Richard A. Falk and Hans von Sponeck, "Liberating the United Nations: Realism with Hope" (Stanford UP, 2024)

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: New Books
Episode: Richard A. Falk and Hans von Sponeck, "Liberating the United Nations: Realism with Hope" (Stanford UP, 2024)
Date: January 22, 2026

This episode centers on "Liberating the United Nations: Realism with Hope," a critical and aspirational examination of the UN co-authored by international law scholar Richard Falk and former UN Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck. The conversation explores the historical foundations, persistent inequalities, political realities, and prospects for reform within the UN system, with an emphasis on tension between idealism and geopolitical power. Key themes include the promise and pitfalls of the Yalta system, the continuing dominance of the West, the role of civil society, human versus national security paradigms, financial inequalities, and the potential for a democratized, de-Westernized UN. The dialogue moves from sober analysis to measured optimism, always balancing realism with hope—a phrase central to the book and conversation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The UN’s Origins: Power, Inequality, and the Promise of Yalta (01:07–10:39)

• Design and Domination:
  • Falk argues that the UN’s architecture was “designed by the winners of World War II to perpetuate their dominance” (02:09), emphasizing the Security Council’s veto as enabling global powerholders to protect their interests and marginalize others.
  • Von Sponeck reflects on the Yalta agreement as initially a pact of cooperation, quickly eroded by Cold War dynamics.
• Realism vs. Idealism:
  • Both discuss a foundational tension between postwar idealistic aspirations (as seen in the Charter preamble and public hopes) and political realism (especially among Western policy elites).
• League of Nations Comparison:
  • The UN achieves universality lacking in its predecessor, but at the cost of subordinating universal principles to geopolitics.

Notable Quote:

“The UN was designed to fail when it comes to the observance of international law in these global security situations...”
—Richard Falk (03:08)

---

2. The Power of "Penholding" and Institutional Imbalance (12:24–16:25)

• Penholder Power:
  • Von Sponeck introduces “the power of the pen holder,” highlighting how financial, geographic, and institutional levers (e.g., headquarters, Bretton Woods institutions) reflect and reinforce Western influence. (13:04)
• Money and Manipulation:
  • Both note that Western dominance is operationalized through control of finances and personnel, shaping the UN’s agenda and responsiveness.
• American Attitude:
  • Von Sponeck cites Jesse Helms’ statement to the Security Council—“if you do what is in our interest... you have our support. If you don’t... we are against you”—calling it “power talk.” (15:28)

Notable Quote:

“The fate of the UN over the last 80 years was... closely linked to the penholders powers which were clearly in the West.”
—Hans von Sponeck (13:27)

---

3. Shifting Geopolitics and Prospects for Reform (16:25–21:09)

• Trumpism and Withdrawal Threats:
  • Falk notes the Trump administration’s hostility toward internationalism and hints of US withdrawal as evidence of a deepening crisis (16:25).
  • Von Sponeck argues, however, that the world is changing; the "Global South" is less willing to submit and more assertive in global debate, bolstered by the recent Pact for the Future.
• Civil Society’s Rise:
  • He believes that not only states but civil society now plays a defining role in the evolution of the international order.
  • Optimism: Extremism in Washington is spurring greater global resolve for reform.

Notable Quote:

“I think the UN will live beyond Mr. Trump... Beyond Western oriented policies and create something also... it is no longer just a state-based discussion. It’s a discussion that involves also civil society.”
—Hans von Sponeck (16:58)

---

4. Universal Security: Human vs. National Security & Continued Realist Dominance (21:09–28:14)

• Human Security:
  • The host raises the shift from "national security" to "human security" as a key proposal from the book. (21:09)
  • Falk expresses pessimism: there’s insufficient will and capacity among the Global South to challenge Western dominance, which he sees as a kind of neocolonialism (22:00).
  • Cites recent UN actions as capitulation (e.g., Security Council’s endorsement of the “Trump plan” for Gaza).
• Hopeful Caution:
  • Von Sponeck responds that change is slow but real and urges patience for the impact of recent reforms.

Notable Quote:

“It is an idea that the West should be responsible for the security of the world and that means also the exploitation of the non-West. It’s a disguised way of giving a second life to colonialism...”
—Richard Falk (22:17)

---

5. De-Westernization, Civil Society, and Trust Deficit (27:21–33:35)

• De-Westernization:
  • Von Sponeck acknowledges opposition and slow progress, but points to increasing activism (e.g., climate conferences, civil society) as signs of change.
• Civil Society’s Importance:
  • Both stress the necessity of organized, networked civil society participation for real reform.
• Trust Deficit:
  • Von Sponeck: “The big problem globally is... a total absence of trust... confrontation, polarization, anything but evidence that there is a coming together...” (28:14)
  • Falk: So far, little evidence that civil society has a real, consistent impact on UN agendas.

---

6. Economic Dynamics, Capitalism, and Resistance to Reform (44:36–47:47)

• The Economic Underpinnings:
  • Falk laments that those pushing for a more democratic UN lack the “financial resources that these reactionary forces possess, including the engines of capitalism, which are... largely destructive of a desirable future” (44:36).
  • Predicts continued alarm from the West at any democratization that could challenge capitalism.
• Realism with Hope:
  • The pair reiterate their subtitle’s ethos: balancing a sober view of obstacles with cautious optimism.

