Thank you for listening to Depiction's Media Radio. Welcome to Policy Rights to show about government policy and human rights. Welcome back to Policy and right here in Depictions Media Radio, I'm your host, Michael Clogs. You know, everybody is talking about AI and how it's going to change everything, and how it's
scaring people and how it's going to take over take over things. And in one of these next segments, we're going to hear a question to answer to the ambassadors from the UK into the United Nations as he talks about AI and what the true answer is to It is about human beings inputting stuff into a computer. And the main feature of AI or artificial intelligence is that it has the ability, because of the parameters that we program into it, to function
faster and come up with answers to helping people a little bit quicker. And that is one of the things that we need to remember is is that human input has to come first. And when we're remembering that human input is first, that AI just becomes a tool to helping us get to an answer a little bit quicker. So along with that UM coming over with answers a little
bit quicker. They we're going to hear a brief segment of from Iran about their nuclear program and how the United Nations and the rest of the world we all need to sit down and negotiate with them so that they can proceed forward with their nuclear programs, so that they can help power their country, and maybe the rest of the world needs to focus a little bit less on will Iran come up with these weapons of mass destruction and put a little trust into
it so that we see the Iran not going to just simply try to destroy the world with nuclear weapons, but they're actually going to find humanitarian ways of using nuclear power to create a better Iran irand it's that is friendlier and happier for us to have in the world. The physicists of Tehran are learned human beings. They come up with theories. Some of the basis of math and science and how we think about things do originate from what was called Persia which
is now Iran. So let's let's listen to to today's show as we hear a little bit about AI and how the United Kingdom is going to get results out of the UN Security Council, and here a brief debate on Iran and their nuclear Program twenty fifteen. I now give thought to Miss rosiment to college. Thank you, Madam President, for the oportunity to brief the Council on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the implementation of Resolution twenty two thirty one.
The conclusion of the Plan and its endorsement by the Council eight years ago were the result of intensive negotiations to achieve the common objectives of nuclear non proliferation and regional security in a manner that delivers tangible economic benefits for the Iranian people.
When I last brief the Council on this issue in December twenty twenty two, all participants to the plan and the United States had reaffirmed that a return to the full and effective implementation of the plan was the only viable option to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Six months later, negotiations to restore the plan remainstalled. Madam President, Diplomacy is the only way to effectively address the Rani and nuclear issue. It is essential that all parties renew the dialog as quickly
as possible and reach an agreement on the outstanding issues. In this context, I reiterate the Secretary General's appeal to the United States to lift or waive its sanctions as outlined in the Plan, and to extend waivers regarding the trade in oil with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I echo his call on Iran to reverse the steps it has taken that are not consistent with its nuclear related
commitments under the Plan. It is also important for Iran to address concerns raised by participants in the Plan and by other member states in relation to Annex B of Resolution twenty two thirty one. In a welcome development, in March of this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran issued a joint statement to expedite the resolution about standing safeguard issues and to allow the IAEA to implement further
appropriate verification and monitoring and reporting activities. In its report of May twenty twenty three, the IAEA reported that, in line with its joint statement, it had installed surveillance cameras at workshops where centrifuge parts are manufactured. The agency added that it had no further questions regarding the presence of high enriched uranium detected at one location. This encouraging step, notwithstanding, we are alarmed that the agency
remains unable to verify the stockpile of enriched uranium in the country. It estimates that Iran now has a total enriched uranian stockpile of more than twenty times the allowable amount under the JCPOWA includes increased quantities of uranium enrich to twenty percent and
sixty percent. Such a stockpile of enriched uranium is of serious concern. Madame President I will now turn to the restrictive measures set out in Annex B, as outlining in the Secretary General's fifteenth Report on Resolution twenty two thirty one. First on nuclear related provisions, no new proposals were submitted to the Procurement Channel
in the last six months. The Council, however, received ten notifications submitted pursuant to paragraph two of Annex B for certain nuclear related activities consistent with the Plan. The renewal by the United States of waivers with respect to certain nuclear non proliberation projects foreseen in the Plan and their nuclear related provisions in Annex B
for another one hundred and eighty day period was an important step. Second, regarding the ballistic missile related provisions, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom provided information to the Secretary General and the Council concerning a test flight of a space launch vehicle conducted by Iran in March
of this year. We also received information from these same Member States about the testing and unveiling of two new ballistic missiles by Iran in May and June, respectively. The letters received from Member States continue to reflect by divergent views as
to whether this launch and missile developments are inconsistent with the resolution. Third, we examined information related to paragraph four of Annex B. This paragraph pertains to the supply, sale, or transfer to or from Iran of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology as set out in console document as Slash two thousand fifteen Slash five hundred forty six, which require prior approval of the
Council. It includes the list of complete delivery systems and subsystems, as well as the associated components and equipment, including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other immanned aerial vehicle systems with the range of three hundred kilometers or more. In the reporting period, we received information from the United Kingdom about ballistic missile parts seized by the British Royal Navy in February twenty twenty three in international waters
in the Gulf of Iran. The United Kingdom shared imagery of the seased components and its analysis that the components were of Iranian origin and transferred in a manner
inconsistent with Resolution twenty two thirty one. The permanent representatives of France, Germany and the United Kingdom conveyed their view that some of the sea's components are controlled items listed in document as Slash two thousand and fifteen Slash five hundred forty six, and that their transfer without prior approval of the Council was therefore inconsistent with the resolution and their responses Iran and the Russian Federation stated that there was no
