Imogen Folks (2:16)

Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen folks and today we're going to get an in depth analysis of the brand new Board of Peace. President Trump's initiative that Washington says will work to solve global conflicts. Could it be a threat to the United Nations?

Richard Gowen (2:35)

The US circulated an invitation to about 60 countries to join a new Board of Peace that would not just focus on Gaza, but would instead be a global conflict prevention organisation, complete with a pre baked charter that looks a bit like President Trump took the protocols for a golf club in New Jersey. I don't really think this is a credible international institution that will have the capacities of the un, but I do think that it is a very worrying signal for the un.

Imogen Folks (3:09)

And we'll get all the details about a brand new report on conflict and what the authors warn is growing impunity for war crimes.

Stuart Casey Maslin (3:17)

We look at what's happened in Gaza, we see the destruction of hospitals in Sudan, we see that people do this and are not held to account. We have institutions, we have the International Criminal Court, but even there, there's an attempt to undermine it. It becomes a political decision rather than simply a legal one. Regardless, respect for the law, disregard of international law is not new. What I think is new is the extent to which it's being flouted.

Imogen Folks (3:48)

The War Watch report coming up later in the program. But first, listeners to inside Geneva might be wondering why we haven't covered President Trump's Board of Peace yet. Announced with great fanfare at the World Economic Forum in Davos, many UN watchers were quick to warn that the new board could be a rival to or even undermine the United Nations. Well, we decided to let the dust settle a little bit and then turn to another well established international body which aims to prevent and resolve conflict, the International Crisis Group. Richard Gowen is its director for global issues and institutions. I sat down with him and asked him what his reaction was when the Board of Peace was unveiled.

Richard Gowen (4:38)

Well, I think the best word to describe my reaction and the reaction of a lot of diplomats I spoke to might be befuddlement.

Imogen Folks (4:48)

Befuddlement.

Richard Gowen (4:49)

Befuddlement, a fine old English word. Because we had been waiting since November for details on the Board of Peace and how it was going to oversee the ceasefire in Gaza. I think there was some frustration around the turn of the year that we weren't getting more details more quickly about the US approach to stability in Gaza. But then what came out was very, very different to what I think the Security Council and most observers had expected when they initially endorsed the Board back in November, because the US circulated an invitation to about 60 countries to join a new Board of Peace that would not just focus on Gaza, but would instead be a global conflict prevention organisation, complete with a pre baked charter that looks a bit like President Trump took the protocols for a golf club in New Jersey and converted them into a charter for an international organisation.

Imogen Folks (5:50)

As you say, the initial proposal was for Gaza, which is not really mentioned in the eventual charter. I mean, should the UN be concerned that this could be a replacement for the United Nations?

Richard Gowen (6:07)

I think it depends what you mean by replacement. Because if you look at the Charter for the Board of Peace, which a bunch of leaders did sign off on at a ceremony at Davos at the World Economic Forum, it is not a plan for a full scale replacement for the un. There is Nothing in this document that replicates the UN Charter's provisions around the use of force. There's nothing that suggests that the board has the same legal powers as the Security Council to intervene in conflicts. Actually, there's very little detail about what the board will do outside of the specific case of Gaza. I think that the Charter promises that members will offer best practices for peace building.

Imogen Folks (6:56)

We don't know what they. They haven't defined them, though. What are.

Richard Gowen (6:59)

What that means is completely unclear. I mean, my organization, the International Crisis Group, offers best practices on peacebu. So I don't really think this is a credible international institution that will have the capacities of the un But I do think that it is a very worrying signal for the UN because obviously we have seen the Trump administration continuing to distance itself from a lot of multilateral bodies. Just this month, Washington announced it was going to boycott about 30 different UN offices and entities. Washington has confirmed its formal withdrawal from the World Health Organization. And now we have the Trump administration floating this trial balloon of a forum where leaders will come together and they will talk about peace potentially in various conflict zones completely outside of UN structures.

Imogen Folks (7:56)

So, as you say, it could be worrying for the un not a complete replacement, perhaps a kind of degradation. I'm just wondering. A lot of the reporting that I've read and listened to on this from my own colleagues, people that I know, I heard one just the other day said, well, let's face it, the UN does do bugger all. That's what she said. Which I thought from a Geneva perspective was a bit harsh. But if a lot of people think that it's already worrying for the un, isn't it?

