International Relations and Defence Committee
Wednesday 15th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Simply to ensure that the UK both informs its values and also feeds back what the. So my point really is don't we need to have presence in reasonable numbers?Cost effective aspirations are of these countries, and that might give us some degree of leadership in the world. I'm going to come to you, but I wonder if I could go to Matthew first.
11:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I very much agree with that point. Lord Bruce. And in a nutshell, diplomacy is more cost effective than development, and development is more cost effective than defense. Um, and one of the. Reasons why the aid cuts are so short sighted is that it will end up costing us a lot more in the long run, because somewhere or other where there has been a reduction in not just UK aid, but American and other types of aid. Somewhere there will be consequences at some point.
We don't know how or where or when, but at some point something will happen around the world, whether it's a bit like Covid or a bit like nine over 11, or a bit like something else, we just don't know. But with the benefit of hindsight, in the future, we will look back and realize that those cuts to the aid budget were counterproductive for our own national interests, very selfishly, as well as for the countries involved and. So amongst the most powerful voices for reversing those cuts, I think, have come from the defense world where they can see that development is more is more cost effective than defense, but I would I would also add that diplomacy is even more cost effective than development.
So for a very small amount of money, you can have an effective diplomatic service. The UK does still have an effective diplomatic service, including in New Zealand, but it is it is it is smaller and more stretched than it has been. And I would hope that this committee would strongly push the government to ensure enough investment in the diplomatic service, including things like language skills, expertise on the United Nations and other things, and the ability for people to really get under the skin of countries, which is what diplomacy is all about.
In order not to not to promote and sort of tell them what to do. Just to go to Richard's earlier point. But in order to build those relationships and those alliances with them so that they choose to do things that we would be comfortable with them doing.
We don't know how or where or when, but at some point something will happen around the world, whether it's a bit like Covid or a bit like nine over 11, or a bit like something else, we just don't know. But with the benefit of hindsight, in the future, we will look back and realize that those cuts to the aid budget were counterproductive for our own national interests, very selfishly, as well as for the countries involved and. So amongst the most powerful voices for reversing those cuts, I think, have come from the defense world where they can see that development is more is more cost effective than defense, but I would I would also add that diplomacy is even more cost effective than development.
So for a very small amount of money, you can have an effective diplomatic service. The UK does still have an effective diplomatic service, including in New Zealand, but it is it is it is smaller and more stretched than it has been. And I would hope that this committee would strongly push the government to ensure enough investment in the diplomatic service, including things like language skills, expertise on the United Nations and other things, and the ability for people to really get under the skin of countries, which is what diplomacy is all about.
In order not to not to promote and sort of tell them what to do. Just to go to Richard's earlier point. But in order to build those relationships and those alliances with them so that they choose to do things that we would be comfortable with them doing.
12:00
12:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. I have a lot of sympathy for the government and that resources are not limitless. I think we do need to invest more in defence, and trade offs do need to be made. But I think we are also at a time when, as a whole range of people have recognised their. Are more emerging, active, influential middle powers in the world. Um. Our relationship with the US is becoming very difficult and understanding those increasingly influential powers well and their aspirations and what they want, I think, should be a feature of our diplomatic strategy and a feature of any strategy for multilateral reform, because we won't achieve any of that on our own.
And we need to understand what other um, countries who are. Share some of, if not even if not all of our goals want to, because it's only, I think coalitions of member states or um country. Sharing a similar outcome that can push for these kinds of reforms or outcomes that we seek, whether that's in kind of coalitions outside of institutions or within institutions, you need that kind of connective tissue between countries. Um, you know, it's interesting feature of the UK strategy that we have sought to build deeper relations in the Indo-Pacific.
And one, one aspect of that has to been to seek observer status at Asean. That is, um, you know, my colleagues and I at Chatham House looked at this a bit for some work we did on the UK's Indo-Pacific strategy. And, you know, just joining is step one, step zero. You need to understand an institution, the way people, the way countries and member states within it interact with it, what they want, what their aspirations are in order to be effective. Um, so I do agree that some investment in the diplomatic.