evidence linking the intercepted vessel and its cargo to Iran and no clear indication that the siea's components were of Iranian origin. We continue to analyze the available information. We also received letters from Ukraine, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom concerning alleged transfers of unmanned aerial vehicles from Iran to the Russian Federation in a manner inconsistent with Paragraph four of Annex B. The United Kingdom and Ukraine
also provided photographs and their analysis of the uaes recovered in Ukraine. The two countries assessed of the devices to be of Iranian types shah had one thirty one shah had one thirty six a Mahajer six, and that they were transferred by the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner inconsistent with Resolution twenty two thirty one. Their assessment was based on comparison with debris of other UAV attacks in the
Middle East and with imagery of Ryania nuavis available via open sources. France, Germany, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States also reiterated their request for the Secretariat to examine the debris of these uavies in Kiev or any other suitable location. In letters to the Secretary General and President of the Security Council
and in statements to the Council and media. The permanent representatives of Iran in the Russian Federation disputed the imagery and evidence provided by the United Kingdom and Ukraine of the UAVs, as well as the claim by France, Germany, Ukraine and the United Kingdom that Iran had transferred huavies to the Russian Federation in a manner inconsistent with Resolution twenty two thirty run, noting that the accusations were not
substantiated by evidence. The Secretariat continues to examine the available information. The Secretary also received an invitation from the Government of Yemen to examine the debris of a cruise missile used in attack by the Huthies on the Al Daba oil terminal last November. The Secretary is still analyzing the available information. Finally, the Secretary did not receive any official information alleging actions inconsistent with the assets free used positions
provisions of the Resolution. Madame President, eight years since the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in its endorsement by the Council, we remain convinced the plan is the best available option for ensuring exclusively peaceful nature of RAN's nuclear program, as well as for allowing Iran to reach its full economic potential.
In closing, I'd like to thank her excellency, Miss Vanessa Frasier for her leadership as facilitator for Resolution twenty two thirty one, as well as the coordinator of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission for our continued cooperation. All right, welcome everybody. Good afternoon from the UK Mission. Thank you all very much for joining us. We're delighted to have you for our presidency press
conference. You will know this far better than I do, so I'd be grateful if you could just let me know by raising your hands if you want to ask the Ambassador question. I know some of your names, not all of them, so please forgive me if I just have to point to you. And if you're dialing in by WebEx, please let me know if you can if you want a question, either by raising your hand on the screen or telling on your journalists colleagues that I've forgotten about you, sir, so
I don't leave you out. We'll start with some opening remarks from the Ambassador and then we'll go into Q and A. We'll hope to get around to all of your questions and make sure that anything you want to know about our presidency we can provide information to help you have a really productive month there at the UN. So Ambassador, without further ado the floor with yours, thank you very much, Mungo, and good afternoon every one. Thank you very
much for coming. I know it's the day before the fourth of July, so it's very good to see you and thanks for your support for our work and the UN's work. As you will know, this month, July, the UK assumes the presidency of the Security Council. We always try to run efficient and open presidencies, and talking to you and working with you as you do your important work is a priority for me and my team. Let me start by outlining three framing remarks or priorities for the month before I take your
questions. The first is I'd like to set this in the context of the speech in multilateralism that my Foreign Minister gave last week, and in that speech he announced the UK's ambition to drive forward reform of the multilateral system, and our presidency in July marks the first step in that process. The key point I think to emphasize is that the UK and the Foreign Secretary in particular, has listened very carefully to what our friends and partners around the world have been
telling us. We've heard and we recognize that other countries concerns, that powerful countries are neglecting their responsibilities, and we want to be an agent of progress to change that. Let's remember however, that multilateralism has worked well for the
last eighty years. It's underpinned a fortyfold increase in trade since nineteen fifty, it's delivered global vaccines for infectious diseases, and thus far prevented another World war, with fewer deaths in violent conflict since its founding than any comparable period. But that doesn't mean it's perfect, and it doesn't mean it will automatically survive for the next eighty years without reform. So our position is, as my
Foreign secretary said, let's reform that we may preserve. The five priorities that my Foreign Secretary laid out for that are Security Council reform, reform of the international financial systems, trade, international tax, debt, and technology. Let me unpack just a couple of those. On the first, reform of the UN Security Council, we want to see expansion of the Council's permanent seats to include India, Brazil, Germany and Japan and African representation. It's high time
the Council entered the twenty twenties. On the second, on technology, that brings me into also the question of the Security Council addressing it threats to international peace and security in the future as well as today, so on technology. During our presidency, we'll be bringing artificial intelligence to the Security Council for the
very first time with our signature event this month. Many of you will know that as as humanity stands on the precipice of this gigantic technological leap forward, we want to encourage a multilateral approach to managing both the huge opportunities and the risks that artificial intelligence holds for all of us, including its implications for international peace and security. As my Prime Minister has said, no one country can
do this alone. This is going to take a global effort. So the UK's Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, will share a meeting of the Security Council on the eighteenth of July with briefings from international AI experts and from the Secretary General. And that brings me on to my third point, which is using the Security Council this month to address the pressing issues of peace and security today. We do have a packed agenda and I won't list everything, but let
me just draw out a few highlights first. It won't surprise you. On Ukraine, on the seventeenth of July, Foreign Secretary James cleverly will share the Council's regular briefing on Ukraine as Russia's illegal invasion enters its seventeenth month. We've said it several times in the Council, but Russia's invasion is clearly also a calculated assault on the UN Charter and the values and principles it stands for.