Richard Gowen (8:31)

I mean, it is worrying. Again, your. Your colleague is flat wrong. The Security Council has been going through, obviously, a very difficult period in the last few years over Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and other wars. And we are a long way from the 1990s, when the security Council was very ambitious and there was a high degree of cooperation in New York. But even so, the Council is still overseeing 60,000 Peacekeepers around the world. The Trump administration has turned to the UN to help it with a new stabilization force in Haiti. The Security Council oversees a dozen, maybe slightly more sanctions regimes around the world. I mean, this is actually still a pretty high level of work. I think the problem is that precisely because the UN has tripped up appallingly over Ukraine and especially Gaza, there is a crisis of.

Imogen Folks (9:32)

Well, has it, has it, though?

Stuart Casey Maslin (9:35)

It's the.

Imogen Folks (9:36)

The UN as a, as a, an identity. Is it. Has it tripped up or has it just been been prevented in those two. I mean, we never consulted really in either Ukraine or Gaza.

Richard Gowen (9:47)

I mean, I think what one can safely say is that the UN as envisaged in the Charter as a space for major power conflict resolution and policing the world, that has not delivered for the people of Ukraine, that has not delivered for the Palestinians. And this is leading to a real crisis of confidence around the organization, which is exacerbated a lot by the US Budget cuts. And so I think a lot of the commentary around the Board of Peace reflects this crisis of confidence. People are pointing at this complete farrago of diplomatic nonsense that the US has put on the table, and they are taking it incredibly seriously from a Geneva perspective.

Imogen Folks (10:30)

Some people in Geneva, the aid agencies, of course, battered though they are by funding cuts. They would say we're the part of the UN that is working despite the paralysis of the Security Council. And there we can look at, you know, the countries who are also causing a lot of problems in the world, like Russia, like perhaps the United States. The charter for this new board, as you say, people are taking it seriously and paying a lot of attention. It makes no mention of some of the fundamental things that the UN has in its charter to do with human rights, to do with, with non aggression.

Richard Gowen (11:06)

No, I mean, and it is concerning that the US Would set up an international organization without making any reference at all to any of the core principles of the UN Charter or indeed the UN Charter itself. And it's also, to be honest, attracting quite a lot of countries that are dismissive of international law or have poor human rights records. The offer on the table is if a country wants a permanent seat on the Board of Peace decision making body, it needs to pay $1 billion.

Imogen Folks (11:45)

Where's that money going, do you think?

Richard Gowen (11:47)

No one is quite sure where the money is going, but there's certainly no suggestion that you have to live up to any criteria as a member of the international community. So this probably does reflect how President Trump would like the world to work. I think he would like the world to work on the basis of transactional diplomacy between big bold leaders like himself, unconstrained by the niceties of international law and diplomatic process. I mean, I do think that for all the, the fuss and bother, there is a very real scenario where all that happens is the US will announce that it is establishing a headquarters for the Board of Peace. Probably that will be in Florida.

Imogen Folks (12:31)

Lots of gold.

Richard Gowen (12:32)

There will be lots of gold. President Trump has gone on and on about how he doesn't like the quality of the furnishings at the un. Well, this is his opportunity to build his dream international institution. But even once that is built, it may be very little more than a sort of country club where every year Viktor Orban and other friends of the President get together for a big chat about the state of the world.

Imogen Folks (12:59)

Yeah, I was thinking, and again, this is perhaps from a Geneva perspective, that the precedent we have in front of us for the United States and this particular administration circumventing the UN and offering a quick replacement was the Gaza Humanitarian foundation, which caused, I think, we have to be honest, an awful lot of damage and an awful lot of deaths and an awful lot of misery and finally disappeared. And basically, when the ceasefire came, the UN agencies were supposed to come back in and do the job.

Richard Gowen (13:33)

Yes. And one area where in the last month we have seen the US Tiptoeing back towards working with the UN has been in the humanitarian space, because just at the turn of the year, the US finally agreed to put $2 billion into UN humanitarian work in a deal with Tom Fletcher, the head of the office for the coordination.

Imogen Folks (13:56)

Yeah, I attended that press conference. I mean, there are a lot of strings attached to this money. Political strings.

