In the last year, it's about $23 billion have been blocked in Venezuelan accounts and assets. And they're talking about bringing aid in the terms of $20 million, which is nothing compared to what has been blocked. If there was any real concern about the Venezuelan people, about the problems we're facing as a nation about our difficulties, what we would do is lift those so-called sanctions on Venezuela and find ways to help us develop. This is definitely a publicity stunt. This is destined to portray the government as an oppressive government or somebody that's not open to outside relations and so forth. But at the end of the day, this is all a way of promoting regime change in Venezuela. What they're trying to do in the next few days is trying to force, or not even force, but try to show that they're bringing aid and the government is not receiving it and that it's insufficient. So first you bring this aid and then the pattern is that then you have people requesting and then you need to have troops come in and keep the peace and at the end of the day you have the whole process of invasion. So it's a pattern, it's a script. We've seen this before and we know that this is what it's aimed at.


So, the general formula for the component built up method is as shown here, CDO is going to be a summation of the CF into FF into QC into S weight for each aircraft component divided by the wing reference area. And then to that you add CD miscellaneous and CD LNP where the various components or various terms in the equation are as described. So, how do you estimate the flat place compression coefficient? This depends on the Reynolds number, the Mach number and the surface roughness. And it is a very strong function of the extent of laminar flow. If you have laminar flow over the entire body then the value of CF will be quite low. And if you have turbulent flow over the whole body then it will be much larger. Now experience has shown that when you have a Reynolds number more than half a million, it is very difficult for you to maintain laminar flow. And at a Reynolds number of 1 million the turbulent friction drag is 3 times the laminar of the friction drag. So, if you are able to use very smooth skin using a polished metal or using a molded composite then you might be able to maintain laminar flow over around 15-20% of the wings and the tails. But on the fuselage it is very difficult to maintain laminar flow. Maybe 5% of the fuselage perhaps may have, maybe not. This particular graph shows the variation of the CF value, skin friction coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for laminar flow shown in the blue line. So, this line is for laminar flow. And these 3 lines are for the turbulent flow because the formulae are little bit different for the 2. Now what we notice is that the gap between the skin friction coefficient for fully laminar flow and turbulent flow is quite huge. And in a simple, typically this is going to be nearly one-third. So, if you notice here for example, if you look at the Reynolds number of around 0.4 million, you know you have 0.002 and 0.006. So, it is a factor of 3, it is one-third and this is a huge saving. So, if you can maintain laminar flow, it is a very big if, but if you can then you have a chance of reducing the laminar flow to a value of nearly one-third. And this is the reason why many attempts are made to maintain laminar flow. The Piagio Avanti aircraft is one example of a three-surface aircraft where the designers have provided special features in the aircraft to ensure that there is a laminar flow of nearly 50% of the wing and one-third of the fuselage. And for this aircraft, a very special NLF wing was designed by the Ohio University. The second point that is important is that surface roughness leads to higher value of the skin friction coefficient. So, to take care of the effect of surface roughness, what we do is we use the concept of RE cutoff, cutoff Reynolds number. So, if the Mach number is less than 0.75, then we define the cutoff Reynolds number in terms of L over K where L is the characteristic length of the component and K is the surface roughness. So, if you notice what we do is we use the value of either the cutoff Reynolds number or the actual Reynolds number in the turbulent flow calculation. So, if you go back and have a look at the formula for the turbulent flow, you can see that the Reynolds number comes in the denominator and the power is 2.58. So, if Reynolds number is large, then the value of Cf is going to be small. But if we have surface roughness or if we have more surface roughness, then what we do is instead of the actual Reynolds number, we use the cutoff Reynolds number which is a larger value, a smaller value sorry and this smaller value gives you a higher value of Cf and this is how you take care of the effect of surface roughness. So, what you do is you calculate the cutoff Reynolds number and if you find that the cutoff Reynolds number is lower than the actual Reynolds number, you use that number in the formula given in the previous slide and you will get the required Cf value. If you do not know the value of surface roughness, some characteristic values are given here for typical types of surface that is provided. You can notice that the lowest value of surface roughness is for the smooth molded composite. The value is just 0.52 10 power minus 6 whereas a camouflage paint on aluminium has nearly 20 times more. So, you can see that the surface roughness is going to make a huge difference in the calculation of the Cf. Now, to get the value of form factor because form factor Ff is to be multiplied with the value of in the calculation of the skin friction coefficient. So, for bodies which are like a wing horizontal tail or vertical tail lifting surfaces, this formula in terms of the maximum location of the x by c or location of the maximum thickness and the t by c thickness to chord ratio and the sweep at the quarter chord and the Mach number. These four parameters sweep, Mach number, the t by c and the location. These four parameters decide the value of the form factor. So, this x by cm is the location, x by cm is shown here, that is the location of the maximum thickness. If we do not know, you can take it as 0.3 for low speed aerofoil or 0.5 for high speed aerofoil. Lambda m is the sweep of the maximum chord line, maximum thickness line and you know if you do not know the value, you can get this value by simple formulae. The form factor for bodies like a fuselage or a nacelle which are round, which are bodies that have some diameter is obtained using this particular formula. Here, we use the factor f where small f is related to length upon 4 pi a max where a max is the maximum cross sectional area. If we have a nacelle or a smooth store, then we can use this formula where f is equal to l over d, l stands for the characteristic length. Now, formulae are not to be used beyond the max MDD, drag divergence Mach number, they have to be used only for subsonic flow calculation. And then we look at the interference factors Q. This is a measure of what is the effect of the presence of a component to the component nearby. And if you have an external store such as a bomb or a rocket or a drop tank or any other item suspended below the aircraft, if you mount it near the fuselage, it has got a very high value of Q compared to something that you mount near the wing tip because you move far and far away. So, with the fuselage as a baseline, the value of Q will be 1.0 and for various types of tails retail conventional tail-edge tail, you can see there are different values of Q which are recommended. Now, for nacelle and store mounting, the value of Q factor is a function of how much distance you are from the fuselage vis-a-vis the fuselage diameter. So, if you mount it directly on the fuselage, then the distance of the store is 0 and Q is very high. In other words, it means that there is a 50% increase in drag because of interference. If you mount it in such a way that the location is less than 1 diameter of the fuselage, then it becomes 30% higher or 1.3 and if you clear the distance equivalent to the fuselage diameter, then the Q value equal to 1 which practically means no interference. For wind tip mounted missiles, we use Q as 1.25. If you have a high or a mid-wing or if you have a well-felleted low wing, then we assume there is hardly any interference. But if you have an unfalleted low wing, you can have it between 1.1 to 1.4. Now, one more term to be considered is the leakage and protuberance drag. Now, what is meant by leakage? Leakage is the tendency of the aircraft to inhale or exhale the air through the various holes. Every aircraft has got some scoops mounted so that the air, the ambient air can be used for cooling of the various devices or equipment inside. And from these, at these places basically the ambient air is brought to rest and hence there is going to be a loss of momentum which will correspond to a drag. There are protuberances on every aircraft, there are antennae, there are lights, there are edges of the doors, there are fuel vents, there are sometimes there are rivets which are protruding. All of these are going to contribute to additional drag which we call as the protuberance drag. So here what is done normally is a percentage is taken. So you look at historical information and you assume that bombers will have approximately 2 to 5% additional parasite drag because of protuberances. Transport and turboprops will have larger values of 5 to 10% but the fighters which will have many, many appendages and drop tanks and armaments etc. are protruding out they are going to have much larger values say between 10 to 15%. Let us have a look at the concept of drag area to take care of the drag of miscellaneous items. So drag area is defined as the product of the drag coefficient created by attributed to the particular body or a particular component multiplied by its area. So since drag is Q into S into CD therefore drag area can be called as D upon Q because D upon Q will have the same numerical value as S into CD. So sometimes we also refer drag area is as D by Q value. So usually we use S as the S ref. So the miscellaneous drag coefficient CDO will be the drag area divided by the wing reference area and what you do is you keep you add the drag area of various components to get one total drag area and if you when you divide that by the wing reference area you will get the CDO miscellaneous. So therefore drag area is the direct indication of the drag coefficient and this concept is very commonly used in the automobile aerodynamics in which case the reference area is S ref or the frontal area. So for example a bicycle has a drag area of 0.6 to 0.7 square meter. Look at some cars. So if you have a car like first wagon XLI and also notice the rear wheel is actually hidden in the covering. You have a very low value of drag area. On the other hand a car like Honda inside which is fairly smooth and aerodynamically shaped will have but exposed wheels will have you know