This week on International Horizons, RBI director John Torpey interviewed Richard Gowan, UN director of the International Crisis Group.  Gowan discusses the different views of the UN on the occasion of the annual meeting of the General Assembly.  The absence of a number of key figures was widely noted, but most major world leaders, such as Biden, Scholz, and Lula did attend.  Gowan also commented on the power dissemination taking place in global governance, as other organizations such as the G20, G7 and BRICS are gaining importance.  Finally, Gowan recognized the challenges that the UN General Assembly has in terms of securing the sovereignty of countries, but also acknowledges the role of other actors in hindering conflict.

Transcript

John Torpey  00:01

The United Nations General Assembly recently completed its annual “UNGA Week” of discussions, side meetings, and off-site gatherings. The largest diplomatic conclave in the world, bringing together ambassadors and dignitaries from around the globe, annually clogs the east side of Manhattan with black SUVs and taxis ferrying VIPs to their destinations. This year, however, a number of top world leaders skipped the event, raising questions about the influence of the 75-year-old body. What’s going on at the UN?   Welcome to International Horizons, a podcast of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies that brings scholarly and diplomatic expertise to bear on our understanding of a wide range of international issues. My name is John Torpey, and I’m director of the Ralph Bunche Institute at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.   We are fortunate to have with us today Richard Gowan, UN director of the International Crisis Group or ICG. For those who may not be familiar, the ICG is a sort of international Brookings Institution, with experts on the many regions of the world, often located “on the ground” in those regions. He has worked with the European Council on Foreign Relations, New York University’s Center on International Cooperation and the Foreign Policy Centre (London). He has taught at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and at Stanford in New York. He has also worked as a consultant for organisations including the UN Department of Political Affairs, the UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on International Migration, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Rasmussen Global, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Global Affairs Canada. From 2013 to 2019, he wrote a weekly column called “Diplomatic Fallout” for World Politics Review. Thanks so much for joining us today, Richard Gowan.

Richard Gowan  02:15

Thank you for having me on the podcast.

John Torpey  02:17

Really appreciate you taking the time to do this. I know you’re very busy. So you just spent the week at the annual so called UNGA. So what did you see?

Richard Gowan  02:29

I saw a lot of people rushing around. And this was quite a striking year, because for the last three years, the UN High Level weeks have been limited by various COVID restrictions. And this was the first year when all those restrictions were lifted. And there was a surge of diplomats and NGO folk and others. In Manhattan, it was incredibly busy. There were, I think, over 130, presidents and prime ministers at the UN. But there was also a certain sense of dissonance, because on the one hand, if you were there, you could see all these people milling around and all this activity. But if you picked up a copy of any newspaper or the economist, you found that there were lots of stories about how the UN is in decline, and how the UN is losing importance. There was a big focus, as you said at the outset, on who was not at the General Assembly, and there were quite a lot of well known figures missing, such as Xi Jinping from China, Emmanuel Macron, from France and Narendra Modi from India.  I have to say that I think the focus on who was missing is slightly misleading, because there were also lots of very important people who were in New York, not just Joe Biden, but also Lula from Brazil, Scholz from Germany. Many other leaders were in town. But nonetheless, the fact the fact that a few key players were absent, seem to sort of shape the narrative around this big meeting. So if you were there, it felt busy and it felt important, but seen from farther away. It clearly looks like the UN was not having the greatest year.

John Torpey  04:49

Well, so some of your own comments in the press suggested that you shared this narrative to some degree. So, I mean, I understand depending on what your perspective is or how far or close you are from these events, what seems to be going on. But, you know, what’s your own sense, as in your official capacity as ICG, Director for the UN.