Richard Gowen (14:02)

There are lots of political strings. But the mere fact that the US is putting $2 billion on the table and has indicated that there may be more to come, I think is a reflection of the fact that burned by the experience of the Gaza foundation, even this administration has to admit there are certain things that the UN does well, and one of them is humanitarian delivery at scale. I mentioned Haiti, where the UN is providing administrative logistical backstopping for a new gang suppression force in Port au Prince. Interestingly, in. In Africa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the US Is. Is trying to work with the UN peacekeeping force there to prop up a very weak ceasefire deal in the east of Congo that Washington helped broker. I mean, actually, in pragmatic terms, whatever its ideological predisposition, you know, the Trump administration will work with the un. But again, I think that Trump needs his own shiny thing. He needs his own shiny organization of which he is the chairman. And we should have said that under the protocols of the Board of Peace Charter, Trump has a pretty much total veto on every single decision this body will make.

Imogen Folks (15:17)

And he's chairman for life.

Richard Gowen (15:20)

Yes. So this does look a bit like an effort to make him world emperor.

Imogen Folks (15:27)

Yeah, King of the world. That's the phrase that came out into my head.

Richard Gowen (15:30)

But I think, again, let's try and distinguish, although it's very difficult, between the US creating This sort of cosplay, multilateral institution, and the fact that in reality there are some places where I think saner people inside the US System are actually looking to work with the UN because they do see that it has capacities that they're just not going to be able to replicate.

Imogen Folks (15:52)

Do you think also perhaps within the people who still have some faith in the United nations, there perhaps needs to be a recognition? Well, don't just dismiss this whole thing out of hand, since most people do accept the UN Needs reform, maybe not a replacement like this, but it does need reform.

Richard Gowen (16:13)

Yes, I think that it's not specifically the Board of Peace, but you know, the Board of Peace and all the other US Moves against the UN like leaving the World Health Organization, like leaving a lot of UN Agencies involved with gender work and with environmental work. You know, all of this together means that those of us who still believe in the UN System have to start thinking very, very hard about how that system is going to survive and how that system can be reinforced in a period where resources are extremely short and at least one big power is now becoming very semi detached from the the organization that it created. I mean, it's interesting. Last year when we started to see the US take aggressive moves against the UN in January and February of 2025, most UN member states were just not able to process what was going on because simultaneously you had the US Rolling out tariffs, you had the US Raising questions about security guarantees with a lot of its allies. I mean, in my experience, ambassadors in New York and probably in Geneva were saying, well, this is all very bad, but our capitals have other priorities. Now, what I'm encountering is still capitals have other priorities, but I'm hearing a lot of diplomatic colleagues saying, okay, we've got to accept this as a reality. It's clear that the Trump administration at least is not going to turn back from its broad anti UN Strategy. We now need a really serious political debate about what this organization is for. We should have had that political debate a year ago. Well, we didn't have it. But I think that going forward, given the ongoing US Pressure, I do feel that there's sort of a bit more energy around the idea of having a proper UN reform discussion this year than there was 12 months ago.

Imogen Folks (18:13)

What would you say to Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General? You know, he was here in Geneva, was going to go to Davos and then decided quite last minute not to, apparently because he had a cold. But I do wonder whether he did not want to be in the same town when this Board of Peace was being unveiled by Donald Trump, because that's what happened in Davos, the Charter and everything was unveiled.

Richard Gowen (18:39)

I mean, the first thing I would say is let's try and find a bright side in this chaotic situation. And I think one bright side is the US invited, we think, around 60 people to join the Board of Peace. It's very opaque.

Imogen Folks (18:55)

And nobody in Africa, well, certainly not in Sub Saharan Africa.

Richard Gowen (18:59)

Not in Sub Saharan Africa, which I think tells you quite a lot about how the, the White House views Africa, which is very sad.

Imogen Folks (19:07)

Well, there are other words for it.

Richard Gowen (19:09)

Yeah, but there are. You know, it is worth saying around 20 to 25 countries so far have signed up for Shore. Many of them, by the way, Arab countries that I think primarily signed up because they wanted to have a voice in Board of Peace discussions over Gaza. And fair enough, but a lot of countries haven't joined up. Actually, almost all the European invitees, like France, Norway and others, said no. And one of the reasons they said no was quite specifically that they were concerned that this was an organization that was going to infringe on the prerogatives of the un, or at least cut across the principles of the UN Charter. And so if I were Antonio Guterres, I would at least be able to say, you know, this does show that not everyone is so cravenly pursuing Trump's favour that they forget the UN Charter. The organisation and the Charter does still have friends. I'm afraid to say, though, that Guterres, who Now only has 11 months left in office, can't really do very much about this situation. So rather than focus on Guterres, I would actually be looking at the candidates to replace him as Secretary General. And we now know that the candidates to be the next UNSG will have hearings in New York in April with member states. And I think those hearings are actually a really good opportunity to ask the people who want to be the UN's chief, what is your long term plan for doing that?

