(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Remarks by Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield at a Moderated Conversation on the Future of Multilateralism and UN Reform at the Council on Foreign Relations [1]

['United States Mission To The United Nations']

Date: 2024-09-12 22:03:40+00:00

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield

U.S. Representative to the United Nations

New York, New York

September 12, 2024

AS DELIVERED

MS. ELISE LABOTT: Thank you, Ambassador, for that news-making speech, and thank you for making those announcements at the council. We’re thrilled to dive in. It is true that the – we call it the UNGA speed dating because you have all those meetings and those bilats and plenaries.

Let’s talk about – let’s talk about – dive into what you discussed here. Now look, as you said, this isn’t the first time you’ve pushed for reform. Oh, they didn’t turn my microphone on. I do have quite a loud voice, so can you hear me okay? Yeah? Okay, let’s just dive in.

Critics might say that, you know, pushing for reform, you know how difficult this is going to be. How do you ensure that this is not a symbolic gesture, that this is not just about optics and substance? Because it’s going to be so difficult. It’s going to be such a difficult project. How do you convince skeptical nations – I mean, we just have to start with that, right – especially in the Global South that this is not virtue signaling, that you are really, really trying to make a genuine push for reform?

AMBASSADOR LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, first of all, we can’t avoid something because it’s hard. If we avoided diplomacy because it’s hard, we would never do it. So I acknowledge that this is not going to be easy. But I have engaged with, as I said, more than 80 countries on this, and they are all excited about this possibility because what we – what the United States did is that we kind of opened the door a little bit wider than it had ever been opened before by openly discussing our own position. There was a time when we didn’t support this.

And so yes, it required some convincing. It required a lot of engagement. And I have done that engagement relentlessly over the past two years, and I think everyone that I’ve spoken to, they’ve all agreed that this is the direction we want to go in. Do they agree with every detail of what we’re proposing? No. This is what negotiations are for. But what they agree to is that it’s time to move the needle on this and move it significantly.

When I spoke to the Sierra Leone PR, I think he used this word, “This is seismic.” I wouldn’t have gone that far.

MS. LABOTT: Well, it would be seismic if it happens, right?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Yes. It’s seismic that it is happening.

MS. LABOTT: Okay.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And now we have to go the next level.

MS. LABOTT: Right.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And make it a reality.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. A lot of countries have said over the years that they were in support of reform. Now they’re really going to have to put their cards on the table. You’ve laid out your position, and now you’re going to be looking for other countries to kind of put up or shut up, that they have to show whether they really support or not. Is – that’s what these text-based negotiations are about?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: That’s exactly what the text-based negotiations will allow. And what the co-facilitators have suggested is that countries kind of put together their models for UN reform on the table in writing, and we sit with those models and use that as the basis for negotiation.

MS. LABOTT: So you’ve said you’ve learned from your mistakes. This is not the first effort at UN reform. What have you learned in these past efforts that you’re going to apply now to make sure that—that this effort is different than the past?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, we’ve already started to show that, and that is the significant engagements that we’ve had over the course of the past two years. We are talking to people. There is no country too small, no country insignificant, because when we go into the General Assembly to vote, every vote counts.

MS. LABOTT: One man, one vote.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And so we know that we have to engage with everyone. We have to engage with the small island developing countries. We have to engage with small countries in Africa. We have to engage with the landlocked developing countries. We have to engage with the P5. We have to engage with other regions. So we have engaged with – we’ve pretty much engaged with the world.

MS. LABOTT: So these are text-based negotiations, and I know how painstaking these texts. these negotiations can be on just a resolution. So how do you ensure that this doesn’t fall victim to the same gridlock that has stalled meaningful changes and ensure that these negotiations lead to results? And how do you balance the urgency of reform with this painstaking process?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: You know, we’re not putting a timeframe on this. To put a timeframe on this would probably set us up for failure. So we are relying on the co-facilitators to lead this process, as they have done over many years, and move forward the discussions. But those painstaking negotiations we do – and I commend my staff; sometimes I hear that they’re negotiating to 4am in the morning, so ordering out for pizza to continue the negotiations. This is going to be hard, and we’re going to have to do that deep dive into this. But I think what I’ve heard from everyone is it’s time, and it has to happen, and it has – we have to start the work on this now.

