The Delegates Lounge
Join us in The Delegates Lounge, an independent podcast on world affairs based in New York City at the United Nations, the hub of global insights in plain sight. We hope you’ll come back often to listen in on some fascinating conversations hosted by J. Alex Tarquinio, a veteran journalist who writes essays for Foreign Policy from her office across the hallway from the UN Security Council chamber.
We’ll wade into the rising tide of global threats to peace and security in our discussions with the denizens of high-level diplomacy, as well as assorted scholars, scientists, soldiers, spies, and other influencers. From time to time, we’ll hit the road for sit downs with the world’s movers and shakers, whether it be at NATO’s 75th Anniversary Summit in Washington, D.C. or to parts as yet unknown.
This podcast is solely a production of The Delegates Lounge LLC, which was co-founded by the host and her husband and executive producer, Frank Radford.
As we’re a small team, we can’t respond to every message, but we promise to read your messages if you contact us at:
Or on X, formerly (and still affectionately) known as Twitter:
The Delegates Lounge
Slovenia’s Ambassador Pulls Back the Curtain on a Surprise Act at the UN
As the world marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Monday, competing resolutions at the United Nations brought tensions within the international community to the forefront. This episode dives deep into the diplomatic maneuvering and dueling agendas, revealing the complexities that reshape alliances and influence decisions made at the United Nations. As our host explains, the anniversary this week was Act One in a three-act tragedy that culminated in the Oval Office on Friday, February 28.
The guest in this episode, Samuel Zbogar, Slovenia's UN ambassador who sits on the UN Security Council, offers invaluable insights into the intricacies of the negotiation process and the challenges faced by countries seeking to support Ukraine against ongoing aggression. Listeners are treated to a vivid narrative highlighting the unexpected shift in United States foreign policy and its implications for Ukraine and the broader geopolitical landscape. What does it mean when one of the most significant military powers distances itself from traditional allies? The final act played out in the Oval Office on Friday, when Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelenskyy was bushwhacked as both the U.S. president and vice president accused him of being disrepectful and unthankful.
There is a bonus segment with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski explaining how he was lied to over Shaheed drones by Iran, one of which was on display across from the UN.
Speakers:
J. Alex Tarquinio (host). @alextarquinio of @delegateslounge on X.
Samuel Zbogar (guest). @Samuel_Zbogar of @SLOtoUN
References:
The host wrote about Slovenia's election to the UN Security Council in Foreign Policy.
Alex also wrote about the confirmation hearing of Elise Stefanik for United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/17/un-ambassador-elise-stefanik-hearing-confirmation-trump/
We'll add photos and videos of the Iranian Shahed drone display on our social media.
Welcome to the Delegates Lounge. Pull up a chair. I'm Alex Tarquinio, a journalist based at the United Nations here in New York City and your emcee for this podcast featuring some of the most influential minds in the world today. Settle in for some riveting tete-a-tete, available wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1:But, you're either going to make a deal or we're out, and if we're out, you'll fight it out. I don't think it's going to be pretty Welcome back. Without question, this has been an historic week, as the world has watched a tragedy in three acts unfold. Our conversation in this episode, recorded on Wednesday, with the Slovenian ambassador to the United Nations, samuel Zbogar, will be well worth your time. His role is a critical one, as his country is currently among the elected members of the UN Security Council. The ambassador pulls back the curtain on a surprise act that played the UN earlier in the week, when the United States voted with Russia and urged the nations of the world to vote against essential elements of the UN charter. In ordinary times, recasting the United States in the role of Russia's supporting actor would have been enough to steal the show, but further plot twists revealed the drama at the UN was merely a prologue. At times, the second act seemed to drag. Several of the well-rehearsed lines fell flat and the promo videos for social media were truly bizarre. But it all came together in the final act, staged in the Oval Office with the bronze bust of Winston Churchill scowling over President Trump's shoulder. At this point, I should tell new listeners that I'm a journalist based at the United Nations.
Speaker 1:Ironically, some diplomats say the United States was initially supportive of a draft resolution prepared by Ukraine called Advancing a Comprehensive, just and Lasting Peace in Ukraine. Friday we started hearing mixed messages involving the US support for Ukraine's draft resolution. American diplomats produced a competing draft on late Friday, dubbed the path to peace, which essentially stripped away all of the meat from Ukraine's resolution. It was really three phrases that might have been scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin. Ukraine's allies spent the weekend furiously lobbying to reinsert some key phrases into the US draft and, when the United States refused, ultimately proposed those as amendments. On Sunday, the US mission to the United Nations circulated a diplomatic note to their counterparts at the other UN missions urging them to co-sponsor and vote in favor of the US draft resolution and vote no on any other resolution or amendments presented on Monday. In other words, the US mission lobbied the world to vote against Ukraine and its allies on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion.
Speaker 1:I should clarify at this point that I didn't discuss this diplomatic note with Slovenia's UN ambassador for this episode and didn't receive the note from Slovenia, though I did receive it on Sunday from a diplomatic source from another country. I started reaching out to sources last week, as the growing bellicosity of Trump's rhetoric towards Ukraine, calling Zelensky a dictator, was making it increasingly hard to imagine that the White House would support Ukraine on the anniversary. On Thursday, february 20th, I contacted the State Department for comment. After being passed between various public information officers, I received an answer on Sunday referring me to Secretary Rubio's statement that the conflict was awful and the UN can help end it. Rubio issued that statement on Friday, the same day that US diplomats began circulating their UN resolution.
Speaker 1:But enough of the prelude. Returning to the opening act on Monday, listeners will know by now that Ukraine's resolution had more than 50 sponsors and handily won the General Assembly vote with the support of 93 countries, far more than the 18 that voted against it, which included the United States, israel, russia, belarus, north Korea and Sudan. Even Iran abstained, as did 65 countries. In all, the US resolution was presented without a single co-sponsor. No one had answered the call.
Speaker 1:In Sunday's diplomatic note, there were three proposed amendments. The first of those replaced the words the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The second added language from previous resolutions reaffirming the commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The third and crucial amendment specifically referred to the UN Charter's principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity. The United States voted against those amendments and, once they had passed it, abstained from its own resolution.
Speaker 1:The permanent members of the Security Council Britain, china, france, russia and the United States don't have veto power in the General Assembly Once the act should move down the hall to the Security Council chamber. Russia used its veto to prevent those amendments to the US resolution. That's when UN watchers, who had anticipated this turn of events, wondered if we might be on the verge of a major plot twist. London and Paris take pride in not having used their vetoes in decades, but observers reckoned that the timing might be awkward, as French President Emmanuel Macron was scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on Tuesday and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was meeting with him on Thursday. This carefully orchestrated performance seems to have left nothing to chance. Could it be that this parade of last-minute state visits to the White House was lined up to discourage the French and British capitals from an exceptionally rare European veto?
