This episode brings you a fascinating discussion that challenges you to rethink your understanding of the crisis between Ukraine and Russia. Featuring our esteemed guests, Oleksandra Matviichuk, a human rights war crimes investigator, and Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group, we shed light on the importance of shifting the narrative from 'helping Ukraine not to fail' to 'helping Ukraine win fast'. Oleksandra leader of the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties, unveils the chilling reality of Russia's use of war crimes as a strategy. She underscores the urgency for an autonomous judiciary and advocates for a special tribunal to bring Vladimir Putin to justice.
And our discussion also navigates the treacherous waters of power politics within the United Nations Security Council. Richard offers a unique lens to understand the predicaments the UN faces. We also examine the pressing need for UN reform, and the legitimacy of Russia's claim to the Soviet seat. Join us as we explore the broader implications of the Ukraine-Russia conflict on the global stage, Russia's enduring impunity, and the desperate need to shatter this cycle. This conversation is certain to provoke thought and foster a deeper understanding of the predicament at hand.
This episode brings you a fascinating discussion that challenges you to rethink your understanding of the crisis between Ukraine and Russia. Featuring our esteemed guests, Oleksandra Matviichuk, a human rights war crimes investigator, and Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group, we shed light on the importance of shifting the narrative from 'helping Ukraine not to fail' to 'helping Ukraine win fast'. Oleksandra leader of the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties, unveils the chilling reality of Russia's use of war crimes as a strategy. She underscores the urgency for an autonomous judiciary and advocates for a special tribunal to bring Vladimir Putin to justice.
And our discussion also navigates the treacherous waters of power politics within the United Nations Security Council. Richard offers a unique lens to understand the predicaments the UN faces. We also examine the pressing need for UN reform, and the legitimacy of Russia's claim to the Soviet seat. Join us as we explore the broader implications of the Ukraine-Russia conflict on the global stage, Russia's enduring impunity, and the desperate need to shatter this cycle. This conversation is certain to provoke thought and foster a deeper understanding of the predicament at hand.
I think people start more and more understand that we have to set a common goal, Because when large scale envisions started, the civilized world told let's help Ukraine not to fail. But this is a time to change this narrative to another one. Let's help Ukraine to win fast.
Richard Gowan:He's now having to deal with the fallout of Russia's war on Ukraine, but he's also, I think, quite obsessed with the fact that there are big trends in the world, like the rise of artificial intelligence, big breakthroughs in biotechnology, the rapid worsening of climate change, and the UN system just isn't designed to deal with this new generation of challenges.
Dana Lewis:Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of Backstory. I'm Dana Lewis, just in the news that Russia hit a village called Groza in northeastern Ukraine. It's a crime, says President Zelensky. The target was a Ukrainian food shop. Dozens killed Ukrainians, including a six year old boy, were attending a memorial service. On Backstory, we speak to human rights war crimes investigator Alexandra Matvichak, who heads the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And why can't the United Nations stop this war? Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group is based at the UN and says the Security Council, paralyzed by Chinese and Russian vetoes, won't soon be reformed, and that's a problem. The UN is complicated, but that reflects the divided, dysfunctional world in which we live. Alexandra Matvichak heads Ukraine Center for Civil Liberties and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Memorial, the largest human rights organization in Russia. In this week she's been speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum. Alexandra, first of all, welcome.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:And.
Dana Lewis:I understand. Your message is that as long as Ukraine is vulnerable, so is all of Europe's security. Is that message something that people accept? Do you think?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:I think people start more and more understand that we have to set a common goal, because when large scale envisions started, the civilized world told let's help Ukraine not to fail. But this is a time to change this narrative to another one let's help Ukraine to win fast. There is a huge differences between let's help Ukraine not to fail and let's help Ukraine to win fast, and we can measure these differences practically in types of weapons, in speed of decisions and gravity of sanctions.