MS. LABOTT: You know, when you tell people UN reform, new members – perm members on the Council, the first thing is that they say that Russia and China are unlikely to support it because it’s going to diminish their influence. And how do you plan to overcome that opposition specifically due to their veto power?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, again, this is going to be tough negotiations. And it’s not going to just be us talking to Russia and China; it’s going to be the other 190-plus countries, the other 10 members of the Security Council, talking to Russia and China about what they want to see in terms of changes. And so again, I think their influence, with our influence, as well as the interests of Russia and China, will certainly come into play, but I think we can – and again, I’m not being pollyannaish, but I am being optimistic that I think we can come to an agreement. Will it be a perfect agreement? No. To get to consensus there will – we will all have to negotiate away some of our own priorities.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. So permanent membership comes with a lot of perks, just like Council membership comes with a lot of perks. (Laughter.) And that’s the veto. So these new members, are they going to have veto power?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: So we’ve been very, very clear that we do not support expansion of the veto. And, you know, I’ve had a number of discussions with my African colleagues who put this kind of take-it-or-leave-it position on the table, we get two seats and we get the veto. And the reason we want the veto is because you have it, but the reason we hate the veto is because it makes the Council dysfunctional.

MS. LABOTT: Right.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And so if veto makes the Council – veto power make the Council dysfunctional in their view, why would you expand it? And that’s what I have said to them, “Why would you want to expand the veto power? What you should be working to do is what your actual goal is, is to limit the veto power.” And I don’t know what will go into the negotiations that will get us to a place of common ground, but I think we can get there.

MS. LABOTT: Well, and I think we all know that the veto is so destructive, especially when it comes to Russia and China using their veto power. So why retain it? Why do – why don’t we just have permanent members and nobody has a veto?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Yeah. And we have veto power as well, and none of the permanent members want to give up their veto power, including us. I’m being honest about that. We don’t want to give up our veto power, and we do think if we expand that veto power across the board, it will make the Council more dysfunctional.

MS. LABOTT: Okay, but on the other hand, if you don’t have veto power then what is the power of membership?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, one is that they can permanently engage on issues of significance to them, and actually help the Council to do its work. The veto power is not all-encompassing. I was just checking before coming here – we’ve passed over 180 resolutions in the past four years. So the – and these resolutions are passed with countries engaging with us to ensure that their priorities, their values are in those resolutions. So the Council works despite the veto power.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. You’ve announced support for new permanent seats for countries like Germany and Japan. Where do you draw the line? I mean, how do you decide which nations deserve permanent seats, and not excluding other growing powers like Brazil or South Africa, for instance?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: You know, we – well, we have indicated that we support two permanent seats for Africa. How that plays out on the Africa continent will be up to the Africans to determine.

MS. LABOTT: Well, they’re – so the Africans will determine who those permanent members are?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: They’re going to run and have to be voted on by 193 members. But who are their candidates for this, they’ll decide that themselves.

MS. LABOTT: Because we know –

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: It’s not for me to tell the Africans –

MS. LABOTT: Right.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: – you need to take South Africa, or you need to take Egypt, or you need to take Kenya. They will determine who will run for their seats.

MS. LABOTT: Right, but I mean, the U.S., even when you’re talking about which members are up for voting on the Security Council, U.S. surely has a lot of influence working with those nations. And so how do you navigate regional politics within Africa to ensure that there is fair representation without deepening these existing rivalries on the continent?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: You know, again, I think this is going to be for the Africans to determine. But yes, we do have influence. We’ll express our views, we’re going to vote, and we’re going to show an interest in particular candidates over other candidates. But will the candidate that we are in favor of win? I don’t know. Again, I will leave it to the Africans to determine who they will put on the ballot to run before the General Assembly.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. I’m intrigued by this new seat for the Small Island Developing States. It’s an innovative idea. But given the kind of scale and complexity of these challenge that you discussed, how do you ensure – these are small states, they’re subject to influence from bigger permanent members. How do you ensure that they have a meaningful voice in the Security Council decisions and not a symbolic one that gets kind of drowned out by those heavier powers?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: We see it every day. We have small countries who –

MS. LABOTT: Right, right.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: – are participating as elected members of the Security Council. And I can tell you, working with those countries and seeing how they operate in the – they – they guard their sovereignty and their independence and their control of their own positions very, very strongly. And so they lay out their positions and they work with us. They work with others. They will push us and as well as the Chinese and the Russians to support positions that they have, and we will engage with them to support positions that we have. But what I’ve seen in almost all the cases is that they vote based on their own commitments and their own values.

