We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
FILE PHOTO: Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic and an expert member of the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence addresses, via video link, the U.N. Security Council during a meeting on Artificial intelligence at U.N. headquarters in New York City, U.S., July 18, 2023.
The UN’s AI resolution
The United Nations General Assembly adopted its first-ever draft resolution on artificial intelligence on March 21, pledging to “to refrain from or cease the use of artificial intelligence systems that are impossible to operate in compliance with international human rights law or that pose undue risks to the enjoyment of human rights.”
The resolution was brought by the United States’ delegation with the support of 123 member nations—including China and Russia. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the UN, said it’s crucial “to govern this technology rather than let it govern us.”
The resolution comes one week after Europe became the first major government to pass comprehensive regulation to rein the most severe risks of AI. Read our interview with MEP Eva Maydell, one of the architects of the law, for more on the future of AI regulation.US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Greenfield-Thomas addresses a meeting of the Security Council as they consider a US-sponsored resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza, on March 22, 2024.
China and Russia veto US cease-fire resolution for Gaza
Yet another Gaza cease-fire resolution failed in the UN Security Council today – though the US was not responsible for blocking it this time. China and Russia vetoed a US-sponsored resolution urging for “an immediate and sustained cease-fire” in the Israel-Hamas war in connection with a hostage deal.
Beijing and Moscow’s ambassadors seemingly took issue with the language of the resolution, contending it didn’t go far enough to demand a cease-fire. The US resolution “sets up conditions for a ceasefire, which is no different from giving a green light to continued killings, which is unacceptable,” said Zhang Jun, China’s ambassador to the UN.
Russia's ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said Moscow supported a cease-fire but decried the US resolution as a “hypocritical spectacle.” Nebenzia said it was “exceedingly politicized … to help to play to the voters, to throw them a bone in the form of some kind of a mention of a cease-fire in Gaza.”
The US, Israel’s top ally, previously vetoed three cease-fire resolutions. The latest resolution signaled a shift in Washington’s stance on the war, as the Biden administration faces domestic pressure over its support for Israel and butts heads with Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over plans to invade Rafah – a city filled with displaced Palestinians.
Playing politics? The US accused Russia and China, two of its top adversaries, of tanking the resolution for political reasons. "Russia and China simply did not want to vote for a resolution that was penned by the United States,” said US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
What’s next? Elected members of the UNSC have penned an alternative resolution that demands an immediate cease-fire, which could be brought to a vote on Friday afternoon. The US has signaled it will block the measure.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to Israel on Friday as part of ongoing efforts to secure a new truce. Netanyahu remained defiant during the visit, telling Blinken that Israel can't defeat Hamas without going into Rafah and that it will move forward with the operation without US support if necessary.
Can the US be a global leader on human rights?
Is it difficult to be a global leader on human rights when the US is facing such a challenging and divisive political environment?
GZERO World sat down with US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield at UN headquarters in New York ahead of the US taking over presidency of the Security Council for the month of August.
Ian Bremmer asked the ambassador about her priorities during the presidency, as well as how domestic issues in the United States impact her job as an international diplomat. Is it difficult to be a global leader on human rights when the US is facing such a challenging and divisive political environment?
“If we’re not talking about human rights around the world, no one else will,” Thomas-Greenfield said in an interview from the floor of the Security Council chamber, “I know that others appreciate that they can depend on the United States to be the voice of the people.”
While acknowledging the US is not perfect, Thomas-Greenfield says that when the US wasn’t sitting on the Human Rights Council during the previous administration, “people missed us, they needed us.” That gives her a clear path to make sure America’s voice is heard on things like human rights and humanitarian assistance.
“The United Nations is an important part of our history,” Thomas-Greenfield emphasized, “But it’s also an important part of our futures.”
Watch the full interview: Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television. Check local listings.
- Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy ›
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- Did the UN accomplish anything in Xinjiang? ›
- Women in power: Chile’s Michelle Bachelet ›
- Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency ›
Russia undermines everything the UN stands for, says Linda Thomas-Greenfield
Should Russia be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council?
That’s the question Ian Bremmer asked US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield on GZERO World ahead of the United States taking over the Security Council presidency for the month of August.
The UN Security Council is tasked with maintaining peace and stability around the globe. But how realistic is that mandate when one of its permanent members started a war in the middle of Europe with an unprovoked attack on its neighbor?
“Russia is not living up to what is required of a permanent member,” Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said in an interview from the floor of the council chamber, “What they are doing undermines everything the UN stands for.”
Despite the contentious relationship, Thomas-Greenfield is the most senior official in the United States with regular, direct contact with a high-level diplomat from the Russian Federation. Thomas-Greenfield uses the relationship to continue to raise the issue of Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, American citizens unlawfully detained in Russia. She also continues to call out Russia for pulling out of the Black Sea grain deal and jeopardizing the world’s food supply.