Dana Lewis:You keep talking about weapons, and I understand why, because how do you eject an aggressor without being able to fight back and without enough guns, without enough artillery? But as a human rights person who's investigated war crimes, does it leave you uncomfortable, this constant push and call for more guns, more bullets, more fighting to get the Russians out?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:We found the dead bodies of civilians with hand ties under their feet. We found the dead bodies of civilians with hand ties under their back, kettered around the streets until liberation of Butcher. We found the dead bodies of civilians in the gardens of their own households. We found dead bodies of civilians in smugglers graves men, women, children. These people have no arms. Russians killed unarmed, and that is why the truth is that we need weapons in order to defend ourselves, because, as a human rights lawyer, for the current moment I have no legal instrument how to stop Russian atrocities. But I do believe that it's temporary, that we will restore international order, we will establish special tribunal on aggression and we will demonstrate justice.
Dana Lewis:So you said in the past that war crimes are just not a product of the conflict or not something that takes place within the conflict, but more than that, you say these crimes are a tactic by Russia. Can you explain that?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:Russia uses war crimes as a method of warfare. Russia attempts to break people's resistance and occupy Ukraine by the tool which I call the immense pain on civilian population. We document this pain. This is the constant policy of Russian state. Russia deliberately destroyed residential buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, attack evacuation corridors, managed federation camps system, organized forcible deportations, commit murders, tortures, rapes, abductions and other kinds of offenses against civilians.
Dana Lewis:Tell me within that you've called for the swift creation of a special tribunal to try Vladimir Putin. President Putin, are you still calling for that and are you getting any support for that?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:We face with accountability gap, and one dimension of this accountability gap is in that fact that there is no international court who can persecute Putin and top political leadership and high military command for the crime of aggression, just for their leadership decision to initiate, to plan and to start this war and all the atrocities which we documented. It's result of this leadership decision. That is why, if we want to stop aggressive war in our world, we have to persecute people who make such kind of decisions, and this means that we need to establish a special tribunal and hold them accountable. The problem is that when I speak with political leaderships of different countries, I saw that they still look into the world through the Prisma of Nurevik trial, where Nazi war criminals were tried, but only after Nazi regime had collapsed. But we live in new century. We must move further. Justice must be independent of the magnitude of Putin's regime power. There is no necessity to wait when and how this war will end. If someone commit crime of aggression, then someone has to be punished.
Dana Lewis:I guess the problem is, if you punish President Putin and have a tribunal trying Putin and his inner circle, which is a very large circle, includes members of parliament, media there's a lot of support for this war within Russia when do you stop? I mean, where do you stop at who you prosecute?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:This is not just a war of one man. This is a war of Russian nation. And the problem is that majority of Russians still see their glory in the worst possible restoration of Russian power. They really think they have a right to invade in other countries, to kill people there and to erode their identity. And the roots of the problem is a long lasting impunity which Russia enjoyed for decades, because Russian troops commit horrible war crimes in Chichinya, in Moldova, in Georgia, in Malia, in Syria, in Libya, in other countries of the world, and they have never been punished. We must break the circle of impunity. We must demonstrate justice, not just for Ukrainians, but to prevent another Russian attack to the next country.
Dana Lewis:You said that this is not a war between two countries, but a war between two systems Authoritarianism quoting you, authoritarianism and democracy. Putin is trying to prove that democracy, the rule of law and freedom are fake values because they do not protect anyone and if the international order is not restored in the near future, it will have long-term negative consequences for the development of the world. So that's very heady stuff. I mean, you paint the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a worldwide struggle now, and do you think that people accept that, or do they look at your argument with quite a bit of skepticism?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:Let's remind how this large-scale invasion started. Russia and China made a statement and presented their vision to the new world order, and then Putin started large-scale invasion. And with this war, putin tried to convene that country with a strong military potential, and nuclear weapons can break international order, can dictate the rules of the game to entire international community and even forceably changed international recognized borders. And if Putin succeed, it will encourage another leaders in the world to do the same and we will find ourselves in the future which will be dangerous for everyone, without any exceptions. And that is why it's so important to help Ukraine to win fast, to demonstrate that democracy can defend itself and the international order has to be restored.