Russia's invasion poses the most immediate threat to what the UN stands for, an international order where disagreements are settled peacefully with diplomacy, not death and destruction, where might does not equal right. So we'll use our presidency to ensure the truth is heard about Russia's war crimes. Once again urge Russia to end the war so Ukraine can return to peace and start to rebuild. And let me
be clear here, the UK wants peace. Ukraine wants peace. We support all efforts by our friends and partners around the world towards peace, but the only one with the power to end the war tomorrow is President Putin, and until then we will proudly and rightly support Ukraine to defend itself against Russia's unprovoked invasion. Many of you have seen that in the past seventeen months. Russia has sought to abuse its position on the Council to legitimize the war and disrupt
Council activity as a distraction. So as President of the Council, we will consult closely with Council members to ensure the Council's time is u productively. A second pressing issue of today, of course, is conflict related sexual violence, and this will be the subject of our second signature event, our ministerial level open debate. We've talked a lot about it, and you know that sexual violence has been recognized as an international war crime for over a hundred years.
Yet we've seen this appalling crime repeatedly in recent conflicts, including in Myanmar, in Syria, in the DRC and now in Ukraine by Russian forces. So the debate that we will host will focus on the need for better implementation of
Security Council resolutions to prevent this from happening. It will be chaired by the UK's Special Envoy for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, Lord Akhmed A Member States will hear from a mean mar women, human rights defender and conflict related sexual violence survivor, and we'll take this approach throughout the month, inviting members of civil society to brief the Council every week in the spirit of transparency, democracy
and openness, including on children in armed conflict, post conflict, reconstruction in Columbia, and the conflicts in Haiti and Syria. And we hope that the powerful testimonies of those for whom these crises are a daily reality will inspire cooperation and conviction across the Council. The third pressing issue that we will talk about indeed this Friday is the question of cross border humanitarian aid to Syria. As some of you know, last month, I went to visit the border myself.
I saw the overwhelming level of humanitarian need and that is of course since the earthquake in February, it has intensified. And the last discussion, the last resolution on this was in January in the Council and I heard from the UN, I heard from civil society, I heard from local government. All of them had the same message. They need predictable, long term access across
this border crossing to deliver humanitarian aid. I think the Council has a duty to do the right thing, to open more border crossings for longer periods of time, and to be frank, if it were up to us alone, this would mean at least three border crossings for at least twelve months. I think the important thing to remember here is this is not and should not be a political bargaining chip. This is simply about humanitarian aid access and aid access
alone, So that will be the debate that we have on Friday. We will also this week look at the latest report on Children in Armed Conflict, which came from Virginia Gamber's office. Very important annual debate in the Council, and most of you will have noticed for the first time that the Russians are listed as a country of concern in this report, alongside terrorist organizations such as al Shabab. The first time a permanent member of the Security Council has been
so listed for children abusing children in armed conflict. Finally, we have been following events in Janine over the weekend very closely. Of course, we will want to respond to any requests from Council members for further discussion on this and indeed on any other subject, so I won't cover that just now, but just to let you know that it is the radar in case any Council member
requests a discussion. There's a lot of other events discussions in our program and we can come to those, I think in our Q and A. But as you can see, it's going to be a busy month and I'm now very happy to take any questions from you that will help you understand our planning better. Thank you very much. Back to you, Monky, Thank you,
Ambassador Answer. The first question goes to Valeria. Thank you, thank you so much, and thank you Ambassador Bialf of the United Nations Correspondent Association for this press conference that we wish you the best of luck for a Demanda head. Valeria Rebecco from Answer News Agency. My question is on the Black Siagraine initiative. Things doesn't look like very promising. So how confident or how awful you are that India end the consensus can be reached for an extension of
the deal. Thank you so much, Thank you, Valeria, and thank you for the work that you do. Yes, the Black Sea Grain initiative, of course expires on the eighteenth of July, so that will be just
a day after we have our debate on Ukraine. The initiative has clearly been incredibly important in terms of getting grain to countries that need it, to people that need it, and more than fifty percent of the grain have, of course, has gone to middle and developing country Middle income and developing countries.
More importantly, the Black Sea Grain Initiative has held the price of grain down from the peak it reached in March twenty twenty two, and we very much want to see it continue for those reasons, but at the moment, I think it's being held hostage frankly by the Russians on the grounds of an ammonia pipeline deal and so on. But the key point I think is that every time we come to these points of renewal with the grain initiative, Russia plays
brinkmanship. It's playing brinkmanship with the food on people's tables around the world, and when they threaten not to renew the initiative, the price of grain spikes, which has an immediate impact. And the other thing they do, of course is slow roll the inspection of ships going through. So we're now down from just over four million metric tons of grain being cleared a month to around one point two million metric tons of grain months. So already we're seeing the
Russians playing brinkmanship with grain on people's tables. I'm not confident about renewal. I don't know how this is factoring into Russia's calculations, but I know that the UN is doing all it can and we will do all we can. And we've already worked very closely with the City of London to enable a very complex payment system for grain in order to make it work and continue to get food on people's tables. Thank you handy, Thank you so much them.