MS. LABOTT: Okay, so Security Council reform requires amending the UN Charter, which would also need a supermajority in the U.S. Senate. Given the polarization we face in Congress, how realistic is it that you can pass the Senate, do you think? And have you had meetings with senators about this?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I have engaged with members on this. And we don’t know what our Senate is going to look like and where – how they will be voting in the future. So we just have to play the cards that we have at hand when we – when we deal our hand.

MS. LABOTT: Right.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: So there are a large number of members of Congress, senators who are very pro-UN, who support reforms at the UN, and not just in the Security Council, but how to make the UN more efficient, how to make the UN more representative. So we will be engaging across the administration from the State Department and the White House with members of Congress once this becomes a reality. And again, I don’t know when that will be.

MS. LABOTT: Well, I mean, on that note, we could have a new – well, we will have a new administration, but we could have a new party in Congress, we could have a new party in office, in the presidency. How do you deal with the fact that we’ve seen in the past with other issues that there’s – that countries are kind of a little bit concerned about the consistency of the U.S., and that – how do you ensure members that are already kind of skeptical, might be skeptical of the process, that the U.S. is going to stay with this for the long term?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: They – they’re just going to have to watch and see what happens. I think our political system is very public. People see the thinkings of our political – of our politicians. But I think there is a general sense that the United States across the board, that we value the United Nations, despite what we might say otherwise; that there is a value to the United Nations, and that we need the United Nations.

MS. LABOTT: At the same time, the U.S. is the global superpower, and you do support multilateralism, but we also have a history in this country of acting unilaterally when we must. So how do you reconcile the commitment to doubling down on multilateralism while especially kind of maintaining that autonomy in global matters of peace and security?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, I think every country has their own priorities and value their bilateral relationships and their own values. They are – none of them are unlike us. But I think when we get in the context of this United Nations down the road, people do think multilaterally and they look for allies who will think like them. But when we’re looking at our multilateral values, we’re not pushing our unilateral values off the table, because those values feed into what we do at the United Nations.

So yes, it could be problematic, but we’ll face it when we get to it.

MS. LABOTT: This is a very kind of new thing that you’re doing with the Council, but let’s just – the Council itself has been paralyzed by vetoes, geopolitical tensions. I mean, I think everyone in this room wants to know, like, is meaningful action still possible through the UN Security Council?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Elise, I just said we did 180 resolutions in the past four years – 180 resolutions, and most of them passed by consensus. What people tend to focus on is where we fail. That’s the stuff that makes the news. It’s newsworthy when the veto power is used. It is not newsworthy when we pass by consensus a resolution – when we pass a resolution supporting the Kenyan MSS into Haiti; we pass a resolution really redefining how we fund AU missions for peace support; pass a resolution that was historic to deal with how we deal with the impact of sanctions on humanitarian programs, so doing a carveout for humanitarian work. And all of these resolutions were supported, numerous resolutions that are dealing with regional issues that we pass every single day.

So do – is the veto power used? Yes, it’s used, but it is not used all the time and it’s – I think we can count on our hands when we’ve used it.

MS. LABOTT: No, that’s – that’s a fair point. I think, though, we’re thinking of these conflicts around the world, right? When I was covering the State Department, it was Syria there – we couldn’t get a resolution passed on Syria. Now it’s hard to get a – or let’s go back to Lebanon in 2006. We couldn’t get a resolution passed on Israel or Ukraine because of these veto powers. So maybe I should amend my question to be like, on these kind of – these hard, thorny issues of peace and security, how do we get past this issue?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: So it’s hard. And I use that a lot: It’s hard. But we’ve had four – four resolutions on Israel that we’ve passed in the past – in the past few months dealing with the humanitarian situation. We actually regularly passed a resolution on Syria; despite having the problems we had in the past, we were actually able to get a cross-border resolution that was passed over a number of years on Syria.