Imogen Folks (20:44)

What's your vision for the un?

Richard Gowen (20:46)

It's going to be awfully hard because to become Secretary General, you need the sign off of all five veto powers and that means you need the sign off of the us so people can't come to New York and just bash Trump. But I think that it is fair for other countries to say we see the UN's primary founder, the US, drifting away from the organization. We see a lot of other countries, as you say, going through a crisis of confidence about the organization's future. What is your plan? How do you get us out of this hole? And if anyone has a good answer to that, well, firstly, they should become Secretary General. And then maybe they should get the Nobel Prize. And then they can give their Nobel Prize to Trump. So he has two.

Imogen Folks (21:35)

Richard Gowen of the International Crisis Group, clear eyed about the prospects for the new Board of Peace and clear eyed about the challenges facing whoever gets the possibly poisoned chalice of becoming new UN Secretary General. That's a topic we will of course, be returning to in future episodes of the podcast. Before we move on to our next guest today, here's a little flavour of what's coming up on the next Inside Geneva when we've got a whole program devoted to the polarizing topic of migration.

Stuart Casey Maslin (22:10)

I think we are seeing a race to the bottom. I had hoped we would be much.

Richard Gowen (22:16)

Better off in Europe. We're rather seeing one country after the other erecting barbed wire around their country and around our continent.

Stuart Casey Maslin (22:29)

Setting lawful immigration policies does not mean that you have the right to mistreat migrants, even migrants who are undocumented. And very sadly, that's what the US Administration is doing. It's rounding up Venezuelan migrants in the US and sending them to El Salvador where they are being tortured, where they are experiencing sexual abuse.

Imogen Folks (22:54)

We'll be asking why this issue has become so divisive, analyzing the facts, figures and economic pluses and minuses. That's out on February 17th. Now, as we heard from Richard Gowen of the International Crisis Group, there's a new kid on the block when it comes to ending wars. Donald Trump's Board of Peace. Well, out this week is a brand new report which has some grim warnings about the way 21st century wars are being fought.

Stuart Casey Maslin (23:32)

So we're at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. My name's Stuart Casey Maslin and I'm head of the IHL In Focus Project which has produced this report.

Imogen Folks (23:42)

Professor Casey Maslin's War Watch report looks at 23 conflicts raging between mid 2024 and the end of 2025. I asked him about his findings. Your report has some quite bleak warnings in it. You, for example, say that international humanitarian law is on the brink of collapse. Why so bleak?

Stuart Casey Maslin (24:09)

I think people only have to look around at the conflicts that they're seeing today and the extent of devastation, both of civilian life and of civilian property, to know that we are in very bleak times. Now, of course, the multiplicity of conflicts is an issue in of itself. There has never been a golden age where international law was always respected by. But there have been opportunities. And we've seen them over the last couple of decades where states have started to take civilian life, civilian harm in armed conflicts more seriously. What I think we've seen over the last couple of years is there has been a degeneration in that level of respect that there have been governments and they are from all corners of the world. We know that there are certain particularly bad violators, but it's all corners of the world where they accept that they can get away with stuff that maybe they wouldn't have dared to decades ago.

Imogen Folks (25:03)

Why do you think this is happening? I mean, can you pinpoint certain examples or people? I mean, you say obviously international law has never been 100% respected. We know that. I think it's also probably true to say that this trend that you identify didn't just start last year or the year before.

Stuart Casey Maslin (25:27)

No, that's certainly true. We saw it in the aftermath of 9, 11 horrendous attacks on civilians by Al Qaeda. But we saw in the US Response that they were prepared, in the fated words of Dick Cheney, to work the dark side. And boy, did they do that. We saw in the invasion of Iraq, although IHL was largely respected by the U.S. we saw a breach of this general prohibition on the use of force. And then of course, we've had Ukraine since 2014 and more recently since the invasion of 2022. We look at what's happened in Gaza, the obliteration of vast swathes of Gaza. We see the destruction of hospitals in Sudan. We see that people do this and are not held to account. We have institutions, we have the International Criminal Court. But even there, there's an attempt to undermine it. It becomes a political decision rather than simply a legal one. Respect for the law.