Richard Gowan  05:19

So at the end of the day, I don’t worry too much that at least this year, some of the leaders were missing. I think you can over interpret it. One of the reasons that quite a few of these leaders were not in New York was that the G20, had just met in Delhi. And evidently, for some big global figures. You know, the G20 was enough, they had their summit. That’s, that’s an important decision making moment, they didn’t feel any real need to come on to the UN, for after the summit. However, what struck me as as often strikes me is that the GA, is still a really great platform for leaders of small countries, but also leaders of middle powers. And there were many notable figures, such as president Boric of Chile, working the halls of the UN last week. And then more broadly, there has been a lot of tension over the last year between developed and developing countries. And there have been some pretty nasty debates around the UN about why the US and other Western countries are not living up to their previous commitments on development aid and climate change related aid. I mean, that that has overshadowed the institution, for much of the year. I thought there was a bit of progress last week, in easing those tensions, Western leaders were very clear that they do want to help poor countries deal with their economic problems. So that was good. But nonetheless, still these sort of quite old school UN north-south tensions are very, very obvious around the organization. I think, moving away from this sort of fascination with who was there and who was not there. I do think this has been a hard year for the UN, I think we have seen the poison emanating from Russia’s war on Ukraine, doing more and more damage to diplomatic cooperation around the organization. We have seen that in the Security Council where Russia has acted as a spoiler on some fairly key issues, such as blocking humanitarian aid to Syria. But we also saw it in the run up to the General Assembly, as Russia, along with a few hardline friends like Cuba, tried to undermine a big UN Declaration on development. And so I think we’re seeing Moscow becoming more assertive, less embarrassed about blocking UN diplomacy, that is worrying.

John Torpey  08:40

So, you know, you mentioned the G20, having more or less immediately proceeded on go week. And, you know, the fact that some people may have felt they had countries to run rather than meetings to go to New York. But there has also been, it seems to me a discussion that you’ve just kind of hinted at this a discussion about the growing importance of regional or non sort of global level institutions. And I mean, the other case in point here, of course, is BRICS, which, you know got a lot has gotten a lot of attention recently. But it seems to me until that recent meeting has widely been seen as sort of incoherent as a platform for Vladimir Putin to promote his own foreign policy or whatever. So, I wonder what you could say about the idea that there’s kind of rising significance in global agenda setting of these more regional organizations.

Richard Gowan  09:49

I think that even even the most ardent UN fan has to admit that decision making is moving away from New York to some of these other venues ever since 2008, and 2009. And the financial crisis, it’s been clear that the G20 is the premier platform for major economy discussions about global economic affairs. And that I mean, that’s something which generations of UN diplomats have complained about, because they do feel that the prominence of the G20 undermines the UN. Now, that was an especially acute issue this year, because unusually, India hosted the G20 In September, just before the General Assembly, whereas in most years, the G 20. Summit takes place in November. So the fact that the two events are very close together brought out this reality that the G20 has eclipsed the UN on economic matters. More generally, the G7 has come back to life in recent years, and really in the last two years as a platform for Western powers to coordinate. And clearly the US, UK, and other Western powers do see the G7 as quite an important directorate, if you will, in dealing with some of the economic problems associated with tensions with China and Russia. And then the Chinese are responding to the resurgence of the G7. By trying to rework the BRICS as a non-Western coalition, I still don’t think we know how successful the Chinese efforts will be. Certainly one of the BRICS,  India is not keen at all on the idea of China positioning itself as the natural leader of the global south. But nonetheless, you know, the BRICS did decide to expand a few weeks ago. And so we do seem to be entering a period of club politics, where key players on the global stage will prioritize the G20, or the G7, or the BRICS or some combination of those. I mean, as I as I said before, that doesn’t render the General Assembly irrelevant. The General Assembly remains the one venue where every country can come speak, and play a role. And what we’ve seen in recent years is that leaders of quite small nations, like Myanmar and Barbados, have used the General Assembly as a platform to make quite significant interventions on the state of the international system. This has been around reforming the international financial institutions. So I think the General Assembly does still matter. But you know, when we’re New Yorkers, we know that every now and again, people say that like Brooklyn or Queens is becoming cooler than Manhattan. And right now, sort of the G20. Or the G7, you know, they are the cool hip boroughs. That’s where the, that’s where the fun kids are going. Whereas the the UN in Manhattan looks a little bit staid and a little bit in not relative to some of these other other organizations.