So we’ll keep – we’ll keep trying to refine. We do intense negotiations. I negotiated for hours, personally negotiated, on a resolution on humanitarian that we passed in December on Gaza, sitting with the – with other members of the Council, negotiating every single sentence, every comma, every “and,” “but,” “V” in the resolution, and we got the resolution passed.

So again, with commitment, we can actually get the work done. Do we fail sometimes? Unfortunately we do, and every failure is difficult. Every veto is difficult.

MS. LABOTT: I mean, on the issue of Israel, it just seems that, like you said, you’re able to pass resolutions on Sudan or on Ethiopia and Eritrea, but when it comes to Israel it seems that the Council itself, but the larger UN body, has a hard time grappling with issues related to Israel and the Palestinians, and I think there’s a lot of ambivalence about this conflict and what the Council should do.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Yeah, I don’t know if there’s ambivalence. There is a lot of emotions around this issue, and it – we see it every single day on the news. But we – as I said, we got four resolutions passed, and actually, people have forgotten that one resolution that we put on the table that actually brought all of these issues to the fore, we got 12 votes plus ours and Russia vetoed that resolution. People forget that Russia vetoed that resolution.

So yes, we do have problems. But again, we’re able –

MS. LABOTT: Does the – does the UN have an Israel problem?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I think that we have an Israel problem in the UN. And there is a inordinately over-focus on Israel – even before Gaza – on Israel in the UN. It’s something that we have raised on a regular basis.

There is no other country in the world that has a monthly meeting on the Council’s agenda going back decades.

So yes, there is an unfair – unfairly – unfair amount of focus on Israel in the UN, and it is problematic.

MS. LABOTT: One more question on Israel, and then I want to ask about Kenya and open it up to the audience. What is the U.S. going to do as more and more countries, as they are, are starting to recognize the Palestinian state and the Palestinians are becoming eligible for membership in some of these organizations?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, the – a state has certain responsibilities for its people, and I do not believe the Palestinians, as they exist right now, have all of the elements to give it statehood. And so yes, there are a large number of states that are recognizing Palestinian statehood. They have now been given an alphabetized place in the General Assembly. But they – we have to deal with the issues of peace and security, and all of that is going to have to be negotiated between the two parties on the ground for this to work in an effective way.

MS. LABOTT: The mandate for Kenya, the Kenyan-led mission in Haiti is coming up in a few weeks. It’s been facing significant shortages and delays and concerns about the accountability. Do you see a renewal of the mandate?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Yes.

MS. LABOTT: You do. Do you think it can still achieve its objectives as it stands? I mean, they’re just – they’ve been on the ground, but it’s been a little bit hard kind of standing up.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: It’s – I – they will achieve their mandate, and they are working toward that. I visited Haiti earlier this year, and I had an opportunity to meet with the Kenyans, to meet with the transitional Haitian prime minister and the Transitional Presidential Council, as well as civil society members and the UN, and I think there is a strong sense that the Kenyan presence is making a difference. We’re not hearing all of the kinds of attacks that we were hearing before, and the Kenyans are getting more and more resources. They have engaged with the gangs on several occasions, and they have been quite successful in that engagement.

More needs to be done and more needs to be done faster, and we’re all working to ensure that that happens. But I think the resolution is going to pass and we’re going to see the Kenyans continue to help the Haitian people achieve what they want, and that’s peace and security.

MS. LABOTT: Ambassador, thank you for the conversation. I’d like to open it up to members now and here and online to join our conversation. We’ll begin with a question here in the room. This is a full room. If you could quickly identify yourself and your affiliation and ask a short question, we’ll try to get as many as we can, and we’ll also go to members online. Remember, this meeting is on the record.

QUESTION: Is there a microphone? I’m just looking.

Thank you, Ambassador. I wanted to ask about the International Court of Justice decision ruling that Israel’s occupation is illegal and must end and ordering member-states, including the United States, to end support for Israel that assists their settlements, as well as the impending arrest warrant against Netanyahu and the Israeli foreign minister. Are you going to abide by the International Court of Justice orders? Are you going to arrest Netanyahu and the foreign minister if he turns up in the United States? And what is your feeling on these International Court rulings? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Let me start with the last part. We have a problem with the court’s ruling, and we’ve been clear that we have a problem with the court’s ruling, and I think you know the answer to the question about whether we will arrest President* Netanyahu. He was here in the United States a few weeks ago and he was not arrested.