Dana Lewis:I agree with you. So let me tell you where I'm coming from, because I watch Russian media and I listen to the Russian lawmakers, and I've seen President Putin's war in Chechnya and then in Georgia, and then his struggles in Ukraine that have gone on for a long time, trying to control Ukrainians and trying to dominate Ukraine, and then their threats to the Baltics and then their threats to Poland. So how do you get Americans, though, to understand that they don't see it as a broader conflict, as you do. They just see it as a lot of money going to Ukraine. What's the point? We should be supporting Americans.
Dana Lewis:Back home. You hear this growing argument from the Republican Party. You've seen changes in the recent spending bill, where they eliminated the Ukraine assistance from that bill in order to pass it, and then we saw the explosion in the house, where they lost Speaker McCarthy, and now the Republican Party is in chaos, as it normally is anyway. But how do you get, how do you de-politicize this in America, and how do you get Americans to understand this conflict is important to them?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:Ukrainians are fighting not just for ourselves. We are fighting for the international order which was established after the Second World War, which means that we are preventing the Third One. We are dying just to prevent the Third One World War, just to provide a chance to live in a world where human rights guarantees and security are dependent on international system. I have no magic stick, but maybe I will tell two things. First, ukrainians are fighting not just for ourselves. We are fighting for the international order which was established after the Second World War, which means that with our fight we are preventing the Third One. And second, there are a lot of things which have no limitation in national borders. Maybe we are far from each other through geographic perspective, but we are very close in values and human solidarity is such a thing which have no limitation in national borders. Russians commit horrible atrocities in Ukraine and it has to be stopped, because if we will not be able to stop Putin in Ukraine, he will go further.
Dana Lewis:And you believe that that's not just threats or that's not an exaggeration, but it's not, do you? Really believe when you talk to and you travel a lot through Europe and you talk to a lot of different European leaders. Is the fear helpable? Is the fear real when you talk to leaders in the Baltics and Lithuania and Latvia, estonia, poland.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:But it's not my thoughts, it's words of Putin. Putin told that collapse of Soviet Union it was the main geopolitical catastrophe on the first century. Putin told that values of modern civilization like democracy, rule of law and human rights are fake values. Putin declared the war not just to Ukraine. He declared this war to democracy.
Dana Lewis:And you believe that the Russians will just not end with the four areas in eastern Ukraine, but they will push further towards Odessa?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:No, I can't tell you.
Dana Lewis:They'll just keep going, and then eventually beyond Ukraine's borders as well, if they can.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:I will tell you two comments on this regard. First, this war started not in February 2022, but in February 2014, when Ukraine obtained the chance for the quick democratic transition after the collapse of the authoritarian regime due to the revolution of dignity. And in order to stop us on this way, putin started this war. He occupied Crimea and part of Lugansk and Donetsk region and for all eight years, ukraine had no possibility to return the territories back and to release people who lived there. How Putin used these eight years he built a powerful military base in Crimea, he retreated, he regrouped and he started a new attack, because the Empire has a center and has no borders.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:When the Empire has energy, the Empire always expanded. And now I live in here and my native city, like thousands of other Ukrainian cities, are constantly being shelled by Russian rockets who were sent from this new military base which was created in last years. So it's with the ball that Putin will stop, only when he will be stopped. And second thing, which is very important, to understand the roots of this war, because Putin governed the country not just with repression and censorship, but with a special social contract between Kremlin's elite and majority of Russian people. And the problem is that even in the 21st century, majority of Russian people see their glory as a basis for the social contract in a forcible restoration of Russian Empire. Even Putin occupied Crimea. According to the sociological survey, 94% of Russians supported this forcible occupation, and this means that Putin eye and trap. He has always demonstrated new and new territorial achievement to make the Russians great, and this means that if he stopped this war, he will lost his power.
Dana Lewis:Last question to you. You speak about democracy and the liberal West. You obviously believe that democracy is key to civil society, and first of all, do you agree with that? And second of all, on that basis, then, does President Zelensky not have to hold elections next spring? Because there's a big question about whether the elections will go forward or not? And if he does hold them, is that also a problem? Because how do you hold a fair and democratic election in the middle of a war zone?
