pathetically Pitty able NGO United Nations here as United Nations should take action instead of America but United Nations is failed as always.
Weights the leaft time labor one currency..let uz compete intelligently... letz provide and teach and uz compete for growth memorise experience and to have a reasone to cellabrate
g91 9/8 pp. 8-10 g91 9/8 p. 8-9 The United Nations-A Better Way? THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.” Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.” Not the Better Way Yet Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact-the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations. Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.” Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.” The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’-Article 2(3,7).
You can't just stand by and watch what Trump and unregulated capital is doing to our world without voicing your opposition. International cooperation is vital, but this UN needs drastic, drastic reform, urgently, and to start speaking out against the forces putting us all at risk.
Expecting UN to be able to solve/enforce any (geo)political issues between major powers is a fool's dream. UN is not sovereign. Countries can always leave.
UN security council couldnt even stop the US attacking Iraq, I just dont know what do you expect from it. It has always been a means for stronger countries to impose their will on the weaker countries.
Much of the world was strongly against Hussein and generally pro-US, that's why they remained quiet.
@Soewardi Mahmud and you have the data to support the most simplistic geopolitics analysis ever?
reality
@@eksiarvamus BULLS#!# Global protests erupted before the Iraqi invasion. In the United States, those that questioned the intelligence and legality were disparaged and labeled as "Anti-American" and even "Pro-Terrorist". Remember FREEDOM FRIES????
@@eksiarvamus lol are you sure that's real reason?
The UN also has countries that are undergoing ethnic genocide and cleansing on their Human Rights council. How effective can they be?
As long as your not white, you are not right. Isn’t it? Whether what happen is not important, as long as Fox News as so
Which country?
They are useless, sad to say
@@phoenix0110 wow....your hatred of white people is at full flag.
@@victoremmanuel_ not as useless. Thanks to them, we beated smallpox, and covid as well (shout out to the WHO). They even offer humanitarian aid to people, especially in Africa. Although, I wish they are more effective in their peacekeeping missions.
The veto should be vetoed
🇺🇸🇷🇺🇨🇵🇬🇧🇨🇳: *I veto that!*
Vetoed
Haha, who would give up his power willingly
@@user-cj5hq1uu2m If you want to avoid war
Yeah,Big and Powerful Non Member Countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil who actually could do something about this are all allies of Permanent Members.
And they won't tarnish they're relationship for a useless seat
Ban the big 5 veto thing!
Vetoed
The big five veto exists because these are major powers with the capacity to ignore the UN and in essence, make the UN pointless. For example if the UN wants to investigate US for war crimes over 2003, the US can just say "make me". That's a *real* veto. The one at the council is symbolic. China first showed this back during the Korean War when they had no veto, and still fought the entire UN army to a standstill.
The League of Nations had no veto, and it was completely dysfunctional.
Ya ... the vetoes have been a big problem for solving many of the world's issues.
Veto is one of a few things that prevent the P5 states from leaving the UN and ensure a peaceful process of negotiations
I agree with many that the 5 permanent Veto power needs to address. The Security Council needs a restructuring and a counter-veto system. It is tough for the Secretary-General hold criticism primarily because it is Security Council that put him in that position.
All：VETO
I really liked the interviewer; he was asking the right questions, placing significance on the really urging matters without crossing the line into confrontational! Would love to see more!
Thank you very much to Guterres and The Economist!
We urgently need a global citizen assembly with decision right, leaders in most countries care very little about the common people, our urgent calls for peace, prosperity for all, fairness of wealth distribution, removal of poverty, ethical economies, equality and sensible upkeep of our environment. I think we people can work together but our leaders have forgotten how to they are to drawn into narcissistic power hunger.
Fairness of wealth distribution. Who will judge what's fair?
If that happend people from each contry would just feel like they are taken advantage of and the world would became even more nationalist. People want to help the world if themselves don't loose anything.
@@paulgotik what is your proof for that ? Have we actually even tried it or just assume again that things will be bad or difficult because we tell ourselves this all the time or maybe because others tells us it has to be this way?
@@NJ-xp4eb I didn't try it I don't have power over the world. This is what has happend and it's happening right now. If someone says:" We will put some of the taxes we take from the people and use it to better countries who are developing right now instead of using that money to invest in our own contry there's not a single contry in the world who would agree with this." People always want a better life for themselves above helping others, that's human nature that's how we survive.
@@paulgotik I understand your way of thinking however distribution of wealth does not necessarily mean taking taxes from one country and give them to another it means everybody gets a fair chance to prosper. Also if we start eliminating all these senseless wars and find a way to create more environmentally friendly economic principles for a start we eliminate a huge chunk of the current refugee crisis. You have as much right and power to change the world for the better than anybody else.