That it would be a mistake to just say we are, we are a member of lots of multilateral institutions. And it's almost like an insurance policy against cuts. Um, and withdrawals elsewhere. You need to invest in your diplomatic understanding, knowledge of those institutions and also the countries within them to achieve the things, um, that you want. There's been a lot of talk about middle power diplomacy and coalitions of middle powers. To do that effectively, you need to understand those middle powers and what they want and make sure that you've actually got shared interests with them sort of on its own.
We're not going to get Brazil or South Africa or India or other countries to join with us in serious joint diplomatic efforts, unless we unless we really have a significant investment in. the 30% cut.
And we need to understand what other um, countries who are. Share some of, if not even if not all of our goals want to, because it's only, I think coalitions of member states or um country. Sharing a similar outcome that can push for these kinds of reforms or outcomes that we seek, whether that's in kind of coalitions outside of institutions or within institutions, you need that kind of connective tissue between countries. Um, you know, it's interesting feature of the UK strategy that we have sought to build deeper relations in the Indo-Pacific.
And one, one aspect of that has to been to seek observer status at Asean. That is, um, you know, my colleagues and I at Chatham House looked at this a bit for some work we did on the UK's Indo-Pacific strategy. And, you know, just joining is step one, step zero. You need to understand an institution, the way people, the way countries and member states within it interact with it, what they want, what their aspirations are in order to be effective. Um, so I do agree that some investment in the diplomatic.
That it would be a mistake to just say we are, we are a member of lots of multilateral institutions. And it's almost like an insurance policy against cuts. Um, and withdrawals elsewhere. You need to invest in your diplomatic understanding, knowledge of those institutions and also the countries within them to achieve the things, um, that you want. There's been a lot of talk about middle power diplomacy and coalitions of middle powers. To do that effectively, you need to understand those middle powers and what they want and make sure that you've actually got shared interests with them sort of on its own.
We're not going to get Brazil or South Africa or India or other countries to join with us in serious joint diplomatic efforts, unless we unless we really have a significant investment in. the 30% cut.
12:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Currently, going through Fcdo is a drop in the ocean. I mean, compared with the aid cuts, I mean, to me this looks a really, really false economy. I mean, it's not a big and we're not going to have the people on the ground. But I maybe just make that as a compliment. How do we use our bilateral presence to inform our multilateral priorities?I mean, is that a legitimate part of it?And how, how do we determine those multilateral priorities independently of that, as well as alongside that?
12:03
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I mean, I would simply make the point that, uh, very significant decisions regarding the multilateral system are not always made in the multilateral centres. Um, China, for example, is very good at using its bilateral relations with ministers in capitals in Africa or Asia, um, to override what ambassadors are agreeing in New York and Geneva. I'm sure Matthew experienced this. You can negotiate something with the African group in, uh. A UN centre, but then China will simply go country by country, um, to the prime ministers and foreign ministers of the states involved and get them to change position.
And the only way that the UK can push back against that sort of bilateral pressure is if you are on the ground, if you are in those countries as well, and if you have relationships with those prime ministers and those foreign ministers. So I think it's absolutely essential that we retain strong bilateral relationships. Um, because otherwise a lot of our multilateral work will actually be pulled apart, um, by China and others going through different routes.
And the only way that the UK can push back against that sort of bilateral pressure is if you are on the ground, if you are in those countries as well, and if you have relationships with those prime ministers and those foreign ministers. So I think it's absolutely essential that we retain strong bilateral relationships. Um, because otherwise a lot of our multilateral work will actually be pulled apart, um, by China and others going through different routes.
12:04
12:04
12:04
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. We've moved into the sort of area of financial realities, um, budgetary, budgetary restrictions within our diplomatic service will necessarily entail some hard choices about which institutions, which initiatives, which programmes you say can and should prioritise in. Your view, what are the three most critical policy areas for the UK when it comes to multilateral engagement?Can I start with Bridget, please?
12:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um, I think that we have to retain a focus on peace and security. I think we have to accept that, um, we are going to get less out of bodies like the Security Council than we once did. But I think that in a dangerous world, it is important that we retain um, points of. Contact with our rivals like the Security Council. Um, so I think that is number one. I think that, uh, the humanitarian space, Matthew referred to the fact that the UK has a long history of investment in humanitarian agencies.
