The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) gathers world leaders in New York this week. But how does it really work?
The United Nations General Assembly has gathered world leaders since 1945. But while presidents and prime ministers stage dramatic speeches in the hall, much of the real diplomatic work takes place on the sidelines. How does UNGA really work? What thorny issues are diplomats tackling this week? And what will we remember from this year's meeting? Jen talks to Carnegie expert Salman Ahmed, who has almost twenty years of experience at the UN.
Jen Psaki: 00:00 I'm Jen Psaki, welcome to the World Unpacked
Theme music: 00:06 [music]
Radio excerpt: 00:10 In London, a steak dinner had just been served to representatives of 51 United nations by King George the VI. Delegates to the first general assembly of the United Nations organization here to convene a meeting that may well determine whether peace will prevail on earth, whether the children of all the nations are to live. For the second time in a generation, the wounded nations of the world convalescing from war have met to discover not only the means of their survival, but also their right to survival.
Salman Ahmed: 00:40 Americans say UNGA. The rest of the world says U N G A. Both stand for the UN general assembly.
Jen Psaki: 00:47 That's Salman Ahmed, a former white house colleague of mine and our current colleague at the Carnegie endowment. He also has almost 20 years of experience in a range of roles at the United nations, including for the U.S. Mission.
Salman Ahmed: 00:57 It's where 193 member States, all of the member States of the UN. Come together and where they have a one vote apiece on a range of issues, some really concrete and others more symbolic. The concrete things are the U N G A or UNGA. It approves the budget of the UN. It decides on how much each country must pay for the budget.
Jen Psaki: 01:22 And that happens during this meeting every year?
Salman Ahmed: 01:24 So the general assembly is in session for the whole year and a large chunk of the work gets done between September and December, the fall session before Christmas, but then it resumes again in January. And a lot of work is being done between January and may. So these five days that take place. This high level is really just the opening, the scene setting, the agenda setting event. But the real work takes place over the course of the year.
Jen Psaki: 01:49 And I guess we're all focused on this week or two weeks depending because it's when a lot of foreign leaders come to New York.
Salman Ahmed: 01:55 That's right. So these five days are when you have over a hundred heads of state and government two who arrive in New York along with, you know, another 40 or 50 foreign ministers and they each have a chance to address the general assembly technically for 15 minutes, although not all of them onto that. Fidel Castro spoke for four and a half hours in 1960.
Jen Psaki: 02:17 I remember Khadafi speeches as going on perhaps longer than 15 minutes.
Salman Ahmed: 02:22 Absolutely. He spoke for 90 minutes in 2009. I was there. It was, it was, it was hard. So they're there to make initial remarks, set the scene, and then there are about 300 different events that are taking place, side events and meetings with the leaders and ministers over the course of these few weeks. And then everyone goes home, they go on to their normal day jobs and the work continues among the 193 countries and their diplomats who are all based in New York.
Jen Psaki: 02:52 So I want to talk a little bit about what's happening behind the scenes. I mean I've been to about a quarter or less than that of the number of UNGAs, that you have probably been too. But there's a lot of meetings happening between foreign ministers, foreign secretaries diplomats of all levels, sometimes higher level leaders than that. Tell us a little bit about how that's working. Are there conversations in the hallways or are they sitting down at tables? Is it a combination?
Salman Ahmed: 03:19 So it's all of the above. You know, if you are scheduling the president of the United States, as you know, every single encounter is an opportunity or target of opportunity. So if you're in a rope line, shaking hands for photos, you might think about, well, what am I gonna do with that 30 seconds? If there's a point to be made you're thinking about the lunches and the dinners where you're sitting next to a world leader, you often lobby behind the scenes to make sure that you get to sit next to the person you need to talk to.
Salman Ahmed: 03:47 And in fact, you know that's an interesting piece, because I remember there being talking points written for president Obama or secretary Kerry just based on who they might be sitting next to at a dinner. I mean that's an opportunity to get diplomacy done.
Salman Ahmed: 03:59 Absolutely. And when you're at the U.S. Mission to the UN preparing for this high level week, some of the things you're doing is working with the protocol office at the UN trying to find out, okay, who's going to be at the table, is there some way to move things around? And when you're the host country is the U.S. Is, we have some special prerogatives and benefits that come with that. So often the UN will be a little bit more deferential to the U. S., Because it is the host country.