---

7. Gaza, Accountability, and UN Paralysis (47:47–57:07)

• UN in Gaza:
  • Falk is highly critical of the UN’s endorsement of US-Israeli plans for Gaza, describing it as “reward[ing] genocide” (48:11).
  • Von Sponeck laments the UN’s consistent financial and institutional marginalization, noting its “pitifully small” budget and manipulation by major donors (52:27).
• Accountability and Reform:
  • Both highlight the urgent need for accountability and the end of impunity within the UN system as a cornerstone of reform.

Notable Quote:

“The UN is totally colonized in terms of financial support. All that needs to be changed... the UN financing is so badly used by power-hungry individual governments that this has to end.”
—Hans von Sponeck (52:27)

---

8. Universality and the Threat of Secession (57:07–64:36)

• Withdrawal Dilemmas:
  • Falk contemplates scenarios where Israel or the US withdraw from the UN, arguing the latter might paradoxically “alter, maybe for the better,” the institution’s power dynamics (58:16).
• Article 6 Expulsion:
  • Both discuss the rarely-invoked Article 6 (expulsion of members), with von Sponeck suggesting a strategy of “freezing” participation for chronic violators.

Notable Quotes:

“If the US withdrew... then these tendencies that Hans has been emphasizing, including the mobilization of civil society, might begin to have an impact...”
—Richard Falk (58:43)
“If they misbehave, they are accountable. I think that should be the new way of thinking in terms of international relations.”
—Hans von Sponeck (63:24)

---

9. The Role and Reform of the Secretary General (64:59–69:24)

• Desired Qualities:
  • Falk: “At least one hopes for a woman and one hopes for someone that embodies these ideals and a strong conviction that the UN has to live up to its charter...” (65:34)
  • Both stress the need for independence from the Security Council and reform to reduce P5 power over the Secretary General's appointment.
  • Von Sponeck emphasizes the importance of enforcing Article 100 and 101 (institutional independence from states).

---

10. Intergenerational Perspectives and Hope (69:24–75:15)

• Youth Voices:
  • The host asks how the perspectives of younger generations affect their own thinking.
  • Falk: Sees youth and activists like Greta Thunberg bringing urgency and ethical imperatives, suggesting “I would put young people in charge” (72:06).
  • Von Sponeck: Feels “very humble” when reading youth contributions, seeing their idealism as essential for the reform process.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• On Power and Design:

  “There’s no other reason to give the most dangerous countries and the most powerful ones an unrestricted right of veto.”
  —Richard Falk (02:43)

• On Civil Society:

  “It is no longer just a state-based discussion. It’s a discussion that involves also civil society. Civil society is a very important new player on the block.”
  —Hans von Sponeck (18:25)

• On Signs of Change:

  “The train towards a better global order, the train is running and the signals are not all on green. Many signals the train is passing are on red.”
  —Hans von Sponeck (29:56)

• On Realism with Hope

  “I would remind Hans of our subtitle which is Realism with Hope and the need not to have hope degenerate into wishful thinking.”
  —Richard Falk (46:21)

• On Youth and the Future:

  “Young people have an investment in a viable and humane future that older people are more... not as attentive to. They take the world as it has emerged. ... I would put young people in charge.”
  —Richard Falk (72:06)

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• 01:07 — Introduction of guests and framing core UN question
• 02:09 — Power, the veto, and the UN's design
• 07:04 — The Yalta promise and collapse
• 13:04 — "Power of the penholder" and Western institutional dominance
• 16:25 — Trumpism and renewed threats to multilateralism
• 21:09 — Human security vs. national security at the UN
• 28:14 — Civil society, trust deficits, and the ongoing fight for reform
• 44:36 — Capitalism, resources, and resistance to democratic international order
• 48:11 — Gaza, the Trump plan, and the UN’s compromised role
• 52:27 — UN’s financial dependence and consequences
• 58:16 — The risks and effects of member state withdrawal (Israel, US)
• 65:34 — Vision for a future Secretary-General
• 70:37 — Intergenerational dialogue and the role of young voices

---

Concluding Thoughts

The episode paints a nuanced portrait of the United Nations: an institution yoked to the geopolitical self-interest of its most powerful members, yet still possessing the possibility for reinvention through democratization, robust civil society engagement, and persistent pressure for equity and accountability. Falk provides a persistent, sometimes pessimistic realism, warning against mistaking idealism for progress, while von Sponeck brings hopeful optimism, especially regarding the Global South and civil society’s rising influence. Their dialog converges: real liberation for the United Nations must bridge these tensions—with realism, but always, as the book’s subtitle urges, with hope.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hello, everybody. This is Marshall Po. I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network. And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world. We reach a worldwide audience of 2 million people. You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast. As you probably know, there are challenges basically of two kinds. One is technical. There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed. And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience. Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today. With this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions. What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast. Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience. We've done this many times with many academic podcasts and we would like to help you. If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us. Just go to the front page of the New Books Network and you will see a link to NBN Productions. Click that, fill out the form, and we can talk. Welcome to the New Books Network.

[B]

Welcome to the podcast. Today we are discussing Liberating the United Nations, a book co written by Richard Falk, a emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University, and Hans von Schoenek, who was the UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, who worked for 32 years in the UN system. Welcome, Richard and Hans. So I thought we might begin with a narrative that the UN needs to face, which is that international law, as it's developed over the past decades, over the UN's lifetime, is something that strong powers foist onto weaker ones. It's not really something that the major powers used to constrain themselves. What can and should the UN do or say in relation to this narrative?