And I think that is one area where there is a proven track record that international bodies can deliver in a way that no one else can. And so I think we should definitely continue to invest politically and with resources in humanitarian assistance. Um, I think thirdly, climate change has gone down the agenda, um, politically in multilateral forums over the last few years since the Glasgow summit. But, um, as we're all experiencing these horrible heatwaves, I think that we know that climate change is going to go back up the agenda.
And there's actually quite a lot of work to be done. Reforming the international architecture for addressing climate change. And we should be investing in that now. So peace and security, humanitarian aid, um, and climate change, where I think we should be very cautious and actually possibly ask whether we can disengage a bit is some parts of the development architecture, because I think some parts of the existing multilateral development architecture, um, are effective. Um, there are others which are probably no longer fit for purpose.
And that may be an area where some economies really are possible.
And I think that is one area where there is a proven track record that international bodies can deliver in a way that no one else can. And so I think we should definitely continue to invest politically and with resources in humanitarian assistance. Um, I think thirdly, climate change has gone down the agenda, um, politically in multilateral forums over the last few years since the Glasgow summit. But, um, as we're all experiencing these horrible heatwaves, I think that we know that climate change is going to go back up the agenda.
And there's actually quite a lot of work to be done. Reforming the international architecture for addressing climate change. And we should be investing in that now. So peace and security, humanitarian aid, um, and climate change, where I think we should be very cautious and actually possibly ask whether we can disengage a bit is some parts of the development architecture, because I think some parts of the existing multilateral development architecture, um, are effective. Um, there are others which are probably no longer fit for purpose.
And that may be an area where some economies really are possible.
12:07
12:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think. If. The question is about which kind of groupings of institutions should we prioritise?I think I would say a word about trade and economic governance. Um. Not least because it's such an area of contestation and volatility. Um. China's role in the global economy, China's use of subsidy, the US becoming, you know, really shifting in what previously was a, um, a consistent support for broadly open and free trade. I think that is a shift on both sides of the aisle in the US.
And it has made the WTO. Parts of it deadlocked and a real space of contestation. The second question we should ask is what can we do about that?Um, I think it is good that the UK has signed up to the alternative dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO. I think there are also things we could be thinking about with um groupings that we are either close to or members of like the EU and Cptpp in terms of thinking together about the future of global economic governance.
So it requires a nuanced take on what can we actually achieve within the institutions, but on the issue. It's an area where there are a lot of countries outside of the US and China who really need a clear direction of travel and way forward. I'm slightly drawing on some work by my colleague Brian Butler, who's written about the future of trade and economic governance in these terms. I agree that the kind of humanitarian and development agencies is an area. So trade and economic governance, I think is critical because the UK is very exposed to open trade.
And it's this space of contestation and volatility and great power competition. And it's likely to really expose us to shocks if we can't get it right. On humanitarian and development. A slightly different logic to pick up on what Richard says. We have a lot of expertise. It's critical. We are likely to see more shocks from climate, um, seeing more conflicts in the world. And there are things we could do. I think that would be very effective as a leader of reform and, um.
Uh, pushing for effectiveness. I think some. Priority around global public goods that we are concerned are being neglected. Um, climate is one, global health is maybe another, given the way that the US is increasingly withdrawn from its kind of hegemonic role in underpinning those things. Um. I would tentatively pick those areas. Um, I wouldn't envy the task in government of thinking about what we then don't do, because inevitably there's a, you know, there's an interest in everything, but we, we should really try to also think about what we then don't do.
But that's probably where I would start in terms of priorities.
And it has made the WTO. Parts of it deadlocked and a real space of contestation. The second question we should ask is what can we do about that?Um, I think it is good that the UK has signed up to the alternative dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO. I think there are also things we could be thinking about with um groupings that we are either close to or members of like the EU and Cptpp in terms of thinking together about the future of global economic governance.
So it requires a nuanced take on what can we actually achieve within the institutions, but on the issue. It's an area where there are a lot of countries outside of the US and China who really need a clear direction of travel and way forward. I'm slightly drawing on some work by my colleague Brian Butler, who's written about the future of trade and economic governance in these terms. I agree that the kind of humanitarian and development agencies is an area. So trade and economic governance, I think is critical because the UK is very exposed to open trade.