Oleksandra Matviichuk:Two points from this question. First, the problem is not just in the fact that in authoritarian countries the freedom is wrinkled into the size of the prison cell. The problem is that even in well-developed democracies, people start to forget the real meaning of freedom because they inherited the system of democracy and the rule of law of their parents. They have never fought for this system and that is why they start to take this for granted. And that is why they start to take this system for granted, Because they can easily exchange their own freedoms for economical benefits, for some like promises of security, or for their own comfort. But the truth is that freedom can't be taken for granted. It's a value which not exists once and forever. Every day you have to make a choice and that is why it's so important that Ukrainians show to the whole world that value of democracy, rule of law and freedom. You have to defend such values. You haven't got to compromise with aggressors. And second, about elections we need election, not just imitation process, which Russia will halt next year, for example Because elections is not just one day when you put bulletin to the box. It's a whole process and there are a lot of practical questions how to ensure this whole process during the large-scale war. I can name only several of them how to provide ability to 7.5 million refugees in different countries to vote. How to provide abilities to people from occupied territories to vote. How to secure the whole process when we have the settlements and cities where international observers are not present because they are afraid to go there. And also it's very important question After 24 February, hundreds of thousands of people joined Ukraine's armed forces.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:Yesterday it was people from different peaceful professions, but now they are with weapons in their arms, start to defend their future and peaceful and democratic future for their children, and they will be deprived from the electoral process. It can provide attention, because these people sacrifice their life for this country and they have no right to take part in the elections. I don't mention about money how to find money for electoral process. I don't mention about all of other things, like constitution of Ukraine, like a lot of other constitutions don't provide a possibility to conduct election during martial law. So this means that we have a lot of practical problems which are real and we have to solve this problem and only then conduct elections. Without solving this problem, it will be just imitation process and this means that if this war will last in longer, we have to do something unbelievable and to conduct the fair election in accordance of Copenhagen international principle during the large scale war.
Dana Lewis:It sounds like you would favor a delay.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:I think that for current moment, we are not prepared to election. I want not just calling for election, I want to call for solving these problems. Without this solution, it will be not election which provide people the real right to vote.
Dana Lewis:Alexander Mitvichuk, you've been very generous with your time. It's been difficult to track you down over these many months and I'm glad to finally meet you and talk to you and have a chance to hear your views. And thank you so much.
Oleksandra Matviichuk:I'm very grateful and I'm very grateful for your patience.
Dana Lewis:Richard Gowen is with the International Crisis Group and he's assigned to the United Nations. He is the director of the UN for the International Crisis Group, so I get that right. The International Crisis Group is an independent organization which we have done interviews with them many times and they have some great people, but the ideas are there, working behind the scenes to prevent wars and building a more peaceful world. Richard set me straight. Is that it?
Richard Gowan:That's absolutely right. We have colleagues all around the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan, on the ground watching conflicts unfold. My job is to act as a liaison between them and the United Nations in New York.
Dana Lewis:All you need to do is get the UN doing the same thing, working to prevent crises around the world, because, while they may work at it, it would seem in this day and age they're not having a lot of success.
Richard Gowan:Well, I think the role of the UN is sometimes underestimated and we have to remember that in a place like Afghanistan. Since the fall of Kabul, it's really only been UN agencies that have stayed behind to help the suffering and avoid an even greater humanitarian crisis. But it is true that, due to power politics in the Security Council, we are seeing the UN struggling, obviously with Russia's aggression against Ukraine, but also with conflicts in other regions like the Sahel or the Horn of Africa.
Dana Lewis:Okay. So a lot of people say that it's this paralysis there, especially at not necessarily in the General Assembly, but at the Security Council. They can't do anything. But even as I say that, suddenly they have just approved taking action to restore order in Haiti, so it's probably one of the few things that the Security Council has moved forward on, shall I say this year.
Richard Gowan:It's certainly a good step forward for the Council that there is agreement on Haiti, and it's taken a long time for the Council to approve an intervention for Haiti, but actually the main obstacles have not been political. It's simply because it's a very hard case and many countries will worry of sending peacekeepers. I think I would emphasize that the Council has not innovated on many other crises this year, but it has kept on rolling over the mandates for peacekeeping operations in places like South Sudan and the Central African Republic, so there is a degree of cooperation on crises that don't dominate the news so much. However, we have seen some fairly significant breakdowns, primarily between the West and the Russians, over other topics, like humanitarian aid to Syria or the situation in Mali, and I think diplomats are feeling pretty worn down. They are finding it very hard to work with the Russians now in New York, and so even a small success like the mandate for Haiti is a bit of an uplift for them.
