Taking the pulse of the UN at 80

This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen Folks, and this is a production from SwissInfo, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's programme. The signing is done. The great charter is completed. This draft of mankind's deepest hopes already a historic document. For 80 years we have worked to forge peace, tackle poverty and hunger, advance human rights and build a more sustainable world together. All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that on the way up stopped right in the middle and then a teleprompter that didn't work. It's just not the right answer anymore to have all these men in dark suits in conference rooms deciding on the future of humanity. It's just not satisfying. And the young people won't accept it anymore. So we need a UN that manages to be much more inclusive. If at this moment we have to reimagine the UN and reimagine multilateralism, we have to bring it in from the point of confidence. And this confidence only comes once we account for lived realities of people, once we account for lived experiences from the global south. What would happen if we don't cooperate? If we look at COVID, if we look at a potential climate disaster, people are going to be forced to cooperate. And I think that's something we should never forget. It's important to keep our optimism and maybe realize that the UN is what we make of it, right? Well, hello and welcome to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen Folks and today I'm delighted to say we've got our old friend, analyst and indeed devil's advocate, Daniel Warner joining us. It's really good to see you again. Danny, how are you? Nice to be here. I'm fine as long as I don't read the news and listen to what's going on. And I think you're not alone. But however, we are here on a momentous day. It is the 24th of October 2025 that we're recording this episode. Okay, it won't go out for another couple of days. But today is an important anniversary. For a vote on the approval of the Charter of the United Nations, nation by nation, the delegates stand up for the great new charter they hammered out together. Well, it's the 80th anniversary of the UN. And if you want to know Imogen and your listeners, I'm getting pretty close to that date as well. You don't need to share that too much information. Now, some of our listeners will know that the United Nations was formed out of the shock and the horror of the Second World War with the aim that we wouldn't have this kind of conflict. We wouldn't have this kind of violence. We would try to make a more peaceful, fairer world for everyone. This is the program where we're going to have a look at how we're doing. What's the point of the United Nations? Danny, what do you think? Should we be celebrating right now? Well, we should celebrate because the United Nations is now the oldest universal forum older than the League of Nations. The real question is, does it need cosmetic surgery to update it? Or does it need a serious heart, cardiovascular transplant? And those are really the issues we have to deal with. And I think it's fair to say here in Geneva, those discussions are going on, but at the same time, the very problems that the United Nations was formed to try and solve or prevent or at the very least mitigate are everywhere, conflict, rising inequality. That's right. I mean, if we look at Gaza, West Bank, if we look at Russia and Ukraine, we don't see a great presence of the United Nations. So to guarantee peace and security is obviously a contemporary problem. Well, we're going to get into that in today's program. Danny, I wanted to tell you, I've taken care to interview three different people from kind of different perspectives, different generations from different parts of the world, because obviously the United Nations is, it should be what it says on the tin, United Nations, not just one superpower or two superpowers, but everybody. And what I've tried to do is have people take the pulse of the UN at 80 and have them talk about the kind of UN they would like to see. This port of call was Geneva's Graduate Institute, where I talked to Fouad Zarbiev, who is professor of international law. The UN is obviously a very important organization for all of us. And I think the major reason why it is so has to do with the symbols rather than the reality. And I think at the symbolic level, what is so important about the UN is that the UN is really the closest approximation of international community, right? So that phrase is often used international community and oftentimes people are puzzled. I mean, what does it mean? Who is included? Who is excluded? And typically, the closest approximation we have, I think, in the world would be the UN. It's an organization. It's a universal organization, gathering 193 states. It's a very important forum where states can meet, discuss various matters, etc. So that symbolic importance of the UN should be kept in mind. So it's interesting. He's not actually saying, Oh, it's fantastic. It's wonderful. He's not saying it's over, but he did say something there, Danny, which I find quite telling, that the symbolism of it, almost what the UN is supposed to be, rather than what it really is, is more important. No, I think that's an interesting comment. And I think it's also interesting that Fuwad is an international lawyer, and he talks about states. And I would make two comments about states. There are many people who think that although there are 193 members states, no power should be given to the global south. So in that sense, the UN should be wider in terms of power. The second issue I would raise is depth. Other people say that the UN is too top down and state oriented. So it should touch more on civil society. So I think those issues are raised by Fuwad. But I do think the question of the crisis of multilateralism and states is something that we're dealing with very much today. You talked about the UN being perhaps a bit more inclusive, not just member states, or not just a few