Jen Psaki: 04:25 So what is it? So as the host countrywhat does that entail? What does that mean? You, you are a, you don't get another vote for the budget, right? But you are hosting all these countries.
Salman Ahmed: 04:37 So as one of the 193 members of the general assembly, the U.S. Is involved in all of negotiations on hundreds of resolutions in the general assembly that are adopted every year. So it's doing all of that work and all the committee work. But on top of that as the host country, particularly for this high level week, it's responsible for providing security for the event, which is no small feat when you're looking at the largest gathering of world leaders at any moment in time and, you know, in the world it's also trying to make sure that everyone has safe passage and entry into the U.S. Even if we have hostile relations with certain countries, there is an exception when it comes to allowing them to come and attend the UN. But then restrictions are put on how far they can travel. Even behind the scenes today, there is ongoing disputes between the U.S. And Russia and the U.S. And Cuba over whether all of their diplomats got their visas in time or whether it took too long, et cetera.
Jen Psaki: 05:33 Tell us more about the visas because there's a, there's a literally a mile radius that certain people attending can not travel farther than...
Salman Ahmed: 05:42 That's right. And you know, it's, you know, going back to the cold war period and the Soviets coming and there were restrictions on where they could travel. With Cuba, with Iran, with North Korea, those restrictions had been in place, the exact numbers and where they can go and what they can do varied. So it's not a set piece that's been all the same way all the time. And so that we have career people at the U.S. Mission. Lawyers and non-lawyers, diplomats who do this for a living, and they are like the historical memory of all of these complicated negotiations on the management of visas and entry. And they work with the state department in Washington on, they're also dealing with unexpected circumstances. So for example, in 2009 when Momar Gaddafi came to the general assembly, he wanted to pitch a tent in central park. So how do you manage that with the city of New York, and find an alternative situation, which doesn't involve a huge caravan.
Jen Psaki: 06:41 What happened?
Salman Ahmed: 06:45 They ultimately did not set up tents in central park. He stayed in hotel and that that was managed away. But every, every year there's something like that where some delegation or another's asking for some exception from the city of New York and I might have to deal with that.
Jen Psaki: 07:01 So tell us a little bit about there are permanent members of the UNand how is their power different and how does that work?
Salman Ahmed: 07:08 So the, the general assembly is one organ of the UN, but it's not the only one. So there's also an economic and social council, international court of justice and the security council. And the security council is the one that most people will be familiar with because it's the body that is responsible for dealing with matters of war and peace. It only has 15 members, five of whom are there permanently. That's the, the U. S., Russia, China, the UK, and France. And they being the victors of world war II and they have a veto. And so there's no decision taken by the security council with which they don't agree. And as such, the security council is something that the United States you might be paying more attention to because it has greater weight and deal. It deals with issues we care about a lot. And that's different from the general assembly where every country has a vote and there are 193 members. But it's important to remember that for the rest of the world, they're not on the security council. The security council only has 15 members 10 of whom are rotating every two years. They're called the non-permanent members, the general assembly, elects them. And so the general assembly is really important for most of the rest of the world, because that's where they get their say.
Jen Psaki: 08:19 And there's often interesting moments that happen at the general assembly. I remember a couple, even just from my time in government when president Obama and president Rouhani who had just recently been electedto the be the president of Iran, you know, there was a whole discussion behind the scenes about whether they were going to see each other in some way at the, at the UN general assembly. They ended up having a phone call on the way to the airport, butthat engagement became a big part, at least for the United States, but probably for the rest of the world about what was happening. There was a followup to the OPCWnegotiations about chemical weapons. What are some of the historical moments, I guess, that you remember from your time of the opening session?