Speaker 1:The United States is without a permanent representative to the United Nations. Elise Stefanik, the Republican congresswoman from upstate New York has cleared the Senate committee but is being held back for approval by the full Senate. Rumor has it that Trump wants to stay in the House of Representatives because he needs her vote in a closely divided Congress to push through his budget priorities. The US mission isn't sure now when she'll arrive. Chargé d'affaires ad interim Dorothy Shea said the amendments, and I quote, pursue a war of words. Well, words have meaning in diplomacy and guess what? The UN Charter is composed of words.
Speaker 1:On Monday night, after the meetings of the General Assembly and the Security Council, frank and I attended the display of an Iranian Shahid drone at the Millennium Hotel, across the street from the UN headquarters. Iranian presidents and foreign ministers are said to favor these same meeting rooms when they attend UN Week each September. Stick around until the end of our conversation with the ambassador for a brief final segment from this event with remarks by Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski. What was remarkable about this event is the mental gymnastics that some Trump supporters must go through to criticize Iran for providing Russia with drones to strike Ukraine, while papering over the Kremlin's aggression.
Speaker 1:Moving on to the second act, which was difficult to follow as it rested heavily on an unreliable narrator. It opened on Tuesday with the announcement that the White House would handpick reporters allowed to cover the presidential events. The scene in the Oval Office today wasn't even the first diplomatic snub of a European ally by the Trump administration. This week, us Secretary of State Marco Rubio abruptly canceled a scheduled meeting with European Union foreign policy chief Kaya Kalas on Wednesday, citing scheduling issues. All of this was a prelude to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit on Friday, ostensibly to sign a minerals deal. The third act began with the Ukrainian president's motorcade sitting on the driveway while he waited several minutes for Trump to emerge a classic business negotiating tactic to put the other guy on the back foot. Needless to say, the minerals deal was not signed. It's tough to know whether there was a serious deal on the table.
Speaker 1:During the press conference, it seemed like the two sides were talking about radically different deals. Zelensky said there would need to be security guarantees and Trump said the guarantee would be Americans digging and digging and digging and taking the earth to make a lot of great products in his country. Typically, before any bilateral summit, and certainly one where they expect to sign a deal, all of the details would have been worked out in advance. It quickly became clear why the Trump administration had taken control of the press pool. Reuters and the Associated Press were excluded from the press conference, but a reporter for the Russian state media outlet TASS got into the Oval Office. Once it was pointed out, the White House said that TASS had not been one of the handpicked media outlets. Listen, I covered Macron's state visit during the Biden presidency as a member of Macron's traveling press. That's a story for another episode. But I can tell you firsthand that just getting into the White House involves a long wait and passport check, and then you have to be checked and escorted anytime you move around the White House.
Speaker 1:After the carefully orchestrated state visit dissolved into the president and vice president of the United States berating Zelensky in front of television cameras, former Trump UN ambassador, now turned Trump critic, john Bolton, told the BBC you have to wonder if it was planned in advance and withdrawal from NATO is now a mere formality. Withdrawal from NATO is now a mere formality. And now let's turn to our guest in this episode. We are very honored to host Slovenia's UN ambassador, samuel Zbogar. Slovenia joined the United Nations in 1992, shortly after declaring its independence from Yugoslavia. It joined the Security Council for an elected two-year term last year which runs through December. No-transcript. He shed a lot of insights on the maneuvers at the UN over the last week. Here's our conversation. Welcome, mr Ambassador. Welcome to the Delicous Lounge and thank you so much for making time for us, especially in such a busy week.
Speaker 4:No, thank you very much. It's a pleasure and an honor, thank you.
Speaker 1:Oh, thank you, the honor is ours. It is quite a week and I'm certain that your week started early. On Monday we had the two big votes in the General Assembly and the Security Council on Ukraine. I want to start a little bit with the lead up to that. I know that at the beginning of the Security Council meeting the UK tried to postpone the vote a day and said that there had not been enough consultation and the US then countered that there had been consultation. I know you can't get into the heart of the consultations, but can you talk a little bit about what led up to that meeting, the process that went into it?
Speaker 4:Yeah, I think with pleasure. I think I even have a nice story, because the mandate didn't start on Monday. The Monday actually started the week earlier. You know, we were working on the resolution for the General Assembly EU and Ukrainian one for quite some time, for weeks. So last week, like midweek, we thought everything is going well, we're getting very nice support, huge support again for Ukraine in the General Assembly. So on Friday I took the day off and we wanted to go with my wife to the Staten Island, the museum there. And just before boarding the boat, dorothy, the Chergé of the US, called me and she said look, we have a draft solution, we are asking you to withdraw yours. So I boarded the boat.
Speaker 1:Excuse me, that was on a Friday.
Speaker 4:That was on a Friday.
Speaker 1:For listeners. That's the ad interim.
Speaker 4:Chergé the US, Chergé the US Treasury here in town.
Speaker 1:President Biden's ambassador has finished her term and President Trump's ambassador has not yet started, so this is the ad interim, dorothy. So she called you on the Friday right as you were getting on the boat to Staten Island.
Speaker 4:Yes, she's deputy ambassador and now she's taking over at the interim. So I boarded the boat in Staten Island and turned the other boat and I came back. Did you leave?
Speaker 1:your wife on staff.
Speaker 4:Yes, I did.
Speaker 1:Have an RSA.
Speaker 4:We had tickets for the Anyway. So that's how we started, and then the whole weekend we were on the phone with the US mission among the EU ambassadors. We had a meeting of the EU ambassadors Friday in the evening, saturday in the evening. We had a meeting of the EU ambassadors Friday evening, saturday evening. There was a lot of consultation among us what to do. We even went to the US with some amendments which were not taken on board. So we believe, well, we felt that we needed more time also to discuss with the US and maybe convince them that a small tweaks in the resolution would make it easier for the EU to vote for it.
Speaker 1:Were these the same amendments that were then voted on and Russia vetoed in the meeting, or were they?
Speaker 4:the same amendments. These were the three amendments that we proposed to the US during the weekend. France and UK were in the lead on that, so they talked directly with the US and proposed these three amendments. The US didn't accept them because they wanted to have a lean resolution, as they're saying, and that's how we officially introduced the amendments on Saturday evening.
Speaker 1:Well, I know you can't speak for other countries, but perhaps the UK and the US were talking about something different. It sounded like the UK was saying that the US had proposed this resolution on Friday without consultations, meaning there were no consultations before Friday. It came as a surprise to the other Security Council members. Is that correct? Absolutely surprised, right. So that's what. Perhaps it sounds like what she said, which was introduced on Friday without consultations. There were consultations over the weekend, but the Europeans at least felt that you take on board the concerns of the region involved.
Speaker 4:So we refused to say that that was enough consultations. We talked but we didn't really consult.
Speaker 1:It felt a bit one-sided. And was Ukraine, which is obviously not a Security Council member, but is the interested party? Was Ukraine a part of these consultations at all? Or was it only their friends and partners and allies on the Security Council?
Speaker 4:I mean, we have two resolutions, one in GA and one in Security Council, but the US resolution was the same. So actually, yes, this was at the end, security Council resolution in its pure form, but of course we discussed with Ukraine as well, and I think US discussed with Ukraine as well over the weekend because it was GA resolution as well.
