Last week, world leaders arrived in New York for the U.N. General Assembly’s High-Level meetings. They debated the response to Russia’s continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine, made some progress on sustainable development, and considered how to regulate artificial intelligence.
Returning to the show to discuss what we learned from the U.N.’s High-Level week is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.
Show Notes:
Last week, world leaders arrived in New York for the U.N. General Assembly’s High-Level meetings. They debated the response to Russia’s continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine, made some progress on sustainable development, and considered how to regulate artificial intelligence.
Returning to the show to discuss what we learned from the U.N.’s High-Level week is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.
Show Notes:
Paras Shah: Last week, world leaders arrived in New York for the UN General Assembly’s High-Level meetings. They debated the response to Russia’s continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine, made some progress on sustainable development, and considered how to regulate artificial intelligence.
This is the Just Security podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah.
Returning to the show to discuss what we learned from the UN’s High-Level week is Richard Gowan. Richard is UN Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.
Hi, Richard, welcome back to the show. Thanks so much for joining us after a busy week at the UN General Assembly.
Richard Gowan: It's good to be back.
Paras: Can you get us started by recapping what happened last week during High-Level week when all these world leaders came to New York? What were the main items that were discussed?
Richard: Well, it was an insanely busy week, and this was the first full scale session of the General Assembly since 2019. This was the first time that all COVID restrictions were removed, and if you were anywhere around the UN compound last week, you were just carried away by the hurly burly of diplomats, officials, NGOs, and others racing around.
I think it's worth emphasizing that because some of the coverage last week emphasized who was not there, Emmanuel Macron was not there. Narendra Modi was not there. And there were some news stories emphasizing that some key leaders were away. Xi Jinping was also absent. A few people turned that into a narrative about the General Assembly being deserted, the General Assembly being devalued. But it didn't feel like that if you were on the spot. There were over 130 presidents and prime ministers in New York. That was slightly more than last year, slightly more than 2019. And it felt very intense.
Now the topics that were highest on the agenda were development. As we had predicted, there was a very strong emphasis on development in the global economy, which was something that non-Western countries had been pushing for prior to September. Global health was on the agenda, but it got significantly less attention than it probably deserves. Climate change was on the agenda. And then of course, Ukraine was a hot topic, because for the first time since Russia’s all out aggression against Ukraine, President Zelenskyy was able to come to New York from Kyiv. And he spent two days giving a series of speeches around the UN and also meeting bilaterally with quite a few other leaders. So there were a thousand other topics, a thousand side meetings — or at least it felt like that — but those were the four big themes.
Paras: I can confirm that the traffic along First Avenue was indeed very intense. What did Zelenskyy, who made a big speech in English before the General Assembly, want out of these sets of meetings? And did he accomplish what he came here for?
Richard: I think it was very clear that as Zelenskyy saw this as an opportunity to make his pitch to the so-called Global South — African, Asian and Latin American leaders — that they should be distancing themselves from Moscow. And if you listened to his speech, to the General Assembly in particular, he was really hitting on themes designed for a non-Western audience. So you know, obviously, he talked about the suffering of the people of Ukraine. It was a pretty raw, pretty powerful speech in that regard. But he devoted a lot of time to how Russia's aggression has upset global food markets, how Russia's aggression has upset global energy markets. He even tried to draw a rather tenuous linkage between Russia's behavior and climate change. And it was obvious that he was aiming to frame his interest, his concerns, in terms that would appeal to a leader far away from Europe by riffing on these global issues.
I think he did it relatively well. It was also striking that we don't know what happened in all his bilateral meetings. But he was keen to emphasize, Ukrainians were emphasizing on social media, that he'd been meeting with African leaders like presidents around the Ramaphosa of South Africa President and President Ruto of Kenya. He met Boric from Chile. Again, he was really emphasizing that he was talking to the wider world and not just the narrow group of NATO leaders who he interacts with on a fairly regular basis now.
Paras: Another theme that you previewed for us a couple of weeks ago before the high level meetings was potential progress on the Sustainable Development Goals, which are these ambitious development goals that the UN set back in 2015. And we're halfway towards trying to make progress on them. Was there movement on the SDGs?
Richard: Well, the SDGs were the touchstone of the whole week. And it was very clear that Western leaders and Western officials arrived in New York briefed to emphasize their commitment to development. There has been, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago, a lot of criticism from the countries of the Global South that because the US and its allies are so focused on Ukraine, they are simply ignoring a lot of the economic problems that are hurting countries elsewhere in the world.
Now, as I said Zelenskyy referenced that but it was also interesting to see that Biden, in his speech, really majored on issues of global development and global cooperation against climate change. Biden actually spoke for about half an hour. And remarkably, he didn't use the word Ukraine at all for the first 20 minutes. He devoted the first 20 minutes of his speech to talking about other global concerns. So he opened with a passage talking about US reconciliation with Vietnam. And I think that what Biden was trying to do with this messaging was send out a reassuring signal to developing countries that the US has their back and still has their interests at heart.