Salman Ahmed: 09:06 Yeah, so the mostpoignant, significant moment, I remember it was after 9/11, because the general assembly normally meets in the third week of September. And obviously it had to be delayed because of the tragic terrorist attacks on 9/11. But several weeks later, the general assembly did meet and there was this tremendous outpouring of support for the United States at that time. And a great moment of international solidarity. And you had president Bush at the podium thanking countries, particularly from the Arab and Muslim world for their support. And meanwhile in the corridors and behind the scenes, there was a lot of intensive diplomatic work on going to prepare the ground for a political transition in Afghanistan because the U.S. Military action was underway. It was clear that the Taliban was going to fall. And the question was which government would then take its place and the U.S. Turned to the United nations. And said ""look, we would really like you to lead the diplomatic process to negotiate a solution. And a lot of that work actually happened on the margins of that high level event. And I recall secretary general, Kofi Annan and the UN Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. Brought together several of the key players, which included secretary of state, Colin Powell, but also the Iranian foreign minister, the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, and they're all in a room uand basically hammered out a communicate that set out the roadmap for getting toa peace conference and that would not have happened more or less anywhere else. And that's what's unique about this meeting in New York is that world leaders are going and meeting each other all over the place all the time. But certain groups of leaders are never or rarely ever going to be in the same place. So if not for the UN general assembly, when do you put the U. S. and the Iranians together in the room? And this was 2001 in a different context.
Jen Psaki: 11:04 And it rarely seems to be kind of the set speeches. I mean, there's always interesting moments. You mentioned,uKhadafi speaking for 90 minutes, I guess. I don't know if that counts as an interesting moment, but it, it seems to be often these kind of behind the scenes conversations that are responding to world events. I mean, obviously 9/11 is, that's a fascinating story. And example.
Salman Ahmed: 11:24 Yeah, I think the speeches are, tend to be remembered for the theatrics more than for their content. So Fidel Castro's theatrical were well known and he would speak for a long time and he wouldrail against the United States. There was the moment with Khrushchev, where he was,, in fact not at the podium, but at his desk. And he was incensed by something a Philippine delegate was saying against the Soviet behavior in Eastern Europe. And so the story goes, he banged his fist and then he banged his shoe, although there's no video footage of it. So whether he waved his shoe or banged, it is actually a moment of debate... In 1974, Yasser Arafat came for the first time to the general assembly and he spoke about having an olive branch in one hand and a and a freedom fighters' gun in the other. And he said, don't let the olive branch fall from my hand. And that was considered a kind of dramatic moment in 1974. So you can point in any given year to maybe a speech or two that people will remember a line or two. But rarely do those speeches actually represent diplomatic movement. And as you said that often tends to happen in the meetings that are happening on the sidelines. Although my sense is that a one off meeting that's divorced from an actual process is just a one off meeting. So if it's a historic phone call, as in the case with president Obama and Rohani sure. That's, that's news. If it's a handshake that hasn't happened or it's a meeting that hasn't happened, it's still news, but it doesn't constitute movement unless it's connected with the work that's going on over the whole year of diplomats really preparing the ground. And that's where where people worry about the hollowing out of the U.S. Diplomacy because you've got to prepare the ground for these things and say, all right, these leaders are going to be in New York at this time. How far do we have had to have gotten in order to get something done at that moment? And if you haven't done it, it's not necessarily constantly
Jen Psaki: 13:19 The world leaders are essentially the closers. They are not the a, I can't continue my baseball reference here, but there's been a lot of work that's been done and months and hours and lots of paper in the lead up to the engagement.
Salman Ahmed: 13:33 "Absolutely. They're the closers. Or they can be the openers and maybe you could say the speech opens a new door or that first meeting says, "all right, I'm willing to give peace a chance, or I'm willing to see a new relationship between our countries." But then obviously what matters is the followup that happens over the course of the next year or two. There are I should say that there are very consequential things that do happen on the margin sometimes that have been prepared by the UN. So in 2000 the world leaders adopted what were called the millennium development goals, which is a global commitment to how they're going to deal with theglobal poverty. In 2015, they adopted something called the sustainable development goals. And those are 17 goals on how to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 about how to protect the planet, about how to empower women and girls and fight discrimination about how to address infectious diseases. They're all really concrete targets. And it was the product of, you know, years of negotiation where the heads of state came together and ultimately closed the deal. But everyone signed onto those. And so for a lot of member States, these meetings including this year, are about taking stock of what did we commit to and how are we going to move forward between now and 2030. So it's about the trendlines, not about the headlines.
Jen Psaki: 14:47 When we come back back, we're going to talk about what's happening this year. Some of the big that may be discussed behind the scenes and if there are any speeches that may stick out.
Theme music: 15:05 [Music Plays]
Greta Thunberg: 15:06 This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us, young people for hope. How dare you!
Jen Psaki: 15:22 I don't think we can delve into the the big thorny global issues without that may be discussed behind the scenes and in speeches without talking about Greta Thunberg the 16 year old, a Swedish young woman who's really been an advocate on climate change. I watched that speech. You watched that speech. What were your thoughts "and how do you think it impacted people in the room?
