as well as the general command of the armed forces. his morgan joins may live now on the phone from costume here, but what more do we know about the south co him? well, we're still waiting for a statement from the over the council as well as something military to let us know exactly why. there was a quiz in the 1st place and who is behind it. we do know that a group of our offices and soldiers locked the road to demand that the trinity of the capital took her to me and that they had tried to take over the army in mind. now, according to reports and acquitted military courses, they actually thought that at the airport, but how it moved from the airport, which is about 15 to 16 kilometers away to undermine that is the question that we're still looking for. and then we're hoping that the statement from the army would give us access to. now why it's happened is also a question that a lot of people are asking. and exactly how and how, how it's back to home, how much progress they've made. and what is the situation now, what we do know is that the army says that its tail containing the area where the onset is and that there are also officers, in fact that they negotiate with at the moment to hand over their weapons and come out. they say that interrogation with the officers that they have already arrested . we'll begin shortly. but again, we're waiting for that official statement from the sovereignty counsel and the military to let us know exactly when the school started. and why. if it started at the airport, it took the blockade of one of the rigid for people to notice that there was a call under way. and who exactly is behind it and why they tried to surgical to overthrow the transitional government here morgan, we appreciate your time. they stay in touch and we will have more on this story as it develops throughout the day. and we will cross that to you as soon as we can. we'll also get an update from the army who is expected to speak shortly. that's all from us here at al jazeera stage here now for inside story. and i'll be back at the top of the hour with more news off to 16 years at the helm, angular naturally stepping down as one of germany's most popular chancellor. but his kristian struggling in the race to replace with a resurgent social democratic party and the green to making headway who will emerge in front and become germany's new leader. special coverage on al jazeera world leaders in new york, the united nations general assembly. but countries are increasingly divided on major crises from climate change in the panoramic. so i've got a son. so is there a future, a global corporation? this is my story. ah, ah, ah. walk into the program. i'm in ron con, after a year, a virtual meetings world leaders and diplomats a back in new york to attend the united nations general assembly this week. they've a lot to get through. climate change is a major concern just 6 weeks before the next major un summit in glasgow access to cobra. 1900 vaccines will also be discussed. the un secretary general says growing mistrust between countries is making it difficult for the united nations to tackle global crises. he's particularly concerned about the relationship between china and the united states, calling it totally dysfunctional, and certainly the terrorists urge the 2 superpowers to repair ties or risk dividing the world with a new cold war. the cold war, creative clear rules and there was a constance of the problem and the risks, namely the risk of nuclear, this destruction. and that allowed to create a number of mechanisms that were back channel was always working. there were several forms to guarantee that things would not get out of control. now today, everything is more fluids. and even the experience that existed in the past to manage crisis is no longer that with all these differences, one thing is clear, we have only one planet. and all these countries are powerful enough for the fact that they ada thoughts with each other completely to be a mechanism that and the minds are capacity to deal with the global challenges we face you and sees this session as a potential tank point in several major areas, the all bodies urging more countries to set ambitious goals for carbon neutrality. the unions analysis shows global emissions will be 16 percent higher in 2030 than they were in 2010. it also wants to ensure equal access to vaccines against the current of ours. the world health organization says 70 percent of coven, 1900 doses, are administered in only 10 countries. and it also needs to decide on how the newly formed government in certain countries should be approached. the total of on take over and gone is done, and the military coup in me in law, or the top of the agenda. ah, that's bringing to get finished long bought symbol hon. peace and security consultant, a few in deep pockets on in a stumble. matthew bryce, former us diplomat and senior fellow at the atlantic council and in cape town. so should i do senior research fellow at the institute for global dialogue, a south african thing tank. welcome to the program. i'd like to begin, and it's tumble 1st with matthew riser. the one's been a powerhouse organization since 1945, but it's more divided now than ever. the simple question is it has the you and failed and it's mandate. yeah, thanks run for that. great question. it depends on what you consider the mandate to be. i mean, i think the security council is definitely failing everything or anything that 3 of the permanent members, united states, united kingdom and france, propose russia in china, oppose. and so, you know, the security council is supposed to be the, the highest body in terms of formulating international