[C]

I think it's an important question. First of all, this issue of the viability of international law is really limited to the area of the management of global security. It doesn't apply to the governance of routine interactions, including important economic, trade and commerce, investment, maritime safety, air safety, all the things that make interactions internationally possible on a daily basis. Second point is that the UN itself, the architecture, in my view, was designed by the winners of World War II to perpetuate their dominance of the global scene. There's no other reason to give the most dangerous countries and the most powerful ones an unrestricted right. Of veto and a permanent presence on the only decision making organ within the UN system. And so in one way, the UN was designed to fail when it comes to the observance of international law in these global security situations, which are the most important and contradict the promises of the preamble of the UN to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It really isn't. It really relies on the primacy of geopolitics when it comes to global security and marginalizes the rest of the world.

[B]

There was a. There was an Indian political scientist in 1946 who described the new UN system as the League of Nations fused with a concert of powers. I think that was how they put it. So, I mean, is it almost fair to describe this UN architecture as a regression in terms of international equality?

[D]

Well, no, it started out quite differently. I mean, it is no secret that this institution we are talking about wouldn't have come about in if there hadn't been an agreement between the east and the west, between the three wise men in Yalta, that they must cooperate with each other. And if they don't, then there will not be an institution called the United Nations. So that was in the beginning, the basis on which the geopolitical discussion took place. The fact that it ended up very differently, very quickly, beginning in 1950 with the war between the two Koreas, is showing you that this agreement to collaborate fell very quickly apart away from the expectations that the world that was hoping to create to have an institution that would abide by the promises of Yalta take place. So the problem that arose had something to do with the imbalance in the capacity of east and the west to be equal partners in building the new body that was called the United Nations. And we know very well, and we must maybe take time to discuss that a little bit more closely into how this, this promise of Yalta was broken and the implications of that. The key word here is the creation and the development, the intensification of what became a highly west centric, Western oriented body that at all costs tried to call the shots.

[B]

I'm hearing something slightly different in your emphases, Richard and Hans. With Hans, I'm hearing an emphasis more on the dream of Yalta as one of working together to prevent major conflict. And in what Richard said, I was hearing an emphasis more on using the veto as an example of working together to maximize the part of the pie that these major powers can have in terms of geopolitical preponderance and domination. Can both of these things be true at the same time? Or do they kind of cut into each other and exist in a zero sum game?

[D]

If I can just quickly add to the. Sorry, Richard, very quickly, the veto that was established assumed that it was a veto that would be supported by all three powers. And that didn't happen very quickly. The veto was cast in terms of the bilateral geopolitical interests of the parties. That's where the promise of Yalta collapsed.

[C]

I would view the collapse of the promise or the failure to fulfill the promise of Yalta in the same context as I mentioned, the failed fulfillment of the promise of the preamble of the UN Charter, that both of them were, in my view, victimized by an underlying, largely unacknowledged tension between the political realists who were running the foreign policy establishment of the Western countries and the idealistic aspirations of the public and of the media, post war period. And in addition, to respond to your earlier question, the sense that the League of Nations had failed because it excluded geopolitics and that for an international organization to succeed, it had to acknowledge in some way geopolitics, at least in the management of global security, in order to keep the big players in the game. And in one way, the UN succeeded where the League failed, because it is still an organization that encompasses the participation of all the important states in the world. Its universality has been sustained, but at a very high cost. And that's the source of disappointment and frustration.

[D]

I would totally agree with this concept of universality that didn't exist in the League of Nations and did exist in the case of the un. But if we try to get an understanding of why the UN over time has increasingly failed to fulfill its mandate is because of the incredible imbalance in the political, financial, economic powers between the east and the West. The west was tempted and unfortunately it fell to this temptation to use its outstanding better preparations for handling a multilateral institution, its finances and the economic power it had. It started to put emphasis in terms of what they would accept and what they would not accept in geopolitical decision making. It should have taken into account the other partner, and it didn't. Increasingly, the distance between the West, UK and the US in particular, and the east, the USSR at the time, became deeper and deeper that cleavage. And in the end, I think we don't have to talk too much about that because it's so clearly a fact. The world was faced with a very lopsided institution with powers resting in London and in Washington.

[B]

So one of the themes that runs through the book is how the UN is the product of inequalities across different parts of the world, but also has to respond to inequalities. And you use this concept. One of the concepts you use is this power of the pen holder, which I found very interesting. Is the power of the penholder. In your view, does it flow from inequalities in financial and military power, or do you see it as a separate kind of influence, power and inequality?

[D]

May I, Richard? I would say it's very clearly linked. The penholder power has clearly to do with he who holds the financial power, the economic power, the location power. Also, let's not forget where is the UN system located in the beginning. In the first decades, there was not one single institution of the UN that was located outside the West. There were certain institutions. Prime example still exist today. The Monetary Fund and the World bank are UN bodies. These people are the staff travels with the same passport with which I traveled, the UN passport. And yet they were squarely strong bodies representing Western, particularly American interests. So whatever is happening is linked. The fate of the UN over the last 80 years was until very recently, very closely linked to the penholders powers which were clearly in the West.

[C]

If I can just add a footnote, they were linked to this underlying political ideology that emerged in the west after the defeat of fascism, which was to basically orient foreign policy toward an emerging Cold War with the Soviet Union. And so that shifted the Yalta emphasis on a cooperative world order to one in which the west has valued the UN as a political actor to the extent that it could use it as a political instrument of power in the emerging Cold War.