“The Russian action is evidence to the world that Russia does not care about humankind,” Thomas-Greenfield says, “Their withdrawing from the grain deal, and then attacking agricultural infrastructure in Ukraine sends a chilling message to the world.”
Watch the full interview: Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television. Check local listings.
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- Ian Explains: Why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council ›
- Hard Numbers: Russia to helm Security Council, Sonko seized, Stubborn EU inflation, Australia vs. climate change ›
- Russian UN veto cuts aid deliveries to northwest Syria ›
- Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency ›
- The state of multilateralism: Shaky, fragile & stretched to capacity - GZERO Media ›
Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy
Can diplomacy solve the world’s most urgent crises?
GZERO World travels to UN headquarters in New York for a special conversation with US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield ahead of the United States taking over the presidency of the Security Council for the month of August.
The United States has a lot of priorities for the session, including food security, human rights, and Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. But with Russia a permanent, veto-wielding member of one of the world’s most powerful diplomatic bodies, how much can really get done?
“What Russia is doing undermines everything that the UN stands for,” Thomas-Greenfield told Bremmer in an interview with Ian Bremmer from the floor of the Security Council chamber. “They are undermining the work of this council by carrying out this unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
Thomas-Greenfield spoke with Bremmer about the contentious relationship with Russia, worries about the world’s food supply after the collapse of the Black Sea grain deal, and the urgency of addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
Can the countries of the world put aside their differences and competing interests to effectively deal with the most pressing international security challenges? And what else does the US hope to accomplish during its Council presidency in August?
Watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- As Sudan war worsens, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says UN must help ›
- Russia kills Ukraine grain deal ›
- Russia's exit from Black Sea grain deal will drive up food prices ›
- Ian Explains: Why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council ›
- Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency ›
- Episode 8: Global food (in)security ›
- Is the global food crisis here to stay? ›
- Can the US be a global leader on human rights? - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, human rights, & the Security Council presidency
Listen: On August 1, the United States will take over the presidency of the United Nations security council.
The GZERO World Podcast heads to the Security Council chamber at the UN headquarters in New York City for a special conversation with US UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
The US has a few major agenda items they hope to tackle during the month of August, including global food security, human rights issues, and calling out Russia for its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Thomas-Greenfield also hopes to use the session to address issues getting less attention in the media, like the Sudan war and security situation in Haiti.
But how effective can the Security Council be at dealing with the world’s most urgent crises when two US geopolitical adversaries, Russia and China, are permanent, veto-wielding members? Should Russia be removed from the council? And how difficult is it for the US to champion human rights around the world when the political environment at home is so divisive?
Ian Bremmer sits down with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield in a wide ranging conversation about diplomacy, security, and the future of the United Nations.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published- Ian Explains: Why Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council ›
- Hard Numbers: Russia to helm Security Council, Sonko seized, Stubborn EU inflation, Australia vs. climate change ›
- As Sudan war worsens, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says UN must help ›
- UN official: Security Council Is “dysfunctional” - but UN is not ›
- Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Russia, Sudan & the power of diplomacy - GZERO Media ›
- Russia undermines everything the UN stands for, says Linda Thomas-Greenfield - GZERO Media ›
- Can the US be a global leader on human rights? - GZERO Media ›
As Sudan war worsens, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield says UN must help
On August 1, the United States will take over the presidency of the UN Security Council.
Ian Bremmer sat down with US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield at the UN headquarters in New York to find out what’s on the US agenda for the council presidency next month.
High on the list is addressing issues of food insecurity, human rights violations, and calling out Russia for their ongoing war in Ukraine. But Thomas-Greenfield is also concerned about another global conflict that isn’t getting nearly the same amount of attention: the war in Sudan.
On July 23, the Sudan conflict entered its 100th day. The war is waging a devastating human toll, reigniting ethnic violence and increasing concerns the country is descending into a “full-scale civil war.” On April 15, tensions between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces erupted into armed conflict, turning Khartoum and surrounding areas into a war zone. More than 3 million people have been displaced from their homes, including 700,000 refugees who’ve fled to nearby countries. The health ministry reports that some 1,136 people have been killed, though the true number is believed to be much higher.
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield says that maintaining peace and security around the globe is a fundamental responsibility of the Security Council. While the war in Ukraine is certainly a priority, the war in Sudan must also be on the agenda.
“The people in Sudan want to hear from the Security Council that we have not forgotten them, that we care about the human rights violations that are being committed,” Thomas-Greenfield told Bremmer. “They need to hear the world has not turned their backs on what is happening in their country.”
Watch the upcoming full interview on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television. Check local listings.
Myanmar military unlikely to back down; challenges for the new US ambassador to the UN
Ian Bremmer shares his perspective on global politics this week:
With protests growing, where does that leave the Myanmar coup?