Speaker 1:So because the US brought the same resolution to the General Assembly.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it was the same text that was brought as a General Assembly resolution and Security Council resolution, which is pretty unique actually, but it's possible.
Speaker 1:Obviously, Ukraine's and the European Union's amendments were not made. Do you believe the recommendations were noted by the US or did you feel that your case wasn't really heard?
Speaker 4:I think the US understood what we want. They just felt I don't want to speak for them and for their arguments.
Speaker 1:But all of this was premised on the fact that you can't speak for other countries. It's more how you felt as a member of the Security Council at the time.
Speaker 4:Well, we felt that because we had three amendments For us. It's different for each country, but for us, as Slovenia, one was especially important and that was the third amendment, which was that when you call for peace, for the end of conflict and we call for peace in Ukraine, that it is in line with the principles of the UN Charter. This, for us, was really the key amendment and in the General Assembly it came in and even in the Security Council, two thirds of the members 10, 11 members voted in favor of this amendment. However, Russia introduced a veto, so this amendment was not accepted.
Speaker 1:This was almost a textbook case of, obviously, the differences now between the veto on the Security Council and the General Assembly, and it gets to the heart of the veto in that these amendments did pass in the General Assembly, where there is no veto, but Russia was able to veto them on the Security Council. I mean, obviously, security Council reform is a bigger topic, but does this really shine a spotlight on?
Speaker 4:all the issues, I think this veto on the amendment speaking about the UN Charter. I think it will be discussed, of course, in the General Assembly within the next 10 days.
Speaker 4:And it is a requirement that every veto needs to be explained to the general membership, but it doesn't seem that the permanent members have a problem with those explanations. I don't think that is really an obstacle to cast a veto an obstacle to cast a veto. But this veto really is, as you said, a shining example of how one should not use veto. I understand that the veto was introduced back then. It made sense in order to keep the big powers within the organization and until it's changed, it's there within the organization and until it's changed it's there. But one would hope that it's used for really crucial, important issues, not to block the reference to the UN Charter in the resolution.
Speaker 1:I mean there are layers and layers of irony, because the very beginning of the UN Charter refers to sovereign equality and territorial integrity, and that's what you were trying to get at this. So you have them using their veto to essentially veto the UN Charter. I mean, what does that mean longer term? Obviously it's too cumbersome to completely revise the Charter, but does this advance that movement to revise the Security Council?
Speaker 4:Of course the working group will discuss the veto and this would be a very good example why there is a problem with veto. But we have to accept that as long as it's there, it will be there and it will be used. So we have to think in the General Assembly how to make it harder for permanent members to use veto. One is that they have to explain it in the General Assembly. So what else can be done to make it more difficult? There was a French and Mexican initiative in the past that the veto should use only in times of horrible crimes. What is the reason, maybe, that you use it, that it cannot be used when there is an issue of humanitarian catastrophes and so on. So I think we'll have to reflect how to get to the permanent members that one should not use veto for the UN Charter. I mean, this is really. It's absurd.
Speaker 1:It's very self-referential, I mean if you were looking at it from a literary term. And then there's also some question beforehand if the UK or France would veto if the amendments did not pass. They did not. They're both I think it's not too much to say very proud of not having vetoed since 1989. And I think that is part of it. They want to stand on that principle of not using the veto, so they did not use it in this case.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I think it's good that they didn't use veto, for several reasons. First, of course, as you said, they are proud that they haven't been using veto for 30 years now. Second, this was a solution about peace. I don't think it's good to use veto for a solution that speaks about peace. Then, this is the first resolution about war in Ukraine, so, even if it's not a perfect one, the aim was a good one. We accept that the aim of resolution is a good one to start talking about peace, to start talking about the peace between Russia and Ukraine and stop the war. We accept the aim. It's positive and it's changing dynamics, but this element was missing. I think that it's not up to me, but I think they made the right choice France and UK not to be to it, and we don't want to go into confrontation with the United States and Ukraine. We want to work together as a region where this war is. We want to work with the US, russia, ukraine to find a solution for this war.
Speaker 1:That's very clear. And the consensus building. Now there's typically more consensus building in the General Assembly and there was obviously amazing support a few years ago with those votes of 143 and 141 for Ukraine. I know some people thought that it was a bit risky to bring the Ukraine resolution to the General Assembly. This time it still won, but with fewer votes. Does that matter in the end? I mean there were more countries that abstained and it certainly revealed changes in alliances, a real realignment. I mean I guess that's part of the point away, but is it worth it to reveal that?
Speaker 4:that's part of the point away, but is it worth it to reveal that when, together, ukraine and EU went into this resolution, we didn't imagine that there would be another resolution proposed by our ally. We were working on this resolution with the United States. They were supposed to come as a co-sponsor of our resolution, so this really really happened overnight and was a huge surprise. So when we were reflecting, and of course, we left it to Ukraine and they felt that they need to reconfirm the support for their fight and we really reached out to all countries engaged and that's why we were confident we were going to get not 140 as maybe two years ago, but not that much less. Now we got 93 votes, but this is because we had two resolutions and over the weekend, this new one, competing resolutions.
Speaker 1:I had heard until then that all the partners, all of Ukraine's partners, have been working on this, which implied that it was the US. And then, just over the weekend, we started to hear we meaning those of us in the press pool who aren't obviously on the first round of emails in the Security Council that there was a competing resolution. I mean, were there disagreements on the text of the original draft that caused this sort of split and obviously would have gotten more support if the US and others had been involved? What were the disagreements over? You mean with the US? Yeah, I mean. Why did they not?
Speaker 1:support this and come up with an alternative which was very stripped down.
Speaker 4:Yeah, because they have a different view now on the whole crisis and they believe that our resolution is looking back. I think what Sergei Daffer was saying in the General Assembly our resolution is looking back, but their resolution American resolution is looking ahead toward peace, is looking ahead toward peace. The problem with that resolution was for the US that it condemns the Russian invasion into Ukraine. I think probably that was the main big problem that it pointed figures to who is to be blamed and who started the war.
Speaker 1:And discusses the UN and sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Speaker 4:Yes, Now, you know, because this happened over the weekend, there were a lot of countries who didn't know what to do and what is happening. So the vote was on Monday. And you know, when you don't know what's going on and it's not your region, it's the safest is that you abstain. That's why we got so many abstentions and that's why I think the support dropped to 93.
Speaker 1:Ah, that's interesting. So some countries that you thought would vote for. Perhaps they had voted two years ago and we should mention there was no vote the two-year anniversary last year because it was right at the height of the Gaza war.
Speaker 4:Exactly.
Speaker 1:So the countries that had supported it two years ago. You expected this time upstate and you think it was simply because of the two competing resolutions. If that hadn't been the case, they would have voted again.
Speaker 4:We would have. We've heard many more. Yes, because it's pretty logical. It was not enough time to understand to consult the capitals. This was vote in the morning, immediately at 10 on Monday.
Speaker 1:Right, so they didn't even have Monday morning.