Ambassador. My name is Abdul Hamids. I am from the Arabic daily Alcutzel Arabi that is based in London. You just mentioned Janine. Janina has has been now subject to a major aggression by Israel. Palestinians were killed, fifty were wounded, buildings were attacked, a hospital was also attacked. So your your country's position. Keep talking about the two states solution and the right of
Israel to defend itself. So do you believe the choice or the option of a two states solution is still viable, passable, attainable for real And the second if Israel has the right to defend itself as the most one of the most sophisticated armies in the world, not only in the Middle East. Does this right apply to the Palestinians as people under occupation? Do they have the right to is this occupation? Thank you very much. Thank you very much
for your question. And we've been following the events in Janine over the weekend and the first thing to say is that I want to express my condolences to those who have been killed, and I don't think we have a final tally, and send my best wishes to those who have been injured in the fighting. I think to your key question, yes, we still believe that a two state solution is the best way forward for the two countries to live together,
based on the nineteen sixty seven guidelines. But it is right as you say, every country has a right to self defense, but that right has to be exercised in line with international law and international humanitarian law, and that's the most important principle here to underline. Thank you, Messa. We'll go to ed next. Thank you very much. Mary. Remember asset up a
follow up on first on your artificial intelligence meeting. Um, could you give us some more details and background on how the UK sees the two sides of this issue. Who the speakers might be and the summit that we know that the UK is planning sometime in the fall. My question is about haiti UM, what's what's what is the Security Council going to do, especially in light of the Secretary General's just concluded visit and his statement that UM immediate help is
needed. Is the Security Council going to consider a new resolution? Thank you, thanks very much, Edy for those two questions. So we're very excited about the first ever Security Council discussion of AI, and I think it won't surprise you to know that when you think about the positive the possible benefits,
you look at the way in which AI could support in development. It could support in humanitarian aid, it could support in peacekeeping, it could support in conflict prevention when you look at the way in which it can collect and analyze data, so there's enormous potential there. It could potentially help us close the gap between developing countries and developed countries. If you think in development alone,
the UM produces about six thousand pages of documentation. If you're a small mission here in New York, having AI to help you sift through that could actually help you pinpoint on the key things that are relevant for you and take a view. So there is enormous potential for AI, and I know some missions are already playing with it an experiment, putting with it and benefiting from it.
So the benefit side is huge, but there's a risk side too, and it doesn't take too much to imagine, for example, what would happen if AI was unregulated in autonomous weapons, for example, or what would happen if AI was put in control of nuclear weapons. So those are the sort of security questions that I think we need to look at, but we don't want to. We don't want to throw away the benefits just because of the
risk, So we want to have a pretty wide ranging discussion. We're in the process of tying down the speakers that we will have, but as I say, my Foreign Secretary will lead the discussion and what we hope is that this will be the trigger for more discussions and then we'll take those through to the summit in the UK. And I don't have a date for that just yet. We're working on that. It's a very fast moving situation, this hell AI thing, but it's a subject of great interest to my Prime Minister.
I saw my Foreign Secretary when I was back in London. We talked about it then as well. But I think the point is that it speaks to the heart of what my Foreign Secretary said last week that this is something that we cannot do alone. This has to be a global solution, and that's why we want to bring it to the Security Council, bring it to the UN and then have a convening session in London where we'll be able to
have a truly global, multilateral discussion about it. On Haiti, yes, I mean it's now more than two years since President moys was assassinated and there's been no, of course, investigation of that, and since then the gang violence in Haiti has intensified, and we followed the Secretary General's visit there very
closely. He's gone on, I think to the Caricom meeting and we very much welcome the work that's been going on in Carricom, and we will have a session on Haiti during our presidency to discuss developments there and whether it's possible for a way to find to tackle the gang violence. The Secretary General, i know, is called for a sort of security support for Haitian that would be a possible way forward. So I don't know what will come out of
our meeting, but we do have a meeting scheduled in our presidency. Thanks God in Michelle. Next, thanks ambassador. Just a couple of follow ups really. First of all, in the Ukraine grain deal, Russia is now offering free grain for Africa and other other countries that are developing countries. What are you hearing from those developing countries? Who are the ones who were hurt the most last time round with the rising prices, which this deal obviously helped
tap them down a little bit. What are you hearing from them? Do they want to Are they telling you that they want the deal to continue? Are you encouraging them to tell Russia that? Just whatever you're hearing on that? And then on Haiti last year, the US were saying that they would do a resolution on an international force once the international force had been established.
