Biden’s Farewell to a Tense United Nations: Finding Hope
from International Institutions and Global Governance Program
from International Institutions and Global Governance Program

Biden’s Farewell to a Tense United Nations: Finding Hope

U.S. President Joe Biden stands before the UN General Assembly to give his last remarks as president.
U.S. President Joe Biden stands before the UN General Assembly to give his last remarks as president. Mike Segar/Reuters

U.S. President Joe Biden used his final address to the UN General Assembly to exhort leaders to press ahead with efforts at peace and reconciliation and included a poignant appeal for democracies.

September 24, 2024 7:40 pm (EST)

U.S. President Joe Biden stands before the UN General Assembly to give his last remarks as president.
U.S. President Joe Biden stands before the UN General Assembly to give his last remarks as president. Mike Segar/Reuters
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

For the fourth and final time, U.S. President Joe Biden stood before the assembled members of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) today and shared his vision of the world and the international role of the United States. As he did in each of his three previous UNGA speeches, he described the world as teetering at an “inflection point” in making critical decisions. This year, he spoke from his unique vantage point, not just as the U.S. president, but as a leader inspired by his more than fifty years of experience in making foreign policy. He touched on the major conflicts and challenges around the world, but his main message was to continue the fight for a better world. His wistful yet hopeful message was that “we are stronger than we think.”

More From Our Experts

First elected to public office in 1972, Biden served as a U.S. senator for more than thirty-six years, including as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was part of the generation that retooled U.S. foreign policy after the end of both the Vietnam War and the Cold War. He also stepped in to revive U.S. relations with international bodies after the turbulent presidency of his isolationist predecessor and after the COVID-19 pandemic. He drew on his experience of the sweep of history to invoke the importance of reconciliation.

More on:

United Nations

United Nations General Assembly

Future of Democracy

Joe Biden

United States

Rather than starting with a recitation of current issues, Biden called on a lesson from early in his career as the United States struggled to end its war in Vietnam. He stressed the importance of the capacity for rapprochement. He noted that he has learned during his long career that “things can get better,” citing examples such as the successful fight to end apartheid in South Africa. He urged leaders to “see the threats, to deal with the challenges, and to seize the opportunities.”

Biden used this breadth of historical precedent to highlight important actions in his presidency.  Understanding the importance of ending the United States’ war in Vietnam, he said, underpinned his commitment to ending the war in Afghanistan. Bringing up painful and politically charged memories of the chaotic last days of U.S. withdrawal from Kabul, he noted that the conflict in Afghanistan had replaced Vietnam as the United States’ longest war but that he had ended it.

‘The center has held’

He further commented “I have hope. I know there is a way forward.” His remarks to the world could easily be heard as a plea to his compatriots. Quoting and rejecting the grim descriptions of William Butler Yeats’ 1919 poem, in which “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;” he came to the surprisingly upbeat conclusion that “the center has held.” He urged his fellow leaders to persevere to ensure that the forces holding society together succeed. Drawing on a familiar phrase, President Biden reminded the assembled delegates that the world is at “an inflection point” and that the choices made now will determine the future for decades to come. Given the deep political divides in around the world, including the United States, it could be argued that the inflection point has passed; the real question is whether societies will continue to move forward or turn back.

More From Our Experts

Biden believes that one of the great strengths of U.S. foreign policy, and one of the pillars of international order, is the U.S.-led system of alliances. As president, he provided strong support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); built trilateral cooperation among U.S. allies Japan and South Korea, and Japan, the Philippines, and the United States; as well as forged a deeper security partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom known as AUKUS. He also promoted further Indo-Pacific cooperation through the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) and the Squad (Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and the United States).

Crisis and Opportunity

Indo-Pacific. In his speech, Biden talked about the need to uphold principles when dealing with the crises in the South China Sea and the importance of “maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan straits.” Yet, he also chose to mention an area of cooperation with China, the effort to stop the flow of synthetic narcotics.

More on:

United Nations

United Nations General Assembly

Future of Democracy

Joe Biden

United States

Ukraine. With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his country’s seat in the chamber, President Biden proclaimed that Russian President “Putin’s war had failed” and Ukraine “is still free.” But Biden warned, “We cannot grow weary. We cannot look away.” His statement was met with applause, possibly because it focused on overarching values not pending choices.  Biden did not mention pressing issues such as Ukraine deploying donated weapons for offensive uses.

Middle East. The war in the Gaza Strip is the most dramatic new security challenge since Biden spoke at UNGA one year ago.  On the Middle East, he stressed that it was important not to “flinch from the horrors of October 7.”  He expressed the horror of Hamas “slaughtering and massacring twelve hundred people, including forty-six Americans.”  He explained that he has met with the families of the hostages, and they are “going through hell.” He also remarked that “innocent citizens in Gaza were also going through hell.” 

He stressed that the United States and Qatar have put together a package that should be adopted to ease the suffering in Gaza and “to end this war.” Raising Israeli-Palestinian issues has been caustic in UN settings for decades, as states on all sides of the issues have used the UN as a stage for declarations rather than a workshop for peace. It was the UN Secretary-General who, in his UNGA remarks, called out states who act with impunity and disregard international humanitarian law.

Biden called for a two-state solution and mentioned the importance of a “state of their own” for Palestinians. He put solving the Israeli-Palestinian issues into a wider context reminding the audience of the importance of solving these challenges so that the world can focus on ensuring that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.

Sudan. On Sudan, he said “a bloody civil war unleashed one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.” He stated that the world needs to “stop arming the generals, speak with one voice and tell them… end this war now.” The U.S. has been a leading provider of humanitarian assistance there, though peace efforts continue to falter.

Haiti. He mentioned the UN-backed operation in Haiti and the contribution of Kenya to that mission.  However, this is not yet a formal peacekeeping operation.

President Biden noted the U.S. support for the expansion of the Security Council as recently outlined by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield (at an event at the Council on Foreign Relations).

For millions of people, the United Nations is not about security, but about improving human well-being. People look to the United Nations as the mechanism to help realize the Sustainable Development Goals, combat climate change, and improve public health. Many leaders during UNGA week are expected to highlight the shortfalls between pledges and commitments.  In his remarks to the General Assembly, Secretary-General António Guterres stated that “of the world’s poorest seventy-five countries, one-third are worse off today than they were five years ago.” He commented the recently signed Summit of the Future “is a first step, but we have a long way to go.”

U.S. Support of the United Nations

Implicitly recognizing the United States’ funding shortfalls in the past, President Biden noted that Washington is finally on track to meet its commitments on financing measures to mitigate climate change. He also noted that the United States rejoined the World Health Organization, donated COVID-19 vaccines, and is supporting the fight against the resurging spread of mpox, and the audience responded with applause.

He mentioned the first General Assembly resolution on artificial intelligence (AI) and asked how the international community can govern AI to ensure that AI respects human dignity, but he did not delve into the competing interests involved in this dynamic new technology.

The defining moment of his speech came when the president connected his years of experience in international affairs with a topic close to his heart: the defense of democracy. He noted that a quarter of humanity will vote in elections this year. In a poignant and powerful statement, the president who voluntarily gave up a run for a second term, looked to the assembled audience and said, “some things are more important than staying in power.” To have the most powerful president on the planet make this point fundamental to the nature of democracy reminds us of the uses of such speeches.  

In a notable and eloquent shift, U.S. presidents often wrap up addresses by requesting that God protect their own country, but he concluded his speech with “May God protect all those who seek peace.”

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.