member states who are really powerful and others who have little voice. And we're going to come on to both of those things in a moment. But as I said, I wanted to get a broad spectrum of people to give their views. And our next speaker, I think you probably know her, Dany. It's Corinne Momalvanyan, many years in the UN in Geneva. She's also now head of the Kofi Anand Foundation. So also dedicated still to humanitarian affairs, to multilateralism. And I'm really interested to hear what you think about what she has to say, because she has her concerns. Someone who celebrates their 80th birthday cannot be expected to be in tip top shape, you know? The UN is an old lady. She needs tender loving care. She needs certainly a reboot and a reset. And she's not where she was 20 years ago, which was probably the apex of multilateral cooperation. But it was because of lots of forces external to the UN as well. So yes, I am very concerned. Can you pinpoint something particular that you think has gone wrong? Is it the P5? Is it the Secretary General? Is it member states themselves disengaging? All of the above, because the Secretary General will change at the end of next year. He has a limited mandate. The P5s do not have a limited mandate. They are there to stay unless there is a major reform of the charter, which we know is going to be a very tall order to achieve. So what concerns me the most is the lack of ambition of the United Nations in the field of peace and security nowadays, as compared to maybe 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when I was a young officer in the United Nations, there were many, many large peacekeeping operations around the world. But the peacekeeping enthusiasm has waned down and the number of peacekeepers around the world has decreased by more than 30%, I think. So there's a lack of ambition. There's a lack of faith maybe. The organization has lost faith in its own capacity to bring peace and security. So lack of faith, lack of confidence. But the thing is, you are going to lose your confidence, aren't you, Danny, if you get sidelined in the very areas which you are supposed to be involved in. And I'm thinking about conflicts in the Middle East, the conflict, the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The UN had no role to play and has been actively in a way kept out of these issues. But I think part of Corine's argument is that the UN doesn't sell itself very well. And I think there are things that should sell itself, for example, the specialized agencies. But I give a simple example. Sergio D'Amello was the UN representative in East Timor. He stopped the Civil War and was able to lead East Timor to independence. We now see in Gaza, we don't know what the transitional government will be, but I think we should come back to what Sergio D'Amello did. We should go back to the specialized agencies and not focus entirely on wars that we see Russia, Ukraine, as an example. My question would be, though, that perhaps it's always been the case that the UN only gets a role in solving conflicts that the big powers don't have a vested interest in. Well, I think that's certainly true. But the focus on peace and security and the role of the UN is always going to be problematic and the most difficult thing. Therefore, there's a split, in a sense, between New York deals with peace and security, Security Council and Geneva, which is more human rights, humanitarian and specialized agencies. Well, let's turn to my third guest that I interviewed. And that's Pratik Singh. And I wanted to talk to him, particularly young guy, project coordinator at the Geneva Policy Outlook at Geneva's Graduate Institute, that looks at challenges that we face and tries to bring a young and dynamic perspective to them. He's also from India, so the global south. And he, as Corinne said, he's the kind of person who will be important to the future of the UN if he gets involved. I think it is a time for both celebration, because, of course, the UN has left a great legacy in the past 80 years, but at the same time, a bigger role is for reflection and reflection, not just on questions of efficiency, on questions of funding of staff, as is currently undergoing with the UN at 80 process, but also a wider and the more crucial reflection on the idea of fairness and representation. Of course, there is a push from the states from inside the UN to have a fairer representation for states. But I think it is also time to look beyond the classical or traditional stakeholders of the UN, to stakeholders like young people who still do not find an avenue to express themselves and have their voices heard within a multilateral system like the UN. Can I ask you specifically about what we often call the global south? Because this is something I hear in Geneva is frustration that the traditional big powers who are on the permanent veto-wielding members of the Security Council have messed things up. And yet, many, many countries who would like to play a bigger global role, whether it's in Latin America or in Africa or in Asia, don't have the voice. You know, when I say that this is a big point of reflection for the UN, added to that is definitely a sense of distrust that has emerged from this lack of fairness and representation. And over the time, what this has led to is also the active engagement and the political will for this engagement has taken a downward turn because of this lack of fairness and representation and also because this has been an issue consistently over the years and years. I come from India and I used to work in the strategic space of New Delhi before I came to Geneva. And I can tell you that definitely when we talk about multilateralism in spaces like New Delhi today, it doesn't necessarily begin with the idea of the UN in Geneva or the UN in New York. It in fact emerges from alternate hubs to engage with hubs in the global south and see what South-South cooperation can do. And I think here's where the most amount of mending or reflection on fairness that is needed for the UN is to how to