 Hello and let's talk about the United Nations. Yesterday a special high-level session was held to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the organization. Leaders from across the world spoke to recorded messages as the COVID-19 pandemic had seriously affected the occasion. A key theme of this session was that multilateralism was not an option but a necessity. A message that is increasingly under threat as the United States tears up the framework that has held the global community together for decades. Incidentally, President Donald Trump, who was supposed to be the first speaker from the international community, did not make any recorded remarks, although he was supposed to. We speak to Abdul of People's Dispatch on some of these issues. Thank you so much for joining us. So the special session, higher special high-level session was held yesterday. Many leaders to power, Donald Trump did not. And multilateralism was a key theme in those discussions or at least they claimed it was a key theme. So what are your first impressions about the kind of speeches that were delivered yesterday? Was it just a symbolic occasion or was there even the possibility of something more, you know, some kind of a reassessment of a UN's role? I think all these speeches, including the General Secretary and other President of the United States, all the speeches are hinting towards one, the kind of politics which are happening at the global level. Super power has taken a promise and it is moving towards unilateralism and in the last few instances, you see, starting from the withdrawal from Iran, Iran will be to all the instances, including the withdrawal from the WU. That particular way the United States policy or policy has taken, you know, it basically most of the leaders are reflecting indirectly to that. They can't say they could not take the name, but I think that is the central consideration, central concern for all the people in that yesterday's meeting. Yeah, and this seems to be irrespective of ideology, irrespective of where they stand because there is clearly a feeling that the UN is in deep danger if the United States continues like this. In fact, if you see the world leaders, there is China, which has a clear stand on it. Then there is France, which is a close ally to the United States. Then there is a Turkey, which is a member of NATO and one of the, who is also talking about multilateralism, how it is becoming an issue. Then there are other countries, if you name it, or most of the leaders, as a central concern that they're talking as if that is the world is moving towards a situation which was similar to what was there before the first Second World War, which basically created the catastrophe and to avoid such similar things in the future, the United Nations was built. So the basis of the United Nations was that no matter what our disagreements are, we will sit together and we'll try to resolve it in this multilateralism. This is a fora on which we can resolve our issues. So in the last five years, it is longer than that, but at least in the last five years, there is a decisive shift from this particular approach and that is a very, very big concern. The chances of global conflict, you can see whether it is South China Sea, whether it is the Mediterranean, whether it is Africa, whether it is West Asia, wherever you see in Venezuela and Latin America, you see that the chances are increasing and everywhere, but in a particular country, the United States is on the rise, basically creating, violating all the international, violating all the procedures which have been established, tested in the last 70 years, 75 years and basically going into the United States. So that is the basic concern. So in this context also, larger questions about the role of the UN itself like you pointed out the last three, four years have maybe really exposed the kind of issues they have, but even before, like you said, they have many concerns. The UN was not able to stop the invasion of Iraq, many other conflicts, imperialist intervention in so many other countries that has not been able to stop. And ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, there is an increasing question as to how much credibility it has beyond being a symbolic organization. So how do you see that in today's world? I think United Nations has, in the last 70 years, it is true that in many, many instances, United Nations has failed to intervene decisively, leads through and that primarily because of the structure of the United Nations Security Council, one of the main reasons, which most of the leaders are talking about reforms, the necessary reforms of the United Nations, they highlighted this issue, that one of the basic problems with the United Nations has been the nature of the United Nations Security Council where some parts can be took, all the multilateral actions. And that is basically a concern. Those reforms are a greater issue. And I think certain countries, you see, you highlighted the failure of the United Nations during the Iraq war. Similar things can happen today also. For example, the Pompeo's post, posting about how the rest of the countries, whether they agree with or not, they have to follow the sanctions which America has imposed on the Al-Iran. And that is their duty. So I think those things, those concerns are valid. And when the leaders are talking about reforms, the reform, the necessary reforms, I think Chinese president has highlighted that how the third world, the developing countries need to be respected more into the security council in the decision-making process. If those things are taken care of, of course, in the United Nations, there will be always a problem. I think the United Nations General Secretary has highlighted it correctly, that the United Nations will be strong only if the members want it to be strong. So if those reforms are taken and those reforms are taken seriously, I think the United Nations will be able to handle whatever they need. And finally, a quick question on the sanctions in Iran also, which we announced yesterday, almost with symbolic value by the United States. So could you just talk a bit about what the imply as well? I think, of course, it has a symbolic value. You see, the United Nations Security Council there, according to the UN Security Council resolution 2-3-3-1, the US wanted security council to take this issue. But I think security council rightly agreed that this is not the issue because US is not a participant, but still US went ahead and said that because one month notice period has lapsed, now the sanctions are automatically imposed. Which is, I think, a complete, it shows a complete disregard of, again, I'm repeating, a complete disregard of the procedures, the laws, the ways, the international politics, the United Nations function. This is complete violation, but because the US is the superpower and it thinks that it can do anything. And also because of the reason that US has control over the world finances, the exchanges and everything, the other countries might be forced to take a step back and not to kind of, that will be a defeat for the United Nations itself. Because as for the resolution, the sanctions against Iran should not be imposed. So this is a completely unilateral move, but