Speaker 4:I mean, they couldn't even have their coffee and discuss it over coffee in the morning with their team, and then they saw that there is the US draft and, of course, many countries want to have good relations with the United States and they saw that there is an issue, a problem. You don't know exactly what's going on, so you abstain and you're safe. I think that's what's happening with many countries. That's why we are very happy with that. We got 93 votes nevertheless.
Speaker 1:Oh, it's still a very strong showing because the percentage is counted as those president voting, so the abstentions are sort of to the side. It's still 93 to 18 is a pretty powerful showing. Yeah, you know the same day and I don't believe you were there, but I also attended an event where there was a display of an Iranian Shahid drone. Of course, iran is denied how much this drone has played a role in the Ukraine war, but it made me think. You know, russia made a record number of drone strikes on Ukraine on the war anniversary. It also flew a drone into a containment module at Chernobyl at the start of the Munich Security Conference. So do you feel that Russia is now using these drone strikes almost as much as a political statement, as much as the damage that they cause, that they're choosing these significant anniversaries?
Speaker 4:It's obvious that Russia wants to increase the pressure on Ukraine now when the negotiations are about to start. I think this is also, psychologically, war on Ukraine, demonstrating that they can be much more forceful than they were in the past years. We have seen, in the week of the anniversary, the largest number of drone strikes in I don't know how long. I think the last year the attacks on even civilian infrastructure was much higher than the year before. So yes, I think that they are increasing the pressure so that Ukraine is really becoming under pressure to start negotiating and to come to the negotiating table as the weaker partner. I think that's the aim of all these strikes, apart from all the damage that they're doing.
Speaker 1:I did want to ask you about the peace negotiations. Obviously, Ukraine had been trying to pursue its own track. We're not really hearing about that, the 10-point plan. It seems to have moved to one-on-one negotiations between the Trump administration and Putin. I guess, both as a member of the Security Council and as a European, what do you think about the fact that so far Ukraine, and certainly the EU, the UN, doesn't seem to be a part of that negotiation track?
Speaker 4:That's how it started. We don't believe this is how it can continue. This is the war in Europe. It will be up to European Union mostly European Union, of course, and UK and other European countries to live with the consequences of the war, to rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine wants to become a member of European Union. European Union puts sanctions on Russia. If there is any deal, probably would want sanctions to be lifted. So we don't see other option than to be part of the discussions. And Ukraine, of course. You cannot discuss the destiny of Ukraine without Ukraine sitting at the table. So our understanding is yes, maybe it started between Russia and US. Other topics might have been involved as well in those discussions, but at a later stage I'm pretty sure it will have to be discussions with everybody involved.
Speaker 1:Well, actually you mentioned European sanctions. There were a number of European leaders who were just in Kiev for the anniversary and are talking about stepping up sanctions on Russia at the same time that the Trump administration seems to be relieving or at least talking about relieving some of the pressure on Russia, letting them into the G7 and whatnot at least discussing bringing that as a talking point. Is Europe trying to position itself as counter to the US, like if the Trump administration relieves some of the pressure on Russia, brussels is going to increase their pressure.
Speaker 4:I don't think we want to counter US. We have our interests and we have our view how this war should end. We want to continue to support Ukraine. We just adopted an additional package of sanctions on Monday, I think they started talking about new package. As long as there is no ceasefire and serious talk about end of the war, there is no reason for European Union to lift the sanctions or to stop supporting Ukraine. So we believe that the two sides have to come to an agreement. So we believe that the two sides have to come to an agreement and there is no solution in Ukraine.
Speaker 4:Surrendering to Russia A man convinced against his will is against you still, and that applies. You cannot enforce a solution to a nation against their will. They fought for three years and they lost ten thousands of people, civilians and military. You cannot force them to accept something that they don't believe is right. It's going to be difficult discussions, but they have to be accepted as a nation, a sovereign nation, at the table, otherwise there won't be a solution.
Speaker 4:And of course, because of Ukraine, there are a lot of security concerns in Europe as well. Especially the neighboring countries of Russian Federation are alarmed when you see that a big neighbor can invade such a country as Ukraine, which is a huge country, one of the biggest in Europe, and what Russia can do to such a country as Ukraine, which is a huge country, one of the biggest in Europe, and what Russia can do to such a country. And you have many, many smaller countries around Russia, and this is raising security concerns in Europe and any deal between Russia and Ukraine will have to encompass also the future security architecture in Europe. There will need to be some guarantees how we live together, europe and Russia, and we are not in constant fear of being attacked.
Speaker 1:Well, it sounds like you're specifically referring to the Baltics. Even Poland, a larger country, slovenia, is a near neighborhood. So I guess you're saying all of the European countries would need to be consulted, in other words, of the European countries would need to be consulted in other ways on the European architecture. I mean, macron has been saying for a long time that Europe needs its own European army as autonomous security. Do you think that Europe needs something in addition to or alongside NATO?
Speaker 4:No, I hope finally this moment has dawned on Europe I think we were seeing this coming that this transatlantic alliance that we relied on for what? 80 years cannot be the only security provider for Europe anymore. I think that was coming for a long time.
Speaker 1:So Macron has been saying I don't believe he's the originator actually of the term strategic. He made the famous speech at the Sorbonne on strategic autonomy. But I think actually the concept actually had been discussed even earlier.
Speaker 4:Yeah, but it was not. We didn't do much.
Speaker 1:He popularized it.
Speaker 4:Yes.
Speaker 1:But it still hasn't been enacted.
Speaker 4:It hasn't been enacted. And I think now it dawned on the EU because also the US administration is saying we'll not provide security for Europe anymore. So I think next week the prime ministers are meeting and presidents are meeting in Brussels for an extraordinary council meeting where I believe they will be discussing this issue. Of course, they will focus on Ukraine, what the EU can do for Ukraine, but it's also the bigger issue for EU. What does it mean? What is happening when we are losing an ally? And so what is happening with the US? What are our future relations with the US? And I think we'll have to look outside of this transatlantic alliance or other global alliances that this is my personal view or other alliances that the EU should also focus on, so that we are not so much dependent on one and now, with one changing dramatically views on us, that we feel somehow in shock.
Speaker 1:Well, trump keeps focusing on the 2% figure, which is a little bit simplistic because of course, it's how you spend the money that counts. Now, slovenia is not at the 2%. I mean it's going to be expensive across the board. The UK is talking just, I think, yesterday about possibly having to cut their foreign aid to pay for their increase, but they're above 2%. Your country is not yet at 2%. I mean, do you have a plan, first of all, to get at or above 2%? And have you I don't know have you projected the year when you think that you would get to that? I know you're not the defense minister, I'm not.
Speaker 4:Yes, I'm not in Ljubljana. I can just tell you that we have a plan how to reach 2%. The plan was that we reach until 2030. I'm not sure how these new requirements are influencing our government, the reflections in our government. I think we are 1.6 or something percent at the moment, but it is increasing.
Speaker 1:So currently the stated goal is to reach it by 2030. For your government Discussions or the thinking may be modifying.
Speaker 4:Now I can't say that. I don't know how much how that is influencing now, but the problem is that our GDP has been raising in the past years and as you raise, as the GDP is raising, then also the money is not only that you're increasing percentage-wise, but it's also because of the GDP increase. No, that's true.