In practical terms, there was a side summit on the Sustainable Development Goals. It did produce a political declaration that had been difficult to negotiate, but ultimately, I think was a minor success, a good bit of diplomatic handiwork. And the most interesting part of that declaration was a push to reform the way that the World Bank and other international financial institutions provide financing to poorer countries. This was a big demand from the developing block. The US back in August had nixed an earlier version of this declaration because it suggested that the terms for financing should be negotiated through the UN. Washington wouldn't accept that. They’d insist that the detailed negotiations have to happen at the World Bank and at the IMF themselves. But nonetheless, there was a general overall political agreement that there has to be progress on easing poorer countries to financing, which is, I think, the real political takeaway from the last week. Now, the technocratic work has to be done. But I think all sides were fairly happy with the compromise they got in New York.
Paras: As you mentioned at the top, Xi and Modi, they were not in attendance. So what should we make of the role of the General Assembly when major powers like China and India are not sending their heads of state?
Richard: I mean, firstly, we shouldn't be surprised that Xi Jinping was absent. Xi Jinping has actually only come to the UN once, so I didn't read too much into his absence. I do think that it was striking that not only Xi and Modi were not in New York. Rishi Sunak from the UK didn't come, as I said, Emmanuel Macron from France didn't come.
It is possible to interpret that as a sign that the General Assembly is of decreasing importance to the countries that get invitations to G20 summits, or G7 summits. And I think that is probably a correct interpretation. In a world where there are other decision-making forums, where bigger powers can meet, the General Assembly has less value for them. But as I say, that was very much a narrative that was out there in the press. And it was a narrative that even reached the ears of Donald Trump because he said on social media that no one had turned up to listen to Joe Biden.
Now, as soon as Donald Trump has adopted a narrative, you know that there might be something a bit dodgy about it. And I do think it's a dodgy narrative, because, you know, ultimately, as I say, leaders of other important powers, like Germany and Japan, were in the room, and Lula from Brazil kicked off the proceedings. So there were big power leaders there. And, you know, leaders of middle sized and smaller countries were there in full force. And so I think that's a reminder that, yes, the G20, G7 and BRICS summits have taken away some of the shine from the General Assembly. But still, for a very large number of UN members the Assembly session is still pretty crucial as a space to network, to send out political messages, and to be part of the multilateral system.
Paras: Right, and as you say, even some BRICS members like Brazil were present and engaging. Another aspect of this high level week was a project that António Guterres, the Secretary-General, is calling the Summit of the Future. How did planning for that progress?
Richard: So this is one element of the General Assembly that didn't get very much immediate media attention, unsurprisingly, because the focus was on development and on Ukraine. But for some time, Secretary-General Guterres has been trying to lay the groundwork for a big event he wants to hold on the margins of next year's General Assembly, with the rather grandiose title he Summit of the Future. And what Guterres hopes that he can do next year at this summit is get leaders to talk about the really big gaps in the multilateral system, not just focus on established issues like peacekeeping or development, but also talk about the need for greater global regulation of artificial intelligence, greater regulation of other new technologies like bio technologies, and really how to make the UN sort of relevant to a very rapidly changing world and rapid changes in science.
Guterres was really blunt, I should say, in his speech to world leaders about the failings of the existing multilateral system. He said that organizations like the Security Council and the international financial institutions may be part of the problem in the current world crisis, not part of the solution. I think he's very willing to call out what's wrong with the UN and talk about the need for new institutions and new diplomatic arrangements to deal with a fast evolving world.
So anyway, that's all going to be coming to a head a year from now on the margins of the 2024 General Assembly. This year, there was a ministerial meeting to discuss what should be the focus of the Summit of the Future. And, you know, what we're hearing from UN officials is that it was surprisingly positive. I think over 150 ministers signed up to speak, although the entire event had to be contained in a day, so some were only able to make written contributions. There does seem to have been a lot of interest in the idea of especially talking about the global regulation of artificial intelligence. And what is striking is that speakers from the Western world and the non-Western world were talking quite positively about their desire to make this summit succeed.
Now, I think this is an encouraging sign. I think that there have been concerns around the UN, that Guterres was simply getting too ambitious and putting issues on the table, like AI, that many member states just didn't really want to grapple with. But it does sound as if the mood music in New York was that the Secretary-General has sort of, you know, has succeeded in persuading member states that they do need to address these emerging challenges seriously over the coming year. It's one thing for everyone to accept that they need to talk about these issues. It's going to be a lot harder to get common ground on what sort of regulatory mechanisms you might need around AI and other technologies. But still, there was a feeling that maybe the Summit of the Future will be more than just an event with a slightly silly name. It could actually be an important step forward in terms of updating and upgrading the multilateral framework.