law. but it has no enforcement mechanism so, so that's failed. but the un has done some great things in terms of delivering humanitarian assistance, fostering cooperation, and just getting people to to know about awareness about humanitarian problems around the world, or the plate of women and girls in certain parts of the world. unicef does great work in helping children, but overall it's an unwieldy organization and it's aspirations, i think, usually far exceed it's outcomes. and we see that now with the world health organization, which really has not been able to do much at all, to respond to the cove in 1900 pandemic. so it's a, it's a mixed record. matthew, it's interesting you make the point that it's, it's unwieldy because if this was a company in the united states, congress would be looking to break it up. but we don't, they're not doing that. you say unicef does great work on the policy organization. do do great work, but as a whole, when it comes through antonio, terrorist says more multilateralism. it's simply not doing. yeah, that's true. that's true at that feel partially a symptom of the world we live in today. that's so divided both again between the united states and europe on one side, and china and russia on the other side or between north and south. this has been for decades the north and south disagreeing on how, how to allocate resources. we see that in the climate change battle as well, where you know, the, the, the so called western company or the north, the north are wealthier countries are not fulfilling. the pledges that they've made to help developing countries who really aren't responsible for so much of climate change crisis to meet there to meet the targets. so yeah, you're right. i fist for a company would probably be broken up, but this is an unusual organization in that it's, it's comprised of sovereign member states. and you know, you and reform is a perennial topic. it's been out there for decades here in turkey where i live. it's quite a big issue to think about or to try to expand the membership of the security council beyond 5. it's the president here to one slogan is the world is bigger than 5. so some countries really do want to expand the united nations. but from my perspective, yeah, it is, it's 2 big hunters that either in cape town you work for a institute called global dialogue. but the you and doesn't seem to have much of that going on. does it have a moment? a good day run into my fellow colleagues. yeah, it's quite an interesting question. i mean, i think double dialogue is also the question of how you frame the dialogue and what you want the dialogue to essentially cover. i think you can have your broad trajectories around global dialogue. you can talk about the big ticket issues. you can talk about climate change. you can talk about the fact that you need piece stability and development. you can talk about the fact that in the humanitarian security issues i exacerbated under the cobra 19 conditions, but it's also about questions of how do you create prosperity and common and common peace and stability for everybody and inclusive development agenda. i think where the challenges lie is actually coming to those power dynamics what matthew referred to, but also how do you get those power dynamics to become much more equitable? more importantly, how do you redistribute power in the global arena? and i think that's the bigger challenge. nobody wants to give up their power. nobody wants to be seen as vulnerable in terms of where the power dynamics lie. and i agree they are pockets of excellence in the, in the us that we need to look at. and extrapolate lessons around, but i guess was the world's skilled rec, reflects a power imbalance. i think these tensions will continue to arise who's going to basically decide that i'm going to de carbonized and move towards a better cupboard, a better environmental footprint. there's a lot of questions here, and i think the challenge is, you know, how do you get those agreements to be practical, but also get them to be implementable and operationalize symbol harness form of odd often why have from defenders of the un is yes. okay. it is flawed, it's a flawed system, but it's the only system we've got. do you agree with the yes, thank you, brian. and i think are absolutely agree with that. and also the convention. i also the point that my colleagues have just made before i totally agree with that. they all have been mrs. we are living in and i need the system un system has tried to work in a word in quality, within region, within countries across the region globally has been rising. any kind of a system where that was earlier, we saw a whole kind of communist system and socialist system ideologies. working in the eighty's and ninety's or war and was told before the end of history or the struggle . and there was a hope that maybe this image equitable distribution of power and wealth could be fixed, but didn't get fixed. and then we, we came to the end of history where the capitalist system apparently, and the capitalist, what had what one. and we had a unique system where america dominated the u. s. dominated was, and i taught. and i think under that that saved me saw a little bit more space for multilateralism. because a lot of connective action between countries were happening under the leadership on the west and basically us leadership within the last 2 decades. we've seen a shift in global paula, you've seen or like a shift to what you called multiple loads. so mighty lateralism to me is now challenging in a multi point was how do you work together in a country, in a global, in a world, the system where a flush of all the rising security and