nearly double the drag area but if you look at a car like a Hummer which is having a very squarish front area and a very large it will have you know maybe nearly 10 times more drag area compared to a Volkswagen XLI. So it is very common to use this concept of drag area in automobile aerodynamics so we can look at miscellaneous drags now. So drag of the stores okay. So for estimating the drag of each store that is suspended below the aircraft you might use some empirical relationships given. So D by Q versus Mach number curves are available for various stores and the store suppliers normally provide these curves. You can use them to get the value of D by Q and then add it to the miscellaneous drag. For landing gear drag normally the values are estimated with the comparison from the test data. So what you do is you use a component built-up method where each component of the landing gear is considered to be creating drag. So you calculate drag of each and then you take 20% extra for interference between them. If you have open gear wells you take 7% more drag okay. Now one more cause of high drag is the fuselage upsweep which we see many a times in cargo transport aircraft. So in these aircraft normally a door is mounted at this location. So there has to be a very abrupt change in the angle. So you know you have this upsweep angle U and there is a formula available for D by Q of D by Q of the upsweep. When the value of U is in radiance you can use this particular area and in this formula A max is supposed to be the area cross sectional area in this particular view. So with this you can estimate the value of the additional drag due to fuselage upsweep. So what is happening here is that the air which is flowing past the aircraft is suddenly made to turn up okay and this upward motion of air causes this additional drag called as the fuselage upsweep drag. Flaps and the speed brakes are also huge components huge contributors to the drag. Flap drag is estimated by a factor called F flap that is a function of the type of the flap. Flap chord ratio this is the extent of the flap. Flap area by FF area is also the extent of the flap along the span and delta flap is the flap angle. We assume that up to 10 degrees of angle the contribution is very very minor so it can be ignored. So only deflections beyond 10 degrees are assumed to contribute to the additional drag. This particular figure indicates what is meant by the flapped area as flap as mentioned here. So the flapped area is not just the area covered by the flaps but the area which is under the the area of the aircraft which is either ahead or behind the flaps okay. So the area that is under the influence of the flaps is called as a flapped area. So F flap there are various so each of the type of flaps there are separate values suggested for the F flap. So it is like a small value for plane flaps smaller value for slotted flaps because they are more efficient. Delta flap is normally specified but if not you have to assume a value from historical information. Speed brakes are also going to create a huge amount of drag because they are almost like flat plates which come out and project. So you can assume delta cdo to the flat plates to be nearly 1 to 1.6 times the speed brake for frontal area and then you have the base and canopy drag. In many aircraft the edge of the tip of the fuselage is not closed but there is a base and because of this there is a abrupt disturbance in the flow okay. So this leads to separated flow and hence there will be additional drag because of this and there are formally available for calculating the value of the d by q of the base as a function essentially of the base area which is again this is the base area the area that you encounter on the base of the aircraft. So you can have a you can have a query in mind that pusher propellers may have low base drag even with high half fuselage angles and also with large base areas. The reason for that is that the flow in the area flow in this particular area is manipulated by the presence of propellers in the pusher aircraft. Canopy is also a huge contributor of drag sometimes depending on its shape whether it is flat or whether it is curved depending on how it is located. So depending on how the canopy is you can create you can assume the value of k and get the value of d by q as a function of the windshield fronted area. Thanks for your attention we will now move to the next section.


Welcome back to Tennis Talk, my name's Cam Williams and Holger Ruiner has fired a warning shot But he is ready to win a Grand Slam He actually did an interview only a couple of days ago with relevant tennis over on Twitter Let's go have a read of some of the statements that he made in that interview and about his ambitions to win slams as quickly as possible This is what Ruiner had to say I always set goals with my coach in December before the start of the coming season Ranking is not just the number. We take a careful look at the tournaments I want to play talking about how deep I can go and what I need to improve to achieve what I want With 2022 my coach landed on rank 25 as a target. I pushed it to 15. I won I have not made my plans for 2023 yet I will sit with my coach after my holidays and we'll go through it, but I know what I want I want to win slams. I want an ATP 250 reach an ATP 500 final and want a Masters 1000 It's time for a slam win. So there you have it Holger Ruiner is out for a slam next year And he is very good friends with Carlos Elcaraz who was the current world number one, of course US Open champion So he knows that it can be done because someone he's grown up playing with Has done exactly what he wants and he did beat Djokovic over in Paris after Djokovic won the first set in that Paris final He came back to win which the first time anyone has actually beaten Djokovic in a Masters 1000 final after Nole has won the first set So he's definitely destined for great things. Let me know down the comments below Do you think Holger Ruiner is going to win a slam in 2023 or what would be a good result out of slam for him next year? I'm thinking if he makes this semi-final of any of the slams probably the French Open being the most likely because that's where he's had His most success especially this year. He made the quarter-finals there already But what do you guys reckon how good can Holger Ruiner be in 2023 and you think you can do something at a slam next year?


We're honoured to be hosting the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Antonio Gateris, who tonight will be speaking on counter-terrorism and human rights, winning the fight, a topic which represents one of the great challenges of our time. It's fitting that this event is taking place at SOAS. We pride ourselves on being a place of vibrant and challenging debate. We're proud-looking, passionate and values-driven, a description that equally applies to tonight's special guest. Antonio Gateris is the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations and took office in January this year. Prior to his appointment as Secretary-General, he served as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015, and I had the privilege of working with Antonio during my time at the UN. We worked on some of the most challenging and difficult humanitarian crises facing the world, and he was a very, very special colleague. Antonio was Prime Minister of Portugal between 1995 and 2002, and as many of you will be aware, is a lifelong campaigner for justice and equality. Before I hand over to our special guest, a few housekeeping rules. Please put your phones on silent. Don't turn them off because we want you to tweet like crazy, but please put them on silent. Our hashtag is UN at SOAS. The far exits are on that side, on my left, there is also an exit to the right. In terms of format, the Secretary-General will speak first, and this will be followed by a discussion with the audience which I will moderate. Now, I will say this again before we start that, but I can only take one question at a time. Not everyone will get their question in, given that we have a time limit, and we have also been sent in questions from those who can't be here. I will do my very best, and to the journalists in the room, I will do my best to bring in one or two of you, but the Secretary-General is very clear that he wants as many students as possible to have the opportunity to ask questions. That's it from me by way of introduction. Please join me in welcoming tonight's very, very special guest, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I thank SOAS and Valerie Amos for bringing us together this evening. As Valerie said, I had the luck to be working side by side with her to support the most vulnerable of the vulnerable in the most tragic circumstances. And I have to tell you that she is a living humanitarian, a fantastic colleague, and a very dear friend. And I also want to thank all of you for being here to discuss about one of the most difficult and challenging issues of our time, combating the global threat of terrorism without compromising our respect for human rights. Let me be clear from the outset. Nothing justifies terrorism. No cause, no grievance. Nothing can ever excuse the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, the want and destruction of lives and livelihoods, and the creation of panic for its own sake. Terrorism has unfortunately been with us in various forms across ages and continents. But modern terrorism is being waged on an entirely different scale. It is notable for its geographic span. No country can claim to be immune. And it has become an unprecedented threat to international peace, security and development. As conflicts have grown in intensity and number over the past decade, terrorist attacks have increased and spread, destroying societies and destabilising entire regions. Last year, at least 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred in more than 100 countries, resulting in more than 25,000 total deaths and 33,000 people injured. And while the spotlight tends to focus on terrorism in the West, we should never forget that the vast majority of terrorist attacks take place in developing countries. In 2016, nearly three quarters of all deaths caused by terrorism were in just five states. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria and Somalia. It was estimated that the global economic impact of terrorism reached 90 billion US dollars in 2015, but this cost may be far higher. And in 2015 again, terrorism costs amounted to 73% of gross domestic product in Iraq and 16.8% in Afghanistan. Modern terrorism is not only different in scale, but also different in nature. It has grown more complex and with new models apparently. How can one fail to be horrified by trucks and cars ramming into a peaceful crowd with the intent of maiming and killing? It happened here in the streets of London, but also in Jerusalem, Baghdad, Barcelona and more recently in New York. How can one fail to be shaken to the core by the use of young girls that stand 10 years old as human bombs in Maiduguri, northern Nigeria? It is an assault on our security and on our humanity. And the fact that the state of shock and terror of those murderous attacks is nowadays amplified by the 24 hours near cycle, social media and cynical political manipulation makes it even more impactful. This has brought an acute perception of insecurity among communities that challenge the social fabric. A secretary general of an organization established, and I quote, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and I quote, I am painfully aware and concerned by the risk of fragmentation posed by global terrorism. Dear friends, I am here in London and just down the road at the British Library you will find original copies of the Magna Carta. More than 800 years ago, that charter established that nobody should be imprisoned without due legal process and this established the principle of the rule of law. And it is no exaggeration to suggest that it laid the groundwork for the freedoms and liberties that terrorism directly assaults. At its core, human rights are a true recognition of our common humanity. They unite people while terrorism thrives on divisions. And I'm here in London, humbled by the long journey across history that gave recognition to the aspirations of people to justice, freedom and human rights. And those are the very aspirations that led so many young men and women when I was living in the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal to fight for human rights and democracy in my own country. And I believe it is you, the young people who can take up the torch of those enduring aspirations. Based on all my experience and with a sense of urgency, I am here in London to deliver a simple message. Terrorism is fundamentally the denial and destruction of human rights. And the flight against terrorism will never succeed by perpetuating the same denial and destruction. We must relentlessly fight terrorism to protect human rights. And at the same time when we protect human rights, we are tackling the root causes of terrorism. For the power of human rights to bond is stronger than the power of terrorism to divide. Dear friends, let me reiterate two important points. Number one, terrorism should not be associated with any religion, ethnicity or race. And number two, there is no excuse for terrorism. Let me stress this once more. Article five of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism bombing states that, and I quote, such criminal acts are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature. And I quote, contrary to the propaganda of terrorist groups, terrorist acts are not legitimate murders, but murders plain and simple and such criminal acts. But we must admit that there are indeed conditions conducive to terrorism and violent extremism. And if we want to address and avoid the gap between these global threats and our collective response, we need to pin them down. First, it is clear that terrorist groups exploit conflict zones and ungoverned territories. While terrorism often starts in conflict zones, it reaches far beyond them, organizing and inspiring attacks and radicalizing people across borders and continents. Second, lack of development and inclusive governance, including extreme poverty, inequality, as well as exclusion and discrimination are also drivers for terrorism and violent extremism. Incoming inequalities are a growing trend within both developing and developed countries. But a new study on the threat of violent extremism in Africa found that lack of education and poverty were factors behind radicalization, but at the final tipping point was often state violence and abuse of power. 93% of all terrorist acts between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries with high levels of extrajudicial death, torture and imprisonment without trial. And third, internet has become an asset for terrorist groups to disseminate violent extremist propaganda, recruiting new converts and raising money. It was first used in the 90s by white supremacists in the United States to reach a wider audience easily and cheaply, giving a voice to many forms of racism and anti-semitism. The recruitment of violent extremists through social media is nowadays central to dash terrorist campaigns. Although the drivers of radicalization to violence vary from country to country and even within countries, terrorism draws strength from resentment, humiliation and lack of education. And terrorism thrives where disenfranchised people meet nothing but indifference and nihilism and it is deeply rooted in hopelessness and despair. That is why human rights, all human rights, political and civil rights but also economic, social and cultural rights are unquestionably a part of the solution in fighting terrorism. Dear friends, the threat of terrorism is real, dangerous and unfortunately here for years to come. Member states have a primary responsibility for protecting their citizens and as former prime minister I know all too well this priority to enhance safety and security. Military operations in Syria and Iraq have evicted dash from its strong goals in Mosul and Raqqa but it would be a mistake to assume that military operations alone will eradicate terrorism. Technologies nearly label terrorist groups to reach disenfranchised people everywhere in the world and impress on them.  And I'd like to suggest five key counter-terrorism priorities and underscore our respect for human rights and the rule of law will secure long term benefits in the fight against it. Number one, we need much stronger international cooperation on counter-terrorism. I heard this message loud and clear during the high level week of my first general assembly of the United Nations segment in September. 152 leaders, 80% of all members of the UN highlighted the need to step up the exchange of information to be more effective in fighting terrorism. In a globalized world, the failing of one state can quickly become a threat to its neighbors and far beyond. Our watch words should therefore be unity, solidarity and collaboration. And it means unity at the United Nations. One of my first reforms as Secretary General was to create a counter-terrorism office to coordinate the 38 different UN groups and offices working in this area. And I intend in that regard to develop a new UN system-wide global counter-terrorism coordination compact. But it means unity in the international community. There is an urgent need for governments and security agencies to coblate more effectively in fighting terror while respecting human rights. There is still no consensus on a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. But there are 19 different international conventions and many regional instruments in this field that make it easier to prosecute terrorists and enhance protection and cooperate in other key areas. They are a true manifestation of the international rule of law. Signing them and ratifying them is not enough. All governments must get serious about implementing them. And furthermore, resolutions of the Security Council often complement those conventions. The Security Council has imposed sanctions against terrorist groups, but it has also played a leading role to enact common rules on foreign terrorist fighters, financial measures against terrorist groups and more recently international judicial cooperation. Capacity building and appropriate expertise remain crucial for all member states to implement those provisions. And member states also need to increase international efforts to address the sources of financing, including suppressing money laundering and illicit trafficking. But these multilateral efforts are insufficient against today's threats. Security services on the ground also needs to get better at exchanging information and acting on it, respecting always human rights. To give just one example, police in certain countries are divided into local forces, which literally speak different languages and are reluctant to share information. It is time for a new era of intelligence sharing and collaboration to save lives. As a small contribution to these efforts, next year I intend to convene the first ever UN summit of vets of counterterrorism agencies to forge new partnerships and build a relationship of trust. Dear friends, the second key route to more effective counterterrorism is a sustained focus on prevention. First, preventing conflict and sustainable development are our first line of defence against terrorism. When I took up the position of Secretary General, I made this a priority calling for a surge of preventive diplomacy. The international community is already addressing some of the drivers of violent extremism. The 2006 UN global counterterrorism strategy sets out strategic priorities and comprehensive recommendations. One of its four pillars is ensuring the full respect of human rights and the rule of law when countering terrorism. Prevention is true, includes deterrence. We need strong cross-border cooperation to ensure that highly trained terrorists who travel to join conflicts and commit atrocities face prosecution and the national laws if they return. But prevention also means addressing the factors that radicalise young people and make terrorism an attractive option for them. Second, development is the best way to tackle poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity and public services that feed this pair. Development is an important goal in itself, but should never be seen as a means to an end. But it is also true that sustainable and inclusive development can unquestionably make a decisive contribution to preventing conflict and terrorism. The United Nations Development System helps governments tackle some of the root causes, poverty, inequality, use and employment and the lack of public services such as health and education. Right now, United Nations agencies are supporting national governments in implementing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The world's shared blueprint for peace, prosperity, dignity for all, but also a powerful antidote to some of the causes of terrorism. Third, investment in young people must be a major element of any prevention strategy. Most new recruits to terrorist organisations are between 17 and 27 years old. Extremist groups can exploit feelings of disillusionment and alienation, offering a twisted sense of purpose to disaffected young people, including women and girls. And one major reason for this is lack of opportunity. Jobs, education and vocational training for young people must be an absolute priority in national development plans and in international development cooperation. Young people are an overwhelmingly positive asset to our societies. We must invest in them and empower them. It is no surprise that the Kingdom of Jordan, with so many threats on its borders with Syria and Iraq, has wisely led efforts in the United Nations on the role of use in countering violent extremism and promoting peace. And we stand with all young victims of terrorism, from the Chibok girls of Nigeria to the Yazidi women and girls of Iraq to young boys coerced into atrocious acts. Fourth, we must pay great attention to the gender inequalities and stereotypes that drive terrorist groups. Regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology of these groups, one common element of their agendas is the subjugation of women and girls. In parts of the world they are being sold into sexual slavery to finance terrorist groups and sexual violence itself is used as a tactic of terror. And fifth, prevention also means winning the fight on the internet. Terrorists are losing physical ground in Syria and Iraq, but getting virtual ground in cyberspace. Beating them will require coordinated and determined global action. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube have launched an anti-terror partnership, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, aimed at sorting the spread of extremist content online. This is a start. We need to keep up the momentum. And our welcome recent advances in this area by the British, French and Italian governments at United Nations General Assembly. We will never be able to prevent terrorists from communicating entirely, but we must make this as difficult as possible. Number three, upholding human rights and the rule of law is the surest way to prevent a vicious circle of instability and resentment. Terrorist groups, including Daesh and Al Qaeda, thrive in conflict zones. Iraq, Syria and Libya most notably. Violations of international humanitarian law are correlated with protected conflict and radicalization. I therefore call on our parties to conflict with a deep sense of urgency to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and human rights in situations of armed conflict. Taking all precautions to avoid civilian casualties, giving full access to humanitarian assistance, running detention centres in accordance with the starts of prisons of war, prohibiting torture, these all measures speak to who we are. But it's not only about our values, it's also about efficiency. These rules were codified in the 19th century to prevent the suffering of war victims in modern conflict. Henri Dumont was well known as instrumental, but lawyers from the United States with the Liber Code in 1863 and in Russia with the Martin's Clause, the United Kingdom, France and many other countries all contributed. They go far beyond regulating the conduct of war on the battlefield. They ensure that lasting peace and reconciliation will be possible. Facing threats of an unprecedented nature, states are scrambling to enhance efficiency of their counter-terrorism legislation. Iton vigilance and target surveillance are essential if we are to disrupt terrorist networks, track their activities and target their finances. But without a firm basis in human rights, counter-terrorism policies can be misused and abused. They can actually make us less safe by undermining good governance and rule of law. As I said earlier, terrorism is fundamentally the denial and destruction of human rights and the fight against terrorism will never succeed by perpetuating the same denial and destruction. These raises very difficult questions. How can governments take preventive security measures without undermining due process and legal safeguards? How can they adapt judicial systems to make more prepared in the face of imminent threats? What legal safeguards should control state surveillance? How can we ensure effective border control while re-establishing the full integrity of the refugee protection regime? I firmly believe that the principles of international criminal law offer a unifying framework. A great Italian thinker during the Age of Enlightenment, Cesare Beccaria, laid the groundwork for those principles in 1764. He said there should be no punishment without a law, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law and that punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. Those principles are reflected in international human rights conventions and they remain as relevant as ever. But unfortunately counter-terrorist policies may be used and are being used to suppress peaceful protests and legitimate opposition movements, to shut down debate, to target and detain human rights defenders and to stigmatize minorities. Such measures do not contribute to lasting peace. Instead they may contribute to lasting instability and resentment generating chaos. I reiterate that society is based on respect for human rights and economic opportunities for all represent the most tangible and meaningful alternative to the recruitment strategies of terrorist groups. Force, we must win the battle of ideas. We should never shrink from pointing out the cynicism and errors of terrorism. At a new heart of darkness, we should build a new age of enlightenment. When terrorists portray violence as the best way to address inequality or grievances, we must answer with non-violence and inclusive decision making. When terrorists claim to be punishing people they accuse of betrayal or exploitation, we must point to robust judicial systems and legal accountability. We must address messages of hate with inclusivity, diversity, the protection of minorities and vulnerable people. We need to invest in social cohesion, education and inclusive societies where diversity is perceived as a richness not a threat and where everybody feels that is or identity is respected and that they fully belong to the community as a whole. Political, religious and community leaders must fulfil their responsibilities in promoting a culture of tolerance and mutual respect. Fighting bigotry and patriarchy, standing up for free media and the right to dissent, promoting the rule of law, demanding accountability and justice, the brave activists and civil society organizations that take on these issues are keeping us all safer. De-radicalisation can work. Repentant terrorists should understand that this change is possible and we must pay attention to how they turn their backs on false ideals. Teacher, academics and social works are on the front line and they also protect us. I acknowledge and honour their contribution and I urge everyone with influence to support them. Fifth and finally, we must lift up the voices of the victims of terrorism. Some of our best guides are the victims of survivors of terrorist attacks who consistently call for accountability and results, not blanket measures or collective punishments. I welcome the decision of the General Assembly to establish an international day of remembrance and tribute to the victims of terrorism to be observed every year on the 21st of August. And I pay tribute to the communities around the world that are showing resilience in response to terrorist attacks. They are countering violent extremism every day in their homes, schools and places of worship. Here in the United Kingdom, the entire city of Manchester came together earlier this year in an inspiring example of solidarity and unity. And in London, your mayors have become described terrorism, and I quote, as an assault on our shared values of tolerance, freedom and respect. We must resist stereotyping and seeing vast communities as monoliths if we are to develop effective ways to fight these menace. Stereotypes have many sources, including the media. We all have a responsibility to base our narratives on facts and to avoid doing the terrorists' work for them by demonizing or stigmatizing certain groups. In some countries, the majority of terrorist plots and attacks are perpetrating by right-wing extremist groups, and yet the media focuses far more on attacks by immigrants or members of ethnic and religious minorities. Refugees fleeing conflict are frequently targeted. It is a horrible distortion to their plight to accuse victims of terrorism of the crime they have just fled. We are failing in our duty when we refuse to support all those affected by terrorism, the communities, victims, survivors and their families. These groups constantly remind us that without a criminal process there is no possibility of justice. When we respect the human rights of victims and provide them with support and information, we reduce the lasting damage done by terrorists to individuals, communities and societies. Dear friends, yearly this year I sat in a tent in Kabul talking to some of the victims of terrorism. The women I met had been forced from their homes by a wave of bombings. They had lost everything. They told me of their will to return home, to rebuild their lives, to get their children back to school as soon as peace and security would be re-established. They had not lost their face in our common humanity. They kept hope alive and we must do the same. We cannot allow terrorism to challenge the fundamental principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, in national constitutions and international law. The foundations of our global order are the strongest protection we have against these courts. We can only win this flight by upholding the dignity and worse of the human person. Principles, however, will not be enough. I call on world leaders to lead and I want them to tell that beyond security measures we need education, social cohesion and respect for human rights. That is how young people will avoid decent illusions and become clear thinking and enlightened citizens. We have work to do and I urge you all to join. Thank you very much. Antonio, thank you so much for an incredibly wide-ranging speech which not only set out some of the challenges we face but also focused on some of the things that we need to do. But if I may take chair's advantage just for just one moment before I turn to the audience. You talk passionately about the importance of this being something that we all work on together and that all member states of the United Nations need to work on together. And yet we see day after day member states of the United Nations who have signed up to the principles of the charter, not actually taking their accountability and responsibility seriously, particularly when it comes to human rights. What do you say to them? First of all we need everything to avoid it and we need to have permanently a pedagogic relationship with them to make sure that they can avoid this kind of behavior, showing them that that is counterproductive. As I said, the majority of those that went into terrorist actions come from countries where human rights are violated and that violation is sometimes the trigger of someone to join a violent group or to go to fight somewhere else as you know in the different conflict theaters we have in the world or to become a terrorist in their own country. So this is counterproductive. Then we need to use the UN human rights instruments and there are a number. We have the Human Rights High Commissioner, we have Commissions of Inquiry, we had special rapporters, we have a number of elements. And ideally in some circumstances we should have the capacity to have the Security Council acting. Now it is true that the Security