engage with actors from the global south in a way that can not only regain trust, but also revitalize the political will to engage with the UN system. So that's kind of heartening in one sense and disheartening in another, I think, if you're a senior diplomat at the United Nations, because Pratik there is talking about young people not having a voice. He's talking about mistrust coming from the global south and that people in the global south who want to get things done are just talking to each other and not even trying to go through the UN system any more, which is kind of a shame for an organization which has tried so hard, for example, with the Millennium Development Goals, the Sustainable Development Goals. I think it's trying to be as inclusive as it can. I mentioned that the international lawyer Richard Falk has always proposed something called a People's Assembly to see it to be inclusive of the young people that Pratik, Corine, mentioned. And that leads me to talk about Greta. Greta is really, Greta Thumber is really a change leader in that sense. And I do think issues like climate, with people like Greta, will get more and more people involved in things with the United Nations. And I think if we continue to talk about the UN in Gaza, the UN in Russia, Ukraine, we're going to lose the perspective of the other things that UN can do and its potential for the future. That is such an important point, because I think it's absolutely true, it's the same with governments too, they are consistently judged by their failures or the things they're not doing or can't do, and not by their successes. And I think we are at a really difficult point for multilateralism and for the United Nations. But one of the things I wanted to do was also look back at some of the things we might describe as achievements for the UN. Let's go back to Fuad. Here's what he says the UN should really take some credit for. I know a lot of things have happened, making many of us disappointed with the UN. But I think if we look at the UN achievements, one of them I would say it happened actually during the Cold War and it's quite remarkable for that reason. So even though the UN was operating under very difficult circumstances, it was able to achieve that. The process of decolonization, so the former colonists of European countries, exceeding to independence, I think that's something for which UN should get the credit for, right? So it was a major achievement for the UN. And it was not just a matter of some countries becoming independent all by themselves. It's a process that was accompanied by the UN. In some cases, UN actually was involved in the administration of countries before they became fully independent and self-governing and Namibia would be an example. So those things are the kind of things that I think we should give the UN credit for. Do you agree with that? I mean, I suppose it was a process, I guess, primarily late 50s, 1960s, of a peaceful transition from colonial rule to independence, which the UN supported. Exactly. But it's very state-centric. And I only say that in terms of two other issues I think we should mention. One would be human rights, the mainstreaming of human rights, and the other would be gender issues. Now if we say that they're not being followed, it means that people are conscious that they should be followed. That they do exist, exactly. That's right. And I think there there's been tremendous progress led by the United Nations. And I think that's something we should never forget when these criticisms come up. But again, it's a double-edged sword because this is why I think so many people are so desperately disappointed that the UN has not been able to do anything around the conflict in Gaza. Or Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which our own UN Secretary General said quite clearly, is a violation of the UN Charter. However, as he said, we should perhaps not focus so much desperate, though it is, on the amount of conflict and the limited impact the UN's peacekeeping role is having. A couple of other achievements of the United Nations that Karin Momolvanyan wanted to remind me of. And again, these are things that she said, this is what I want to tell young people. This is why the United Nations is relevant. This is what it's achieved. Many young people do not trust an organization where they don't even have a voice. I mean, frankly, I fully understand. But I would have several things to tell them. And the first is that before they were born, the UN and multilateral cooperation delivered incredible progress for the world. And even sometimes unsatisfactory, but progress that benefited the whole of humanity and the whole Indian ozone layer that was plugged, the eradication of smallpox, and also the millennium development goals that saw incredible increase in the number of girls in school, incredible decrease in child mortality. This did not happen in a vacuum. This happened through organized international cooperation. But they don't remember because, frankly, everything has been slowing down, progress has been slowing down or reversing in the last 15 years, which someone who is 25 today would not remember a time before that. So let's take a step back and see what the UN has delivered over its 80 years of existence. Of course, we need a different UN. Of course, we need a reset. Of course, we need the young voices at the table. But don't throw the baby out with bathwater. What kind of reset would you like to see then? Where should the UN be going? We have to find a way for the UN to represent more of the voices of people directly concerned. It's just not the right answer anymore to have all these men in dark suits in conference rooms deciding on the future of humanity. It's just not satisfying. And the young people won't accept it anymore. So we need a UN that manages to be much more inclusive. Frankly, the way we should go is that it's not being stuck in the past and looking at what we can fix from what the UN was. But to really look at what we need the UN to do in 10, 20 years, to a certain extent, the Secretary General has already pushed it in the direction of looking at the international governance of AI, looking at climate change and so on. We have to identify those areas where it can make a positive difference now and in 10 years and in 20 years, rather than being stuck in what it did in the past and what it didn't do in the past. And I'm worried that the reform and all the discussions around UNAT is about fixing the UN and not reinventing it for the future. Well, before we go quite onto the future, I did a bit of digging when Corinne made that point to me about the eradication of smallpox. Danny, do you know how many people died of smallpox in the 20th century? No, I have no idea. Sorry. 