political child into the acceptance of the rise of china or gumbo, and, you know, basically russia and china kind of saying together in a blog against a, say, some of the western volatile and drug and then you have new friends like india coming in. so i think the, the functional disconnect as was said by my other colleagues are in certain areas you in is delivering human right now. for example, the example level honest, on the most softest action that we have seen right now is coming by the un on the humanitarian space guy and all the other countries, a shopping and still thinking about how to kind of bring together collective action on political insecurity. level to the taliban to pull off the un to it's the military unblocked. if the pos respond to it is going to step in and they have stepped in to do some, some very important work. units of w. h was stepping in to we need that and i think that is the reason why un system continues despite its problems. but on a growing lack of divide in a month, people are one where you have rising concerns oft, which i know you've seen this new deal coming up between the u. s. u k, as well as a straight lifting europe altogether too. but i'm afraid multilateral collective action is becoming more and more difficult. stocker, matthew, what's the point of the un if multilateralism isn't bill and isn't part of it's d n a? if you simply can't do that, what's the point? well, as you, as you were saying earlier in, right, i mean it's, we need somewhere somewhere where people can, can, countries can gather where sovereign states can exchange views, can try to pull in the same direction wherever possible. you know, in my experience, in my diplomatic career, i always felt it was important to sustain a regime or a, a, an organized form of behavior among sovereign states. because they're very difficult to build in the 1st place. and it's really hard to get countries to agree on the same rules and norms. so are common rules. and so, you know, it's really something we do need to preserve because because it's the best we have . but the big problem is that the un was forged in a spirit of common interest, right? where everybody in the security council, after the horrors of world war 2, holocaust, everything else and world war one. wanted to start over and wanted to try to work together. and you know, we got something out of that effort called the universal declaration of human rights. but in reality, russia in china don't accept the universal declaration of human rights. and this whole, the whole rule rules based system that the un is supposed to help nurture and protect is being rejected and undermined by those countries every day in the security council. so it was a brutal place, power really mean something and often you know, power can really destroy the best laid plans, is that the foundation is beautiful and is about a shared ideology of doing good things for humanity. so that's what i want you to pick up on the point matthew says, actually look, it's russia and china is full. they have this veto his curious counsel. they often disagree on human rights and things like that. but he's america. so he's gonna say that right. i mean, center, so there is an in built i don't want to say racism, but certainly in built prejudice too often coming economies up in combination states more powerful nation, surely. like south africa. oh, thank you, iran. yeah, it's blue 1st you the nature of, of the way the you, the security council was book i think when you go back and you look at the, the point that matthew makes about the forged common interests and how it was create, how that came, a bus yes, it was up to the period of $945.00. you've got this, this does the dynamic of the global system. and the way in which the power dynamic evolved at that time. and it strikes me that we're still trying to watch that system on the basis of how the world was perceived after 945. yes, indeed. i think that the idea of common interest, common prosperity and the ideology is important. but i think what is also important is how does the un evolved within the changing structural conditions in the global arena? and i'm just wondering as a proposal, perhaps the idea of what we talk, talk about in terms of some of the structural flaws and contradictions that exist within the security council in terms of how they manage the peace and security and the interventions. and the idea of the human rights debates and so forth is that does everything that goes into the un security council, have to be about how interest are actually defined and devolved and designed in that un security council. perhaps the real challenge for us in terms of the, of the way the us has to become foot for purpose as it moves forward in a change in global architecture. and the multi polarity and the multilateralism that we have been discussing is the question of. 1 what is the viability of the security council? is the security council, the real issue here and not the entire you and architecture as it exists today? i think that's the biggest, the existential question we have to confront, in the context of the reform and transform agenda and the fact that it has always been a personal issue in terms of what happens because that's where the best of the facade . perhaps the challenge is to ask the question is, do you need the be to for all the permanent states in the, in the security goals? let's go to the council, where is one of the most interesting bits symbol? i also want to talk to you about change and change in the united nations and tony the terrace. the secretary general has been very clear. multilateralism is the way forward. he said this publicly in several