because this is a superpower and which has a control over the global finances, it has, you can say, at least the power, theoretical power to impose its sanctions and which will very much, in effect, will be a multilateral sanctions, UN sanctions. So theoretically not, but in reality, it will function like that. Because countries won't want to antagonize the US. Exactly. So that can be, that is another example of, this is, as you can say, a repeat of what happened in the Iraq war in a different form, of course, where US had, without taking any consideration of what the nation is saying, and similar thing is happening now. And that has happened only because the, you can say, the imbalance or the differences, the gaps in international politics, the US has the military and financial capabilities that it can impose. As George Bush said, either it is my way or highway. That is the similar thing which are happening. Thank you so much, Abul, for talking to us. In our next segment, we bring you part of an interview with former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, PDT Achary, on the way in which the farm bills were passed in the Rajasabha and the action taken against MPs who protested. He talks about the trust breakdown that has happened between the government and the opposition. I want you to explain to the viewers of Newsclate what you make of this unruly scene that took place. The unruly scenes and Rakhaz, pandemonium in the house is nothing new. This used to happen in the Lok Sabha quite often. And it used to happen in the Rajasabha to some extent. So, there is nothing extraordinary about the Rakhaz in the house. Yesterday, actually, there are two things which are important. When we look at yesterday's happenings in the Rajasabha. One is that the house extended its sitting beyond 1 o'clock. They were to adjourn at 1 o'clock. The chair extended the sitting. Normally, there is a consensus built up on extending the sitting. If there is no consensus, that means if the opposition does not agree, then the sitting is not extended and the house adjourns. That used to be the practice all through. Here, what I understand is that yesterday, the house sitting was extended without there being a consensus. And the opposition, naturally, they shouted and so on. But the proceedings went on and during this extended time, the minister was also replying and the reply was given. Then all the rest of the things happened. So, why the chairman, all the government thought it necessary to pass this bill yesterday itself by extending the time? Actually, it is not known. They could have passed it today by accumulating the views of the opposition. That is what normally is done in parliament. Because nothing will be lost. The government has majority in any case. In the Rajasabha also, they are the largest single party and the other parties are there to support them. So, they have nothing to fear so far as the fate of the bill is concerned. But then, the only problem was that they wanted to pass it yesterday itself. No, no, I may just interrupt you, sir. What was the urgency? And what was the urgency of the deputy chairman, Mr. Hari Vansh, wanting to pass those bills on Sunday itself? This is something we are unable to understand. At the same time, does the chair, in this case the deputy chairman, is it not within his discretionary power to decide to extend the session or not? I mean, after all, there is no rule that binds him to that. I mean, it is his discretion. Is it not? Actually, it is not his discretion. It is the decision of the house. That is the consensus. There is a sense of the house taken on such issues. The sense of the house is taken. That is what I said earlier, that even if, I mean, if there is no consensus, if the members in the opposition say that they don't agree to this proposal, then the chair adjourns the house. Chair would say that since there is no consensus, we are not going to sit beyond the scheduled time of adjournment. That is the normal practice. But yesterday, I did not know why no effort was made, no effort seems to have been made to bring the opposition on board. And then extra, that should have been done. That is a normal practice that is resorted to or followed in the legislature, particularly in parliament. Mr. Achary, there were also some other developments that were unusual. Now, before the voting took place, after all this ruckus, the opposition wanted physical voting. They wanted the votes, I mean, individuals who were present to cast their vote. However, the deputy chairperson decided to go along with a voice vote. Is this also unusual out of the ordinary? So far as the voting procedure is concerned, things are clear. According to the voting procedure, when the debate is over, the chair puts the question before the house. For example, the chair would say, the question is that the motion be adopted. There is a motion before the house. Everything is presented before the house in the form of a motion. So he would say that the question is that the motion be adopted. Those in favor say aye. So some people will say aye. And those against may say no. Some people will say no. Then the chairman will say, I think the ayes have it. He will say that. And he stops there. Then a member, mostly from the opposition, stands up and says no have it. No have it. That means he is challenging the decision of the chair. He wants a division. Then the chairman would say, let the lobbies be cleared. And the lobbies are cleared for three minutes. Then all the members who are sitting in the lobby and all that, they will come into the house. They will be ready for voting. He will repeat it again. Those in favor may say aye and no. And then people will say no, they no have it. Then he will say division. And then the members will press that button. The voting will be done. This is the process. Now the question is, can the chair ignore a demand for voting? Voting means the division, actual voting in the house. The other is voice vote. Whether the chair can ignore a demand from members for a voting in the house, I would say chair has no authority, no power to ignore a demand from the members for an actual voting in the house. He has to, under the rules he has to. The reason is that under article 100 of the Constitution of India, the issue that is before the house, any question that is before the house, is decided by a majority of the members, present and voting. Now as you know, the majority can be decided. Majority is a very precise thing. Majority in terms of number. Otherwise you cannot decide majority. Majority has no other meaning. Majority has to be decided in terms of the number. So that is determined by voting in the house. That is what the constitution says. So constitution is very clear. But the practice of voice vote is there, is followed in all the legislatures. When there is a presumption that the government has majority, it is okay so we can pass it by voice vote. But if there is a controversy and if there is a demand from the members that there should be a voting in the house, then the chair cannot ignore that and the chair has to proceed to conduct the voting in the house. That's all we have time for today. We will be back tomorrow with more news from the country and the world. Until then, keep watching NewsClick.