Jeremy Bowen

Ja ajattelin, että amerikkalaiset ovat täällä. Voisi olla amerikkalaiset. Sitten kuuntelin enemmän ja ajattelin, että se ei ole kauheaa. Ei ole mitään vahvaa. Ei ole tankkeja, ei ole moottoria, ei ole kohtaa, ei ole kohtaa. Tämä tuntuu kuin järjestelmää. Sitten menin ylös ja katsoin ulkopuolelta. Voin nähdä Irakkalaiset kaupungilla ja kaupungilla. He heittivät Kalashnikovia kymmenistä ja kymmenistä kerroksista. Sitten menin kotiin ja menin sinne.

Se, mitä tapahtui, oli se, että Amerikkalaiset, Irakkalaiset ja Amerikkalaisen järjestö tehtävä koalitiikka tehtiin nopeasti keskustelua, ja sieltä tuli järjestelmä. Kuwait on vahvistettu. Irakkalaisen armeija on vahvistettu. Meidän sotilastamme on saavutettu. Kuwait on yhä enemmän Kuwaitien kohdalla ja käsittelemällä oman suunnitelman.

They could not believe that the American-led forces had stopped. The justification they gave was that they only had authorization to go as far as they went. They also realized... Authorization from the UN? Yeah. It was more complicated than that, of course. But also they didn't have a resolution saying you can remove the government of Iraq. They had a resolution...

ja sanoi, että voidaan poistaa Irakkalaiset Kuwaitista. Se oli erilainen asia, joten he pysyivät sieltä. Nämä asiat ovat aina väärät, eikä mitään ole täydellistä. Mutta siinä tapauksessa voidaan sanoa, että järjestelmä toimii. Mitä sanoisit, että se oli esimerkki kertomisesta, jossa niin sanottu ulkoministeriö ei toimittanut?

There have been numbers of examples where it didn't work. For example, let's just get on to the next Gulf War, 2003, when another American-led coalition removed Saddam Hussein. And

opened up a Pandora's box of killing and violence. Catastrophic consequences over a couple of decades. Frankly, they still feel the consequences of that invasion, one of which was the rise of jihadi groups, which in the end morphed into Islamic State, ISIS.

But one of the big issues about that invasion was they couldn't get a second UN resolution authorizing specific action. Because famously the French vetoed it, right? Well, the French were against it. This was the period when in the US capital French fries were renamed Freedom Fries. Because that was...

very good way of getting back at the French for being, you know, such, what they used to say at the time, cheese-eating. Oh, cheese-eating surrender monkeys, wasn't it? Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, yeah. So they couldn't get the same sort of consensus that George Bush senior had, but they went ahead anyway. And not long after that, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, well, yeah, they broke international law, this is an illegal invasion. He said that in a BBC interview, but it was a year or two afterwards.

But that was a situation very much where the system didn't work. And more recently, of course, the war in Gaza has been, it's looking very much to be a textbook case in the way that international laws have been violated by all parties.

International laws have been quite widely broken, especially by the most powerful countries in the world, repeatedly since the Second World War. And the criticism of the idea of a rules-based international order is that they're Western rules. And they're Western rules which are normally applied to...

Se on hyvin ei-perfeettinen. Mutta luulen, että mitä muuttuu nyt, on se, että Donald Trump ei edes anna lippusarvoa. Se on kaikki tärkeä näkymätön, että haluaisin kaivaa se kaikki pois.

for alleged crimes committed in Gaza and on October the 7th, the International Court of Justice has attempted to intervene as well. What would be your response to that? I think those are all fair points. There's no doubt about it. I think that what these international rules over the years, international humanitarian law, war crimes laws, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, all those sorts of things, they provide a template against which you can measure the severity of a story.

It's not simply saying, well, this is awful, all these people are dying, but getting to something a little bit more forensic, where you can say, for example, well, you shouldn't blow up hospitals, but if someone sets up a firing position on the top of the hospital, then you're perfectly entitled to

Se on tavallaan se, että se on yksi asia, joka on yksi asia.

Yksi syy, miksi ajattelen, että ajatukset tulevat takaisin 19-luvun lopuksi, jolloin olivat influenssia, niin paljon, että se ei toimi nykymaailmassa, koska maailma on muuttunut. Kun eurooppalaiset maat, franssit ja britsit, kärsivät Afrikasta ja eri paikoista maailmaa yhdessä, he käyivät maissa, jotka eivät ollut kehittyneet,

If there were elites, they were probably kings and people who had inherited their massive wealth. The vast majority of people lived very hard lives and weren't very well educated, if at all. Things are massively different now. You look at the incredible transformations in India. That's one good example.

India was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. Now India is a rising power with more than a billion people. And undoubtedly is going to be a stronger and bigger power as it continues to develop. And they don't want to be part of anyone's sphere of influence. They want to have their own sphere of influence. The world has changed so much that it's going to be very difficult for a couple of strong leaders to impose their will on everybody.

Olet johtanut, Jeremy, Euroopasta, ja olen erityisen kiinnostunut, että sinut ja Tristan ovat johtaneet Lontoon, eikä olemme puhuneet enää siitä, miten Eurooppa sopii tähän. Se on siksi, että Eurooppa tuntee, että olemme ylipäänsä. Että katsomme asioita, joita emme voi kontroloida enää. Vastuullisuudessa ne ovat olleet vahvistuneet amerikkalaisista pitkän aikaa. Amerikkalaiset ovat paljastaneet rahaa, koska he tuntevat, että se on heidän intressinsä.

Trump doesn't feel it's in the US interest or his interest, so he doesn't want to pay the money. That's one thing that has changed, because that consensus that American security meant European security has gone. Where does it all go for you, Jeremy? Asma and I have had quite animated conversations about whether it's a given that this ends in more chaos or maybe stability. What's your take? Well, I hate to say it. I'm on the chaos side.

Having been a foreign correspondent for the BBC for most of my adult life, and I have been to many, many wars as a reporter, and seen hopes risen and hopes dashed, I think this is a really worrying time. I think we are absolutely right to worry about the stability of the world. Look at...