John Torpey  14:00

Yes, I’m inclined to think that’s an excellent metaphor of what’s going on. But it sort of does raise this question. I mean, early on, you said, focus or power is moving away from New York? And seems to me, that is also correct. But, you know, to what extent does that mean that there’s a sort of multipolar world that’s come into existence? That is, you know, a corollary of the relative decline of New York/the United States/the West, or is that, a misguided way of thinking about what’s going on within the world. I mean, to us in the West, all that not necessarily to lots of maybe the Global South. The war, the Russia’s war on Ukraine is the return of major power conflict. I mean, insofar as you see, the western side of this as a part proxy war; siding with Ukraine unambiguously as compared to Russia. So I’m sort of curious how you would assess that kind of those relationships.

Richard Gowan  15:21

I mean, obviously, big power tension is a reality and big power tension cuts across not only un diplomacy, but also diplomacy in the G20 and quite a lot of other forums. You will recall that Xi Jinping very pointedly didn’t go to the G20. meeting in Delhi, because I think he saw India using the G20 as a platform to challenge China on the global stage. So you have an increasingly fraught geopolitical picture, and that is going to affect the UN Security Council, it’s going to affect the G20. It’s going to affect cooperation in a whole range of spaces. That wasn’t actually a huge talking point last week in New York, because the majority of leaders who did come to the General Assembly were trying to brush those divisions aside and focus on areas of common interest. And so Joe Biden, for example, quite pointedly said very little about China, in his his speech to other world’s leaders, and when he did talk about China, he talks about China in quite a conciliatory way. Now, he said that, yes, China and the US are competitors. But they I think his phrase was sustainable competition, you know that there are two big powers that will have friction, but they can still work together. And so but the theme in a lot of speeches like Biden’s last week was yes, it’s a divided world. But we still have shared challenges, of which most obvious is climate change. But global health issues, international development, are also very prominent. I mean, that was nice to hear. Once the leaders leave a lot of the geopolitical realities, but back in, and that there’s no question that right now, the US is in competition, not only with Russia, at the UN for influence, but very much with China.  And the Chinese and the US are constantly battling to shape debates around many topics at the UN, especially around development and human rights. So, I mean, I think we just live with the reality that this is now a divided and competitive multilateral system. It was generally positive, but most leaders in New York, were talking about ways to use that tension. I mean, I do think it’s important that you hear Biden and others acknowledging that there has to be some lid on global competition. But, you know, the reality doesn’t always fit with the rhetoric. I mean, often the competition is the most obvious feature. At the end of the day.

John Torpey  18:52

It seems to me one of the issues that is constraining the UN, at the moment, obviously, is the Russian war on Ukraine. I mean, you have one of the major powers and one of the P5 members in a conflict that much of the rest of the world or the certainly the West condemns. And so, you know, for that reason, and perhaps others, the UN is seen as not doing very much around the Ukraine conflict, which I think is not doing it any favors in the public relations department, so to speak. So, I wonder, you know, how you would respond to that kind of conundrum that faces the organization and what what are the consequences of that going to be for the UN’s whatever prestige, legitimacy, influence etc.

Richard Gowan  19:53

We have to be frank. The Security Council has failed Ukraine, there’s no question of that, because Russia has a veto. In the council, it has ensured that that part of the UN system has had no real impacts on the war. I would say in fairness to the UN, other bits of the institution have tried to compensate for the council’s inaction. The General Assembly was very active in 2022, passing a series of resolutions by big majorities condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Also, in 2022, Secretary General Guterres pulled off quite a diplomatic coup by helping to negotiate the black sea green initiative in partnership with President Erdogan of Turkey. And although it doesn’t get a lot of media play, now, the UN is very present on the ground in Ukraine. According to the UN’s own figures, the organization has provided some sort of humanitarian assistance to at least 7 million Ukrainians this year, which is, I think about a quarter of the population, maybe just under that. So the UN and UN agencies are in the field. So I think if you sort of put the Security Council to one side, you actually find that the UN is doing everything it can to deal with this war. I should also mention the Human Rights Council, and the UN human rights system, which has provided some pretty compelling and horrible evidence about Russian war crimes in recent weeks. So that is all to the good. I think that is underreported. But at the end of the day, most outside commentators and certainly most Ukrainians associate the UN with the Security Council and the fact that the Security Council is predictably jammed over this issue is hurting the organization. One star of the General Assembly week was President Zelensky, who was able to come in person this year. In contrast to last year where he had he had to stay in here. And Zelensky made a pretty detailed presentation of all the UN’s failings when  he spoke in the Security Council, he argued that you need Security Council reform. And I think  UN members have differing levels of affection for Zelensky, and different differing levels of sympathy for Ukraine, but they would all pretty much agree that you do need some fairly serious reform if the institution is going to stay relevant. So, you know, he did strike quite a, quite a strong chord with those remarks.