300 million. Far more than the First and Second World Wars combined. And do you know who proposed to the United Nations that we should get together and try and eradicate smallpox? I would guess someone in the United States, but I'm probably wrong. It was actually the Soviet Union. It was the Soviet Union. Now, whatever people might have thought about the Soviet Union then or Russia now, because there are plenty of bad guys around, let's keep in mind that when people work together, they can achieve great things. And I think that is maybe the message for the United Nations. What about Corinne's point about the reset? I think that's difficult to say the least. When the League of Nations stopped, the United Nations was already in the process of starting. So there was an organization to follow that which was closing. If the UN closes or if it continues to be stagnating, no one's talking really about something new. That's why I raised in the beginning whether the UN needs Botox or cosmetic surgery or a heart operation. And I don't think that we need a totally different organization. I think we're in a specific time frame. And I do think the presidency of Donald Trump has an influence on multilateralism and the United Nations. That may be only a blip in history and that could change in a small amount of time. Could do, but I see and I think Corinne has also made this point that just at the point that the United Nations is turning 80 and there should rightly be reflection. We've heard some of it all already about how it can function more inclusively, more equitably. It's faced with swinging financial cuts and that in a way the whole focus seems to be not let's build a UN really fit for future challenges, but let's adapt the UN to cope with these cuts. There should be more vision, I think. But I wanted to hear from Pratik Singh, of course the youngest person on our panel, what he thinks. And I know we've said let's talk about the successes and so on, but the fact is young people can't be very optimistic when they look around at the world we're in with these conflicts, with the superpowers facing off, sidelining the body that again should be there to try and keep the peace or at least provide a forum for peaceful diplomacy. Take listen to him, Danny, because you know he reflects the worry of the younger generation. With the repeated cycles of conflict, with the threat of climate change, with what we call a poly crisis and added to that is this time of radical uncertainty, wherein we do not know what comes next. It is definitely an anxious time, a scary time for young people, primarily emerging from firstly the lack of accountability, of states to engage in conflict whenever they want by passing the framework of international law. There was still so much of trust in the idea that there is a form of international law, international norm and order. We see that being flouted practically every month now or every day wouldn't be wrong to say. That is definitely something very scary to think about growing in an era not only of uncertainty where we do not know what state would it be, which will flout the international system and then try to justify it, but also of the idea of the future directly being at stake with challenges like climate change. And the succeeding failures of negotiations like the COP all the way exacerbate this anxiety, this scare of accountability of the direct future that I'm walking into as a young person. And here's where my push to account for the voices of young people. I think the UN has a big role in accounting for these voices because our futures are directly at stake. I find it saddening actually as somebody who's I've had my youth and okay, it wasn't necessarily easy when I was growing up. It was the tail end of the Cold War. I used to get very frightened about the possibility of a nuclear war. But he's talking about a poly crisis, conflict, the climate crisis. Can we reassure the younger generation? Well, I don't know if our role is to reassure. One of the things I do note is that the younger generation is very tuned into technology, be it internet, etc. And the question is multilateralism deals mostly with states and states and state bureaucracies are much slower. So how can a bureaucracy like the United Nations adapt to a world where there is an acceleration of time? And one of the questions being raised is artificial intelligence. What can the United Nations do about something like that that's moving at such a rapid pace? And the treaties that the UN signs take years and years to come. So I think there's a difference among the young people, more attuned to the private, more attuned to things that happen quickly, whereas the UN multilateralism state system seems to be very dusty and slow. But if you listen to Pratit, he is invested in the multilateral effort. He's just frustrated that the people who are kind of working in multilateralism, I mean, he's still a young guy, are not fulfilling those goals. That's right. And I think there the system needs serious cosmetic surgery. But the question is how? What are concretely the solutions for the future, particularly as we begin to see a certain amount of disengagement from the United Nations? First off, let's go back to Fuad, see what he has to say. Under the UN Charter, P5 permanent members of the Security