But it sounds like the Secretary General now after his visit, is saying it should be the other way around, and that should be a resolution first and then hopefully I guess of force comes second. What do you think about that? Thanks? So On Russian grain. To be honest, I'm a bit
skeptical, and I'm skeptical for two reasons. What we've seen with Russian exports of grain and fertilized are the ones that go out of Novorosisk, is that it's easiest for large countries to do this because we're seeing increasingly a state to state contract model and an old Soviet trading model effectively, and small countries in Africa, particularly small developing countries, find this monopoly impossible to break into because
they either need smaller amounts of grain or they need smaller amounts of ammonia to mix with to make fertilizer. So this I don't take that promise at face value at all. I'm afraid this is just old state to state trading trying
to evade the market. So that doesn't help at all. And I would put that in the context of the wider point about Russian humanitarian aid, and Russia's humanitarian donation to the whole of the UN last year was ten million US dollars, and we all heard President Putin say that he was bankrolling Wagner to the tune of two billion dollars last year. So Russia's humanitarian aid doesn't just
doesn't stack up. Thanks, Oh sorry on Haiti. Yes, So what we are doing in our Council session, which will be on now I've got the program out, I can tell you sixth is we're negotiating renewal of the mandate for the UN Force in Haiti. And I've heard this inversion question about whether which comes first, the mandate or the force or the force or the mandate. The point is we need to get We need to get a mandate that can be delivered, so I don't think it mattered. We need to
know that we can actually deliver the mandate. There's no point setting out a line in the stand so I think we will want to look at what the renewal can cover. But that's a very live negotiation and that comes up on the thirteenth of July. So are you suggesting that in the renewal of being new there could be a line about an international force rather than a separate resolution just on an international force, because I've got the impression that's what the US
were suggesting last year. Yes, I think I think that might have been what they were suggesting last year. But another way around it would be as we renew the mandate, to look at adjusting it to take account of the situation and what's feasible. Yeah, but it's a live negotiation, so I haven't got that yet. We're going dada. And then James, thank you, ambassador. Two very quick questions. First, on the AI debate, the Secretary General had kind of thrown out this idea of having a regulatory body
like the IAEA. Do you think something like that, given how fast paced AI changes, how powerful it's becoming, would be good rather than a framework. And then you had mentioned that Janine is on the radar in case any country requests and meeting. Have you heard any kind of whispers about a country wanting to put that on the engene done the coming days? Thank you. So I think you're all we're all looking for the most effective way to regulate
AI and to allow it to flourish. And you put your finger on the problem exactly that it is probably the most fast moving thing we've ever tried to look at so previous we can't cookie cutter as it were previous regulatory mechanisms. You think about the MPT or something with nuclear technology. So I think it's worth looking at the way in which the UN and other international bodies have regulated different things in the past. There may be things we can draw from.
But I don't think that we've got, even in the IAA, a mechanism that we can cookie cutter onto AI. I think it's much more likely that we want to go back to principles and try and find a way of regulating something in a sort of forward looking way. But the IAA one has done a fantastic job, two does the sort of protection of the intellectual property piece, as it were, and three has some very clear principles. So it's
useful to have in the mix. But I don't think it's the I don't want to say magic bullet, but you know what I mean solution to that. And I've now forgotten your second question. Oh is Janine was? Oh? Yes, So this is sort of the first work day of our presidency, and I think we were all following events over the weekend, and a couple of counterparts said to me at our opening working breakfast that this was something they were concerned about. So I think it's very likely that will end up
scheduling a meeting into the program, but nothing, nothing formal yet. We have James and then I just to say I can see you on the screen, Iftica say you're on the list, but James next James Boys to zero staying on the same subject and Israel's military actions two related questions. Children are
on conflict report. You were saying Russia was on the list, but the other news was Israel wasn't on the list, even though the Secretary General had warned Israel, if you've gone killing children, you'll be on the list, and then somehow he left them off yet again, what is the UK's reaction to that? And on Janine, we've seen today fifteen drone attacks on a heavily populated refugee camp. In the UK's view, is this proportionate? In
other words, is it legal under international humanitarian law? Thank you? And I think I could say that bilaterally. From the UK's point of view, we were disappointed not to see Israel listed in the CIAC report. We've been very concerned about the attacks on children. But the CIAC report is of course written by Virginia Gamba's team and approved personally by the Secretary General, and I
would say they do have very strict criteria. So the fact that Russia was on the list for those four hundred and eighty attacks on schools and hospitals is
important. So we were disappointed, but we do remain concerned about Israel not being included, and more importantly about Israel's attacks and the impact they have on children in terms of Janine, as I said, we do want the IDF, the Israeli's defensefuls to demonstrate restraint in this operation in particular, and we do see an urgent need for all parties to avoid further escalation in the West Bank. We do, as I said earlier, support Israel's right to self
defense and condemn the recent terrorist attacks unequivocally. But I want to see the protection of civilians in all cases, and we do want to see Israel acting in accordance with international humanitarian law and call on them to adhere to those principles. But it's too early, I think for me to make a judgment about what's happened. Sorry, thank you. We're going to Sailia next. Thank you if the guy yeah, go next and then Sailia. Sorry, thanks
you to so, thank you very much. Traditions. Yeah. In the month you know my name Proba associated your what for the expansion of uniting nature security as part of this reform by four more Vito very really remembers runs counter to the kate made by uniting or consented group against any expensire in the pepper category because it would make it more capable as your normal investor. U UFC advocate more addicted member with longer terms, make it more democratic, representative and
accountable. Don't you see any merit in the Thank you very much for that question. You put your finger on something that I know has been a very live debate during the IGN this year. But as I say, the UK's position on new and Security Council reform has been i would say, out in the front for a long time now. We've been very clear that we support membership for India, for Brazil, for Germany and Japan and African permanent membership.
So we welcome the debate carrying on. But I think the most important thing is to bring the Council into the twenty twenties and make some progress on that. Thank you, thank you. Now we'll go to Celia. Thank you. Africa confinential. I would like to go back to the Security Council reform and to know how many sit do you think could go to Africa and will they get like right of vidual or not? And also I would like to know what UK thought about the withdrawal of them. Do you think it
was too early or what do you think about that? And did you agree with it? Thank you for those questions. So, as I said, we set out our position on Security Council or form some years ago because we could see even then that the Council was not geographically representative and not representative of the world today or twenty years ago. So we've said very clearly we want to see African representation and it's really for the Africans to decide who should take
that seat. So we're sort of waiting on further developments on that one. I think the whole question of what happens with the veto is I know it is a very important one. You'll know that the UK hasn't used its VETO six nineteen eighty nine. We're part of the Act agreement that we wouldn't do that, so in particular with respect to humanitarian situations. So that's again an open question. But can cansum a mute? Sorry, that's right on Minosma.