Salman Ahmed: 15:45 I think there will be tens of thousands of words that will have been uttered by world leaders from the podium and the general assembly. But I think this year's general assembly will be remembered for just three words that were uttered by a 16 year old from Sweden. And those are "how dare you". She stood up in front of the gathering of, of leaders at the climate summit and more or less castigated them for their lack of action in dealing with climate change. And she spoke from the heart. She spoke passionately, but she also spoke to the science and got pretty technical. And she did this all in three or four minutes, more or less, laying out how all the things they were saying were simply inadequate to deal with the challenge we face. And she was speaking on behalf of a youth movement, which she and many others have helped energize and have been meeting around the world in the lead up. To say that you, leaders are essentially bequeathing this problem to us. How dare you. And I think that when people look back on it, that's what they're going to remember.
Jen Psaki: 16:52 Put it in context. Climate change has not long been a topic that would have been discussed in this forum at this level. Right?
Salman Ahmed: 17:00 So, you know, going back to the early nineties, you had the, the Rio process and the earth summit. And then it started to get discussed in a more serious way, you know, Kyoto, right? So throughout the 90s, it was a topic. And in the two thousands, it's been a topic, so it's been on the docket for decades. But what it has never been until now is at the top of the list. Right. And for many countries around the world, it is the number one issue. And for young people it is the number one issue. And what makes an interesting UN issue is of course that no one country can solve this on their own. They're all gonna have to work together on this one. So more or less over the last several years, it's really risen. In terms of the priority, the secretary general Antonio Guttierez, to have made this as number one priority of the side events at least two of them are dedicated to climate related issues. The one that, which Greta Thunberg spoke yesterday and then one later in the week for small Island developing states. I mean, these are the small States in the South Pacific and elsewhere whose very existence is at stake. So it's a huge deal. And also a huge deal. Therefore, for many member States that the United States, China and Brazil their leaders did not address the climate summit. That it did not really feature in president Trump's speech at all.
Jen Psaki: 18:26 , The biggest emitters.
Salman Ahmed: 18:27 That's right. So, you know, in 2015 in the end, in the year leading up to the Paris climate agreement, you know, the big news was in fact how the United States under president Obama's leadership had taken these dramatic steps at home to lead by example, and had worked with the Chinese in order to re reach a breakthrough. And, and for many, if not for that deal between the U.S. And China, you don't get to the Paris Paris Accords. And so the contrast is really quite stark this year.
Jen Psaki: 19:00 So there are a couple of other, to put it, to put it mildly big issues that are percolating in the world. One is certainly the rising tensions with Iran. Which kind of escalated with the a recent strike on the Saudi oil tankers. Just last week. What kind of conversations you're not there. Obviously you don't work at the UN anymore. You're here. What kind of conversations do you think are happening behind the scenes on that? And do you think there can be progress made with, with many world leaders as you've, as you've outlined in the same place?
Salman Ahmed: 19:37 Yeah, so I think when something like that happens, the first thing that's debated in the UN context is, well, how do you know who's responsible? So normally you'd have some disagreement over, well, it was Iran responsible or not. I think something interesting happened this week though, where the UK, France and Germany came out with a statement, calling out Iran and saying it was responsible for the attack. So that was fairly significant. And, and I think something that the Trump administration would have would have welcomed. All right. You also have president Macron talking about the need for not only getting back to the JCPOA, but thinking about, you know, the Iran nuclear deal. But what has to happen beyond it to cover other issues in the region such as you know, Iran's destabilizing regional behaviors. So that too would be seen as a bit of an olive branch to the U.S. Meanwhile, president Trump in his speech, while he reiterated his antipathy for the Iranian regime he didn't actually ratchet up the, the concrete pressure, so to speak. So some might have viewed it as being a bit muted. And so it might give some people some hope that, okay, maybe behind the scenes in the weeks and months that unfold, there's some ways to ratchet down the tension. At least that's what people would have taken away from these different diplomatic SIG signalings over the course of the week. But again, as I said, this is just a couple of days. A lot will depend on what happens in the days after, in the weeks after.