QUESTION: There was no warrant.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: The warrant was out before that.

QUESTION: No.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Okay – well, let me be clear: We will not arrest him. And – because we do not – we have a question about the jurisdiction of the ICC on Israel, and we’ve made that very, very clear.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. We’re going to go right here, and then we’ll go to Evelyn in the front. Right here.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador, and thank you for a great discussion.

MS. LABOTT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Is there anything in the UN Charter –

MS. LABOTT: Could you –

QUESTION: Oh, Earl Carr, representing CJPA Global Advisors. Is there anything in the UN Charter which states how a member or non-member – how a member can be removed from the international community? Is there anything about that?

MS. LABOTT: You have anybody in mind? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: That’s a great question, and it’s a question I’ve been asked over and over again. And there is a provision – and I don’t know if our lawyers are in the room – it’s like 27-C-3 or something in the Charter that allows for a member to be kicked out of the Security Council and the UN. That has not been used recently. In fact, I don’t even remember when it was used. Again, I will turn to the lawyers who may know the answer to that question.

But it is not easy. It’s not easy to do, and here’s why it’s not easy: because the – and here’s where we talk about the veto. The P5 can veto this, and the country that of course everybody is talking about is a P5 country.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. We have a question online, and then we’re going to go to Evelyn in the front. And just – I will try and get to as many questions as I can.

MODERATOR: We will take our next question from Mo Ibrahim.

MS. LABOTT: Hi, Mo.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Hi, Mo.

QUESTION: Hi. Hi. Thank you, Secretary – Ambassador – and it’s wonderful to see you on the stream. Do – we have in Sudan a terrible war and 150,000 people killed, 10 million refugees, 2 million immigrants to seven neighboring countries. The UN adopted some time ago a duty to protect. Why the Security Council is not assuming, so far, its duty to protect?

MS. LABOTT: Great question, Mo. Responsibility to protect.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: That is a great question, and I can tell you it has been extraordinarily difficult, even as a permanent member of the Security Council, to get the Council to pay attention to what is happening in Sudan. You’ve recited the statistics, the number of people killed, the number of people who have been forced from their homes and living in IDP situations, the number of refugees. It is, I would argue, the worst situation that we have seen in the world. And the divisions within the Council on how to address this unfortunately have been kind of aired in public. And what I would like to see – I would like to see the 83* members of the Security Council lead on this and push the Security Council to address these issues related to Sudan more consistently.

We have had a number of meetings on the situation in Sudan. We – I’ve given press conference. I’ve written articles on the situation. The negotiations, as you know, to find a solution continue and to no avail. And I really think it’s time that we wrap up our efforts to get more attention paid to this and get the UN engaged on the situation there. We’ve been able – the last negotiations – to get a – some progress on the humanitarian side, opening up humanitarian corridors, but it’s not enough.

It is absolutely not enough. And sometimes, Mo, people ask me what keeps me awake at night, and it’s Sudan, because people don’t pay attention to Sudan. It’s like crickets when we’re talking about Sudan. We’re focused on the situation in Gaza. We’re focused on the situation in Ukraine. And we need to focus more attention on what is happening in Sudan.

MS. LABOTT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. LABOTT: Again, if you have a question, please raise your hand. We’ll go to Evelyn, and then we’ll go to this gentleman right here.

QUESTION: Hello, Ambassador. I’m Evelyn Leopold, an independent journalist at the UN and head of Dag Hammarskjold Fund for Journalists. God, you remind me of Sudan. I went there. I – to Darfur with the Security Council in 2003, and it looks like it hasn’t changed much. But my question was: What did you have in mind for the so-called G4 – Germany, Brazil, Japan, and India? Because Italy would object to Germany because it feels it’s in competition; Brazil, the Latin Americans say it speaks the wrong language; Japan, China would object seriously; and India, Pakistan is already organizing as many Islamic states as it can against India.