Britain killed 4 million Indians in Bengal in 1943 by imposing a famine
The UN like the League of Nations should be dissolved and replaced , it is outdated , ineffective , and very expensive . Since WW@ it has been ineffective in almost all its actions , and in many cases has created more problems than it has resolved
Thank you for the video. On a production level, why is the image quality so low? A suggestion, you don't have to capture and use the zoom / skype footage. You could set up any phone from the last three years and use its camera, either as a primary one or just recording alongside the interview. This is not live and there is no excuse for the poor quality.
The whole UN needs a reform!
I agree. There are so many issues and concerns that the UN must fix for the sake of humanity, democracy, peace, development, and so on. If not, what other organization will all countries unite for a better future of all people for the betterment of the world, the environment, and more?
The questions asked were great. But why does the success of the U.N. hinge on the participation of the U.S.? There are other countries with better democracies at this point. What I'm grappling with is the inherited power of top countries based on military might. Why not other countries with more success in trade, infrastructure, health, education, etc.? Seems like a better model to me.
Simply because the world and the UN fear a major war between the US and Russia or China
Too optimistic. I think everyone would prefer your proposal but the UN doesn't have that much weight if it is at odds with the greater powers. In my opinion the UN is majorly flawed as a security mechanism but as a charity it is doing great. The UN is basically ignored by major powers and these powers can use it to their advantage.
@@jeffreycarmody429 you are the definition of mainstream donkey lol
try looking at fundamentals, or maybe if you do your own research and not watch CNN everyday, you'll realize the U.S contributes more than half the U.N,NATO combined, without the U.S funding these coalitions they would fall faster than a house of cards, its a charity bank for europe and asia
Dismantle this useless evil organization
How did the interviewers not directly question him on the veto, which is clearly the biggest problem in the UN? This is the reason why more people aren't taking the UN or The Economist seriously
Vito powers were established and granted around the same time the UN was created, none of the States with veto privileges are ever going to give them up. What exactly is questioning him about the Veto going to achieve. He has no power over the veto.
true
@@nop942 Bring attention to it.
Didn't even listen and understand his response
Great Information!
This is really interesting, for those of us universalists, BTS with the UN is fascinating
You mean the korean boy group?
You mean the korean pop group?
@@youtubebystander9294 Behind the scenes lord 🤦♂️
@Soewardi Mahmud Maybe so, it is all just pixels though so no worries )
This video served as an insightful discussion between very capable individuals. Most of all I enjoyed the very eloquent words of the Secretary General on the current power struggle amongst the three current super powers. My concern and the subject of my question involves the bargaining position of the United Nations in the current Security Council. Does the UN serve as a solely diplomatic and nonpartisan entity and if so, how is any result agreed upon and enforced given the sovereignty of the parties involved? I doubt the fact that without real bargaining power that the UN can accomplish its objectives if deterrence serves a more fearful motivator than diplomacy.
The united nations were made by and for the west, to defend the ideals of the west, which is where the lady's questions were directed, as long as that continues it will never work correctly because countries that do not follow the ideals of the west will never be Accordingly, the priority of the United Nations must be to avoid wars and nothing else, to mediate between the great powers of the world and to avoid these conflicts, it cannot be aligned with one of the parties or with China, with Russia or with the West (united states, united kingdom or france)
On the other hand, in this select group of countries the European union is necessary, France can fulfill that role but there is no doubt that the leader of Europe is Germany and I sincerely prefer that it is the European union that governs the world than China, Russia or the United States
I think the UN is afraid of having great ambitions.
Sharing, Justice and Peace for All.
4:28 "How do you handle this question of China having a very different view of human rights?" That may be the most oblivious question ever. China doesn't have a different view of human rights, they don't recognise human rights. That is way Chinese citizens don't have the right to self-determination through a democratically elected government. If even The Economist won't speak out about China's human rights abuses enough, how can they expect the UN to do so?
Great to you ❤❤❤
hello, please comment about Antonio Guetress' last comment about future of UN?
Climate change and second point of action he named?
Asif Tufail cyber security
Earl Anderson oh! I missed his pronunciation; anyways, thank you bro
Soewardi Mahmud yeah, you are true; but, I was not getting the very essence of his policy statement without knowing the exact word
UN is more than security council, They offer Humanitarian packages.
- UN must do a top down monitoring instead of bottom up (wiping up the mess)
It’s not that simple.. we know, we know!
Somalia government literally ceased to exist and the UN just send food like that gonna fix the chaos there
Maybe we should have The Economist run the U.N. They seem to know more about what’s going on than the UN and don’t have any diplomatic skin in the game to be corrupted.