Really, I think it's no secret that we were very disappointed by the Marley Authorities decision, by the decision itself, but also by the timing just for four ins to de opt to announce that, so peremptorily, I think it was quite a relief that we agreed that the MINOSMA forces would aim to leave with the objective by the end of the year, because this is a complex, a very complex operation to draw down indeed, so that was an
important development. But I think two things followed from that. The first is that that leaves security in Mally in the hands of Vargner. And you don't need me to tell you that where Wagner is we see chaos, we see human rights abuses, we see violations of international law. So that's a major
concern for the people of Marley who depend on this peacekeeping op ration. And more importantly, Wagner is in Bamako, and that's not where the people of Mally most need our protection from terrorism and crime in order to go about their lives. So there's a huge unresolved question now about who will support and protect the people of Malli. And I think it's very important that we continue discussions with the regional groups as well in order to try and work out a way
forward. But this it was a it was a premature and rather hasty decision in our view, and we've tried to do the best for peacekeeping forces who've done very well indeed, and the people of Mally. Thanks and then thank you so much a friend, Cole Safi, Arab News Daily. The war ins so done. As we're speaking, the fighting has picked up again.
Thousands die, thousands injured, millions of displays. I wonder if there are any concerns within the Security Council about this issue, where there are any requests for emergency new things, I see only the regular team that's one on the Security Council reforms as well. Can you just say a word or two on why did you decide to have Japan and Brazil, India and Germany out of
world countries as permanent members. And since the Security Council is filled with Arab issues as well, from Libya, Siria, Yam and Palistine all of them arrived, do you support a permanent seed for an Arab country for example? Thank you, thanks very much. Let's start on Sudan, which is a situation that has been preoccupying us now since the fighting broke out in April.
Sorry, so, I think a couple of things to say. We've had a number of meeting some of them in close consultations to discuss this situation, and you'll see that just last week we were able to agree a press statement reflecting our views. The situation, of course, remains of great concern. These sort of short cease fires, which barely hold despite the efforts of the
United States and Saudi Arabia, have been I think a grave concern. And as you say, people are being killed and millions are displaced, and that creates other pressures across borders. So there's a lot for us to remain concerned about. I think the key thing now is to try and give our support and to accelerate the regional processes. But it's something that will remain on our
watch list, in our horizon scanning. And again if we get if we see a need for if we receive requests from other Council members, we won't hesitate to call for a meeting. So we'll keep that, keep watching that. We will actually have a Security Council meeting this month on the thirteenth or two line, but that's of course the one that looks at the referral of darfour to the Council, And to be honest, many of us have been
reflecting that since that referral in two thousand and five. The last thing that we want to see as a repeat of what we saw then, So we're very mindful that we don't want to see history repeat itself on that. On Security Council reform, I think our thinking behind the four countries that we supported
was partly to do with geographical balance. So introducing India and Brazil would bring a wider geographical representation into the Council, but also to bring in countries that have more influence than they had when the original Security Council was put together in nineteen forty five for obvious reasons. So that's so there's a sort of combination of recognizing the world as it is today alongside geographical balance, and that's behind
our position too on Africa. But we didn't make a prescription on which African countries. That was left up to them to decide. So that's the thinking behind that. Oh I'm so sorry. Yes, the home I think we we sort of drew a line at the four plus the African representation that we had, and that could of course include an Arab African country. So it's not moved out at all, but we didn't make a specific provision for that. Yeah, Georgia, Hi, ambassador, does you shoot with Chinese Central
Television? Two questions? But first, we shore a successful president. First, I remember last time when UK was the president, a Russian delegation actually complained because they I remember they request a meeting but got turned up because of technical issues. I think, um, so just now you you actually mentioned that that you want to be more productive for the Security Council. How are
your planning to do that? And second, in the capacity of the UK I think this year earlier this year in March, Argentinian government mentioned that they want to have resumed talk on the issue of Falklands islands the Isla Malvinas are any possibility to resume dialogues with the Argentinian government, thank you, thank you. So in terms of productivity, part of that is making sure that the
Council agenda, first of all, fulfills the mandates. So some of the things on the agenda, as you see, are things that come up. So the children in our conflict debate we're mandated to hold, the Iran debate comes up as part of a sequence, so we need to handle all those and then we want to make sure that the Council discusses the pressing issues of the day, and so that's why we've picked both Ukraine and conflict related to
sexual violence and artificial intelligence. So where we've got discretion, we're focusing our agenda. It's also about how we conduct our council meetings, and as I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure that our briefers are genuinely expert and can add value and input for the Council. And we also want to include the voices of civil society, and we will enlie with our admittment to the Women Peace and Security Agenda make sure that an equal balance of those briefers come
our men and women, So we'll do that. We also want Council discussions to be sort of interactive where they can, and at breakfast this morning, I said to my counterparts that we would very much welcome short, concise statements focused on actions I live in hope, not ones that simply admire a problem or are full of disinformation. So that is how we will attempt to be productive, and we will, of course, I think we have four mandate
renewals coming up during our presidency. So Syria, we've already mentioned cr car Haiti, and I've forgotten the fourth one. We'll come back to it, so we'll make sure that those are done in a timely way. So that's
an attempt to be productive. In terms of the Russian Federation, I can't actually recall the meeting that you are referring to, but the Russians did say at the end of our presidency last year that it had been the worst ever Security Council presidency in history, and I have to say that is a badge I wear with some pride. We are we are scrupulously objective and professional in
our handling of Security Council business. We have the wonderful support from SCAD all the time, so we are continuously observing the rules and regulations and working within the framework to be fair and objective. That said, we are not interested in bringing disinformation and lies to the Council and we will continue to robut that. And in terms of the Falklands, I agree an important question, but it's a bilateral issue between the UK and Argentina, so not on the agenda.