MS. LABOTT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: So thank you so much for that question. On the G4, we have expressed our support for Japan and Germany and India. We have not explicitly expressed support for Brazil. India has the largest population in the world, and we really, really strongly support their being on the Council. And I think there are just no grounds for denying India that, but there will be people who will be opposed to various countries for various reasons. And that’s all going to be part of our negotiations moving forward.

MS. LABOTT: Okay. We have one more question online.

MODERATOR: We will take our next question from Kili Bahili Asboga (ph).

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador. Following up on an earlier question, Congress has threatened to withhold aid to the Palestinian Authority should it seek recognition as a full state at the UN and also should it support the ICC’s investigation. What is the position of the administration on this – on the withholding of aid should the ICC advance?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Look, Congress – we have three branches of government, and Congress has expressed its view on this through resolutions as well as in public statements. We certainly would not want to be in a situation where we withhold aid – needed aid – from the Palestinian people, but we also are under the obligation to support whatever decisions that our Congress makes. So that’s all I can say on that at the moment, and I’m hoping that we’re not forced into facing that position at some point in the future.

MS. LABOTT: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador. Stefano Vaccara (La Voce di New York) Press. It’s a follow-up on what Elise and others said about the reform. Just that the last day that the president of the General Assembly, Francis, was with us, with the journalists, he said – he said openly that he thinks that you, the P5, are not serious about any reform. We believe – I believed him. Now, you tried to convince this audience and the world that you are serious this time. So can you say something more about the seriousness?

And last thing is if you –

MS. LABOTT: No, let’s – we want to get to a lot questions.

QUESTION: Yes. The last thing is –

MS. LABOTT: So let’s keep it short.

QUESTION: If you actually are serious with reform, are you going to stay if Vice President Harris wins? Are you going to stay? (Laughter.)

MS. LABOTT: I love how you slipped that in there.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: We are serious about reform. And I know countries have questioned that commitment. I know that they have thrown all the P5 into one pot together and think that we are thinking and working together to ensure that UN reform doesn’t happen, and that is not the case. I wouldn’t be here today. President Biden wouldn’t have made this announcement two years ago and the previous year. And we will continue to work on this until we achieve some of the changes that we want to see achieved. And as for my future, right now we got four months to get through to the end of the year, when I will serve as the president of the Security Council for a fourth time, and that is all I’m focused on. (Laughter.)

MS. LABOTT: That’s not a “no,” though. (Laughter.) Nathan, in the back.

QUESTION: Hello. Nathan Colvin, new Army Fellow for this year here at the Council on Foreign Relations. I’m just wondering, with the violations of the Budapest Memorandum on Security

Assurances for Ukraine, are there viable pathways forward for non-proliferation still? Or is that an issue that just won’t be touched anytime soon?

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I think it’s an issue that has to be dealt with, and we will continue to work to deal with it, despite the fact that it looks impossible. We have to.

MS. LABOTT: Unfortunately, we’re out of time. But I would be remiss if I didn’t ask you: Are you going to be able to do this reform through gumbo diplomacy? (Laughter.) Tell us what gumbo diplomacy is.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Well, it’s absolutely what I have been doing. It is sitting around the table, engaging with people to talk through your differences. It’s not always about your coming together with people that you agree with. But if you’re able to sit around a table and talk through your differences and walk away from that table feeling that you have been heard, you’ve been respected, and that we can find a path forward, then you’ve achieved your goal.

And that’s what gumbo diplomacy is about for me. It’s about people sitting around the table. I talk about gumbo, but I do more than just gumbo. But it’s sitting around the table, having good food – and this is not something that is – that I discovered or I made up. Every single one of you do it. You know that when you’re sitting around the table, having a good meal, having a good conversation, you can come to some agreements and some commonalities, and that’s what gumbo diplomacy is to me, Elise.

MS. LABOTT: Well, Ambassador, I can’t thank you enough for joining us today. Thank you all here and online. (Applause.) A reminder: this recording will be on the CFR website. And we hope you’ll join us for UNGA week.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Good. Thank you.

MS. LABOTT: We’ll be having a lot of world leaders and interesting people.

AMBASSADOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Thank you.

###

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-thomas-greenfield-at-a-moderated-conversation-on-the-future-of-multilateralism-and-un-reform-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations/

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.