[D]

Well, you know, that immediately reminds me of to make the point. I agree with what you're saying. Jesse Helms, the chairman of the Senate American Foreign Relations Committee, once felt very clearly and the Security Council said, look, UN if you do what is in our interest, what we want you to do, you have our support. If you don't do that, we are against you. Now, that's power talk. And that's exactly what we have said and concluded so far, is that the UN became increasingly imbalanced and increasingly dominated by a few powerful Western countries. That is very simply and maybe not very elegantly put, but that's the fact that explains why we are today having this kind of discussion about the failures of the UN during the last eight decades.

[C]

But of course, that is now being epitomized by the Trump assault on internationalism, including the U.N. and with an underlying threat that the U.S. is thinking about withdrawing from the U.N. that's a new exaggeration of either you do it my way or. Or the highway.

[D]

Yeah, except the highway is not indefinite. There is an end to the highway. There comes a point where the highway is no longer there. And the world of 2026 is not the world of 1990. Today we have a much different global community of nations which is no longer willing to say it's my highway and if you don't want to travel on it, then you don't travel. This is no longer the picture. And you know as well as I do that the countries collectively called the countries of the South, I prefer to call them the non western countries, are no longer willing to accept this kind of travel on the highway that somebody else has constructed. So I am much more hopeful. Mr. Trump and his administration, with all the failures in terms of multilateralism, the ideals of international law will eventually, Richard, in my view, be no more than a minor footnote in history. We will, the world will. And Washington will realize the world is bigger than one. And this other world has increasingly now the courage the decolonization process has well matured. Countries that yesterday were shy to voice their disagreement. Today they are coming forward the UN Pact for the future that was agreed last September by the General Assembly. The reaction to this pact for the future that is supposed to reach recreate the UN that the UN that was wanted in 1945 is so, so positive. Whether it is governments that are supporting reforms and the reforms mean in clear language away from a West centric institution to a and that's the part of our book a democratic institution where we are not a prior expect that it will always be the Western tune that is being followed. This is a very good development. Many people are saying Mr. Trump and the withdrawal from institutions the UN may collapse in this. I don't believe that at all. I think the UN will live beyond Mr. Trump will be beyond Western oriented policies and create something also. And here we must bring in and I hope that we can talk a little bit about this and that is it is no longer just a state based discussion. It's a discussion that involves also civil society. Civil society is a very important new player on the block. And civil society is more and more now, whether some countries like it or not is becoming more and more a party in the definition of where we want to see our global order move towards. So I'm more optimistic than now saying under the pressure from Washington this is the end of multilateralism. I don't think so at all. I think it's a boost this extremism in Washington, to me is an encouragement for the rest of the world to stand up and say, you may have that right, absolutely, you have the right to do what you feel you have to do. But we have also the right to do what we want to do. So it's now more and more a question of integrating these different efforts to create a body that meets the needs of a global order institution like the un.

[B]

Could I just bring in a relevant concept in the book, which is that of human security? So you discuss the limits of national security in terms of traditional state based political realism, and you call for a paradigm in which the UN furthers human security instead of national security. And yet, as we've discussed already, there is this balancing act of maintaining universality and maintaining realism about geopolitics. So how does that work in your view? How does a human security agenda at the UN maintain realism about geopolitics?

[C]

Well, I think I'm more pessimistic than Hans on these issues because I think there isn't sufficient evidence of a political will, even on the part of the global South. Or maybe it's a mixture of a political will and a material capability and financial resources to challenge effectively this Western concept. And I think it goes beyond national security. It is an idea that the west should be responsible for the security of the world and that means also the exploitation of the non West. It's a disguised way of, of giving a second life to colonialism, where the impulse to dominate is also part of what has caused a lack of confidence, that the UN is the place where equality and the global public good can be achieved. How we restore that confidence and make a new Yalta promise. I don't think the Pact for the Future has the underpinnings of political will sufficient to make it a challenge, a meaningful challenge at this stage. And I would point to the recent unanimous endorsement by the UN Security Council of the Trump plan for the governance of Gaza, which I think is a shameful moment in the UN's history. And all of the non Western elements just gave way and are continuing to give way. And even the Secretariat of the un, as personified in the Secretary General has endorsed this Trump approach which rewards the commission of genocide and punishes the victim.

[D]

I would say I understand you, Richard, but give it a chance. The Pact for the Future is not even a year old. The reform process is very slow. But if you do carefully read what is meant to happen in the reform process, then you will see that it is at least potentially possible that the enormous and Valuable large body of international law that is available in the books but has not been applied is now as part of the democratization effort that is underway and that unpacked for the future is exactly doing that is exactly what you and I have so hard try to difficult as it was to identify that the future of multilateralism is linked to a process of democratization. And that this is not happening easily is very clear to me. It has opposition from many sides, but I'll give it a chance. I think the effort should now be to, in the spirit of the book that you and I have written, to try and broaden the base, try to advance our investment in all these things that are helping to move away from the colonial reality that the UN has faced. Yes, I can say that the colonial reality under which I worked for so many years, I can give you many examples to prove what I'm talking about, that this is over. So now to say after a short period of 10 months since that pact was approved by practically all, yes, the Russians and the Chinese abstained, doesn't matter. The road towards a shift, a pivot is a rocky road. And we should therefore have a little bit more patience to see what's happening now in terms of concrete changes. But they are to me there are signs that they are in the making. We have examples of that.