I disagree, an American corporation shouldn't be allowed to run the UN. They would be incredibly biased. Just because they seem to know what they're doing doesnt mean they do
Thank you
The UN should also be focusing the climate change problem more often and more intensely because the poles are still melting fast, which is worrisome.
and yet never a mention of massive increases in tectonic plate activity, WHY? Goes against the narrative of weather change.
Poles are shifting and with them weather fluctuations are as well.
As never before, the nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called “the factual interdependence of the world.” No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide.
UNSC is broken. Please admit it. Once you admit it, you can start to fix it.
"Insulin was invented at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 1921"
Please support ! Please Donate！Invest!
help me!
Hello World! !
I want to eradicate diabetes type 1 from the world
I want to help eliminate pain from people around the world with diabetes
please donate your money develop the Cure for Diabetes.
The complete cure of diabetes is a dream for humanity of 100 years!
please invest and Donate for diabetes cure New Technology
And Talk about diabetes with family
(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ＼(^o^)／（＾w＾）ノシ
Pull a resolution recommendation with the security council passed hand it over to the Veto powers to scrap of Veto clause overturn it to general consensus so that the Hague can have power to prosecute all kinds of violations to give UN its powers and submission to its authority
You cannot remove the Veto because this prevents war between the big powers.
Please explain why? I don't understand....I hope you get this...
@@joannehartley122 well, as far as I see it the goal is: superpowers cannot fight each other.
So the Veto existst when a superpower wants to invade a small country. Take example like Irak, Siria, Hong Kong.
I have a narrow view please share yours.
@@viataculouie91 Thank you very much!
All Those aren't big Powers anymore.
GDP of Germany> GDP of India>GDP of UK> GDP of Russia.
"Listening" rarely yields results - muscle, bullying and war do...
"Insulin was invented at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 1921"
Please support ! Please Donate！Invest!
help me!
Hello World! !
I want to eradicate diabetes type 1 from the world
I want to help eliminate pain from people around the world with diabetes
please donate your money develop the Cure for Diabetes.
The complete cure of diabetes is a dream for humanity of 100 years!
please invest and Donate for diabetes cure New Technology
And Talk about diabetes with family
(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ＼(^o^)／（＾w＾）ノシ
Middle path : only solution
Thanx for the video. So!? What is the real purpose and relevance of reforming the United Nations Security Council now?
nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called “the factual interdependence of the world.” No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide.
Former Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze observed: “The United Nations can function effectively if it has a mandate from its members, if states agree on a voluntary and temporary basis to delegate to it a portion of their sovereign rights and to entrust it with performing certain tasks in the interests of the majority.” He added: “Only in this way can we make the period of peace lasting and irreversible.”
If this could be done, then the UN’s voice of jurisdiction could authoritatively denounce any nation threatening the peace of the world. With real power at its disposal, it could suppress such aggressors forcefully and swiftly. But will UN member nations ever give it this mandate, ‘making available their armed forces, assistance and facilities’ to secure peace? (Article 43(1)) They might-if a crisis threatened to undermine the very foundation upon which their respective national sovereignties rest. If the nations see that ‘uniting their strength to maintain international peace and security’ under UN auspices could remove such threats, this might increase their respect for it.
Perhaps you are wondering, ‘Was the UN’s role in the Persian Gulf crisis a start in this direction?’ It could be. Many nations were confronted with the possible calamitous collapse of their economies. And if their interwoven economies crashed, so would the entire world’s. So the nations rallied together under the United Nations. The Security Council passed a series of UN resolutions to end the crisis peacefully, and when this failed, it backed a UN resolution on the use of force in the Gulf.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, in calling for this resolution, said: “History has now given us another chance. With the cold war behind us, we now have the chance to build a world which was envisioned by the founders of . . . the United Nations. We have the chance to make this Security Council and this United Nations true instruments for peace and for justice across the globe. . . . We must fulfill our common vision of a peaceful and just post-cold-war world.” And he observed concerning their debate about the use of force in the Gulf: “[It] will, I think, rank as one of the most important in the history of the United Nations. It will surely do much to determine the future of this body.”
6:58 These other actions like COVID support "packages" are all entirely reactive. They wouldn't be necessary if the UN had the capability to act pro-actively.
You abolish it, that's how you fix it
I like this Secretary General.
Don’t bet on It. the guy couldn’t even solve Portugal.
Stating the facts and what we already know. Sweeping statements.
@00:05 When she said to change the course of history, I lost her.
Time for this veto power to be revisited and revised. After WWII is 100 years old it is time to remove and revise the veto.