Dana Lewis:Real gangs have taken over most of Haiti. The police are outgunned, outnumbered. If there was ever a simple situation that the Security Council could probably agree on to intervene in, it would be something like that. But even in that vote, russia and China abstained. Why would they abstain?
Richard Gowan:Russia and China are abstaining on a lot of issues in the Council now, which is primarily, I think, a way of showing their distance from the US and their discontent with the multilateral system. In the specific case of Haiti, china actually raised some quite good questions about whether the political situation in Haiti is ripe for an intervention. The country is in political chaos as well as criminal chaos, and I think that the Chinese are also affected by the fact that Haiti retains diplomatic relations with Taiwan, so it doesn't really want to do the Haitians any favours. However, the broad view in New York this week has been that in this case, an abstention from China is fine.
Richard Gowan:What matters is that there is a resolution and this new force, which will be led by Kenya, can get on the ground. Now, what happens when the force gets on the ground is a different question. You could well imagine some of the armed gangs that really dominate the capital, porto Prans, launching attacks on the Kenyans as they arrive. It could get nasty pretty quickly. So this resolution for a force is the first step. What happens afterwards is still uncertain.
Dana Lewis:Why did the Russians abstain? You've told me why China abstained.
Richard Gowan:I'm not actually sure what the Russian reasoning was. In public, the focus over the last couple of weeks has been on the Chinese. This may just have been a solidarity abstention between the Russians and the Chinese. They often follow each other's positions because they do have a pretty durable marriage of convenience at the UN.
Dana Lewis:We recently heard UN head Guttara say that the world is becoming unhinged as geopolitical tensions rise and it seems incapable of coming together to respond to mounting challenges as the UN general assembly in New York. If you said that global governance was stuck in time at a point when strong, modern multilateral institutions were in greater need than ever, can you translate that for me? It?
Richard Gowan:is remarkable that probably one of the harshest critics of the UN is the UN Secretary-General. There are US critics of the UN, like John Bolton, who actually in some ways are less frank about the organization's failings than Guttarish's. I think Guttarish has been in office now for the best part of seven years. He's obviously had a fairly rough ride. He had to cohabit with Trump in Washington for four years. He's now having to deal with the fallout of Russia's war on Ukraine. But he's also, I think, quite obsessed with the fact that there are big trends in the world, like the rise of artificial intelligence, big breakthroughs in biotechnology and, obviously, the rapid worsening of climate change.
Richard Gowan:The UN system just isn't designed to deal with this new generation of challenges. The UN is still struggling with places like Haiti where, after all, they've been peacekeepers since the 1990s. It has a development system that was fit for purpose in about 1965. Guttarish looks at a fast-changing world and he simply doesn't believe the organization he leads has the institutions and has the mechanisms to deal with it If time has gone by, Then why not reform it?
Dana Lewis:That's what a lot of people are saying. If the Security Council can't agree to anything and there are 15 members in there, the debate becomes why is Russia even a member of it? If it's just going to veto everything or sit it out, why not expand it? Bring in more members and make the Security Council actually stand for something and do something and make the world a better place. And those who don't want to participate they're out. And then you get into that. It's sorry for the long question, but you get into that big debate about why was Russia ever a member of the Security Council in the first place? Because it was during the Soviet Union and then, when the Soviet Union fell apart, maybe Russia should have lost its seat or other seats should have been added.
Richard Gowan:So I mean, firstly, I would say that some of the issues that Guterres is raising, like the global regulation of AI, would not go through the Security Council and the UN is much bigger than the Council and for AI, guterres is actually suggesting the creation of a completely new international mechanism to deal with this new technology. But when we talk about UN reform, as you suggest, people often come back to Security Council reform. It is the apex of the system and since February of 2022, and the Russian aggression against Ukraine, council reform has been uppermost in a lot of diplomats' minds here in New York. It is difficult. Under the rules of the UN Charter, you can't make fundamental changes to the Council without getting ratifications from two-thirds of the UN's membership, which has grown to 193 countries, including all the permanent members of the Council. So Russia would have to ratify and China would have to ratify any reform, and you can see why that would be tricky.