Speaker 1:Other people have pointed that out and, on the other hand, because of the GDP increase. No, that's, two other people have pointed that out and on the other hand, if a country, you don't have this problem, fortunately. But if a country's GDP goes down all of a sudden, they reach the 2%, not because they've changed their spending, so it's not really a perfect benchmark to use. Then, if you have a separate alliance that the US is not a part of, but is only Europe, would some countries have to step up and fill roles that have traditionally been filled by the US and NATO? I'm thinking particularly like intelligence logistics? You would still have a nuclear umbrella with.
Speaker 1:France, would you have to realign? What countries do Not just spend more, but maybe spend it on different things is what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 4:I don't think we're there yet. I think these are the discussions that will be coming. We're still counting on NATO. For us, the NATO is the alliance that we want to remain part of. We want to make it functional. Of course, we'll talk very openly with the US. What does it mean? The messages that are coming from Washington? What do they mean? So I think this is still the basic alliance, but within the NATO, of course, to strengthen the European wing, if you want. Also to the commitments for financing or taking responsibility for problems in Europe like Ukraine. I think when President Macron was in Washington, they were talking about possibilities in the border between Russia and Ukraine. So that's, I think, what now discussions are. I don't think we're there yet to have something completely separate from NATO as long as the US is part of NATO. I think that's where discussions will continue.
Speaker 1:as the US is part of NATO, I think that's where discussions will continue. Just speaking of peacekeeping in Ukraine and Erbakan who said he's willing to have French troops. I don't know if there's been any discussion in Brussels between European capitals on European peacekeepers more broadly, and would they be there under a NATO flag, a UN flag? Would these be UN peacekeepers or would they just be there on their own under each country's own flag?
Speaker 4:Well, first, if Europe is not at the table, then it's very difficult to discuss that Europe would be sending any troops there as peacekeepers. That's why we are saying nothing about Europe without Europe. So we hope that that's another reason why we should be at the table when there will be discussions about it. I know that the presidents and prime ministers were talking about this possibility, but I think it's too early. We don't know whether there will be peacekeepers, whether there will be peace. Of course, this is not peace enforcement. It will probably be peacekeeping missions just between the two countries. I mean, this is way too early, but my understanding was that the countries are ready to reflect on that option if this will be part of the broader agreement.
Speaker 1:Then there's also post-war reconstruction. Again, this is very early days, the negotiations haven't even started yet. But there's this famous minerals deal which and I should say for listeners that we're speaking on Wednesday so we really don't have any more details, they're murky On Friday we may know more, if Zelensky indeed does sign this on Friday in Washington. But some of the reporting we've heard today said that proceeds from minerals which, if I understand correctly, would not include current mining there would be new projects would go into a fund which, among things, might pay for Ukraine's reconstruction. And if that's true, the first thing that hit me would be that Ukraine was then paying for its own reconstruction. Post-war Europe until now has been saying that frozen Russian assets should be used to pay for reconstruction. And if Ukraine uses its mineral wealth which is large but finite we're not talking about renewable resources here if they use that for reconstruction, then it's almost like paying reparations and paying for their reconstruction. So do Europeans have an opinion on how that post-war reconstruction should be financed?
Speaker 4:No, not that I'm aware. I think the European Union will be ready to help Ukraine, as we were helping so far. The European Union is stretched as well. We are seeing how elections across Europe are bringing votes more and more to very populist politicians. We just saw the results in Germany, but there are other countries. That's also linked to the Ukrainian war and also maybe to other wars as well. The feeling of instability, the feeling that money is going elsewhere.
Speaker 4:I think if Trump administration is saying America first, I think European Union starts saying gradually also Europe first, and then what will happen with Ukraine? Then you have an unstable country, destroyed country, with people then moving outside. So yes, I think we have responsibility and we committed to help Ukraine, but we would expect the whole international community to help. Of course we are counting on the frozen Russian assets, but that again might be part of the discussions. I'm pretty sure the Russians would be asking those assets back after the war. It's a lot of questions up in the air. It all depends how negotiations will go on. If you don't talk about who started the war and who actually did the damage in Ukraine, then it's very difficult to say who will do the reconstruction who will?
Speaker 4:pay for reparation if there is no aggressor at the peace talks.
Speaker 1:Well, and that is one reason this is left out of this. You kindly referred to the US resolution being quickly put together, but in fact it was three sentences and it left all of that out. That has been in all of the other resolutions. So, because that will have an impact on peace negotiations. Also, we should point out, a lot of the frozen Russian assets are in Europe, so there is another reason why Europe would need to be part of the negotiations.
Speaker 4:You cannot expect that. You know Europe and Ukraine will be at the table and then Ukraine will give the territory away, EU will lift the sanctions, EU will unfroze the assets.
Speaker 1:Ukraine pays for its own reconstruction with its mineral wealth.
Speaker 4:I don't think that's really the recipe for a successful negotiation.
Speaker 1:Well, what do you see as the risks inherent in that?
Speaker 4:I think there's a lot of risks. But it's true what Americans are saying For three years we were not successful. It's true what Americans are saying For three years we were not successful. It's true the Europe region, in three years, was not able to come with a serious proposal to end the conflict, which here in the UN we heard from the global south increasingly more and more that why don't you push for a ceasefire? Why don't you do something to stop the killing? So I think we have to take on ourselves that in the past years we continue to have the same narrative, which didn't bring us closer to peace but brought us in the situation that we are today. Then somebody else took initiative, with which we are not very happy about. But now I think we'll have to adjust. We'll have to work with the US and try to find what is the way forward so that it will actually work on the ground.
Speaker 1:Well, it appears that a lot of trust was put in the sanctions and that Ukraine's allies and partners were counting on it basically to hold out long enough for the sanctions to bite in Russia, for Russians to be unhappy enough with the sanctions to start pushing for an end to the war. Now, the other problem, of course, with the sanctions is they don't only impact Russia. They've led to increased inflation elsewhere as well, in large and small countries. I think most economists would say a lot of those populous waves are because of the inflation which the Russia's war in Ukraine may be a part of. So is part of it a lack of, perhaps, patience or staying power to wait for the sanctions to do their effect? Or do you think, if there were more time, that the sanctions would have pushed Russia to the bargaining table on their own, or do they need something else?
Speaker 4:Well, the fact is that after three years, the sanctions are more biting European countries than they're biting Russia. Russia adjusted to the sanctions. There's a lot of violation of the sanctions by other countries, so Russia is getting a lot of things from Europe and US through the third countries. I don't know whether if it lasted longer it will have an effect on Russia, but sanctions in general, hoping that the public will revolt against the leadership because of the hardship of the sanctions. I don't think it worked anyway. So usually, not necessarily do they work, and they didn't work this time. So they didn't force Russia to be more flexible. Start discussing peace in Ukraine. It just made lives in Europe more difficult.
Speaker 1:But it also impacts the global south certainly and humanitarian aid.