And it's this space of contestation and volatility and great power competition. And it's likely to really expose us to shocks if we can't get it right. On humanitarian and development. A slightly different logic to pick up on what Richard says. We have a lot of expertise. It's critical. We are likely to see more shocks from climate, um, seeing more conflicts in the world. And there are things we could do. I think that would be very effective as a leader of reform and, um.
Uh, pushing for effectiveness. I think some. Priority around global public goods that we are concerned are being neglected. Um, climate is one, global health is maybe another, given the way that the US is increasingly withdrawn from its kind of hegemonic role in underpinning those things. Um. I would tentatively pick those areas. Um, I wouldn't envy the task in government of thinking about what we then don't do, because inevitably there's a, you know, there's an interest in everything, but we, we should really try to also think about what we then don't do.
But that's probably where I would start in terms of priorities.
12:10
12:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The priorities mentioned so far find their place within the Sustainable Development Goals framework, which is unsurprising because everything is connected to everything else. And that is a framework for a holistic approach to all international action. Um, the problem is there are 17 of them, not three. And underneath the 17 there are 169 targets. But fortunately they are summarised by five and they all begin with P. And within the five I think I would pick out the following three to answer your question.
First of all, peace was Richard's first point. Secondly, planet, which was Richard's second point, and thirdly, prosperity, which was Olivia's first point. So the international economic architecture, the fourth and the fifth peace are people and partnerships, which you could argue sort of underpin all of that. So I think I'd go with those three peace as my answer to your question.
First of all, peace was Richard's first point. Secondly, planet, which was Richard's second point, and thirdly, prosperity, which was Olivia's first point. So the international economic architecture, the fourth and the fifth peace are people and partnerships, which you could argue sort of underpin all of that. So I think I'd go with those three peace as my answer to your question.
12:11
12:12
12:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, technology moving. Fast is a good example of how the whole world has to come together. And we have to use some form of UN framework in order to regulate artificial intelligence and other things that will come next. On the whole, our ability to get our multilateral act together is slower than the tech revolution. So if there was one additional area this committee could push for focus on, it would be, in my view, technology and specifically the architecture to bring competing world views on governance of AI and so on, so that there is a way of the whole world choosing as between the US and Chinese and other approaches, which is much easier said than done, but I would I would hope that with a bold initiative, um, our next Prime Minister could build on the success of our current Prime Minister in that area.
12:12
12:13
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
My question is about machinery of government. You know, several departments engage with multilateral organisations, and our previous witnesses have said that the approach of government departments is rather fragmented. And there is no strategic direction. And you, Matthew, have served in three different departments. Is that your experience and do you think how can we get the coordination up to speed to meet the new challenges?
12:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think that is an ongoing challenge and I very much. Agree with the thrust of the question. Uh, I mentioned earlier that I didn't mind where the coordination hub was provided, that we had one and provided that it was effective. Um, I do think that as a general rule, the role of the Cabinet Office is to coordinate. And that is the obvious place. Of course, the problem is there are different parts of the Cabinet Office and even within the Secretariat, part of the Cabinet Office, normally there's one bit that does sort of national security type things, and there's one bit that does domestic and quite often there's a bit that does international economic and or European issues.
And all of those three have to come together because everything is connected with everything else. And the real impact for people in this country of international issues, they feel it through what we would call domestic issues through our through our economy in particular, or through other pressures on on society in the UK. So I think it's a really important job. Um, for, for civil servants to do all of that. Joining up, um the Foreign Secretary I see has got an initiative to, to, to really explain foreign policy in terms of how it impacts British people, which I think is, is commendable.
And I would I would encourage more of that. But I think the short answer to your question is Cabinet Office for the coordination, foreign office for leading on the international aspects and the diplomacy and the development, but bound in with the whole of the of the of the Civil Service and not just the national security facing parts.