Imogen Folks (26:29)

I want to come back to the ICC and the ICJ in a moment because they were the start of the 21st century, seen as pillars of how we uphold international law and how we hold states and individuals to account when they violate international law. But before we come to that, I want to talk specifically about political leaders. Now, you talked about 9, 11 and so on, but right now we have the leader of the so called free world who has openly said that he's not too bothered about what he calls international niceties, that his only guidance is his own morals. So President Trump has said. Does that feel like a tipping point to you?

Stuart Casey Maslin (27:16)

I mean, it's certainly a very serious moment. But again, this is not, as you said, new. I remember when drone strikes started to be used again in the aftermath of 9, 11 and I remember a BBC interview with the deputy legal advisor of the CIA, and she was said, no, this is lawful under the law of the United States. And the interviewer said, but what about international law? And she smiled for a moment, and then she said, yes, international law, it's sort of a flexible moral code, isn't it? And unfortunately, the feed went down and there was no opportunity to push back. So this disregard of international law is not new. What I think is new is the extent to which it's being flouted. And you have the Russian Federation, you have the United States, you have Israel, all seemingly pushing international humanitarian law to the very brink, with, in certain cases in parts of Ukraine, systematic war crimes. Why I would not accept that international humanitarian law is over. That has no utility is because that is demonstrably false. If you look at Ukraine, on the one hand, as I said, you have these systematic violations by Russia, but you do not have systematic violations by Ukraine. Why not? Is it because Ukrainians are inherently better people? Well, maybe in some cases it's true, but it's also the case that they are being held to account by their allies. So what that means is if states take compliance with IHL international humanitarian law seriously, they can influence many, not all, but many cases. It's a choice that we make to push compliance or to just sit back and watch it go out the window.

Imogen Folks (29:05)

So, but how do we pull it back from the window ledge then, when the world's superpower is actively working against it? I mean, we've seen in the last 12 months these sanctions against judges at the. At the International Criminal Court, which is really, I think, many states in Europe or in Latin America. It's quite a shocking move by the.

Stuart Casey Maslin (29:29)

US it is a shocking move. Again, it's not new. There was the legislation that was adopted in the US A few years ago that said if ever a US Serviceman was put before the icc, then the United States would use military force to release them. So, again, these things are not new. They're getting worse. They're getting more repetitive. That's where other states step up. They defend the icc, they defend other tribunals. They say everybody is held to account for serious violations of international humanitarian law. Again, it's a choice that we make.

Imogen Folks (30:03)

Are there enough countries making that choice, though? Right now, we do see in Europe more cases under the universal jurisdiction.

Stuart Casey Maslin (30:11)

Universal jurisdiction is certainly one tool in our armory. We've seen cases in. In Germany, for example, in Switzerland, in France. States are starting to take this more seriously. And that is an important element but it's also the duty of the states where these violations take place, to do their part. Look at Syria. We've had a change of regime. We have the opportunity to stop the massive violations of the past. And yes, there have been some problems over the last year, very serious problems by the new administration. But they have an opportunity to join the International Criminal Court and to make their forces responsible as well as those of the former regime. Again, that's a choice that we make. Let's turn to another conflict. This is one that in our report, we identified for the first time this year. That's Haiti. Gang violence, as we know, has been appalling for several years. The absence of state governance has been filled by the gangs. And we are now at a stage where there is a non international armed conflict within at least Port au Prince or the vast majority of Port au Prince. That means that international humanitarian law is applicable and also that war crimes are committed when the law is seriously violated. Again, Haiti is only a signatory, not a state party, to the International Criminal Court. They need to join, and then the court needs to start looking at, investigating what is going on.

Imogen Folks (31:46)

Since you're talking about Haiti. Slightly, slightly off topic, but the other interview in this episode is with Richard Gowen of the International Crisis Group. We were talking about the prospects for this Board of Peace which Donald Trump has proposed. But behind the scenes, the US Is also looking for UN helped in Haiti. So do you think that is one place where you could say, look, the norms and standards we have and the institutions we have are the things that can solve this, not maybe quick fixes like this Board of peace.