Speaker 1:But it seems there are at least two reasons I can think of why the global south will be getting impatient about the Ukraine war, and one of them is the fact that they're also getting the impacts of inflation and maybe less able to pay, and the other simply being the time that the UN has to dedicate to subjects. There are a lot of conflicts all over the world. The last few years we've heard primarily really about two, maybe three. We've heard about Ukraine, Gaza, and the UN does spend some time on Sudan, although we don't hear about it as much in the media. So is there that impact too, that many, many of those countries perhaps that have stated the general assembly want the conversation to move on to issues that are more direct concern outside of Europe?
Speaker 4:I think the messages from global side were coming that they want discussion on peace. China formed this group Alliance for in Ukraine and there were the initiatives Chinese, brazilian. There was increasing pressure that we should start discussing peace in Ukraine, also because usually it's the Europe the ones who is calling for ceasefire in other conflicts. When there are conflicts, we usually come and we call for ceasefire. That's why it looked like a double standard and it's in our territory. We don't pursue ceasefire, even though I can explain, but I understand the logic. Then it's the wheat from Ukraine. We all learn now that great amounts of global wheat was coming from Ukraine and all of a sudden that was blocked, which increased the prices and made problems in many countries of the South. So that increased the uneasiness of the South with the whole war.
Speaker 1:Foreign Minister Lavrov spent a lot of time traveling, especially earlier in the war, to the global South and convincing African countries, or basically a PR campaign around the time. They were opposing the Black Sea Green Deal, which I would have thought would have made this very unpopular in the Global South. But in fact, actually Russia may have made a mistake to walk away from the Black Sea Green Deal because they've lost a lot of ships.
Speaker 4:So you know, there's that too mistake to walk away from the Black Sea Green Deal because they've lost a lot of ships. So you know there's that too. But on Russia, you know, at the beginning when the war started, it was so obvious violation of the Charter, violation of territorial integrity of the countries. It was huge support across the membership of the UN, 141 and so on, votes that were received for Ukraine. So that was very clear.
Speaker 4:Of course, as the war progressed and you said, yes, with Russian disinformation going around it's all West, it's because of NATO, it's because of Russians in the East, and so on then diluted this, Even though when we were discussing now the last resolution, we got the feeling this is still there, the member states still feel strongly about the UN Charter and territorial integrity. That's how we got those votes, that's how we got two thirds of the 11 votes in the Security Council on this amendment. But, yes, because it lasted for three years and because so much funds from Europe went into Ukraine, so much attention, as you said, went to Ukraine and because, unfortunately, we showed some double standards on Gaza, that all affected the approach of the Global South toward the Ukrainian war. We discussed this a lot, Also within the EU. Of course we have different views within the EU, but those elements didn't help in our relationship with the global south.
Speaker 1:Well, speaking of Gaza, I mean I did want to ask you a little bit about your thoughts on reconstruction in Gaza. I don't know how much this has been discussed on the Security Council, in consultations or between members. Trump's recent statements on clearing out Gaza, the US taking control, reconstruction, relocating Gazans, which also seem to be very much counter to the UN charter, very much counter to the UN Charter. And then I don't know if you've seen yet the video last night, the dancing yes, the bearded ladies at the beach. What, if anything, can the UN Security Council do to push a reconstruction plan for Gaza that is, I guess, more in line with the UN Charter?
Speaker 4:Yeah, I think we have to keep a cool head, because these people really suffered so much in the past year and a half. Gaza is completely destroyed. Secretary General presented the report saying the 53 billion will be needed, or 50 for Gaza. 88% of schools destroyed, hospitals, everything. We know that For time being, I think the focus is on ceasefire to last. So now we have ceasefire, we need to all support the three mediators so that they can bring the ceasefire to a permanent peace. I know they're working very hard Qatar and Egypt and the US so that continues. I think that's the focus. You need permanent peace in order to start discussing reconstruction. The European Union built many hospitals several times. A port in Gaza was built three times by the Dutch and destroyed it each time by Israelis. I think this time people would want donors would want to see permanent peace so that they can be assured that if they invest something, it will stay.
Speaker 1:What kind of security arrangements would be to be made? Or is it an actual peace deal? Is it a document that would be signed? Assurances from Israel, A regional security deal? What kind of assurances could European donors get that they would make that investment again on a third or fourth time? Something that they've already built three or four times has been destroyed.
Speaker 4:Well, definitely, it would not be only European donors. So, yes, we hope for the US to be present there as well, and primarily, the region, and the region is having a summit on the 4th of March and we are all waiting for their plan. We should follow their guidance. It seems that Egypt is working on a plan of reconstruction, but reconstruction doesn't mean just what you rebuild. It means also what will be the security. Who will take care of security?
Speaker 4:Of course, it will need to be discussed with Israel, because they have to be okay with whatever is going to be there, because they have to be okay with whatever is going to be there, otherwise you don't have peace. So it's quite complicated, but that would have who will be governed in Gaza? Where is Hamas in all this story? All these need to be sorted out before you can really start some serious reconstruction in Gaza. But I remind that Resolution of the Security Council 2735, the famous one who called for the ceasefire in Gaza from June last year and which actually then materialized itself into this deal now on ceasefire. That resolution is also rejecting any forceful changing of demographic composition of Gaza, meaning it's against any relocation of Gazans.
Speaker 1:And that I know you weren't on the Security Council this entire time, but that resolution was after many, many failed resolutions that the Security Council resolution came with a lot of compromise too. So that was the many, many failed resolutions that the Security Council resolution came with a lot of compromise too.
Speaker 4:That was a resolution, yes, which came from the US.
Speaker 1:From the US. Yeah, we should say the US had made several resolutions.
Speaker 4:And then they brought this was the Biden plan. And then they brought it to the Council and pretty much like the Monday one, it was like take it or leave it. So there was not many changes made in. So that's what the US brought. They said this is what we're negotiating, this is what we believe can go through. So we all had ideas how it could be improved. But then at the end we said if there is hope for a ceasefire, we go for it, and everybody, but I think Russia, voted in favor.
Speaker 1:Right, I believe it was. Yeah, I believe it was 14 in favor and Russia abstained. Abstained yes, there was a question whether Russia would veto, in part simply because it was a US draft resolution, but they abstained.
Speaker 4:Yeah, they abstained also, and then they kept reminding us that they abstained because they didn't know what resolution is about. And now it's proved that it's not implemented. Well, in the end, hopefully it was implemented this year in January.
Speaker 1:Yeah, one difference between that and this Monday is we're going on memory here, but there had already been some work on the Biden plan. Obviously, secretary Blinken had been back and forth, back and forth many times, whereas we're really in the preliminaries in Ukraine and the Trump administration has only been there a few weeks. Yeah, this is a resolution path for peace. It's called yeah, the path for peace resolution, which is three sentences.
Speaker 4:It's supposed to be, you know, the carpet leading to negotiations. As I said, we think it's a good aim and it's good to have finally a resolution on Ukraine and directing us toward peace. We hope there will be more resolutions. I hope in the next resolutions, the views of the region, which is us, will be respected and taken into account. Like we do for Sudan, we listen to Africans, Like on the case of Gaza, we listen to Arab world On this, on the Ukraine, I think we should be listening as Europe, and Europe being not only EU but also UK. I think we're pretty united here. So we hope the next resolutions that are coming they will be not just the carpet, but it will be more substance.