interviews. he keeps giving the same message that anybody that he speaks to, but he's dealing with a 198 sovereign nations. now he can't dictate to those nations and change has to come from somewhere other a few key players symbol holding this change. is it china and the u. s. as now and tony good terrace is saying yes, absolutely. and i think echoing what has been said before, again, especially last week, who talked about the power dynamic as long as global actions and quality can security off the dock in the power dynamic. and we haven't moved away from backward, even national around at the national, national definition of nation states or tied to offends of fall, i mean, be defying nation state system to the level of elements of all of these countries. and therefore from security, that national program, if you have, we've had that huge issue about they've been the, we know in the whole framework of which was very center to do the un role. especially in basically the developing was which was linked to the responsibility to protect that whole edifice of responsibility to protect never got back to the universal acceptance among the sovereign countries, especially in the global south. we talked that that will become an instrument of you and intervention. all basically that you end will become a friend for intervention off big global problems into their internal affairs. so, so granted the gram, the have always clashed with this big, large multilateralism that un has represented. and i don't think that's changing. i think the issue still remain stuck with the definition of who shaped thing in the war and even how china has been defined, how china's world in the future has been defined, is by, by kind of laying out how much enabled knowledge i. and i've been doing all or how much often extension to feedback will be at the china, the queen. how much economic power it recording. although on one side we do have a global consensus on the 6 and d, g, 17, for example. i mean, the whole global community 198 a lot countries agreed to talk next pathway forward for the next 20 also. so what we need to do in our countries to forward on one side we do have that. but on the other side, how things move, how you move things, and we'll get, watch is still defined, not on principles. it is sometimes kind of couch and this like global universal value, but often been developing boy fields. and often even china to use the data is being defined by kind of principal linked through the advanced lesson work. who wants to kind of mundane that position of paula who can be stuck into the security and follow dynamic global community. humanity get still remain stuck in it. i don't think we are completely shifting on to, to the real office of why we had to set up a global organization and why we continue to work with a global organization. and i think the dorothy of the world and especially doesn't want to see a lot of value in the u. n. yes. security council, i again, i absolutely agree with the previous because it's all been kind of a depth now on un and how much action would that to defining your global system? it is, i think, a little bigger and beyond the un system. this whole idea of how power is being held by, by what defines follow. but matthew, is it bigger? one of the things that symbol hon is just said is that, look, there are some fundamental disagreements on things like security on things like arms, treaties, and things like this. however, one of the things that might be able to unite the un is if they stop looking at the world through a security prism and start looking at through climate change. for example, something that affects every single country on the planet is the u. n's remit to why does it need to be narrower in order to be able to unite? no, i don't think so. i don't think in organization any organization is ever going to be able to compel very powerful state actors to do anything. the state actors have to want to do it. and so to mean the problem is one of fred put it in simple terms . you can use a fancy word like parochialism or just selfishness. i mean, if the coven 19, if this crisis that really does affect everyone, if that can't bring us altogether, i think we're just as a fundamental problem of selfishness in the house, in the countries that have the vaccines that have the wealth. sure, in the united states, there are millions of people who want to do good and who are doing good. and united states is, you know, stepping up in providing, you know, billions of dollars to, to deliver vaccines around the world. but it's not enough. and we've got, you know, as, as the head of the rural health organization, mr. gilbert said many times, you know, the united states and other countries shouldn't be moving toward booster shots. so 3rd, vaccines for the pfizer and madana vaccines, or pfizer biotech. before we get, you know, do much better in africa where i think only 2 percent of the population has been vaccinated. you know, we lamented in the united states only around 70 percent of the populations had their 1st dose and in 58 percent had their 2nd dose in africa. all the entire khan into percent of people have gotten the vaccines. so we all need to be better human beings and care about what's happening in the world beyond our borders. because as we see what the so called delta variance, no matter how vaccinated we may be in the united states, that period has come back and has put us right back in the united states in a terrible new search of coven 1900. so i'm just really pessimistic that organizational reform is going to make the human character better. but, but hopefully climate change and the question of our very existence is going