Well, certainly no feeling on the part of the military that they need to back down under either domestic or international pressure. There's been relatively limited violence, thankfully so far. A few protesters have been killed. They've used tear gas, they've used water cannons, but much less of a crackdown than certainly they're capable of or that we've seen from the Myanmar military historically. That, of course, gives the protesters on the ground more incentive to think that they have success, and they can continue.
Around the world it's getting a lot of attention and certainly the Biden administration much more focused on human rights, dramatically more, especially Secretary of State Blinken than the Trump administration was. So, focus on additional sanctions, focus on more pressure, coordination with other countries, but not with the countries that matter the most to the Myanmar economy and that is China overwhelmingly. They've got a good relationship with the military and they've been very clear that publicly they are not on the side of the protesters. They just want calm, but they're not going to undermine this government. They're not going to level sanctions and that level of unwillingness to get involved, undercut the sovereignty of the Myanmar government, is something you'll see with all of the top countries that trade with Myanmar. It's Japan, it's Thailand, I mean across Southeast Asia that's all the same. So as a consequence, I think you could certainly continue to see significant demonstrations, but it's very hard to imagine anything that would upset this coup outcome and that means that the military remains in charge. I mean, even though you can imagine with a redo in elections, that they might try to reingratiate themselves with the West and offer a position, a compromise to Aung San Suu Kyi, as long as they perform better in unfair and unfree elections themselves, it's hard to imagine that she would accept that. So as a consequence, stability goes down, economic trajectory goes down, but the military government, at least for the time being, is here to stay.
What challenges are ahead for the new US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield?
She was just confirmed, sworn in by Vice President Kamala Harris and, on the one hand, the Biden administration is vastly more interested in working with the United Nations and multilateral institutions and architecture than the Trump administration was. And that's particularly true on issues of climate, which has been the area of greatest success for the UN. It's the one that the secretary general, António Guterres, is most proud of and in that regard, this is going to be a very easy, very friendly relationship, even though she doesn't bring anywhere near the level of influence, either domestically in the US or globally, that Nikki Haley did when she was ambassador to the UN, or for that matter, Samantha Powers did or Madeline Albright did.
But having said that, the United Nations Security Council is a pretty broken institution. You've got countries with very different interests with permanent seats that have vetoes that can stop anything useful from happening, unless you have consensus. When you look around the world right now, there are very few issues that have consensus. You can get relatively watered-down statements condemning behaviors from various rogue states around the world and, indeed, most recently you got one on Myanmar, but the actual impact that those statements have is virtually zero. So, it's a useful place for the most powerful countries in the world to engage, to share information, and certainly you want experienced diplomats to be involved and appointed there and I think that Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield is certainly that. But the idea that the United States is suddenly going to have more success in day-to-day workings in that group, that's certainly not the case. We're very, very far from that. There's no reform happening in the Security Council any time soon.
Are Putin and Lukashenko best friends now?
Well, they're a lot friendlier, right? I mean, you saw that President Lukashenko of Belarus accepted very happily an invitation from Russian President Putin to Sochi to go skiing, to share some drinks, to act in a convivial fashion in relatively informal clothing and spent hours together at a time when the United States and the Europeans are looking to increase sanctions against Russia because of the SolarWinds attack which hit the US, and NATO, and the UK, and the EU, and has been attributed to Russia, and also because of the jailing of Navalny, Alexei Navalny. Putin is very happy to show that he's continuing business as usual in his backyard and that means standing by Lukashenko, an incredibly repressive leader that continues to stay in power despite having stolen his most recent presidential elections. Demonstrations in Belarus have lost a lot of momentum though they still continue on the weekends. A lot of people have been jailed and, again, it's very clear that hard to keep enthusiasm when you see that the level of repressive control of the government and its security forces is complete, is a hundred percent and there are no defections to speak of.
We've seen this in Syria, we've seen it in Venezuela, we've seen it in Russia. We are seeing it in Myanmar, we're seeing it in Belarus. I mean, despite that we had the Colored Revolutions in the former Soviet Union with large numbers of people, massive demonstrations on the ground, that led to democratic overthrow of governments when those institutions were really on the way out. We saw a bit of that in the Arab Spring, but only successful in Tunisia. In Egypt successful briefly, but not fully, and then turned back and nowhere else in the region. And now with the exception of little Armenia that had a successful revolution and brought in a democratically supported prime minister, but also just lost a war with Azerbaijan, most of these popular movements are having a really hard time right now. And some of that is technology trends and surveillance and control. Some of that is lack of credibility of big democratic institutions, themselves, like the United States. Some of that is greater power of China and regional rogue states over and in their backyards, all of which means Putin and Lukashenko are looking stronger today than they have been in the past months.