Speaker 1:Well, I not just listen to you, but I would imagine that in the case of Gaza, you would say that the region should be the head seat at the table. Their views should be represented before they do. And in Africa there has been that phrase, I think it's.
Speaker 4:African solutions for African problems.
Speaker 1:Exactly African solutions for African problems. Exactly African solutions for African problems. But actually, well, this isn't Sudan, but the DRC foreign minister kind of brought that into question. She did a media stakeout recently. I mean, there are issues because there are a number of conflicts in Africa which do not get much coverage in the media but are starting to feel really intractable. And I know you had a meeting on Sudan, you're coming for one. Basically, I guess, is there any outcome from that meeting and what can the UN do? Is it still Africa solutions for Africa problems or is there something else that the UN should be doing?
Speaker 4:No, I think, African solution for African problems. We are accepting that and we are looking at African Union to show us the guidance. But, as member of Security Council, we believe that, yes, we should listen to Africa, but we have our own responsibility as the council. On Sudan, we've been looking. It's going to be almost two years of the war horrible war which is war against civilians war, horrible war which is war against civilians, as Special Envoy President of the Lamambra said this morning is war against civilians of two generals fighting for power against civilians with their mercenaries. So two years we've been all waiting for the initiative.
Speaker 4:And there's a lot of initiatives. You have African Union, igad, you have this American-US initiative last year, alps Gold, you have all kinds. So we believe that UN should be the one coordinating the issues, but also the one to be in the lead. Un has been pushed away from all negotiations. It's not a good sign. In Ukraine, un had no role. In Gaza, un doesn't have any role in negotiations, In Africa neither. But in the past it was the UN who was mediating, who was more present in these peace processes.
Speaker 1:Is it the position of the African Union that they should be leading it and the UN doesn't have much of a role to play, or does the African Union?
Speaker 4:They want to coordinate. The problem is that the parties don't want. Only Sudan really don't want to engage because they believe in military solution. But at least last year it was a feeling of competition of mediators on Sudan. Drc is, as you mentioned before, is becoming a huge problem, very dangerous for escalation into regional and that's really escalated more recently. I mean.
Speaker 1:Sudan is just two strong men who neither one wants to give up.
Speaker 4:But when you look at it around, all the conflicts are going in the very wrong direction. None of them is calming down those who were kind of going in the right direction, like DRC, un mission was closing down just a year ago and now it exploded, with Rwanda being inside and rebels progressing and dangerous of regional war. Indeed, sudan exploded two years ago Before it was calming down political mission of the UN there In Sahel. We were thrown out. So we don't even know.
Speaker 1:Particularly the French. They did not want the Europeans. I'm just wondering if there's anything that you think the UN Security Council could do differently in Africa, or is it really just being a backstop for the African Union but letting them come up with the strategies?
Speaker 4:We encourage today La Mambra to. I think we support Special Admiral La Mambra. We see that he's the one who has good access to both sides and that he could bring the process forward. So he's working closely with the African Union. Of course, the problem with the African Union, the problem is that Sudan, the status of Sudan, is frozen in the African Union because of the martial law, because of the coup d'etat. They went out of EGAD because they didn't have Greece, so they're not even really a full party to the African Union. But he got huge support today to work with the African Union and to try to start the proximity talks between the two sides.
Speaker 1:Now, one thing that EUA, of course, does do a lot of in Africa is the humanitarian aid through its office in Nigeria and throughout Africa. But how much are the cuts? Obviously, the Trump administration looks like they may cut all of USAID. There's the statement yesterday I think it was yesterday by the UK saying they might need to cut humanitarian aid to pay for increases in defense spending. And even small percentages that they're talking about are fractions amounts to billions of dollars, and if other european countries decide they need to do something similar, they're they're all talking about increasing their defense. The money has to come from somewhere and, as we know, taking it from social programs can have a big impact on elections. So so I mean, should Africa be concerned that they may get a dramatic decrease in humanitarian aid because of those budget cuts?
Speaker 4:I think we should all be concerned, because security you don't defend only with defense. Your security you defend also with removing the causes for conflict and in today's world, if something happens in another part of the world, it affects you as well. You cannot be isolated. The lack of development, the poverty, these are sources of conflicts in Africa and other regions, and that's why development assistance was meant to remove the sources of the conflicts, so that you don't have conflict, you don't conflicts, so that you don't have conflict, you don't have migration, you don't have refugees, you don't have pressure on Europe. That's how we are investing in this development. It's not altruism, it's actually helping us. So I think there will need to be a balance. Of course you can put more on defense, but that will not necessarily make you safer. But of course I understand why we are doing it because of Ukraine. When we saw what happened to Ukraine, huge country and yet attacked for years. We are all watching and now they are pressured to negotiate. Russia is closed. That's why there is this, as I talked at the beginning, the feel that there is a need in there. We feel the need to invest more in defense so that we'll be more ready and it will be deterrent toward Russia so that they will not, or anybody else, so that they will not attack us. But I agree this is very sensitive and I don't know what is my government's position yet.
Speaker 4:I don't think we are going to reduce development decisions. We are not as huge as the UK but still we are growing, emerging donor, increasing our funds. We increased for UNRWA significantly in the past year. We are increasing for WFP, world Food Programme, for ICRC and other humanitarian organisations quite significantly in the past few years. So I don't think we're going to reduce. I don't think we'll be one of those, but personally I believe that it's very tricky to reduce development aid because it can come back as a boomerang if you have all of a sudden conflicts all over the other continents which definitely will affect you. It's one world, it's one global world and you cannot isolate yourself from conflicts outside, and that goes for the US as well.
Speaker 4:I don't want to preach to the US. I can talk for Europe, but you cannot isolate In one or the other way. It can come back and it was for a reason that the US was investing so much in the development of the rest of the world. This is also the responsibility as a global main power, and if the US removes from that role, there are others who might step in. The same goes for the UN and influencing the UN. If the US would not find the UN interesting, there might be other powers who are paying almost as much to the regular budget as US who can step in.
Speaker 1:Well, famously, china has just reached 20%. The US pays 22%. Yes, so we're talking about almost an equal portion of the budget.
Speaker 4:Yeah, for regular budget Of the regular budget, because the US gives a lot for these voluntary contributions.
Speaker 1:The World Food Program is almost entirely the US.
Speaker 4:And it's felt already? Yes, and it's felt already. I hear that you know like 70 percent of the food in Congo, DRC, is being from the US funds. There were some vaccinations that were done by US funds.
Speaker 1:Well, in fact you see on every bag of food USAID, so the locals who work with it know that it's coming from the US. So what you're saying is that this humanitarian aid helps foster peace and security.
Speaker 4:It removes the causes of conflicts because it helps with the development. If people see progress, they will not fight. People fight because of poverty. Usually that's the reason. If you are poor and you have nothing to lose, then you get. For instance, in Sahel, the only employer who can provide jobs are these terrorist organizations and groups in Mali. So you have young boys, nothing to do, no job, no everything. And then you have these terrorist organizations or linked to ISIS or whoever who have funds and give them job. And so if you don't have development, then you have somebody else who can come in and makes you unsafe and safe.