Council have special responsibilities when it comes to international peace and security. But I don't think that the drafters of the UN Charter actually contemplated the situations that we are facing increasingly, basically one of the permanent members being actually a party to the conflict or being a close ally of a party to conflict and paralyzing the whole process. How can the UN though realistically continue doing anything significant, then if the Security Council is paralyzed? When it comes to mistrust of multilateralism, it's very easy to understand, right? So we have all been disappointed. But I think it's very important to contextualize some of the problems that we have been facing lately and look at maybe history in a long term perspective. Just because these things are happening or have been happening the last few years doesn't necessarily mean that they are unavoidable and the future cannot be different. I mean, we can just put ourselves into the shoes of the drafters of the UN Charter. Let's not forget that the UN Charter was drafted when the war was still not over, right? So I don't know what their mindset was back then. I assume they were hopeful that the war would be won and the future would be different. So I think it is important to have especially in difficult circumstances of that kind. It's important to keep our optimism and maybe realize that the UN is what we make of it, right? He made some interesting points there for me, Danny, because he identified what you and I have talked about so often, the paralysis inside the Security Council, that the people who created the UN didn't really imagine necessarily the United States, Russia and China vetoing each other. But he also made a more optimistic point that what they created was something brand new, creative, aspirational, inspirational. And he's thinking we could do that with the United Nations now. I think two things have to happen, Imogen. The first is to remember that the UN was started right after the Second World War. So behind all of the notion of cooperation was what would happen if we don't cooperate? If we look at COVID, if we look at a potential climate disaster, people are going to be forced to cooperate. And I think that's something we should never forget. The second thing is the question of charisma. I think if we have a new Secretary General coming up who somehow restores a moral compass to the Office of the Secretary General, I think people may be more willing to cooperate because they see it's in everyone's interest. Well, how do you feel about the current Secretary General? I mean, the current Secretary General does have a moral compass. Well, he may have it, but the question is how many people are using it. It's a little bit like the Pope. They have no army. And the question also is, of course, Donald Trump. It's not simple for the head of the UN or any organization to function when someone's cutting their budget and seems to be doing everything against them. And I think perhaps with a different Secretary General, with a different President of the United States, there might be a change in the future. There could be. I mean, I think the UN Secretary General, the UN, is always powered or not powered by the commitment of powerful nation-states. The infamous comment is there's a Secretary, but no General. So the question, of course, comes into the States, have the political will. And there I come back to some kind of catastrophe, COVID, or climate that people are going to have to understand. But I do think people make a difference. I come back to Greta and how many people became engaged with climate issues because of her. Well, let's hear again from Corinne, because we talked about a couple of things there, the fact that there is going to be a new UN Secretary General in 2026. At the same time, as we see a disengagement from, in particular, the United States from at the moment some UN bodies, I'm thinking the World Health Organization, UN Human Rights Council. I wanted to see what Corinne, with her long experience of the UN, had to say about that. Listen, WHO exists without the United States. UNESCO has survived already twice before without the United States. So the answer, yes, it could, but it just won't be the same. And here in Geneva, we have seen the difference when the US engages, for instance, in the Human Rights Council, or when it doesn't. And you can go much further when the US is positively engaged than you could go without it. But we can survive. The organization can survive without it. And will. Those agencies that the US has quit will survive because they are indispensable. We are going to have a new Secretary General next year. Any advice for her or him? That's a tough one. I want to reflect carefully on what the advice, because I mean, that sounds very presumptuous of me to give advice to the new Secretary General. But I would say, make sure to change the composition of the UN system in a way that young people are inside the system and not on the margins. Emergent today of the whole UN system, all the agencies together, only 3% of people employed by the system are younger than 30. Half of the world is younger than 30. And there's a big disconnect there. So a new Secretary General should fix that disconnect. So that's her repeated message, more inclusivity, more young people. You want more charisma from the UN Secretary General and more visible moral backbone. I think we perhaps all go along with that. But what about just before we go to for some final comments to Pratit, what about the possibility that the United States could actually leave? Do you see that as realistic? I mean, realistic. It hasn't paid and probably won't pay for 2024 and 2025. It got out of certain organizations as threatened others. The question is, as for Switzerland and the rest of the world, Europe included, how do you disengage from the United States? I see the European Union in certain ways is doing that. And the question is the world needs a universal organization because today we live in complex interdependence. So