[B]

Could I ask you Hans, to reflect a bit on this concept of de Westernization that you've mentioned? For example, the which.

[D]

Sorry, I didn't hear you.

[B]

Yeah, de Westernization. Given what Richard just mentioned, for example, broad, broad reasons for pessimism or the specific example of this Trump appointed board and the UN's acquiescence in it? I mean, is there really much reason to be optimistic about de Westernization or will it just be a different set of power political moves that are running through the UN and directing resources towards these powers prerogatives and legitimating a different set of governments.

[D]

Look, I'm also pessimistic in some respects. The beginning is tough. The beginning is full of opposition. The beginning is facing leaders that have a lot of political powers. They will try not to allow a departure from the present reality of muscle related power related military related interactions. And you can now prove me wrong in what I'm saying by saying that in many countries of the south there's support for this approach from the West. Well, I'm not surprised and this will remain so for some time. But once, and this is a heavy word and I know it's very difficult to show evidence that there is an improvement in the trust. The big problem globally is at the moment a total absence of trust. There's confrontation, there's polarization, there's anything but evidence that there is a coming together, that the powers of the moment, east and West, China, Russia, UK in particular, that there is a wake up call that says, yes, we have to change course, we have to cooperate. There's no evidence to that. I would be naive if I would say so, but the pressures increase also the pressures from civil society examples. Look at the international, big international conferences, look at the COP programs on climate change. There's more and more evidence that the non western countries and particularly the partner civil society, that they want it differently and they are making a difference now. And maybe we should have an agreement, the three of us, that in a year from now we should look at the scene again and see what changes have occurred. But right now I think the signal of the train towards a better global order, the train is running and the signals are not all on green. Many signals the train is passing are on red. And we must expect that and we must prepare that. And the big challenge of the moment, in my view, is that we encourage the formation of networks involving civil society. But also, let's not forget, remember it's useful sometimes to look at earlier events and see what happened. Look at the Bandung conference. The Bandung conference many, many years ago promised a cohesive international response towards power grabbing. Well, it didn't happen. The power was grabbed. But it doesn't mean that tomorrow it could not be different. And I think the signs, as I say, are there, that there is a difference. I really would give it a chance by pushing, also by insisting particular civil society should insist that the UN pact for the future is progressing, is aggressively now undertaken. Because you will, once this happens, once this reform process is really starting in earnest, which it hasn't yet, we will see who is playing the game and who doesn't. And then one can react to that pointedly by making sure that the train is moving again towards what we have seen, which has almost meant the death nail of the United Nations. It hasn't. And the UN will continue, but we have to be very careful and we have to organize better at all levels, at the government level as well as in particular, if I have, and I think Richard agrees maybe with me, because in the book we said so, we both feel that, that a global order debate without a new partner on the block, and that is civil society, will not be successful.

[C]

Yes, I share the hope of civil society becoming a robust partner that promotes a vision with sufficient commitment that it influences the way governments behave. I think so far we haven't got that evidence. And it's wishful thinking in my view, to think that the pact for the.

[D]

Future.

[C]

Has moved in a positive direction. Because if I look at the period since its adoption, the UN looks weaker and more marginalized than it did when that pact was adopted. In other words, the current trend seems to me to be the reverse of what Hans and I hope would be achieved. And I think we need an epilogue to our book that acknowledges these changes. And I wouldn't underestimate the impact of Trumpism. Not necessarily Trump, but Trumpism, which has led to the withdrawal from the 66 international bodies by the US and the US is for all its manipulative suspicion that it engenders elsewhere still the dominant actor within the international sphere. And it wants to and see. I think one thing that I think Hans view would be very interesting to hear. I see much evidence that the effort both of Russia and in a way the US is to bypass Europe and to split the west and to create a geopolitical arrangement of global order that involves enlarged spheres of influence by the us, Russia and China and substitute that for a more democratic, more peace oriented, human rights fulfilling image of the future.

[D]