Speaker 1:And the irony is, of course, many of the populist political parties that oppose immigration also oppose foreign aid. So there is sort of a conflict there and that's one boomerang. There's one that I meant to ask you this earlier, so this will be my last one. But there's one other boomerang, which is another focus of the UN is nuclear non-proliferation. But many countries now see what happened to Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear weapons. Which is another focus of the UN is nuclear nonproliferation. But many countries now see what happened to Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear weapons, and the impact that has had, and several have started saying that perhaps they should have nuclear programs or developing nuclear weapons. And at the same time Russia has blocked weapons inspections in North Korea, which is now a supporter of its war effort in Ukraine. Is there a risk, as the world becomes a more dangerous place, of backtracking on the nuclear nonproliferation which has been such a focus at the UN?
Speaker 4:I think the world is already a more dangerous place with the number of conflicts. Icrc is telling us that there are 120 conflicts around the world.
Speaker 1:I thought it was 50-something, I heard it had been 20. But they're talking, of course, conflicts within states, not just between states.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I also heard these two numbers. In any case, it's a lot and the largest number since, I guess, the Second World War. So we're already living in a more dangerous world. We are living in a more dangerous world. We are living in more dangerous Europe, as we see, if there is a need that we increase defense budgets, it means that we are not as safe as we thought we were before. Now with Ukraine a very good point, of course, ukraine had nuclear weapons. Had they kept them, probably Russia would not attack them. When they gave them away, they got guarantees and where are they. So, yes, that doesn't work well with Iran and Korea to see now these weapons as the way to protect themselves. So it's going to be a difficult year on Iran, I think because of the sanctions issue with JCPOA, this agreement that was done to remove the sanctions if Iran follows the nuclearization process. Today, this year, this agreement expires and it's the last time when you can bring back the sanctions if the Security Council establish that Iran continues with nuclear weapons program.
Speaker 1:But it did occur to me. It might not be a complete coincidence that we're looking at the Shahid drone was being displayed at the UN at a time where Iran is back in the news in terms of sanctions.
Speaker 4:Yeah, so that means another tension is going to come. Yes, I think we're already living in a dangerous world.
Speaker 1:Well, I also wondered about proliferation and that obviously North Korea and Iran might look at Ukraine and be like you know, maybe we should double down. But even other countries might be saying to themselves the two obvious examples are Ukraine and South Korea that can we count on someone else's nuclear umbrella? So there's the security aspect and even the fact that Russia has also gained quite a lot. I mean, their war might have gone very differently. I had real stretch of the imagination to say they were not a nuclear power, but in other words the bargaining chip that you have as a nuclear power, whether those groups that work on nuclear nonproliferation should adapt.
Speaker 4:So in that sense, maybe this rapprochement between US and Russia is not such a bad thing, because it's the responsibility of the nuclear powers to prevent proliferation. They have the main responsibility. And I think it's positive what I heard, that there was an initiative, an idea to reduce nuclear arsenal or to reduce some weapons by half or spending for weapons by half. So it seems there are discussing ways how to control the weapons programs and this is positive. So if something's coming out of this trying to solve the Ukrainian war and getting more known relations with Russia is that then you can start this and you have to bring China in as well, but we're a long way from the SALT treaties.
Speaker 4:We're a long way from actual we are, but you need to have a dialogue, then you need to talk to come to something. So if these three countries start discussing these issues and they have responsibility to prevent and interest as well to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons, Well, that's a great note to end on.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much for visiting us today in the Delegate Salons. Mr Ambassador, Thank you for being our guest.
Speaker 4:Thank you.
Speaker 1:On Monday night, Frank and I saw the display of an Iranian Shahid drone. The midnight sky black drone was bigger than I had imagined. You'll find photos and videos and our social media links in the show notes. According to the event organizers, Ukraine forces downed the drone. It was then transported from Ukraine to Poland, where the inert drone was then flown on a Polish Air Force jet to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland for display to select audiences, including UN diplomats, on the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I'll let the remarks by Polish Foreign Minister Wroclaw Sikorski tell you the rest of the story.
Speaker 2:Thanks, mark. As you said, there is a debate at the Security Council where I am going to represent the European Union as the presidency, so I will depart. But I just want to confirm what you said, namely I have personally been lied to by an Iranian ambassador that Iran does not send Shahed drones to Russia. Here is the evidence. This is proof that they lie, because this was shot down in Ukraine, it was moved across the border into Poland and brought directly to the United States. If they lie about this, they of course, can lie about everything else.
Speaker 2:And the Chernobyl strike is particularly significant because we know what one of our problems with Iran is their nuclear program and the suspicions that we have that they want to enrich, to have a military program. Well, the Islamic Republic is already threatening Europe in the nuclear field by allowing Russia to shoot these things into Ukraine. Thank God, the outer ceiling of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant activated the warhead and the warhead exploded before hitting the sarcophagus, but last time radiation was emitted from the plant, it endangered half of Europe. So this is what the Russian-Iranian axis of chaos is already producing. It is endangering both Israelis and Europeans by exporting this indiscriminate technology.
Speaker 2:There is one other aspect that I want to mention. We are here on the third anniversary of Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Before that day, putin thought he had a first-class army Frankly, we thought that he had a first-class army and then, when his attempt to take Kiev in three days failed, he had to beg the leaders of Iran and North Korea for all the ammunition and for deadly but actually not that sophisticated drones. This is proof that the Russian war effort depends on the help of rogue regimes, and this is one more reason why we should be steadfast in our support for Ukraine and steadfast in our condemnations of the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the Security Council.
Speaker 2:I hope the people of Iran see that we have proof of the malfeasance of their government. The Polish ambassador in Tehran was summoned to the foreign ministry this morning to protest my words put in the Wall Street Journal about this drug. I dare to say that this proves that Russia and Iran have a military relationship. They claim no, it's not a military relationship. We just sell it for money. Really, it's not a military relationship. What is it? A toy, a piece of civilian merchandise?
Speaker 3:No.
Speaker 2:Iran cannot escape responsibility for exporting thousands of these things to Ukraine, to Russia, and causing thousands of people to lose their lives and homes to this weapon. Iran lies, iran is guilty and Iran cannot expect our sympathy when we take measures to prevent this from occurring in the future.
Speaker 3:Thank you, our listeners, who we hope are sufficiently edified to clamor for more of the same. Do drop in for a weekly episode on Thursday, or from time to time if we're on the road, for special events, in which case there'll be a bonus episode. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts and, if you like what you've heard, please take a moment to rate or review the show, as it helps others who share your abiding interest in world affairs to find their way to the Delegates Lounge. You can connect with us on many popular social media platforms or reach out to us directly at infothedelicatesloungecom. We're a small team so we can't respond to every message, but we will read them. Our show this week was written and produced by the host and by yours truly executive producer, frank Radford. Until next time, keep calm and curious.