Open your eyes people
How to fix the UN? First of all, get rid of this guy!
You can't. Each country has their own agenda. This is why it should be called "The Divided Nations".
How to fix the United Nations.
1. Dissolve the United Nations
Thanks for this very useful and informative video
The UN should be redesigned why should the current members of the PSC be there simply because they won WW2. Members of the PSC should be voted in by all the sitting members of the UN
These journalists are more interested in making political statements than asking intelligent and thoughtful questions.
It's not like he could do much more.. the UN is a forum of countries, and democracy has nothing to do with international relations. Having the UN doing what it is doing for poverty, food programs, educational programs and, security wise, in CAR, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and so on, is already a major accomplishment. In the end, big powers will do what big powers want, and having the UN as a ruled-based stage is, again, already a great achievement. With all this anti-multilateralism moviment in Russia, China, Brazil, UK and US, of course the UN's work will be harder. May I remind that the UN isn't a thing on its own? it will be what the countries in it want it to be... having this in mind, I actually think this Secretary-General is doing what is possible to do, while trying to sail this boat in such stormy weather (this analogy works wonders, him being Portuguese)
Get rid of it. We dont want anything to do with it.
The UN is lost in a MAZE and can't find the exit.
The economist has never gotten anything correct.
why did the UN not stop America from going into the middle east ?
Because members of the Security Council such as United States, Russia, China, France and the UK have the right to VETO UN's resolutions. So basically, all of these countries can do what they want with minimal consequences💀
Absolutely BEAUTIFUL news. . . and it's just starting to warm up.
Need of Reform in un
Anne McElvoy... How can you be so bias by not adding ''US supporting Israel annexing the Palestine?"?
Let first understand: why un?, the answer is to purchase peace or manage peace for a considerable amount of time. Now with the building blocks, USA.. And others, changing their roles, the foundation of un is shaking. Don't make bureaucrats of un, bunching bags, let the sincere people around the world in authority, come together to get/ manage peace for future generations. Otherwise be prepared for a disaster unforeseeable for now. I don't feel bad for people in command around the world but do feel bad for innocent, arguably who has nothing to do with grand politics of world, if the peace is lost due to lack of vision of the people in charge of power game around the world.
Peace and coolness what world needs!
Not the Better Way Yet
Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact-the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations.
Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.”
Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.”
The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’-Article 2(3,7).
Not only have nations ignored UN peace procedures but they have flouted and openly defied its rulings for settling conflicts. And their statesmen have frequently mounted the UN rostrum and delivered long speeches trying to justify their acts of aggression. This skirting of rules that were enacted to maintain peace has all too often paralyzed the UN at critical times and has severely damaged its credibility. UN officials who sit through such sessions are often frustrated. In the end, such talk usually proves to be mere sophistry that attempts to minimize or justify the violence and bloodshed taking place. No wonder UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar said that the UN “was regarded in some circles as a tower of Babel and at best a venue for often fruitless diplomatic parleys.”
There is another reason why the UN has had difficulty proving itself to be that better way. When it began functioning on October 24, 1945, “no coherent strategy of peace was put in place,” observed Pérez de Cuéllar. Without this, how could the United Nations become the viable force for securing world peace that it was intended to be?
UN looks disrupted and looks like their doing nothing on geo territorial issue
The interviewer is very biased. Talking of Chinese and Russian actions, yet denying to say US illegal actions which the UN condemned.
Great content - though not exactly an accurate title
"Insulin was invented at the University of Toronto, Canada, from 1921"
Please support ! Please Donate！Invest!
help me!
Hello World! !
I want to eradicate diabetes type 1 from the world
I want to help eliminate pain from people around the world with diabetes
please donate your money develop the Cure for Diabetes.
The complete cure of diabetes is a dream for humanity of 100 years!
please invest and Donate for diabetes cure New Technology
And Talk about diabetes with family
(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ(^o^)ノシ＼(^o^)／（＾w＾）ノシ
Are they pretending to talk with the un?
Personality can help. Maybe it's time a prominent former leader like Barrack Obama or Angela Merkel once she retires, take over as the Secretary General.
Probably not, because they will realize they will have almost no power at such position (unlike their position of head of state) , plus the world will understand yet again that western countries still hold most of the world power, despite being a low % of world population (no matter their %gdp part) , and won't accept that yet again.