Thank you to Toshi next, and thank you Toshi Naba from kild on New Japanese News of Wire I have a falloup on the withdrawal of UNISIMON and I'd like to know how much good affect other of you sleeping operations and the peacekeeping forces, because it's said the president of expulsions of the peacekeeping forces, and as you know from time to time, some peacekeeping operations are popular on the ground, how much rain and worried with a possible sort of domino effect
on peacekeeping forces? Thank you, thank you very much, indeed, and I think it's a it's a very valid question, and behind it is really the question of how UM peacekeeping forces can keep a peace when there isn't a peace to keep, because when we mandate peacekeeping forces, it is normally to support peace and to support the government as it builds that peace for its people. And we saw that run through our fingers in Minusma sadly, so I
think you raise a very real risk. And let me sort of highlight two trends. The first one, to be honest, is we see increasingly this breakdown of relationship between UM peacekeepers and the authorities concerned, often where we see the Bargner mercenaries, the Russian Wargner mercenaries present in countries, and I think that's a very worrying relationship because, as I said earlier, where Wargner mercenaries go, we see chaos, we see violations of human rights, and we
see violations of international law and very little peace. To be honest, we just see mining and extraction of commodities away from the hands of the people who own them and should be profiting from them. So there's that worry, and I think you're right too, there is a sort of domino effect worry. And there's a bigger question there about the sort of Western Sahara and parts of Africa where countries boundaries are very fluid, particularly there as herders or there's a
past there. So I think one of the important things we'll do during our presidency will be the debate on Western Sahara, West Africa and Sahara and looking at the sort of cross regional situation there, and also the important role that regional peacekeeping forces can play as well. So I think they'll have a very big role, and it's been very interesting listening to some of the arguments about
how they can be deployed and developed into these situations. Thank you. We've got to Evelyn next, and then Yesheeta, and then we'll come to the side of the room. Thank you, Mendrew. Wargner and Minister Lavrof has gone out of his way to assure countries in the Selle that despite what happened in the Ukraine or the Addenda coup, Wagner will still be around. And their favorite is the c Aw I mean the Saar, where they seem to
be extremely active anybody moving against them. I know that they mind things and they settle dargnered and a little friendly way. It doesn't help, but they, you know, just keeps assuring African countries that they're not going to start this. So sorry. The question that question is have you been following the mount dangerous? Are they still despite their Ukraine debacle? So I agree with your premise about Wagner in Africa, and I do think we see Wagner in
slightly different roles in different parts of Africa. So I take your point, for example about cr it's not the same type of Wagner operation as it is in Mali or in some other places, so I think that is worth setting. It's not a complete cookie cutter, and I know that foreign as the Lavrov has been touring extensively around Africa shoring up support for Russia's position, and of course, the South African president led a delegation of African leaders to Kiev
and to Moscow to talk about the war in Ukraine. I really find it hard to I would find it hard to say anything certain about any truth at all in what foreimnist Lavrov said, or in fact what we have coming out of the Wagner Group. It's very inconsistent and I think all very murky. So the bottom line is it's not something on which I would place my own security. Thanks Yoshi, Thank you, Ambassador Yoshida, saying the Press Trust
of India, I have a question on the Human Security Council reform. When the ig AND was rolled over for the next session, India termed it as a waste opportunity and said the process could go on for another seventy five years without any solid outcome. The Member States have been discussing the process without a negotiating text. What concrete steps can we expect or do you thinks should be done to ensure that there is some forward movement to see on the ground.