Jen Psaki: 21:06 Another big issue is of course this accusation that president Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in an effort to pressure the government to investigate Joe Biden's son. I'm not gonna ask you about domestic politics here. Obviously there's a lot going on in that front, but how does that come up? You know, either the accusation given its military assistance from the United States or even us domestic politics. How has it discussed kind of in the hallways during UNGA?
Salman Ahmed: 21:36 So, you know, the, the UN's are an interesting place where people are, must actively avoid things that look like very, very strictly political domestic issues. So for example, in 1998 bill Clinton, president Clintonwhen he was going to address the, the GA found, you know, you had in the background on TV all the details unfolding ou know, in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and some of the details that hadn't been in public before. He ended up getting a standing ovation. Not because of the content of his speech because people were in the hall were just showing solidarity with him. I don't think the same level of solidarity exists today for president Trump, but nonetheless, this idea that these operate in two separate spheres is the principle that applies in the, in the moment. There are a couple of differences in this instance, hne is that president Trump chose to say that he had cut off aid to Ukraine, hecause other countries weren't paying, particularly the Europeans. So in that sense, I imagine over the course of the week, you're gonna see a lot of fact sheets and a lot of Europeans pushing back on that one point saying in fact, NATO and the EU have done a lot on you.
Jen Psaki: 22:51 Yeah, I mean if we pause on that for a second, you know, I obviously watched the speech as well. He makes that argument around NATO quite a bit, which is a little oversimplified and we don't have to go into explaining that now. Is there truth to the United States giving more military assistance to Ukraine than other European countries? Or is that, is there any base to it?
Salman Ahmed: 23:10 So I think that the European union, I think put out a fact sheet about $15 billion worth of aid and economic assistance that it's provided. I don't, I'm not in a position to verify or not. Obviously that's not about military assistance, but it's the whole package of assistance. So might there be some element of truth about NATO... You know, what the U.S. Is giving relative to others on military [inaudible] maybe, but I think you're going to have a lot of Europeans saying "hang on a second".
Jen Psaki: 23:39 Turns out that they are effective at reaching out to global media as well.
Salman Ahmed: 23:44 Yeah. But I think, you know, on this, you know, how does this moment affect things? I think more it's about how do leaders believe this will play into the 2020 election. Upresident Trump is not very popular in many other countries, so it's not really in their political interest to hug him close. Uif they think that,uyou know, this is gonna increase the likelihood that he either won't continue, he won't finish his term or he'll lose the election. They might keep even more of a distance. Conversely, if they think this is going to have no impact and that he's likely to some politica or help him, they're going to hedge their bets. And so they're looking not just really at what the headline is for today, but with the trend line is for the next election.
Jen Psaki: 24:28 So another major source of tension is in Kashmir and of course we have the prime minister of Pakistan who is expected to speak at the UN general assembly. How do you think that issue are, or is this an issue that other world leaders from other parts of the world are paying attention to or engaged in? Or is it, is it really focused primarily on the region where it's occurring?
Salman Ahmed: 24:51 So Kashmir has been on the agenda since 1948 and it goes up and down at different moments of a heightened tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Generally speaking the Indian position has been and presumably were remain in different settings, that this is an internal matter for India and therefore should not be internationalized. The position of the Pakistanis is of course to internationalize it to the maximum extent possible because they see this disputed area that can only be addressed through international involvement. And so the question then becomes is where do other countries fall in the spectrum? Generally speaking, both the U.S. And the UN secretary general, you know, the position they've often taken and, and you hear echoes of it today, again, is essentially we're ready to mediate if both parties would, you know, except that outside role, even though they know the Indians wouldn't. And meanwhile they'll focus on tension on the human rights situation and people who have been cut off from communications.
Salman Ahmed: 25:54 And so you'll hear differences of views expressed obviously in very stark terms. And for the Pakistanis and the Indians, this is a big deal. I can only imagine for, for the, it'll be the top line from, from Pakistan. But for many other countries around the world, they're probably going to treat it pretty carefully. I think president Erdogan did address it in his speech and given Turkey's close relations with Pakistan that's probably not surprising. The question is how many other countries will, and, and that's something that for those who work on this issue, you'd really want to listen to carefully.
Jen Psaki: 26:28 The UN general assembly is meeting just a week after the recent Israeli elections took place. Things are still quite fluid on the ground and prime minister, Netanyahu decided not to come to New York. He's usually kind of a,ua present player in these meetings. How does that impact the discussion about,uthe future of the region or the, the possibility of middle East peace? Does that, is that still a topic that's talked about?