@@PacificTime369 well, I would say Russia and China aren't the only one doing that, when you see USA sending carriers close to China, talking only about war with China, about how they could destroy China's whole fleet in less than a day,
That they can just blockade China (no oil, trade with cargo from sea, link with African resource cut - and the land belt and sea not enough to supplant trade by cargo) and that China would crumble quickly like Soviet Union, that resemble 'military action against those they disagree with' like you said! (plus you forget that sanction used against those are akin to military action, when you sanction whole pan of someone society and industry)
Sending soldiers to eastern Europe like Russia was soviet union with capacity to invade the whole European continent singlely and finding some economic sense into that. (invading physically won't bring financial return, states don't hold trillion in gold somewhere to be looted by an invader)
The only Powerful Non Member Countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil who actually could do something about this are all allies of Permanent Members.
And they won't tarnish they're relationship for a useless seat
There is much quality content in comment section than in video.🙄
Weaken the undemocratic countries
The only viable strategy to end wars from happening is to have all countries that want reform, to form a new United Nations, and leave the current.
Eventually all non-veto countries wind up leaving the United Nations leaving only the veto powers totally alone in their own microcosm
that they themselves are not prepared to handle alone.
This leads to the dissolution of the old UN as the veto nations then seek membership in the larger reformed UN. Even the mere threat of non-veto nations doing so, should be enough to secure needed reforms - especially if the veto nations want any kind of influence and voice in the structure of a new veto-less UN.
Majority votes will decide whether the war continues or stops.
To enforce it (can be named CO-OPERATIVE NATIONS) the new CN forces from countries occupy invading country stop the war.
The COOPERATIVES takes terms from two war waging nation, resolute it in the council make votes and that should decide for them. If one country do not agree continues to war. Their armed forces should be neutralized and their leaders changed.
What about Kashmir issue ?
Extend UNSC.
You cannot unscramble an egg
We have to accept that we could live the us with a second world power like China. Of course the us as the first world power, for that we have to have better relationship with the chinese
Make UN Truly democratic by giving each country voting rights proportionate to the number of human beings the country represents
And the Chinese should continue taking distance from the russians
How about have it ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING
By fixing China and the US
I think you guys are forgetting Indian power over UN to as they have been oppressing's and ignoring human rights since there independence, take Kashmir as an example and UN have not taken any solid action at all what are you guys doing your reason of creation is at steak.
THE ONLY UNITED THIS ORGANISATION HAVE IS THE NAME !!
the world is more than what "the economist" thinks matters,lol
NO, it needs to get rid of the veto power and pass a resolution where every country has to pay 1-3% of their gdp anually so the UN can have the funds and not be influenced by individual nations
that is the only way to createa sustainable and strong UN.
it must be centralized.
UN unfit for purpose in 2020. we need innovation and new institutions
Simple solution : Abolish veto power
Do such INTERVIEW with Xi Jinping and Mr. Trump.
That was a disappointing interview. There are real challenges facing the United Nations in a world that seriously needs it. And instead of spending more time focusing on the Secretary-General's comments about the instability in the current geopolitical situation, the Economist spent more time wanting to discuss the flaws in the current American president.
Get rid of it.
how to fix the UN:
step 1.: make tesla coils, make them really big
Parabéns pelo trabalho a ONU tem que cobrar impostos dos países filiados para amenizar a fome, miséria, problemas climáticos, saúde etc..mesmo que o cidadão como eu pague essa conta não só Elon Musk.
❤
Please add subtitles to all programme
The United Nations-A Better Way?
THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.”
Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.”
Climate Independent Understand
UN needs to have their own army
It has one. They called peace keepers and they are as useless as the UN.
Danny Archer their military force needs to be the most powerful one in the world. And UN itself needs to be truly independent from all countries. I see that as the ideal UN, but it’s only a fantasy
Why there is no Role of World Largest and the Most Pathetically Pitty able NGO United Nations here as United Nations should take action instead of America but United Nations is failed as always.
Weights the leaft time labor one currency..let uz compete intelligently... letz provide and teach and uz compete for growth memorise experience and to have a reasone to cellabrate
g91 9/8 pp. 8-10
g91 9/8 p. 8-9
The United Nations-A Better Way?
THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.”
Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.”
Not the Better Way Yet
Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact-the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations.
Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.”
Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.”
The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’-Article 2(3,7).
“After the end of the Cold War, I find NATO obsolete”
Someone should tell him the cold war didn't end.
The United States thinks otherwise and so it must be.
ILLUMINATI
You can't just stand by and watch what Trump and unregulated capital is doing to our world without voicing your opposition. International cooperation is vital, but this UN needs drastic, drastic reform, urgently, and to start speaking out against the forces putting us all at risk.
Expecting UN to be able to solve/enforce any (geo)political issues between major powers is a fool's dream.
UN is not sovereign.
Countries can always leave.
@Soewardi Mahmud nah, we gonna colonize your country and put you guys in prison as well