Well, you know, I think what you're saying is reflecting the reality. What I would like to add is that there is an increasing weight of disagreement that the status quo cannot possibly continue. And if you look at the debates in the General assembly, to me it is very clear that a country, maybe the country with the most clear line of thinking, China, the way China argues in the General assembly is to me how a responsible permanent member of the UN should argue. Now, when people listen to this, they will immediately say, oh, this man is naive. He forgets what China is. I don't forget what China is. There's no country, including the P5, that is a model for international behavior. That's clear. But if there's a country that has shown more than any other country of the permanent five, it is China, that shows a very clear trajectory of and that is rule based. It is giving respect to the international international law. It is not what we hear out of Washington where a head of state can say international law. I don't care about international, for me, I am international law. So there is a group of powerful nations that is at least beginning to consider joining what in my view is an unavoidable trend of global order development. And that is a more democratic presence where the voice of Everyone has a right to be heard. Doesn't exist now. I know it sounds all very naive, but what I'm trying to say, a beginning has been made and the pact of the future is a beginning. There is something called the UN Civil Society Conference. I don't know whether you have heard of that. It was a conference that took place in Nairobi, but it is now a standing conference that is monitoring the pact for the future development where civil society and UN organizations, yes, the operational UN is a partner here. And maybe this is an important shift because 10 years or so ago would have been unthinkable that Secretary General and Operation United Nations Agencies, programs and Funds would dare to have such a liaison with a non governmental or non UN entity. That's happening. These are small steps. They may be inadequate, they may be insufficient, but we cannot ignore that they do exist. And we should encourage, Richard, you and I should encourage governments to have a look at our book and to understand. And that was a promise that you and I that we made to each other that we will not fall prey to reflecting in our book our ideological preferences. We haven't done that at all. We have looked not at prescriptions. The book is not like a doctor writing to me a prescription and you must take this pill, that pill and the other. What we have done is we have put on the table a series of alternatives that should be considered now. That is our contribution, I think, to the dialogue that is needed, the dialogue that has started. And it is up to us, to you and I, and also you and I in our contacts with the authorities, with people that we know in important decision making posts, to try and take that into account in the debate that is now absolutely vital if we want to have an order. I'm very glad you talked about human security because human security is the reflection or is an indication of all that which is already in our international books. We have it. We have the pacts. We have these two human rights pacts that cover a lot. We have charter law, we have a lot of theory that now needs to be applied and respected. And a key word, and I think in our book we make good number of references to this, is it is also an era ending impunity in favor of accountability. And accountability is something which has been lacking, missing in the manner in which this multilateral body has been handled until now. This must end. It's one of many aspects to which we refer that if they are taken seriously, it will lead to a change. Will they be taken seriously? Well, there will be, as I've Said many times now there will be a lot of opposition to accept much of what we have proposed. That doesn't mean that in the end, in the interest of creating a world that can breathe freely, a world that is giving human beings the chance to make the best out of their lives. That's all said. It's there now. Let's try and move away from Mr. Trump and how bad he is or the Russians, how criminal they are to something which is necessary, alternative and try to get organized. The what is no longer important to me. What is important to me is how do we do, how do we get there? What does it take to implement?

[B]

Can I bring back in civil society? Because that's, I mean that's one major form of accountability would be to introduce greater civil society decision making power and processes within the UN system. Could you identify what are the key barriers to this and what would you say, for example, to civil society actors who have a lot to contribute to the UN system but currently sit outside of the fence, Keep going, do what.

[D]

You are planning to do, Join as many efforts that there are, there's ecosoc. ECOSOC is again is maybe an underutilized facility of the UN where about 7,8000 NGOs now have an accreditation they can participate in. Anticipate more of that challenge. I say here in Germany, in the peace movement, I say going on the street makes you maybe feel good, but makes no difference. What makes a difference if you challenge the politicians? So what has happened? What I would say to an activist, civil society activist is if you're upset, if you have a proposal, if that proposal is genuine, is sincere, then bring it to the attention. Challenge decision makers wherever they are, at the national level, at the local level, at the international level, and more you cannot do but do it, number one. Number two, get organized. It's no good that you have 10 different beautiful flowers that are by themselves fighting for survival. Make a bunch out of them, make a bunch of flowers, bring them together and then that bunch of flowers or that bunch of people has much more opportunity to be successful in alerting politicians that they must come closer to what they've promised the electorate.

[C]

See, I agree very much with what Hans said about China. I think that's a very important recognition of something positive on the international level that is a counter to the U.S. but China's success economically, it's registered the highest trade surplus in human history the past year is viewed here in the US as a threat and as a mobilizing of the resources of the west to Counter that Chinese influence that's rising in the world and that would create a new kind of different kind of Cold War that would preoccupy the world. I would remind Hans of our subtitle which is Realism with hope and the need not to have hope degenerate into wishful thinking. And therefore the obstacles to the kind of future that we desire have to be taken into account. And the weakness of the forces that are aligned with our vision also have to be in taken into account. They lack the financial resources that these reactionary forces possess, including the engines of capitalism, which are playing a very important role that is in my view, largely destructive of a desirable future and are very skeptical of allowing an international organization to become a democratic dominant force in the world, which would almost undoubtedly be anti capitalist in its orientation. And that really alarms the west in the same way that the rise of Soviet Union caused a very reactionary response to the challenge of socialism.

[B]

Could I ask you, Richard, to reflect on this theme of realism with hope, specifically on the case of Gaza, which we've already brought up, but you've brought up the Trump appointed board. Given the realistic constraint under which the UN operates, what could it do in the case of Gaza?

[C]

Well, the one thing it could do is not endorse the Israel US role in Gaza as the peacemaker. And as a peacemaker that is not inclined to create a future coexistence between the Palestinian people and Israelis, but rather seeks, as it did after October 7, it seeks to impose a set of forces that will lead to what is called Greater Israel by the Zionist leadership. And for the UN prior to the problems now rising around the Board of Peace, so called that security council resolution 2803 which endorsed unanimously the Israel US plan, the Trump plan for the future of Gaza is to reward genocide. And if one goes back to the Nazi period, it would be like saying that the surviving Nazi leadership should have planned the future of Germany.

[B]

What alternatives to this, what process would you want to be discussed at the UN right now?

[C]

Certainly the validity of Palestinian participation in making a future between these two peoples that is based on some sense of human rights, of justice, of coexistence, sustainable coexistence. But this is not that. It is a plan to turn Palestine into either a completely victimized people in an apartheid system or to make life so non viable that they leave, which is a explicit goal of many of the members of the Zionist elite that is governing Israel at the present time. And it's being played out on the west bank at the present time in a gazification of the kind of administration that's taking place there and the world is watching and even endorsing. And how one can have hope in that kind of situation without succumbing to wishful thinking is why I'm maybe seeming to resist what Hans has been saying.