Salman Ahmed: 26:57 Israel, Palestine, Middle East peace... These are permanent features on the UN agenda. They're always a big topic of discussion at the UN general assembly. People are always listening quite carefully to, you know, the leaders of Israel and to the Palestinians, when they com, they're having side meetings with them. Prime minister Netanyahu himself has always you know, noteworthy at minimum and what he says in the way he says it. So his absence is, is notable from this general assembly, but more than that because things are unsettled with you know, the leadership of Israel going forward, you might have a lot of countries holding their fire for now to see where things are gonna land and not saying as much as they might have otherwise. Had it been clear which way things were going.
Jen Psaki: 27:45 When we come back, we're going to talk about what happens now. And we're the UN general assembly does for the remainder of the session.
Theme music: 27:59 Music Plays
Jen Psaki: 28:00 So when you were working at the United nations and the UN general assembly opening session, a wrapped and world leaders at least went home. You still had diplomats, of course, many, a high level still in New York as a part of their different missions. Did you breathe a sigh of relief or kind of,/ what work happens then?
Salman Ahmed: 28:19 So, yeah, a lot of delegations have wheels up party. I bet. Because you know, when you've got a head of state and ministers and huge delegations in town and you're staffing UN meetings and bilats and mini lateral summits and receptions, it's an enormous amount of work unquestionably. Once they all had home the normal general assembly business resumed and delegates fan out to the six committees, different committees and the general assembly where, you know, totality of up to 200 resolutions will be negotiated. Many of them by December. The agenda items are well known. The battle lines are drawn. They know the issues that matter to their country and they're going to have to fight for. Some are mainstays for the U.S. Either way, if you're an American diplomat, some vary depending on who's in power. So for example the current administration in all likelihood is going to be trying to strip from resolutions, anything that could be construed as being supportive ofabortion rights. So the reproductive health issues become the big issue and you see real differences between a Democratic and Republican administration on an item like that. But those negotiations will and then the, and in the spring the big debate on the budget will happen and those are among the most contentious negotiations as well.
Jen Psaki: 29:50 So we talked about what will be remembered. Greta Thunberg's speech and how powerful and passionate she was about climate change. Do you think there's anything that could happen on any big issue this week that would kind of change the course of discussions in the coming months, either at the UN general assembly or as people are debating Iran or Russia or Kashmir or Israel or any other issue?
Salman Ahmed: 30:17 Honestly, I don't think anyone was expecting any huge breakthroughs this week on any of those issues that we've talked about already or for that matter on some that we didn't cover, you know, such as the situations and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Yemen, and several other hotspots around the globe. That's not to say however, that there were not conversations taking place. Outside of the public glare, that could contribute to some progress down the road. You know, there were ministerial meetings or will be ministerial meetings and sub ministerial meetings that bring together key regional actors and international players on several of the conflict zones. Uyou know, often it's like when you're twisting a jar and it doesn't twist off immediately, but eventually it does. It's the cumulative effect. Uso perhaps some of the conversations taking place have contributed to that. Uone also wonders whether the engagement of new actors into the mix, like a lot of new private sector actors, corporations, banks, et cetera, you know, might have, might have those conversations spark some avenues of new financing. Whether it's for, you know, realizing the sustainable sustainable development goals writ large or quite specifically for climate change, where the gaps are really, really quite huge. I think those are the kinds of things we want to look for down the road that may be more evident later. Likewise, you know, a new conversations were started about, for example,uthe, the intersection of emerging technologies in the digital space and international humanitarian law. It's not the kind of conversation that you normally hear at the UN, but it was one in which the president of Microsoft and the president of the international committee of the red cross and the head of disarmament affairs for the UN were engaged in a this week. Uso these are all things that one wants to keep an eye on and maybe we can trace them back to developments,uat the UN this week. But for the moment,none really rise rise above the surface just yet.
Jen Psaki: 32:15 All will be interesting to watch. And thank you for joining us on the World Unpacked. We appreciate you taking the time.
Jen Psaki: 32:21 Thank you. Thanks for listening to the World Unpacked, which is produced by the Carnegie endowment for international peace. You can find us on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. For more information and to subscribe, you can find us@worldunpacked.com don't to rate the show, it helps other people find us. Our audio engineer is Tim Martin and our executive producer is Lauren Dueck