Otherwise, like as India said, the process was gone forever. Thanks so thank you for that question, and I think it I recognize that it has been a very frustrating process. As I said, we set out our position and more than a decade ago, trying to lean into the question and broaden the representation, bring the Security Council up to date. And you know, I've had good contacts with the ignd CO facilitators this year, and I know that they've tried very hard, indeed, but there is such a wide range
of views that it seems very difficult indeed to make progress. So I recognize the frustrations. We too thought it would be useful actually to move to text based negotiations, but I'm afraid we didn't. There wasn't enough support for that to make immediate progress. But it's something that we do, as I say, continue to support because we need to see the Security Council come into the twenty twenties. Thank you, thank your question here and then sheho and then
the gentleman of them, Thank you, Madam Barsdo. My question is regarding Iran, though of course that the UK is expected to announce plans to breach the two fifteen Iran nuclear Deal. The decision comes just a few months before the expiration of Security Council resolution on Iran nuclear deal in your national capacity is your government are all worried about the reaction that the Islamic Republic of Iran may have as we know they are very close to acquiring a nuclear bomb. Do
you think that is gonna make the situation worse? Thank you, thank you, Yes, we share your concern. You know, Iran now as we think about three times the minimum amount of highly enriched uranium that is needed to manufacture a nuclear device, so the stockpiles are high, and I Realm's ability
to enrich uranium is also very high. So that's a situation that is causing us a lot of concern, and it's why we're working so closely with our E three partners, in particular on the question of what to do next about that. We'll have a discussion in the Council on the sixth of July on Iran. Looking at a Security Council Resolution twenty two thirty one. Iran is in flagrant breach of that, not least also the way in which it's selling
UAVs to Russia for the war in Ukraine. So there's quite a lot, quite a lot of concern there and we'll have a chance to discuss it on the sixth of July. Thank you, Shia. Thank you Shiomatsuga from Japan's nip Point television for the Ukraine meeting on seventeenth. Are there any other foreign ministers that are invited or confirmed to attend, including Secretary Blinken or Foreign Minister
La Thank you, thank you very much for that question. I know my Foreign Minister will very much look forward to seeing his counterparts at that meeting. They will have just come from the NATO's summit. Some of the figs have already attended, but we don't have a final list yet, but I will say here I very much doubt that foreign stillavrov will come almost from innusition. Users, Are are you thinking anything in terms of Afghana sign where you have
a crisis and the UN staff not being allowed to work? Thank you for that question. Yes, a crisis that I agree the UN staff can't work, but neither can the women are alf going to Stan more or less. So the crisis is enormous, and it's not just a working crisis, as you know, it's a humanitarian crisis as well. With more than half the population of Afghanistan in need of humanitarian aid, which the UN is finding really difficult to get to those people because women aren't allowed to be part of the
distribution. So there is a huge crisis in Afghanistan. We very much welcome the Secretary General's convening of Special envoys in Doha last month, which I think was a good way of finding some sort of way forward, and I know that they plan to meet again. I saw the Special Representative Rosa Autumn Baiva just a couple of weeks ago, and it was good to have a conversation with her and hear her experience on the ground of what she's seeing both in
Carbal but also some of the things she's hearing from the rural areas. So it remains an issue that is of grave concern to us. We talked about it in the Council last month. Under UAE presidency. The next formal meeting is scheduled for September, but if we have requests then we will clearly move to try and include something more urgently if necessary, and if we can make a difference. Thank you, please, yes, thank you, President Martin. One from machine again about AI. So I still want to know more
about the dressing now behind including AI as one after the three events. So either context of international peace and security, how our standing this issue is just now you expresture your concern about nuclear Can you give me more examples? Yeah, thank you, sure, thank you. So the rationale is that the Security Council is of course responsible for international peace and security, and we don't
know what AI could bring in this context. As I said earlier, it's clear that we could derive great benefit from AI in the UN's work in development, humanitarian peacekeeping, data use, monitoring and so on. But there have to be concerns too about how AI might be used, for example, in nuclear technology, whether any country with nuclear weapons would consider handing over the management of those weapons to AI and how that could go wrong, or the same
with automated weapon as well. So I think there are areas of concern, but as we've been discussing, this is first of all very new technology and second of all developing and evolving very fast. Indeed that's one of its characteristics. So our aim was really to allow the Security Council to have briefing from experts, to hear from the Secretary General who's been thinking about this quite a lot, and to start a multilateral discussion on what the implications were and how
best we should benefit from AI but also manage its risks. And as the UK, we look forward to starting that off this month during our presidency, but also picking it up during the summit in London later this year as well. So we're very committed to acting as a convener and a constructive force in this debate as we move forward. But as I said, my Prime Minister says, this is something that we can't do alone. It has to be a global solution. That's why we're starting here at the UN. Thanks San,
thanks very much turning up and question for you. I mean, I'm sorry for being late Inveastador Schawan Brice p South African Broadcasting. It bigs the question, right, is artificial intelligence a threat to international peace and security? Is that what you're saying? So artificial intelligence is the sum of the data that's input into it. So artificial intelligence is not itself an actor. We are the ones who can deploy it, can direct it, can see its
risks. So that's why I we need to have a debate in the Security Council. That's why we need a summit in London because artificial intelligence itself can't
in particular do anything right. But then why I have a meeting in the UN Security Council which has something mandate if it's not a thrifty international peace and securities, because we want to explore whether in some applications or in some evolutions, artificial intelligence could be a threat to international peace and security where it could be helpful. I mean, there is there is quite a good analogy here with nuclear, although I don't want to overdo it. Nuclear has a great
deal of civil beneficial uses. It also can be turned into weapons which need to be regulated. So that's that's the sort of way forward we're trying to find with this extraordinary technology. The difference between the two is that, of course nuclear technology was held particular when it was regulated by a very small number of countries. AI is proliferating among the general population and so it's a different
There's a difference there, but the analogy I think holds a bit. Thanks any type of a final question from Allen, Thanks so much and best. Alan Bulge from Brienna West News Agency. Yesterday, the Deputy Chairman of Russian Security Council, the Meterary medved If, published an article in which he says that it would be better to temporarily suspend the diplomatic relations between Russian and Okay, or at least to lower their level. What do we make up that
then? Are you ready for that? So last month, when I was back in London, I saw the British ambassador to Moscow, who is doing an extraordinary job in the face of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and flagrant breach of the UN Charter. So I think it would be a pity to downgrade relations because when the war comes, when Russia finally takes its boots off the grounds of Ukraine, it will be very important to rebuild the situation using diplomatic relations.
Thanks, thank you everyone. I think that's all we have time for. I hope we got through all of your questions. Look forward to working with you throughout the month. Please don't hesitate you m h. The show has been produced by Depictions Media. Please contact us at depictions dot media for more information. M