Paras: What might some of those potential changes to the multilateral system look like?
Richard: So there's a very wide range of issues potentially on the table, and I think for some developing countries still the priority is what was in focus this year, which is reforms to the international financial architecture and international development banks. For some countries, there's a focus on Security Council reform, you know, which was another topic that we heard quite a lot about last week and even Zelenskyy made a point of talking about the need for Security Council reform.
Nonetheless, in my conversations around the margins of the diplomatic circus, I did get a sense that the sort of really interesting political question is, could you set up some at least preliminary set of arrangements to manage international cooperation around the use of AI? Now, Guterres has raised the possibility of creating some sort of international agency, like the IAEA, which acts as a hub for cooperation on nuclear issues, but with a focus on AI. I'm not sure that everyone wants to set up an agency of that type. But at a minimum, I think there's a willingness to talk about creating new formats for states to communicate about artificial intelligence. There is potentially an opening to talk about the downside risks of AI, how it could be militarized.
And there's also a more positive narrative, which is that we should be harnessing this amazing new technology to try and contribute to development and economic advancement. Guterres wasn't the only person hitting these notes. The UK Deputy Prime Minister, Oliver Dowden ,was standing in for Rishi Sunak, and the UK speech to the General Assembly was really all about these AI topics. The British are hosting an international conference on this question a bit later in the year.
So I think this is where people see an important new opening emerging for multilateral cooperation. But that said, if we'd been having this discussion in 2021, we would have been talking a lot about how global health was going to be a big opening for greater international cooperation. There were a number of events on global health in New York last week. What was remarkable was that they got very little attention at all. Very few leaders actually attended the health-focused side events in New York, and so that's a useful reminder that, you know, a topic can be hot at the UN for a period. It was health, now it's AI. And yet in a few years time, the political focus and the diplomatic focus may have moved on.
Paras: What should we be looking for next, what should be on our radar in terms of follow up from this week of high level meetings?
Richard: So firstly, we do have to follow what happens in terms of the implementation of some of these broad ideas about reforming the international financial institutions. Because, yes, there was a political declaration in New York, with leaders saying that it's important to change the terms of financing to developing countries. That's great. But developing world leaders can give you a long list of occasions where similar positive declarations have been made at the UN in the past, but there has been little or no follow up in reality. And I think what a lot of observers in the non-Western world will be watching for is whether it's possible for the big players and the World Bank and the IMF, the big shareholders, like the US, the Europeans and Japanese, to actually make good on these broad pledges of improving financing for developing states. If they can do so, that, I think, will ease the path for discussions of cooperation on other topics like AI.
If, by contrast, we're back in New York a year from now, and the narrative is, there were promises on financial reform, but there has not been delivery, then that I think is really going to poison the diplomatic mood of the UN going forward. So this delivery aspect on the financial front is really crucial. Some of those who've been involved in the development discussions are concerned that a lot of finance ministries and a lot of treasury departments around the world are less inclined to push forward with reform than foreign ministries are for their own internal interests. So I think that's a space to watch closely.
With regards to the Summit of the Future, I think I think the big question will be moving on from the rather positive ministerial meeting that I described, do we see diplomats settling into a steady rhythm of negotiations in New York on things like AI over the coming months? The run up to the General Assembly was complicated by the fact that a lot of developing countries really didn't want to talk about issues like the Summit of the Future until they had seen progress on the SDGs. Well, we've now seen a bit of progress, at least at the political level around development, so what we're going to be watching out for is whether that creates space for discussions of other topics like AI, and biotechnology or whether, as the leaders have left New York, the diplomats will just go back to sort of negotiating trench warfare.
On other topics, I don't think we should be looking out for much progress on Security Council reform in the year ahead. Joe Biden made a point of talking about Council reform at the UN in 2022. He raised the issue again this year, but he didn't put so much energy into it. My sense is that the Biden administration could make a further push on Council reform, but it won't do so until after next year's US elections. It's very hard for the White House to sink any political capital into this while there's a lot of uncertainty over the outcome of next year's elections. So the Council reform discussion is probably on ice for another 12 months. So yeah, I would be focusing primarily on financial institutions and then on the sort of emerging diplomatic track around AI.
Paras: There's a lot to keep track of and a lot to look forward to watching. Richard, thanks as always for joining the show.
Richard: Thanks for having me back.
Paras: This episode was hosted by me, Paras Shah. It was edited and produced by Tiffany Chang, Michelle Eigenheer, and Clara Apt. Our theme song is “The Parade” by Hey Pluto.
Special thanks to Richard Gowan. You can read Richard’s analysis, and all of Just Security’s coverage of the UN General Assembly, on our website. If you enjoyed this episode, please give us a five star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.