Dana Lewis:Right, let's keep Russia out of there. That's not going to get ratified by Russia.
Richard Gowan:Exactly, and so there is a big debate about Council reform. India and Brazil in particular, are pushing really hard to get permanent seats of their own, and for the Indians in particular, this is a big priority.
Dana Lewis:But an end, by the way, a nuclear power, which it wasn't before. But if you're arguing that the five permanent members of the Security Council were all white, I mean chiefly because they were nuclear powers, were they not? That's why they got those seats.
Richard Gowan:No, I mean they got the seats because they were the victors of the Second World War. I mean that was the setup in 1945. And they then were the first five states to become declared nuclear powers. So I mean there is a linkage between nuclear capacity and having a permanent seat on the Council, although I don't think anyone would suggest that that means that DPRK, for example, should get a permanent seat. Look, india has nuclear power. It has a long history of involvement in UN peacekeeping, it's a big diplomatic player. But it's still also true that China doesn't want India to have a permanent seat in the Council.
Richard Gowan:The power politics around it are very, very hard. The Biden administration has been exploring whether you can do Council reform. I don't think Biden is going to prioritize that before next year's elections. If he does get a second term, it might be something that he could pursue. But everyone understands that political obstacles are high.
Richard Gowan:And then, just on the specific question of whether Russia deserves the Soviet seat Look, everyone has always known that the process by which Russia took over the Soviet seat in the 1990s was a bit hazy. I mean that's something I remember being discussed many years ago. But sort of smarter people than the people who really understand that that process have looked at various declarations from that time, various agreements that were made as the Soviet Union broke up, and their conclusion is that actually Russia's claim to be the inheritor of the Soviet seat is pretty solid. Now the Ukrainians reject this. The Ukrainians say that Russia is an illicit member of the Security Council, but the US and the UK and France have not gone there. So I think this will remain a compelling Ukrainian talking point, but we won't see Russia thrown out.
Dana Lewis:So can you manage my expectation as to what I think the United Nations is there for, because I think it's there a little bit like the raison d'etre of the crisis group to prevent war, build a more peaceful world, but also, beyond that, have the ability to take some armed intervention in the case like Haiti and more?
Richard Gowan:I think it's worth saying that the UN has never lived up to the vision of its founders. I mean, it was launched in 1945 at the end of the Second World War. Franklin Roosevelt, the US president, who was its primary architect, had this vision of the US, the Soviets and the UK policing the world and the UN Security Council being the high command for that cooperative policing operation. Now that fell apart pretty much as soon as the Security Council started meeting in 1946 and 1947. They've only been very, very rare periods, such as the end of the Cold War in the late 80s and early 90s, where you've had that level of big power cooperation sort of really really taking place through the UN For most of its history.
Richard Gowan:And I think today the UN's main value is really in damping down some of the geopolitically secondary conflicts around the world and humanitarian crises around the world, such as violence in parts of Africa or the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, where the big powers can see some common interest in at least keeping a lid on a crisis, and, as I say, in a case like Afghanistan or indeed in Haiti, despite the major splits over Ukraine, everyone just about agrees that it's useful to have the UN containing the problems in these situations. So it's still living up to that rather lower level of expectation. I think. For those who quite rightly believe that the UN should actually be living up to the principles of the UN Charter, which would mean in fact taking action against Russia over its aggression against Ukraine, I think there's an eternity of disappointment ahead because the organization has never quite met that founding goal.
Dana Lewis:Well, the Security Council can't do it, but does it then revert to the General Assembly? Should it be that the General Assembly really is the one that condemns the invasion of a which it has, I think, condemns the invasion of a neighboring country by an aggressor, and then could potentially vote to send in peacekeeping troops or to have armed resolution in certain cases?