[B]

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond. Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month [e-mail] specialoffer I.

[D]

Would like to remind ourselves that we are not discussing Gaza as an issue. This is important what you're saying Richard. The question that as a former UN official that disturbs me is that the UN has not been involved at all in all these deliberations about Gaza. That is the real problem and that should be pointed out, and this can be pointed out by civil society to remind the General assembly that the voice of the UN is absent, just like it was in the first round, in the first time Trump was in office when he, without Palestinian participation, decided with Israel how to solve the Gaza problem. This is exactly why we need reforms. That this doesn't happen again. I would like to also mention here you talked about financing. The UN is totally colonized in terms of financial support. All that needs to be changed, whether it is the role the UN should play in Gaza or whether what the UN can do if it were better equipped financially. These are the issues and when we talk about the UN, we must talk about this. We have so far not talked about the plight of finance. But if you look at what's happening in terms of the financial situation for the un, for the operational un, for any part of the UN as an institution, you will see again what we have talked about in the beginning and that is a heavy handedness by those who call the shots because of the contributions that are pitifully peanuts. Anyway, the UN financing is so badly used by power hungry individual governments that this has to end. Also look at sometimes the amounts that are involved in financing the United Nations. After the comma you can't find the many zeros. They are so pitifully small is the contribution that is made by governments while the agenda for the UN is increasing day by day the gap between the demands for action and the financing to support that is becoming bigger and bigger. And then there's an American ambassador who goes and pronounces that the Americans are making sacrifices in financing the un. This is an outrageous, misleading statement that tries to at all costs, with all weapons that they have in their basket to maintain, maintain the power. As Helms indicated, he insists if the UN can expect US support. These are the issues. And we have said that in our book too. We have made a detailed outline in the book about the plight of money that exists, which must be changed, must be part of the reform process is included in the UN pact for the future. So all these 56 action points, there's not one single point in this wish list. Yes, it is a wish list. Yes, it is very idealistic, but at least it's a beginning. But all of these 56 points address the issues that we have discussed so far in trying to rescue the United nations out of the hands of power by mainly one country and that's the United States. That doesn't make me anti American. It is simply a truthful statement of where we are that has to be addressed. That is where we have to put all our efforts together. And our book is trying to make, I think in a very convincing case. This is not now being naive. I don't want to be naive. I want to be blue eyed. I want to be optimistic. But I'm not naive. I know what it takes. And I also know that we are far removed from where we should be in 2026 and where we actually are. Ah, that is the beginning of the debate for me.

[B]

I want to highlight another thing at stake across these discussions which is the UN's universality, which we've already mentioned, especially the case of Palestine, brings up the fact that Israel so far hasn't seriously threatened withdrawal from the un. But of course there have long been campaigns that point out or allege the kind of supposedly unequal treatment of a specific country in the organization. How much do you think the UN system is at risk of withdrawal in the coming years of any country? And if a given country were to secede and to make the UN not universal, what would be the implications of that?

[C]

Well, it depends a lot on the country. I mean, if israelisrael is poised between being expelled and voluntarily withdrawal, There is Article 6 of the Charter that provides an option to the organization to expel a member that persistently violates international law and world order. And Israel's record would certainly warrant the implementation of that. But it would shatter this record of Universal participation. And of course it would go against the US and I suppose the French and UK so that it would be vetoed if Article 6 requires the recommendation of the Security Council, and so it couldn't be invoked. So the only option would be Israel deciding it's had enough of criticism and it will withdraw and carry on without the UN. That's a possibility, but that might help the UN. It's hard to say. If the US withdrew, which I regard as at least a 40% possibility, that would alter, maybe for the better, because then these tendencies that Hans has been emphasizing, including the mobilization of civil society, might begin to have an impact. China might play a role in financing or at least overcoming the loss of the financial contributions of the US and countries like India and Indonesia would be brought in to de. Westernize the organization. I can see a positive scenario out of that. What seems paradoxical, the withdrawal of the most powerful country.

[D]

Well, if I can add to that Article 6 exists and Article 6 isn't limited to 192 member countries. Article 6 applies to every country that is member of the United Nations. So I would call the bluff. Yes, Israel has for a long time violated all the aspects of proper participation in international institutions. So has the US. I see no difficulty to make the point that Article 6 applies to the US as much as it applies to Israel. I am against expelling a nation. I don't think that's a good idea. So I would apply Article 6 by saying we are freezing. We are freezing your participation in the un, both in Tel Aviv and in Washington, until you begin to respect international law. I think we have reached that point where we can no longer sort of try to be flexible in order to protect the interests of an individual permanent member of the United Nations. Take the risk. The UN Charter includes an Article 6 that is applicable for everybody. So let's not make here any attempt to explain why it shouldn't apply to that or the other member. I think that would be the first wrong step in an attempt to create a more democratic United Nations. That's my reaction to what I've.

[C]

Article 6 requires the recommendation of the Security Council.