John Torpey  23:24

Right. So maybe to bring this to a conclusion, I’d ask you,  as UN director of the International Crisis Group, and organization for which I have great respect to have to say, what’s on your agenda for the next five years? Or, you know, in the in the nearish term, what are you beyond the sorts of things that we’ve been talking about? What will you be paying attention to, what will you be working on?

Richard Gowan  23:57

Well, I think anyone who has been active around the General Assembly week will tell you that the main item on their agenda is getting some sleep. And I’m still working, I’m still working on that. Still not getting quite as much as I would like. But I mean, I think going forward for an organization like Crisis Group… The sad reality is that we have a lot of work. And, you know, for me, actually, one of the most telling and painful moments in the General Assembly week was not related to Ukraine, but was related to the conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh. And while world leaders were meeting in New York, Azerbaijan, effectively overran Nagorno Karabakh and has sparked say, a big refugee crisis. The Security Council had to meet on Thursday of last week, the Thursday of the General Assembly, to discuss what everyone understood is a major humanitarian emergency, and the Council really didn’t have any response to this crisis. And, you know, there are various complicated reasons for that, not least tensions between the Western powers and Russia over how to address events in the Caucasus. But nonetheless, it brought home, I thought in a rather pointed way, the limitations of the UN on the world stage today. And if you look beyond Nagorno Karabakh, and if you look beyond Ukraine, as the UN is struggling in a lot of cases, including the Sahel, including Sudan, including Myanmar. There are a lot of pretty vicious conflicts out there, where the UN has mediators. And in some cases, it has peacekeepers. And they are finding it very hard to make a significant impact.  Crisis Group puts out a publication you can find on our website every year called 10 challenges for the UN in the year ahead. This year, I was very struck that looking at the Sahel, looking at Afghanistan, looking at Ukraine, the challenges we were identifying were not “can the UN solve problems in these cases? ” It was “can the UN really maintain any role at all in some of these crisis situations?” All of these crises are different. All of these crises pose various specific, very unique problems to the UN. But, you know, you don’t have to be a geopolitical genius to realize that the UN is struggling in a lot of these cases, because of the big power politics that ever present in the Security Council. So a lot of our work crisis group going forward is going to be thinking about what’s left the UN Where where are the entry points for the UN, be the humanitarian or diplomatic or whatever, in these conflicts where the space for multilateral engagement is, is very small. It’s a it’s a pretty bleak picture. I mean, to be quite honest, it. It feels quite removed from all the diplomatic jollity of the UN High Level week. But I think most people around the UN would tell you that the high level week is it’s a very special event. But the real work of the UN is really much more about what’s going on on the ground in all these very difficult situations, which we now have to turn back to and address in more detail.

John Torpey  28:28

Well, that is something of a bleak way to end this conversation. But obviously it gives you lots of work to do,  maybe not the kind that you would have preferred to be doing, but nonetheless, important work. So that’s it for today’s episode, I want to thank Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group for sharing his insights about the UN and its future. Look for us on the New Books Network and remember to subscribe and rate International Horizons on Spotify and Apple podcasts. I want to thank as well Oswaldo Mena Aguilar for his technical assistance, as well as to acknowledge Duncan Mackay for sharing his song International Horizons as the theme music for the show. This is John Torpey, saying thanks for joining us and we look forward to having you with us for the next episode of International Horizons.