Richard Gowan:There are precedents to the General Assembly stepping in in that way and going right back to the serious crisis in the 1950s. The General Assembly stepped up and mandated peacekeepers when the Security Council was paralyzed. What we've seen in the last 18 months is that General Assembly members are quite willing to condemn Russia on principle. There have been a series of resolutions reaffirming Ukraine sovereignty, calling for Russia to pull its forces out of Ukraine. Those have been passed by big majorities. I think 140 out of the 190-odd members of the UN have backed those texts.
Richard Gowan:But it has been striking that a lot of the countries that are willing to condemn Russia on paper are not willing to go further. Midwestern countries vote against Moscow at the UN but are still not participating in sanctions against Russia. There's a feeling that a lot of UN members are willing to make statements of principle, but they don't want to get dragged into a real confrontation with the Russians. By that I don't just mean war with Russia, but I think a lot of countries are nervous about displeasing Russia and not affecting their food supplies or energy supplies.
Dana Lewis:Right. Nobody wants to put the money where their mouth is in sprutting their sins in some case.
Richard Gowan:Yeah, and also I mean it is also worth saying that for quite a lot of UN members from the Middle East or North Africa, they see parallels between this and what happened in Iraq and what happened in Libya. We can push back and argue that, despite the history of Western misadventures, you should still condemn Russia, but I think that some of our counterparts from those regions do feel a bit more equivocal about this.
Dana Lewis:But how do you, on a personal level, working there? I'm not quite sure how to frame the question, but how do you put your head on your pillow at night and think that what's going on there is constructive, positive, somehow is leading the world to a better place? Or you just turn out the light, just go to sleep as quickly as possible, forget the very strong gin and tonic takes the edge off at the end of the day.
Richard Gowan:Look, I can be absolutely honest with you. There have been periods in the 20 years where I've been working on the UN for various organizations where the level of frustration is extremely high. You know we've talked a lot about Ukraine. But going back a bit further, in 2021, there were a lot of debates at the UN about two conflicts the coup in Myanmar and the war in Ethiopia and in both of those cases there simply wasn't impetus for action at the UN, and my crisis group colleagues covering events on the ground were telling us of appalling violence in both cases and we could see that the Security Council wasn't going to deal with those situations. We could see that the General Assembly wasn't going to deal with those situations that you know. That left one feeling pretty hopeless.
Dana Lewis:I would say, on the other hand, hopeless because in cases where they can probably make a real difference, they didn't.
Richard Gowan:There are other cases where you know, there are other cases where you can feel more positive, even against quite bleak backdrops. So we at Crisis Group did campaign lobbyists we're not lobbyists, so we're not. We advocated in 2021-2022 for UN members and the UN to get more humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, despite the Taliban takeover. We just believed that was necessary to save lives and that advocacy effort, I think, was successful. Although the situation in Afghanistan remains utterly bleak, we did sort of live up to our goal of saving lives in that case. On Ukraine, I never expected the Security Council to act effectively on Ukraine. I mean, just by definition, having Russia there as the veto power made that impossible. But I do think that some of the advocacy work we've done around these big general assembly votes, the condemnations of Russia, you know, I think that has at least played a small part in shaking the global narrative around the war. And so sometimes you have to aim for small wins, symbolic wins, while being fully aware that that isn't getting to the heart of the matter.
Dana Lewis:I take your point, richard Gowan with the International Crisis Group. Richard, thank you for the views and for a pretty good education on what it's like to work with the United Nations, and it's a little bit of what I thought, but a bit more than that too, and I appreciate very much your insight.
Richard Gowan:Thank you very much indeed, I mean, I would say. By the way, if the idealist, 25 year old Richard Gowan, who started working on the UN, had heard all this, he would have thought that I'd fallen in a long way from my initial ambitious goals. But life's like that, isn't it?
Dana Lewis:Well, don't give up on us. We need people like you. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, richard, and that's our Backstory this Week. Please subscribe to the podcast and, most of all, we ask that, if you value these interviews, share a backstory. I'm Dana Lewis, thanks for listening and I'll talk to you again soon. Please subscribe to the podcast and, most of all, we ask that you value these interviews.
Richard Gowan:Music, music, music you.