to bring us together. so there's an order if it's not climate change of it's not an existential dread. about our existence that is going to bring us together. what is the un for? what is the problem here is also trying to understand the value system. i think the value system is really the question about how do you actually move beyond this question about what our interest, how countries in the u. n. system define their collective interest or their national interest in the context of the, of, of, of this entire organization. up to say that part of the debate about whether or not we look at the lens of security in a very state centric approach, or whether we have to look at it in a collective approach and what the collective means in terms of a collective humanity. i think comes back to how you change the way we look at the nation state states as component parts of the bigger. i think the real challenge is really around the question of how do we drive that value edition of human human human security and more importantly, the question of a collective humanity. but i think the challenge is whether or not we're going to move out of that state centric view and whether we are going to create that bigger kind of universal value system that is not necessarily unique to particular countries or regions or particular ideological meanings. but it's just a complete universal kind of intrinsic value system. because if we are going to say that climate change is an existential threat to, to humanity. then of course, to all of what we are seeing in the human system now a lot. because if humanity is reaching a kind of tipping point in its survival, then where do we go with the un system? and i think at the end of the day, sorry, city said we are running out of time. and i do want to put this point to a symbol home, we are running out of time, but symbol the league of nations was suspended off to the 2nd mobile simply because it failed, failed to stop the horrors of that particular war, then we rebranded almost them we became the united nations. it's been 30 years and we haven't had any real action on climate change. the time to disband the un. no, i don't think so. i think un steps in, as i said earlier, in very areas, for humanitarian support, where no other organization right now exist to provide that kind of support creek action. they offered an area of which of course i, it's a very congested debate about universal values. what are defined, how, how do we define universal values? what i think n d g is in their very basic way to capture some of the universal values which are not really contested. rice of them in education, to be women, safety and security for children for health care. this is a bit hardy in england, destination and un right now today provide that kind of support provide capacity building support. so we don't disband the un. i'm absolutely not. and i think there's a huge need for that. yes, it is not being able to kill the reason that it was set up for, but we don't have anything else to replace it right now. maybe a code word will or where we are. you know, this whole kind of narrative about nuclear, somebody and more and more kind of walk continues. yeah, maybe that will lead to a point of collapse there. we reduce that up, something new, but right now there's a huge need for the u. n. and i'm glad it's that i want to thank august symbol hon in his law and it's double matthew and in cape time, solution ny do. and i want to thank you to for watching. now you can see the program again anytime by visiting our website out there, a dot com and for further discussion, go to a facebook page that facebook dot com forward slash ha inside story. and you can also join the conversation on twitter. we are at asia inside story from me and ron khan, and the whole team here. bye for now. the news. oh stories that need to be told. find away and demand to be heard, the opening the window into another light and chanting perception from persons endeavours in epic struggle with the colossal sacrifices in individual journey witness showcases, inspiring documentary change. the word on al jazeera. when freedom of the press is under threat in, oh, you just because i thought, genuinely about your thoughts towards the making government step outside the mainstream. there has been a implement here some of access points that shift the focus, the pandemic that's turned out to be a handy little pretext. the prime minister clamped down on the press covering the waves. the news is covered the listening post on a i prefer to see things for myself. ah, to look at things, not through the lens of politics, but through the lens of humanity. the i've been to the playground where tamir rice was shot and killed. i've been to the streets of ferguson a protest. i've seen the anger and frustration of so many americans. but what was most clear was a desire for change. you can see black lives matter transforming from hash tag to a movement. ah, being a journalist is about listening to people and understanding where they're coming from, following a story, no matter how long it takes, or where i'm christian for. ah, [000:00:00;00] ah, sudan sovereign council says the co attempt has been contained and the situation is under control. the army is about to issue a statement will be live in to a hello . i'm emily angland. this is al jazeera alive from dough. how's that coming up?

Related Keywords

Germany , New York , United States , Glasgow , Glasgow City , United Kingdom , Afghanistan , Sudan , Iran , China , Cape Town , Western Cape , South Africa , Russia , Canada , France , Turkey , Americans , America , Canadian , French , South African , Matthew Bryce , States Ina ,