Council has been very reluctant in taking decisions in difficult situations. We all know there are divisions and there is a difficult conflict between the so-called national sovereignty agenda and the human rights agenda. To be clear, comparing things with what I witnessed when my time in government in the 90s, I think that we have to recognize that the national sovereignty agenda has gained ground in relation to the human rights agenda recently. And in many situations the only thing we can do is to speak out. You have done it many times, has had the UN humanitarian action to speak out and to be able to denounce those violations that it is impossible to address in any other form. Thank you. I'm going to turn over to our audience. I can see many hands up already. Are you going to take one question at a time or do you want to take two, three at a time? How would you like to do it, Antonio? I prefer one on one. In my time in parliament we used to sometimes try to have five or six in order to avoid the most difficult ones. Well, we won't do that. So we'll take, yes, and then I'll come over here. Thank you, Antonio. You mentioned the importance of the rule of law. Sorry, where are you because I'm... Perhaps say who you are very quickly. Sure. My name's Esther. I'm on the Master's Programme for International Politics. So you mentioned the importance of the rule of law in holding those responsible for terrorism to account. Do you think the Obama administration was perhaps errant in choosing to assassinate Osama bin Laden rather than capturing him perhaps and putting him in front of a criminal court? Sorry. The question was, do you think that the Obama administration would have been better capturing Osama bin Laden rather than killing him? Given what you said in your speech about what states should do and the importance of rule of law. You're not going to get an easy question. It is obvious for me that the right way to do these things is to make sure that there is effective accountability and effective accountability means that we bring the person into court and that that court condemns the person and then things follow in that direction. We came to a situation in which this has been replaced by the concept of war on terror, which means that for many states the fight against terrorism is being handled not in the context of the way to fight it in line with a certain number of procedures like the ones that we were discussing. But as a simple war. I hope that this concept does not gain ground because if this concept gains ground the risk of this becoming a kind of a self enforcing mechanism of self enhancing mechanism for terrorism itself is real. The most important way to fight terrorism is to avoid the capacity of terrorist organizations to recruit and the capacity of terrorist organizations to recruit depends highly on the way terrorism is fought. Sometimes the difficult way is the most effective. The easy way looks more spectacular but might be less effective in the long term. Thank you. Good evening Secretary General. Thank you very much for your very inspiring speech. My name is Dylan Cuwende. I'm a second year student at UCL and an Amos Bursary Scholar. My question is how do we reconcile living in a free and open society with the protection of its citizens and do you think it's quite unrealistic to suggest that we can reduce the risk of terrorism to zero which I imagine is a sentiment that we all share most? I do believe that protection of citizens is essential. I do believe governments need to have a number of important mechanisms. Intelligence is essential. The capacity to infiltrate groups to get adequate knowledge about what they are doing and to be able to persecute them effectively is essential. What I believe is that to do it effectively it is impossible, it is necessary not to mix fighting terrorism with what happens in some parts of the world in which based on the idea that we are fighting terrorism we just put in jail leaders of the opposition or we close the newspapers or we inhibit the space for the civil society to work. So it needs to be clearly a set of measures targeting terrorism and not using terrorism as a pretext to do other things in relation to the, because what we want is to protect the freedom, the freedom of our citizens. But your concern was in the protection of citizens. We're reconciling that with living in and being in a free society. So it's exactly what I said. You need to concentrate these in specific measures that target terrorist organizations and gather intelligence in line with the rule of law and not mixing it with the kind of other measures that we see in some parts of the world. But one thing for me is clear. It would be an illusion to think that we will be able to completely eradicate terrorism in the near future. And that is why I found the example given by the citizens of Manchester so inspiring. Because instead of reacting as in some parts of the world has happened, dividing, persecuting groups or what, there was a come together and there was the capacity to completely distinguish what is a terrorist attack from communities that have nothing to do with the terrorists themselves just because they share the same ethnicity, the same religion or the same political background. And this extraordinary example is what I think is inspiring, which means we will not be able to eradicate terrorism, but we need to make sure that terrorism does not change the structure of our societies, the principles of our freedoms and of our democracy and our way of life. And the way we are able to build resilient and tolerant societies in the community. Thank you. I'll choose, keep your hands up please, but while you do that, there's a question that came in on social media. The term terrorism has become so diluted in current discourse, is it still useful or has it lost its value? I think that it is clear what terrorism is, and I think it's clear that we know what it means, even if it was impossible for the member states to come together and adopt a definition of terrorism and a convention against terrorism. There are these 19 different specific conventions, but I think the term terrorism is perfectly adequate to describe what are indeed terrorist attacks. What is unacceptable is to use the term terrorism as an example of what is a terrorist attack. For the member states to come together and adopt a definition of terrorism and a convention against terrorism. There are these 19 different specific conventions, but I think the term terrorism is perfectly adequate to describe what are indeed terrorist attacks. What is unacceptable is to use the term terrorism to describe other forms of oppression that might happen in some parts of the world and against which we must also fight with the same determination. First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to speak with us today. My name is Sekander and I am a postgraduate student in international studies and diplomacy. My question is a bit more human rights focused. What is the UN's current role in mediating the Kashmir conflict given the escalation in human rights violations in recent times? And do you see a viable solution to the dispute? Thank you. I think some people think that in a conflict situation we need to close our eyes to all the crimes committed in order to be able to achieve peace or to have effective mediation. I believe that no peace will be sustainable without accountability, which means that I believe that all the efforts that are made to create conditions for peace to be established need to have a component of truth, accountability, as conditions for effective reconciliation. So the idea that we can just forget about human rights to have effective mediation is in my opinion a completely false idea. Thank you. And the next question there and then we'll come over here. My name is Azamati. Sorry, where are you? My name is Azamati. Every company manufactures things so that they are able to sell it to specific customers. From 1947 to 1989 during the Cold War, there were less than five bomb manufacturing companies in the United States and other members of the Security Council. Now, during that year, those bomb manufacturing companies earned something in excess of $300 billion. It means that they sold their bombs that they manufactured to the warring factions. Now, the Cold War era is no more, but then it is believed that... Can I ask you to come to your question? My question is that the members of the Security Council who are supposed to help in protecting... Sorry, who are supposed to help in countering terrorism? Host institutions that still manufacture bombs and they tax them and they get money from them. Now, how feasible is the United Nations idea of countering terrorism? If these same countries are the countries that have institutions that produce bombs and these bombs are sold to individuals that carry out terror acts? I am a true believer in disarmament and I am a true believer that one of the tragic things of our age is that we spend much more money in military equipment than we spent in humanitarian action. This is the truth. But that is the reality of our world and it's not by chance that the most important powers in the world are also the biggest exporters of war material. I do believe that there isn't... I don't think that there is any country that sells weapons to terrorists doing it on purpose. I don't think it happens like that. What is true is that when you have a market and then the market becomes expanded, terrorist organizations also benefit from the existence of that market. Whatever can be done in relation to disarmament is essential. There are some important steps. There was, as you know, agreement in relation to chemical weapons, in relation to nuclear disarmament has unfortunately not going fast, practically installed since the big agreements of the end of the Cold War, the last between Gorbat Sholf and Reagan. Afterwards, unfortunately, the nuclear disarmament has not made any progress. There were important measures in relation to, for instance, the important conventions in relation to personal mines in relation to cluster bombs. There is the traffic of small weapons that again is covered, but unfortunately we still have military industry with a very important weight in many economies, especially in the economies of the biggest countries. I'm going here next and then I'm coming to you after that. Hi, sir. My name is Ytana. I'm an undergraduate student here and I also lead the SOAS UN Society. My question is how can we as students contribute to the UN's agenda and strategy to combat terrorism? Thank you. I think it's being fully assuming citizenship and I think it is making sure that societies understand that diversity is a richness not a threat. Terrorists today do not need to have an organisational mechanism to come to any community to recruit people. Through the internet it's very simple to those that feel disenfranchised, that feel discriminated, that are all rise by things that they believe are the responsibility of certain