[D]

I understand all that and it will fail. As you say, there's no chance. But you yourself, you taught me very well. Do you remember? I was so different, or not very accepting your statement about the usefulness of the annual repetitions in the general resolutions in the General assembly every year I said the same, almost verbatim, same resolution. And you said there is a value in that because there's something that has symbolic value. I would say that applies here too. We have to be honest and equal with the treatment and reaction to any member of the United Nations. So in that spirit, I would say we have to now take this painful step of reminding the US that it is accountable to the institution by saying you have now violated over and over the provisions of the UN Charter. We will now pronounce. Not expulsion. I hope not. That would be wrong. But freezing your participation. I think that would be an approach and then we move on. It cannot be only you. It's a two way process. You do wrong, we have a right to criticize. If we are doing wrong, you have a right to criticize. That kind of democratic approach doesn't exist at the moment. Even if it involves involves a permanent member of the United Nations. If they misbehave, they are accountable. I think that should be the new way of thinking in terms of international relations.

[C]

Just a footnote, there's also Article 5 that calls for suspension and it might be more viable to proceed under.

[D]

I would agree, less. Yes, absolutely not.

[C]

Expulsion. Article 6 deals with expulsion.

[B]

So far we've talked a lot about the political un. One important discussion in the book that we've not touched on so far is the role of the Secretary General who interacts with the political UN but is also presides over the other agencies. And I would like to ask both of you just to briefly sketch your vision for a Secretary General in the future.

[C]

Maybe I can go first as least informed. At least one hopes for a woman and one hopes for someone that embodies these ideals and a strong conviction that the UN has to live up to its charter and that all states are subject to this framework and in a way to give a kind of leadership that suggests that the use of the veto is no longer acceptable as a way of defeating the majority of what the majority peoples of the world seek in terms of peace and justice. I think think in a longer term way the selection of the Secretary General has to be reformed in a way that takes it out from under the shadow of the veto. Because Secretary General can't be selected without the recommendation of the of the Security Council. And therefore the veto is more than what the decisions of the Security Council are. It penetrates many aspects of what the UN can and can't do and has limited its effectiveness. So the reform that we both believe in has to really purge the charter of this special role that the winners of World War II were given or assumed for themselves in the architecture of the organization.

[D]

I think what you're saying, I think is really very important. But I would like to make two points here as far as the Secretary General is concerned under the present circumstances. The question that needs an answer is does a Secretary General do all he can or she can to utilize the authority, whatever that is, it has he or she have to implement the mandate of the operational un that's one. The second thing is, and that is a very concrete point that I'm trying to make here, is that member governments must again and again be reminded that there's Article 100 and 101 of the UN Charter, which makes a case for the independence of the operations of the United Nations. That I think is super important. That one reminds governments, particularly those governments who try to interfere and in my time in the UN, how often have I seen, not just by the US by others, also interference in giving direction of how the UN Secretary General and the operation team should carry out their functions. That is, I think, very important, a point that has nothing to do with UN reforms. That has something to do with implementation of the existing charter provisions.

[B]

So I've come to a final question for both of you, and it's a bit of an irreversible of a typical final question. So you've both had amazing careers and a typical question would be what would you say to young people today? But the end of your book does something different. Instead of concluding with your own thoughts, you conclude with the thoughts of a number of younger people about the UN So I'm going to ask the final question in the spirit with which you ended your book. And the UN is itself now a multi generational institution on a multi generational journey. So when you've come across perspectives on the UN like those that you included at the end of the book or others from people who are two, three generations younger with a wholly different set of experiences and worldviews, how have they added or shifted your own thinking or perspective on the institution?

[C]

That's a tough question that you should have given us maybe more warning about to give a thoughtful response to. But I think younger people feel more in touch with the global challenges, climate change being perhaps the most obvious of them. And a young person like Greta Thunberg has played a kind of charismatic role in activating younger people and reminding older people of the failure to protect the future of younger people. So the younger people have an investment in a viable and humane future. That older people are more. Dismissive or I wouldn't say dismissive exactly, but but are not as attentive to. They take the world as it has emerged. And they're concerned with the vested interests in economic and political structures that exist. And therefore, I feel that realism with hope depends on the mobilization and activism, the kind of leadership shown in these freedom flotillas that have tried to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, that are largely younger people and are reflections on the failures of the state system and not only the un, but the whole structures of power and authority. So if we take seriously, say, free a future, a responsibility to the future, I would put young people in charge.

[D]

I would refer to the nine voices that we have included in the book. And when you read these, for example, this girl from northern Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan, with what purity comes out of what she's writing, the idealism I have led my life. I am retired. I have nothing that prevents me from speaking out the way I think I feel. When I listen to these voices, whether it is through the book or whether it is in a conference that I attend, or whether it was in the classes, the seminars that I carried out at the University of Marburg. I feel very humble. I feel that I have to learn to leave my personal preferences aside when I argue they can't afford that, and yet they have the courage to speak out with an incredible convincing power in the simplicity of the language that they're using, that I would be very sad if that element in the process of reforms for a better world order if they didn't. These young people that are beginning to prepare for their lives, if they were absent. I'm very glad that we have come this long way of accepting not only civil society as a partner in carrying forward peaceful efforts, but also within the civil society that we give an increasing space and voice to those who are just at the very beginning of preparing for life.

[B]

Thank you, both of you. I think there are many elements in both of what you've just said and in this conversation that chart the UN's story from an institution that emerges from Second World War, and as we've discussed, the winners imposing their design on it to one that can address global challenges in the future. And I think your subtitle reflects why this is not a linear process. It's certainly the degree to which it's fit for purpose is something that needs to be debated. But your book has contributed to that. And so thank you for writing it and thank you for being here today.

[C]

Thank you for having us. Glucose.

[D]

Thank you very much.