And all of those three have to come together because everything is connected with everything else. And the real impact for people in this country of international issues, they feel it through what we would call domestic issues through our through our economy in particular, or through other pressures on on society in the UK. So I think it's a really important job. Um, for, for civil servants to do all of that. Joining up, um the Foreign Secretary I see has got an initiative to, to, to really explain foreign policy in terms of how it impacts British people, which I think is, is commendable.
And I would I would encourage more of that. But I think the short answer to your question is Cabinet Office for the coordination, foreign office for leading on the international aspects and the diplomacy and the development, but bound in with the whole of the of the of the Civil Service and not just the national security facing parts.
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, I would broadly agree that I think it has actually been a positive trend in government that we have, that the government has built more of a hub for trying to think coherently about national security at the centre in the Cabinet Office. So since the creation of the National Security Council back in 2010, I think you've had that become stuffed. It staffed up more with a bigger National Security secretariat in the Cabinet Office. And I think it is helpful because you need a sort of brain in the middle to bring in all of these touch points, not just from the Fcdo, but from the trade departments, the energy security and net zero.
The Home Office, as we mentioned earlier, many of these departments deal with and touch on the multilateral system. So I think if there were to be a kind of coordinating brain, and I think that's a very good and important thing that that work and that growing hub in the in the Cabinet Office is a good place to for it to be. Yeah.
The Home Office, as we mentioned earlier, many of these departments deal with and touch on the multilateral system. So I think if there were to be a kind of coordinating brain, and I think that's a very good and important thing that that work and that growing hub in the in the Cabinet Office is a good place to for it to be. Yeah.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
We've had very little criticism on the whole of multilateral institutions. And one can be a believer in multilateral institutions, but at the same time believe that they should be subject to examination and criticism. I mean, I wonder. Whether Matthew would um. To tell us what views he takes, say, for example, of Unesco. Um, we had a reference from one witness to it's not worth putting out for the sake of pulling out, but the United States has twice withdrawn from Unesco.
It's not just once, it's twice. And they've had arguments about the cost effectiveness. Which institutions do you think could be subject to some pruning, could be subject to some criticism?Surely this is something that should actually get our attention and not be swept under the carpet?
It's not just once, it's twice. And they've had arguments about the cost effectiveness. Which institutions do you think could be subject to some pruning, could be subject to some criticism?Surely this is something that should actually get our attention and not be swept under the carpet?
12:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, absolutely. Should I very much agree, Lord Lamont. And I think that the UK should position ourselves as the permanent member of the Security Council, most in favour of reform, not just of the Security Council, but the whole of the UN family. And actually that's a relatively low bar because most of the other permanent members are not at all interested in reform. The UK should make a virtue of that and should from a position of broadly supporting the international structure, should absolutely demand radical reform.
Uh, the parts that are least effective, I think do include in terms of cost effectiveness, do include Unesco, UN women, UNFPA. Some of these things may no longer exist, but they did when I was ambassador to the UN, and they generally scored at the bottom of that differed review that we've already discussed in terms of of their ability for the UK to deliver the outcomes that matter most for the UK. And that's that should be our lens and we should be insisting on, on reform. And if the institution is unable or unwilling to reform fast enough, then we should leave not not in a, not in a, in a, in a fit of pique, but just, you know, because we have finite amounts of resource and we should spend them in areas that we think will do the best collective good, including for our national outcomes.
Uh, the parts that are least effective, I think do include in terms of cost effectiveness, do include Unesco, UN women, UNFPA. Some of these things may no longer exist, but they did when I was ambassador to the UN, and they generally scored at the bottom of that differed review that we've already discussed in terms of of their ability for the UK to deliver the outcomes that matter most for the UK. And that's that should be our lens and we should be insisting on, on reform. And if the institution is unable or unwilling to reform fast enough, then we should leave not not in a, not in a, in a, in a fit of pique, but just, you know, because we have finite amounts of resource and we should spend them in areas that we think will do the best collective good, including for our national outcomes.
12:18
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I mean, some of the American critics have referred to some parts of the UN machinery becoming politicised, particularly on human rights. No one doesn't have to agree with all they say. But is there not some point in this and some argument about some merit in their criticism of human rights organisations within the UN?
12:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, I think every part of the UN is politicised in some way or another. And I think one of the challenges for for the current secretary general, whose term is about to end, is that ten years ago, when we when we selected him, and that was at the time that I was there, there were great hopes that he would be the reforming Secretary general, but he had to be the Secretary General for, for all 193 countries and a. A good number of them, including the two most important countries, did not want the same sort of reform that we wanted.
And as a result, he he he has, sadly, a poor track record of reform in his time there. He's done wonderfully on lots of other things, but he has not reformed the UN family as a whole fast enough and radically enough to keep up with the demands.
And as a result, he he he has, sadly, a poor track record of reform in his time there. He's done wonderfully on lots of other things, but he has not reformed the UN family as a whole fast enough and radically enough to keep up with the demands.
12:19
12:19
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
As somebody who once ran an international organisation, it required nine over 11 to get any form of reform into my organisation. I have to say. So we will hope we don't have to do that again. Uh, Lord Alderdice is online. He's got a question. I'm going to try and direct them briefly because we're running out of time. So it's so each of them will go to, uh, the individual questions. John.
12:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Um, I think it's a good question. I wouldn't want to get out beyond my expertise in terms of polling data or focus groups on on what the public thinks. Um. You know, my instinctive answer to that question would be it's probably not the forefront of people's minds anywhere we ever do. On foreign affairs in general suggests that. In and of itself, people don't tend to prioritise it. But when things go wrong, they do.
Um, I think that there are a lot of reform priorities that we have named in this discussion today to the previous question, there's plenty of criticisms to be made about duplication and inefficiency, poor performance in in the multilateral system. And I think probably the top focus of the UK government should be to improve that, to improve our strategic focus, to make sure that multilateral institutions are enabling us to achieve our diplomatic goals. And in a way, the proof should be in the pudding in terms of the public's engagement.
You know, to me, sort of getting the public interested or excited about the UN particularly is perhaps less material than being really clear about our the things that we want to achieve in the world. And these institutions are a channel for it. But I'll be honest, my personal view of that kind of thing. Thank you.
Um, I think that there are a lot of reform priorities that we have named in this discussion today to the previous question, there's plenty of criticisms to be made about duplication and inefficiency, poor performance in in the multilateral system. And I think probably the top focus of the UK government should be to improve that, to improve our strategic focus, to make sure that multilateral institutions are enabling us to achieve our diplomatic goals. And in a way, the proof should be in the pudding in terms of the public's engagement.
You know, to me, sort of getting the public interested or excited about the UN particularly is perhaps less material than being really clear about our the things that we want to achieve in the world. And these institutions are a channel for it. But I'll be honest, my personal view of that kind of thing. Thank you.
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Uh if. Matthew is allowed also a quick answer because I think the question would be quite appropriate to his time in New York as well. Um, 2027 sees the appointment of a new UN secretary general. And also, as it happens, the UN, UK chairmanship of the G20. So it's sort of two part question. Um, first of all, how much influence, uh, can we exert over the choice of the UN Secretary General and how exactly do we do we exert that influence?And second, on the G20, I mean, what's your assessment of the value of that, of that grouping?Uh, and how in the broad sense, uh, would you, if you were advising the British government, how should they use the presidency of the G20 next year?
12:23
12:23
12:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Uh, today's young people, um, Lord Derek, I mean, as we. Understand it, the race for the Secretary general remains very open. The U.S. do not have a preferred candidate. Um, China do not seem to have a preferred candidate. Um, I think that the UK should both engage quite actively in, um, uh, vetting the. Candidates and if necessary, looking for alternatives. And then the UK can, I think get very close to whoever is chosen and essentially hold that person's hand offering political advice and ideas on reform through their first 100 days in office and beyond.
The next secretary general will need precisely the expertise and the ideas on reform, um, that have been somewhat lacking, frankly, inside the UN system of late. And I think the UK, if they can get close to the successful candidate, um, can probably whisper good ideas in, in their ear. Um and there is a real demand for change in the system and accessing the next secretary general is a good opportunity to drive that change the G2. Is not what it was back in the late, um, years of, uh.