Stuart Casey Maslin (32:22)

The idea that this is purely going to be resolved by the use of force, whether it be military force or law enforcement operations, I'm afraid is for the birds. It is the lack of governance, the lack of provision of basic services to the people in the capital and in other parts of Haiti that has led to this situation? So, yes, there will be a need to protect people against massacres, and we've seen several of them over the last two years. But that has to be combined with a serious plan to provide resources, because where there's a void, groups will step in and they will not be groups that have human rights at their heart.

Imogen Folks (33:00)

Do you think that the conversation around human rights and respecting each other's rights has really changed? Actually, in the last few years, people are much more for their own selves and their own nation states. The language around respecting other people's rights has changed. We also see quite dehumanising language becoming quite common. It's included in the speeches of powerful politicians these days. Do you feel that this is also part of the thing that's undermining international law? It's just becoming more acceptable to not respect the other?

Stuart Casey Maslin (33:44)

I'm not so sure. Again, I don't think this is new. What we've seen in the genocide in Gaza, this is not the first genocide. We saw it in the 90s, in particular in Srebrenica, arguably in other parts of Bosnia Herzegovina. We've seen it of course in Rwanda. That kind of dehumanizing language is not new. It's as human as it can possibly be. What we need is for political leaders, for community leaders to speak out and say this is not acceptable. We are all human beings. We have all the right to have our lives and integrity protected. And I'm not sure that we are so very much worse. We're certainly not better, but we're not so very much worse than we were in previous decades. I just think we're living through a particularly difficult time in terms of global geopolitics.

Imogen Folks (34:36)

We heard a very interesting, powerful speech from Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum just a week or so ago. He described international law, human rights and so on, that it had always been a partial fiction and that powerful states upheld it sometimes but didn't to their own convenience. I think we both know that's true. If you watch the Human Rights Council in Geneva, you'll see that that's true. But he seemed to be suggesting that maybe we need to accept that these things aren't universal and that there needs to be an alliance of like mind and states who can at least uphold them just on their own territories. Which seems a bit sad to me. But do you think that's the way we're going?

Stuart Casey Maslin (35:23)

I think it's always been the way. I mean, let's take one specific example. When I first came To Geneva in 93, my work was supporting a campaign that was then starting out against anti personnel mines. And again you had the key states. The United States said no, Russia said no, China said no. We need these things, we can't do without them. And it was an alliance of middle powers. And Canada played an important role, as did South Africa, as did Norway, as did Mexico. And they got together and they created a law that has saved thousands of lives. There are problems now because of non state actors, Islamic State and whatever, but there are thousands of people who are alive and with limbs as a result of that effort. Now, that's a narrow, small area, but it's still a contribution. There are plenty of other weapons out there. There are plenty other situations that can be addressed. We can make progress even in this difficult geopolitical climate, if we have the determination to do so.

Imogen Folks (36:23)

Very last question, then. There are many people around who do really support international law and want to be able to stand up for it. Just ordinary people, probably our listeners to this podcast. What advice would you. Would you give them?

Stuart Casey Maslin (36:40)

Everybody can do something. There is no one on this planet that cannot have a voice, whether it's their own or through their elected representatives. Everybody has parliamentary representatives representing to them. Write to them, tell them that you want to see action. Let's just take one specific example, the arms trademark. We are seeing a massive ramping up in the arms trade and there is a need for states to defend themselves. That's, of course, accepted. But what we should not be doing is providing weapons to those who demonstrably violate international humanitarian law. And sadly, we've seen over the last few years that there have been instances where, again, political, narrow political considerations have overridden the law. We have the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. It sets down clear standards for when a transfer is lawful and when it's not. Those standards need to be implemented, and everyone in every state can push their government to join the treaty and then to implement it faithfully.

Imogen Folks (37:50)

Professor Stuart Casey Maslin of the Geneva Academy with a rousing plea there to all of us to hold our governments, our militaries and armed groups everywhere to account. We do have some checks on what is allowed in war for good reason, the protection of all of us. So let's all try to make sure those rules are upheld. And if you want to know more about the War Watch report, including why the authors say Nicolas Maduro Venezuela, should be legally classed as a prisoner of war in the United States, you can find all the details on the Warwatch CH website. That's it for this edition of Inside Geneva. We hope you enjoyed it. And do join us next time for our episode on the tricky topic of immigration. I'm Imogen. Folks, thanks for listening.