if the United States wants to be isolationist, the rest of the world probably has to cooperate in one way or another, whether they're small regional organizations. But a universal one is in everyone's interest. If the United States doesn't want to be there, the game has to go on. As you say, the U.S. hasn't paid its dues. Should it get to keep its place on the Security Council when it's not even paying its dues? Because I think that's the one thing the United States wouldn't want to walk away from is its veto on the Security Council. The other possibility would moving the U.N. and the Security Council out of New York. Why should it still be there and the organization's not paying? And those are really interesting questions and I think they should be raised. We see other countries are proposing to take some of the organizations in Geneva to be based there. Maybe to take it out of New York would be a proposal as well. Very interesting point. I mean, we are seeing that in Geneva that some of the humanitarian agencies will be moving some of their offices to the Global South, which although I know that there's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in Geneva and some people are losing their jobs, which is always a tragedy, I still think that the Global South, as Pratit has said to us, needs more representation. And why shouldn't there be more U.N. bodies with their headquarters in Africa, on the Indian subcontinent in Southeast Asia and make it, you know, a body that's properly reflective of the world we live in. And on that note, final words from Pratit. I asked him how he would sell the United Nations to his friends, his relatives, people he might meet over over a coffee back home in India. I would sell the U.N. telling them that their stories have a space in developing solutions to the crises that we face. So people, when I talk to people who are based in India, some of them, my very own friends, they are at the forefront of climate activism while going about their daily lives. And my idea to them is definitely that their stories are something that can create a difference. Their lived experiences can be incorporated within the multilateral system. But then again, I'm very mindful that it's a two-way street. As much as their stories and their practical actions around their day-to-day lives can make a difference in the multilateral system and in developing solutions towards some of the crises, the multilateral system needs to be receptive towards these stories and lived experiences. And I think that's where the idea of confidence in such a system comes from, is that if at this moment we have to reimagine the U.N. and reimagine multilateralism, we have to bring it in from the point of confidence. And this confidence only comes once we account for lived realities of people, once we account for lived experiences from the global South, and that is when we can revitalize the trust and confidence that is needed for the future of the U.N. I thought he made a lot of good points. Re-inspire confidence in the U.N., particularly among younger people, and they will bring it back to the United Nations. That inspires me. What about you, Danny? Well, I mean, I think there's a huge generational problem here. I was raised with the model U.N., at least Stevenson is the American ambassador, and it was something that we accepted and look forward to. Why don't we have more young people involved in the U.N.? And I think there has to be a generational shift. It's embarrassing to see the two candidates to run for president of the United States over 70 years old. So the young people, most of them, or many of them are going into the private sector, so we have to give a whole different perspective of what it means to work for the common good, to work for the community instead of just individuals. And that's why I think people, new secretary general, a different kind of leadership is needed. And I think people like Biden, Trump, and all of that age group, we've been there, we've done what we could, but it's time for a next generation to come through. Well, I would support that, but I would also say to the skeptics, 300 million people dead of smallpox in the 20th century, and the world's Cold War warriors got together and said, let's eradicate it. And they did. That's what you get when you work together. That's what you get when you invest in the idea of the United Nations. So let's just say happy birthday, UN. Time for a long, hard look in the mirror. Time to open some doors. But as one US diplomat, skeptical of the United Nations said to me, if it didn't exist, we'd still have to invent it. And that brings us to the end of this edition of Inside Geneva, my thanks to Daniel Warner, Fouad Sarbiev, Corinne Mumalvanyan, and Pratik Singh for their analysis and, of course, their time. What do you think about the United Nations at 80? What should it do to remain relevant and useful in a very insecure world? Write to us at [email protected] to let us know. And join us next time on Inside Geneva, where we'll be exploring the 21st century implications of that old saying, "In war, truth is the first casualty." We'll be looking at the challenges of reporting what's really happening in today's conflicts, as faced not just by journalists, but by aid workers too. That's out on the 11th of November. I'm Imogen Folks, thanks again for listening. A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. I'm Imogen Folks, thanks again for listening. Hello, this is Imogen Folks from Swiss Infos, Inside Geneva podcast. This summer, like last year, we're bringing you a fascinating series of summer profiles, starting with doctor, aid worker and now journalist, Tamam Aludat. Then later this month, we'll hear from international lawyer and candidate to be judge on the International Court of Justice, Dapua Kande. From now till September, we've got all sorts of amazing people to talk to, from an aid worker in Gaza right now, to someone who started his career in Gaza 40 years ago. Join us on Inside Geneva wherever you get your podcasts.