countries or certain groups. Those that today are recruited by terrorism can be in any community and this is the biggest danger because those mechanisms of operations that are done through a more sophisticated system that involve international cooperation within terrorist groups etc. are more easy to detect and are more easy to fight and more easy to progress in the capacity of intelligence services to dismount those operations. But the problem is that all of a sudden somewhere nobody expects someone picks a knife or goes to the supermarket buys a number of things according to something that is in the internet and manufactures a bomb and kills a number of people or comes with a gun and kills a number of people. The best way to avoid these situations is to create an inclusive society. We are sure that people understand that diversity is a richness not a threat and to bet in the social cohesion of the community to work for the social cohesion of the community where we live for everybody to feel that their identities are respected but at the same time that they belong. This is not something that governments alone can do, this is something that citizens, the civil society has to do and I think that each one of us has a responsibility to make our societies vaccinated against terrorism thanks to the social cohesion and the mutual respect that the different parts of the community are able to enjoy. I'm going to take a question there and then I'm coming downwards. I've got this one next. Good evening. Sorry, where are you? I'm up here. My name is Clio Esonwine Caney. I'm a master's student in international studies and diplomacy. Thank you very much for the solutions that you have presented for countering terrorism. I personally think that a lot of the answers to the issues of terrorism are found through the answers to a question that is not addressed often enough and that is what do terrorists or what does terrorism want? Terrorism wants to terrorise. That's the logic, no? That's what makes terrorism different from any other crime. It's the idea to create panic in a society. It's an instrument of war. Why does someone come to that position, to want to terrorise? I think that this depends a lot on the frustrations, the feelings of discrimination or persecution that can exist in many societies. It's not true that it's only poverty on the contrary. Sometimes we see it in middle class families. It's the sense of injustice or discrimination that may lead in several situations, people, some unsane, some sane, but to this kind of desperate response. What we need to be able to explain to them is even if the cause they fight for is absolutely just and there are many injustices in the world we can fight for. Even if there is good reasons for them to feel angry or to feel that there is a grievance, terrorism can never be justified by that anger or that grievance. People should fight for their ideals in different ways, but never through terrorism. This is something that requires a lot of investment in the cohesion of societies, systems and if one looks at the most impacted areas, namely the Middle East and North Africa today, use unemployment is a dramatic factor and we see very little effort in international cooperation to address specifically as a total priority the problems of use unemployment. There are lots of things that could be done. I feel sometimes when, for instance, in the cooperation of the European Union or Europe with countries like Tunisia. Tunisia did a fantastic democratic transition. Tunisia is an example of how a country could take out dictatorship, create a democratic society and doing it in a way that even Islamic parties can be integrated in the system. And yet Tunisia has furnished, has provided a large number of warriors to the wars in Syria and Iraq and of course with a major terrorist threat. The reason is 40% unemployment in youth. And I think for Europe to support Tunisia, it would not be very expensive, to support Tunisia in order to address the problems of unemployment of its use and to receive also part of these young people in different ways of training or in temporary jobs and then allowing them to come back and to do something useful in their own country. To support Tunisia on these would be, in my opinion, much more important than just to try to convince Tunisia not to let people put themselves in boats and come to Europe. And this is the priority that I have not yet seen in international cooperation. Use unemployment being, in my opinion, the most important objective that should exist in national development plans and international cooperation. I see lots of hands. I have got a list. I'm not sure we can get through it all. Antonio, I'm going to have to ask you to make your answers. A little briefer if you can get through. We always had this when we were at the U.Ed. So we can get through more questions. So we have one here and then I'm going to come over to the gentleman here next. Mr Gotech, his name is Francesca. I'm Portuguese and I'm a master L.C. student. You can speak in Portuguese if you want. So that everyone understands. On what you just said about addressing the roots of the problem, I'd like to ask what is your message for young people around the world that are affected by high grievances in the communities such as poverty and employment and corruption to stand up to terrorism happening in their own communities and countries instead of joining terrorist organizations, especially in developing countries, because often these motivations are the ones that make young people engage in war and conflict and acts of terror that affect us all. Thank you. I think that what you said is the demonstration that we need to bet strongly on prevention and to create the conditions for people not to feel so desperate that they easily embark in the propaganda of terrorist groups. A rebuller from the Middle East in London. In your speech you spoke about how foreign government should prosecute foreign fighters who return to their country. No, no, no, based on the crimes they have committed. Based on the crimes? It's not the fact that you have been somewhere that justifies that you are prosecuted. I believe in the British legislation, the crimes committed by British citizens abroad can be brought to court. And that is what I sought. I mean, those foreign fighters that have committed crimes should be facing the justice. Sir, I wanted to finish my question. Sorry. So would you therefore be against the British policy called by senior intelligence officers in the UK and also politicians who call for IS foreign fighters to be killed on the battlefield? So many British politicians have called on British IS foreign fighters to be killed on the battlefield instead of being allowed to be come back to the UK. What is your stance on that? Well, I have never heard this and I don't think anybody can wish that letting people being killed is the solution of our problems. I do believe that those British citizens or Portuguese citizens or whatever citizens that have committed crimes and come back should be prosecuted according to law. Geoffrey Robertson, I am a trustee of so as thank you for honouring us with your presence this evening. Next Wednesday will be a red letter day for the United Nations and its contribution to the rule of law. General Mladic, charged as the architect of genocide, the worst form of terrorism in Srebrenica, will receive his verdict in the last trial at the court dealing with former Yugoslavia. That court has convicted, I think, 167 international criminals and none of them from Africa. And there you have the record. What future do you see for international justice mechanisms given the reluctance of African countries particularly to go with the ICC? But I think we should pay tribute to Africa in the sense that most African countries have ratified the Rome Statute. And even if there is sometimes a debate that is not so positive, the fact is with the exception of Burundi, all African countries remain in the ICC. And I think that the difficult moment is overcome, in my opinion. I think the difficult moment is overcome. The grievance of the Africans was to say that why only Africans are being targeted. The problem is that, unfortunately, in the other conflict areas, the countries involved are countries that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute, like Syria, like Iraq, etc. And the Security Council has shown very clear reluctance in sending whoever to the ICC for reasons that are related to what I said about national sovereignty and human rights agendas. But I am a believer that international penal justice is an absolutely vital instrument for our world. And it's not only a question of justice and deterrence. I think it is clear for me that the problems we have today cannot be solved by countries alone in general. It's obvious for me that we need multilateral governance solutions. And one of the multilateral governance solutions is related to penal justice that is administered internationally when countries are not able to do it by themselves. So I think we should do everything possible to support the international criminal court and to create the conditions for more and more countries to be able to join. And we should call the Security Council members to be able to fully accept their responsibilities, referring the cases that are justifiable to the ICC as it should happen. We've got overtime, but if everyone is disciplined, I'm going to take three more questions. So one here, then one here, and then the gentleman here right next to you, to your left. OK, let's go. My name is Maria, and I'm a second year economics and politics student at SAAS. And my question for you is in regards to what you said about the response in Manchester. So what happens when people and countries don't respond like the people in Manchester do? And what can the UN do in order to ensure that the response to terrorism is one of peace and love and positivity other than hate and this kind of shift that we've seen in a lot of Europe and North America? Into a more protectionist view? Well, I think we should stand up for our values. And I'm, as I said, a true believer in multilateralism. I'm a true believer. Globalisation is, I think, irreversible. I think we need a more fair globalisation, but it is a total nonsense to think that we can revert to a nationalistic inward looking position. And I think we need to fight for those values. And what the UN can do is to use all its instruments in order to be able to express those values and to facilitate all those organisations in the civil society and all those entities that are able to fight for those values. I mean, there is no way. These are things that you cannot impose on people. These are things that you need to engage and to need to discuss and you need to promote with all the instruments that you have at your disposal. Short. It will be. My name is Phil Clark. I teach issues of conflict and justice here at SOAS. Secretary-General, my question is, you've emphasised prosecutions very heavily