The first decade of this century. But actually the G20 does matter a lot to many of the middle powers that Olivia has referred to as a space where they can have a voice on international trade, um, climate and other issues. I think that talking to colleagues from Brazil, from South Africa and elsewhere, they really hope that the UK will organize the G20 that listens to their priorities after this year's US presidency, which is clearly not going to be particularly sympathetic to the concerns of the middle powers.
Um, I think there's already actually quite good contacts beneath the surface between the UK and some of those middle powers about what the G20 should be about. In the UK. And I think that looking at questions of sustainability, fairer financing, addressing the concerns of the global majority is a very, very good opportunity for the UK to show leadership, but also respect for other countries in the multilateral system.
The next secretary general will need precisely the expertise and the ideas on reform, um, that have been somewhat lacking, frankly, inside the UN system of late. And I think the UK, if they can get close to the successful candidate, um, can probably whisper good ideas in, in their ear. Um and there is a real demand for change in the system and accessing the next secretary general is a good opportunity to drive that change the G2. Is not what it was back in the late, um, years of, uh.
The first decade of this century. But actually the G20 does matter a lot to many of the middle powers that Olivia has referred to as a space where they can have a voice on international trade, um, climate and other issues. I think that talking to colleagues from Brazil, from South Africa and elsewhere, they really hope that the UK will organize the G20 that listens to their priorities after this year's US presidency, which is clearly not going to be particularly sympathetic to the concerns of the middle powers.
Um, I think there's already actually quite good contacts beneath the surface between the UK and some of those middle powers about what the G20 should be about. In the UK. And I think that looking at questions of sustainability, fairer financing, addressing the concerns of the global majority is a very, very good opportunity for the UK to show leadership, but also respect for other countries in the multilateral system.
12:25
12:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Selection of the UN secretary is my mastermind specialist subject, so I'll do very, very short version. Um, so it did happen in 2016 and so will be happening again actually this year. In order for the new person to start in January of next year. 27, uh, the UK I think is very well placed as a permanent member of the Security Council to ensure that the Security Council recommends to the General Assembly the best possible candidate to reform the UN and to do that to influence the process that increases the chances of us finding that person.
Um, so I would be strongly against any regional rotation. Lots of countries think it's the turn of one particular continent or another. That narrows down the pool of brilliant candidates. I would actively encourage, as we did ten years ago, female candidates, because otherwise you are discouraging half the world's population from putting themselves forward. There's never been a female U.N. secretary general before, and I would ensure as much transparency as possible so that the candidates are really tested, uh, not just on what their manifesto is, but on how they would actually deal with the real challenges ahead.
We did a bit of each of those things ten years ago, and I hope that the UK can lead the way in doing even more of those things this year.
Um, so I would be strongly against any regional rotation. Lots of countries think it's the turn of one particular continent or another. That narrows down the pool of brilliant candidates. I would actively encourage, as we did ten years ago, female candidates, because otherwise you are discouraging half the world's population from putting themselves forward. There's never been a female U.N. secretary general before, and I would ensure as much transparency as possible so that the candidates are really tested, uh, not just on what their manifesto is, but on how they would actually deal with the real challenges ahead.
We did a bit of each of those things ten years ago, and I hope that the UK can lead the way in doing even more of those things this year.
12:26
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. Sounds sounds good. And in fact, the committee has been invited. Uh, tomorrow to meet one of the candidates. Uh, the Ambassador of Guyana, I think it is, uh, who's in London. And the committee has been asked to go at very, very short notice to, uh, to, to, to meet her at that stage. And could I just say to. And to Richard that I'm the same age as the United Nations. Uh, I and, uh, it was born in 1946.
Um, so was I and so was Donald J. Trump. It has to be said. Draw your own conclusions from that. Anyway, we are we are deeply grateful to all three of you today because I think you've imparted a lot of new and good information to us in the, uh, in the search that we are now making in order to recommend to the British government what they should do about multilateral institutions. Thank you so much for attending.
Um, so was I and so was Donald J. Trump. It has to be said. Draw your own conclusions from that. Anyway, we are we are deeply grateful to all three of you today because I think you've imparted a lot of new and good information to us in the, uh, in the search that we are now making in order to recommend to the British government what they should do about multilateral institutions. Thank you so much for attending.