tonight as one of the key mechanisms for tackling terrorism. Prosecutions. You've emphasised courts and trials very heavily. But I wonder, does that suggest that you don't think that two other key mechanisms that have often been used to tackle conflict are not applicable in cases of terrorism? Namely, the use of amnisties for terrorists and the role of negotiations with terrorist organisations. Is your position, is the position of the UN more broadly, that amnisties and talking to terrorists are completely off the table? Thank you. Now, as a matter of fact, humanitarians talk to terrorists and I in the past and I believe the same has happened to Valerie. We have discussed access for humanitarian action to areas where terrorist organisations operate. I remember Syria in areas of all-newsdomination it was possible to have humanitarian access. We have to talk with them. So, I mean, to talk is not the problem. Amnisties, I don't think are the solution. I think a culture in which we use amnisties as a tool pretending that we solve, that creates conditions for peace agreements based on amnisties, I think it's an illusion. In my opinion, it is essential to have accountability associated with all-peace processes and to guarantee. And then we can have different mechanisms of justice, transitional justice, justice and reconciliation. I mean, there are many mechanisms and there are different experiences that have been used in the world that were quite positive. But just to say, okay, let's forget about everything and please do it again next time. This is, I don't think, a good idea. Thank you, Mr Secretary. So my question is, there have been successful models for, excuse me, there have been successful models. Oh, my name is Wandy and I'm from CISD. But there have been successful models for prosecuting war crime criminals. For example, the United Nations had one after the end of World War II. So what is the role of the United Nations facilitating these kinds of things in areas that have conflict? And why has that kind of fallen off? Now, the international crime, we have created some courts in some specific areas. And I mean, the ex-Yugoslavia is a fantastic example, but there are other examples of courts. For instance, Rwanda, that have worked in my opinion in an extremely positive way and we could go on giving several other examples. At a certain moment there was the idea, which I think is a very good idea. It's better instead of having a court for each situation that justifies it to have an international criminal court. Unfortunately, there are many countries that are not parties to the statute. And because of that, knowing that the Security Council has the right to ask the court to act in a certain number of circumstances where the countries themselves are not members to the statute. And because of that, the court cannot act by itself. Unfortunately, as I said, we have witnessed in the recent past that there is very little appetite of the Security Council to do so. And this is a major concern for us. It's a young lady who had her hand up almost from the beginning. If it's really short, you can have your question. Really short. Hi, thank you, Mr Secretary General. My name is Cecilia. I'm a student at CSD here at SOAS. My question is not about terrorism, but in general because you mentioned youth and we are a lot of students here. Seeing how recent events at the United Nations is mostly youth speaking to youth or when we get the opportunity to speak to other head of member states or similar people, they only dismiss us. How do you plan personally to get the youth more involved to solve issues in the world today? Thank you. To get youth more involved? Yes. To solve the problems of the world. And this is your final question, Antonio, so go for it. That is the question I would like to know how to answer because if I would know how to answer, we would be working very strongly in that direction and we are still struggling to do it. The empowerment of youth is, in my opinion, a fundamental mechanism to address all these problems, not only terrorism but many others. International organisations like UN have difficulty in, first of all, and I think the same happens to governments in general, as difficulties to communicate with the youth. It's also a generational question. Our system of communication, and I hope that the new and the Secretary General of Communication, that is by the way a British citizen is sitting with us today, will be able to address and solve this problem. Our system of communication is not youth-friendly. It's not youth-friendly. It's still sometimes a little bit de-no-sauric. And the way youth communicate and interact today is very different from the generation that is in power in most political structures at national level and at international level and in the UN. And so this is the first difficulty. And the second difficulty is that the problem is not only a problem of communication. The problem is how can we make sure that young people can indeed participate in the political processes, in the peace negotiations, in the definition of policies. And there we are clearly lagging behind what you'd be useful. More. I think we are witnessing a situation in which with the ageing of societies, and this is happening, more and more decisions are taken based on a majority of citizens of my age, I would say. Even if most of these decisions will have essentially an impact in the lives of young people. And this is a problem that modern democracies have not yet solved. And I believe that we need to work hard to be able to solve this problem at national level and we need to work hard to solve this problem at the level of international organisations like the UN, where the empowerment of youths and the full participation of youths in decision making processes is not yet working properly.  Which I think tells its own story. And I told her, please misbehave. And you told her to misbehave. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank Antonio Deter. Apologies to all of you whose questions we could not get in, but I think you would all agree that a wide-ranging speech, a huge agenda and a huge amount for us to do. So once again, Antonio, thank you very much indeed.


An Indonesian influencer was just sentenced to two years in jail for eating pork on TikTok and the internet is in a huge debate about it. Yeah, Lina Latfiawati, known as Lina Mukherjee on social media, she said an Islamic phrase, a Muslim prayer before she ate. Bismillah, eh, I forgot. Guys. But then she ate pork rinds. When she was in Bali, Bali is mostly a Hindu zone. That's why they had the pork rinds. She herself is Muslim. She got charged under essentially disrespecting or like violating a religion law. She got two years, $16,000 fine, Andrew. This is a big deal and a lot of people got a lot of opinions about it. Whoa. So is this the government coming down hard on an influencer because the person has influence? Or do you think anybody who is in this situation would have the law come down this heart? Obviously, we're not like Indonesian law experts here. Okay, we're just gathering what we can from it and giving you our opinion. But anyways, guys, please hit that like button. Check out other episodes of the Hop Hop Boys. Because this is, it does raise kind of an interesting question about the whole globe, judging how a society has ran, whether or not we agree with it or not, which I would say most people disagree with this. And also, it actually raises some interesting questions about like, what is respect and what is freedom, depending on like, who's defining these words, right? So I guess, David, to get into the law of it, what do you, what is it saying that she's getting charged with? All right, so she's basically not getting charged with eating the pork, but getting charged with violating the religion by uttering the religious phrase before she eats it. So you mean by like trolling the religion, she's getting in trouble for disrespecting a religion, which is Islam, which happens to be the main religion? Right, the 90% religion that she is also a part of herself. So they're saying, basically saying that because she's an influencer and she was toying this line, basically knowing that she was going to get in trouble to get more views, to make more money, there's certain things that we are not going to allow you to play with. Obviously, let's be honest, the courts, they're probably run by more traditional people from an older generation, probably not her generation. You know what I mean? But they gave her a harsh punishment, two years in prison. It is a harsh punishment. I mean, I think most people agree it's overly harsh. I mean, even a lot of Indonesians still agree that it is harsh for what she did. But I guess like, yeah, I guess what's the overall, like, what is your quick take on this? I think my quick take is this, that different societies, they run so differently and different like, even age ranges of different societies are like adherent to different things. Like, some people are really strict or maybe the younger generation is going to like ease up, but the older generation is still in power. If you look at the leadership of most large countries or any countries in the world, they're 60, 70, 80, 90 years old sometimes, right? So they're from the old internet, pre-internet days. But then these people, we're growing up in the global internet and we're like thinking everything is like one way. But then the older people, sometimes they tell the young people, no, we're still with the older ways. Yeah, yeah. And I still think it's generally old people still run in the world right now. My general take is like, man, you know, I feel like that they're making an example out of her because she has two million followers and her being influential. And I guess if they deem that what she was doing was trolling and disrespecting a religion and particularly the main religion, then that is against law. Because listen, you have freedom to be whatever religion you want in Indonesia. There are Christians, there's Catholics, there's Hindus and there's Muslims. There's Buddhists too, right? Yeah, there's Buddhists. So they all have the religion. You are free to practice your religion, but you're not free to disrespect a religion, especially Islam probably. So I guess what I'm saying though is like a lot, like, is it similar? Is this like a metaphor to how sometimes in America I'm like, dude, I think all prank YouTube channels should get demonetized. I think prank YouTubers should not be able to make as much money off of pranking real life society. So but to them, this is as bad as a prank, right? Because in Indonesia, because they're strict, they're conservative Muslims. Every culture got different like thresholds and sometimes it even varies state to state. Like, let's just use America, for example, just to take it out so people can understand it better. In North Carolina, there was a YouTuber who recently got shot in the stomach for pressing somebody in the mall. Like kind of be, I wouldn't say like life or death, but definitely being physically aggressive towards somebody in the mall. And the guy said, back up, back up, back up, get away from me. And the guy ended up shooting the YouTuber in the stomach. The YouTuber doesn't die, but actually under North Carolina law, they didn't charge that guy with attempted murder. They only ended up charging him with discharging a weapon in the mall, which was so basically he's going to go to jail, but he's not going to get like the tear of prosecution that he could have gotten, maybe even in a different state, because everybody in North Carolina, let's be honest, probably more like, yeah, I don't like it when those pranksters are running up on me either, you know what I mean? Or imagine in Texas, he might even got less charges. So it goes to show you, man, every it's even state to state, of course, country to country, civilization to civilization. I'm sure even state to state in Indonesia, region to region. You know, there's different regions that are governed by different things. Bali is a Hindu area of Indonesia. It is generally considered a little bit more like liberal open, but a lot of people are saying that Indonesia has been as progressively in the past few years become more and more strict and more and more conservative. So so unfortunately, yeah, I mean, this is pretty unfortunate. And it's almost like an internal thing within the society, because these societies are so big, just like American society, so big. Which fishbowl are you growing up with in within a large country? Anyway, let's just get into the comment section. Somebody said, man, it's so important to have separation of church and state. Somebody said, you know, cultural issues such as gun sex, drugs, everything varies so much around the world, and it can even vary state to state within province to province within a country. I think the thing is you just got to be aware of what fishbowl you're in. And if you play with fire, I sometimes you get burned, right? But it's not, you know what I mean? You could judge the fire for saying whether or if I was the fire master when I do set that fire, but the fire is the fire. Man, yeah, I mean, that's tough, man. Like I thought it's such a crazy sentence to get. Like I could see if she broke, if she was disrespected, I mean, I could see a fine. Maybe her TikTok getting taken down for a little bit or something. But if she really ends up doing two years in jail, that's it's pretty crazy. Yeah, I mean, some people were saying that they need to focus more on corruption or misappropriation of government funds. And this shows that the priorities are wrong because it's more about maintaining this or that. I don't know, guys. You guys let me know. Keep it civil in the comments section below. Somebody said, what people will do for attention, likes and fame. It's kind of funny, but sad. She was well aware of those draconian laws, but she's decided to flout them on camera. What was her end goal, huh? Someone said, yeah, her end goal was just likes and notoriety.  Like because, like we said, Andrew, magnetism has to do with these invisible boundaries. There's these invisible electric fences all in society. And it's like you toy with them because that's being edgy and being edgy gets you more eyeballs, eyeballs, more fun, more dopamine, more money. Yeah, I am sick of influencers that make content that I deem is destructive to society. And I guess in Indonesia, they're going to look at this and be like, you are potentially being a bad influence to people in Indonesia. Right. And you're going to make money off of it. Right. Well, watch me throw down this two year sentence. If at least she does like house arrest, you know, and who knows what will happen to me. I don't know if she'll actually serve the two years because, you know, we're just getting the news as we get it. I don't know. I'm not like in Indonesia right now. So I don't understand all the ins and outs. But that is, yeah, it seems like enough to scare people. Now, listen, what if they put out this news just to scare people?  Right. And I think that their argument is very interesting in the sense that they're saying like, yeah, you could say that she should be protected under freedom of speech or freedom of eat, right? Or you could also say that she should be persecuted under the need to respect because there's so many laws, right? And they say it depends on the interpretation. Anyway, guys, I just hope that this world can figure out a way into the future. Andrew, sometimes some societies, they move slow, they move fast. Some societies, other the slow society, say the societies move too fast. The fast society say the slow societies move too slow. Everybody's judging each other on the Internet. Nobody's living amongst each other, but everybody can see each other because everything is everywhere. Yeah, you know what this kind of reminds me of? I do understand that different countries have very strict laws. And I do think that there's a reason for strict laws. But this I wish that they publicly just made her apologize and maybe gave her a fine. I could see that. And I think that that would have sent a strong enough message. And I think that that's what they should have done and what that's what other strict countries should do. Like there are countries, you know, even in China, you can't say certain things. But I don't think you should get thrown in jail. I do think that you can get a warning and be like, hey, man, you said something that violated our terms of service on YouTube. If you say certain things that violate the term of service, you can get demonetized to and blocked, you know what I mean? So everybody has their limits. Like you said, every country, society, platform, company has their threshold. But, man, I wouldn't play around in Indonesia, man. But anyways, guys, you guys, let us know in the comments down below what you guys think about all this. Is it people coming down on influencers because she's influenced two million followers?  Then I don't want that. Anyway, guys, let us know what you think in the comments section below. I definitely am also really interested in everybody's comments saying like in 20, 30 years when the kids that are like 20 or 30 now take over societies, how much will societies change or where they change less than we think? Because immediately my initial thought is that they'll change a lot because right now a lot of the leaders, they're still pre Internet. Anyway, guys, let us know what you think in the comments section below. Keep it civil. We encourage debate. Until next time, I'm going to hop on boys. Be out. Peace.


Going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards ripping one box of sports card almanac multi-sport personal box edition volume six For Derek P. We got box number 35 Derek. Good after it man. See something big for you Beating the hell out of the Ravens on Madden online See that this guy this guy literally turns his sliders all the way down That's that's what he did he turned his sliders all the way up Hall of Fame from impeccable. It's diddy your drug Dude, that's sick 18 of 25 for Chelsea absolute legend when he played in Chelsea as well in the world cup Well, I really did like me did hear your drug, but I'd love to see some food ball. Congrats on that one right there Hall of Fame 25 I'll do it for your break there. Mr. Derek. Thanks again for the sport is always buddy get him right out


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we will discuss the following question and the question says, which of the following relations are functions give reasons in case of a function determine its domain and range? Part a, r1 is equal to the set containing the ordered pair 2, 3, ordered pair 5, 10, ordered pair 3, 7, ordered pair minus 1, 4. Part b, r2 is equal to the set containing the ordered pair 1, 2, ordered pair 1, minus 3, ordered pair 2, 4, ordered pair 3, 6. Part c, r3 is equal to the set containing the ordered pair a1, b2, ordered pair a2, b1, ordered pair a3, b4. Now before we start solving the question let us first recall condition for a relation to be a function. A relation f which is a mapping from the set a to b is a function f1. All elements of the set a are used up to an element of set a is not paired with more than one element of set b. So this is our key idea for this question and using this key idea we will solve the question. Let's start the solution now. In part a we are given the relation r1 which is equal to the set containing the ordered pair 2, 3, ordered pair 5, 10, ordered pair 3, 7 and ordered pair minus 1, 4. We have to find if this relation is a function. First let's go back to the key idea. We have a relation f from a to b is a function if all elements of the set a are used up and an element of set a is not paired with more than one element of set b that is no two ordered pairs should have same first component. Now in r1 we can see that all the ordered pairs have unique first component. So we can say that since no two ordered pairs in r1 have same first component therefore r1 is a function. Now we will find out the range and domain of the function r1. We know that the domain of a function is the set of all first components of all the ordered pairs in the function. Now the first components of all the ordered pairs are 2, 5, 3, minus 1. So domain of r1 is equal to the set containing the elements 2, 5, 3, minus 1. Also we know that the range of a function is the set of all second components of all the ordered pairs in the function. Now the second components of all the ordered pairs are 3, 10, 7 and 4. So range of r1 is equal to the set containing the elements 3, 10, 7, 4. With this we complete part a. Now in part b we are given that relation r2 is equal to the set containing the ordered pair 1, 2, ordered pair 1, minus 3, ordered pair 2, 4 and ordered pair 3, 6. Now if we see the ordered pairs in the relation r2 we can see that the ordered pair 1, 2 and the ordered pair 1, minus 3. We can see that the ordered pair 1, 2 and the ordered pair 1, minus 3 have same first component so the element 1 of domain is paired with more than one element of range. So we can say that since ordered pair 1, 2 and ordered pair 1, minus 3 have the same first components therefore r2 is not a function so this completes part b. Now in part c we are given the relation r3 which is equal to the set containing the ordered pair a1, b2, ordered pair a2, b1 and the ordered pair a3, b4. We can see that all the ordered pairs have unique first components so we can say that since no two ordered pairs have same first components therefore r3 is a function now we will find the range and domain of r3. All the first components of the ordered pairs in r3 are a1, a2 and a3. So domain of r3 is equal to the set containing the elements a1, a2, a3. Also all the second components of the ordered pairs in r3 are b2, b1, b4. So the range of r3 is equal to the set containing the elements b2, b1, b4. This completes part c and with this we end our session hope you enjoyed the session.