What I learned listening to 100+ World Leaders’ speeches at the United Nations General Assembly Simon Pastor Follow Jan 12 · 10 min read

This article reflects solely my views and in no way that of the United Nations, my supervisors or my colleagues.

The United Nations General Assembly high-level week is a very unique moment in world politics. For a few days, heads of state and/or government, ministers and ambassadors unite in New York to engage in bilateral meetings, side-events, hallway confrontations, and address the General Assembly. Some of these addresses have become infamous, among them are Qaddafi’s 90-minute address in which he teared the United Nations Charter or Khrushchev’s ‘shoe-banging incident’.

While some of the 196 speeches have become prominent episodes in world affairs, awaited and analysed by international experts, most of them have limited reach outside of national media. A New York Times article quotes author Stephen Schlesinger stating “I don’t think anybody has ever done a real study of General Assembly speeches because nobody listens to them”.

Well I had to listen to more than a hundred of them. Here’s what I learned:

A world of Patriots and Globalists

Guess what, the world is neither homogeneous nor peaceful.

So if you unite all world leaders on the same stage for a week, you’ll likely get confrontation and contrasting visions. For most of the United Nation’s history, the main dichotomy was a direct result of the Cold War. Today, while the world arguably remains divided among similar lines, the situation has undergone several changes. Many new countries surfaced as a consequence of decolonization and the dismantlement of the USSR. The European Union and China have emerged as new powerful actors, while under President Trump, the United States have modified their position on the world stage. Climate change and gender equality now appear as paramount issues.

Among the different contrasts observed in the 2019 UNGA speeches, the strongest one appeared to be that of patriots and globalists. As the 2nd speaker of the session, President Trump introduced the contrast by stating: « The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. » Like the previous year, Macron’s speech clearly contrasted that of Trump. Referring to what Trump had said earlier, Macron responded « I don’t believe the crisis that we are experiencing can be resolved by turning inward. (…) The crises we are experiencing are not resolved by nationalist withdrawal. (…) We must reinvent a strong, pragmatic multilateralism ».

Many countries joined the patriot vs globalist dichotomy.

The Hungarian foreign minister said « we are proud to be true patriots for whom Hungary is first and for whom the national interest serves as a compass ». Donald Tusk used his last address to the United Nations to respond to Donald Trump’s suggestion of « an imminent conflict between patriotism and globalism ». He argued that « the patriotism of the 21st century must also have a global dimension, if it is not to become, as has many times been the case, a common national egoism. »

This National vs Multilateral, and Patriot vs Globalist contrast had also defined the 73rd General Assembly.

Where are the women?

While gender equality and women’s rights has become a decisive issue in world politics, only 96 out of 195 countries (49%) mentioned ‘gender equality’ and/or ‘women’ in their speeches. Moreover anyone watching the UN General Assembly would have necessarily been shocked by the lack of women among the speakers. Only 16 women took the floor in the 74th UN General Assembly, from the following countries: Bangladesh, Barbados, Botswana, Croatia, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, New Zealand, Norway, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden and Venezuela.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, addressing the UNGA for the second time

It is also interesting to note that references to ‘women’ and/or ‘gender equality’ in the national statements varied drastically by region. The Western European and Other Countries group appears as the group most concerned by these issues as three quarters of its members made references to ‘women’ and half to ‘gender equality. On the other hand, the Asia-Pacific group, appears least concerned, as only a quarter of its members made references to ‘women’ and an eighth to ‘gender equality’.

It’s easy to be manipulated when you’re uninformed

Sadly enough, many countries remain in conflict today. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Global Conflict Tracker identifies 26 ongoing conflicts. Of those 26, five are considered ‘critical’, twelve ‘significant’ and nine ‘limited’. While, these conflicts have become part of mainstream knowledge as they have been going on for years and are responsible for a high number of casualties. One of which I was personally unaware of was the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a decade-long ongoing territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. While the nature of the conflict appears of limited importance for this article, (a more detailed description of the conflict can be found here), the very fact that I was completely unaware of this issue is what is of interest. By listening to both the Armenian and the Azerbaijan speeches, I realized how easily I could be manipulated when uninformed.

If, like me, you know very little about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, start by listening to the Armenian Prime Minister’s address to the UN General Assembly. Then listen to the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister’s address to the UN General Assembly. Listening or reading each of the statements makes you question whether they’re witnessing the same conflict, and led me to reflect on my vulnerability to manipulation and disinformation. If you’re interested by how political preference affects information, I encourage you to have a look at the Washington Post’s Red Feed Blue Feed article, which does an amazing job at illustrating how social media and their news feed algorithms only generate articles which fit your political views.

Regions remain relevant

When listening to UNGA speeches, you quickly realise that a country’s perception of the world is deeply affected by its geography. This can be clearly observed with regards to Venezuela. About three quarters (72.7%) of the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) mentioned Venezuela in their speeches, compared to 20% for the Western countries (WEOG) and less than 5% for the other groups (Africa, Asia-Pacific and Eastern European).

Similar trends can be observed on the topic of the Sahel, with a quarter of African countries mentioning the issue (25.9%) compared to a fifth (20.7%) of Western countries. The other countries making very little references to the Sahel (less than 5% for Asia-Pacific and Eastern Europe, and 0% for the Latin American and Caribbean countries).

15 minutes of dystopia

I was lucky enough to witness some of the statements live in the General Assembly Hall. Among them was one of the most unique speeches of the General Debate, Boris Johnson’s. He started his address: “Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, faithful late night audience”. It was past 10 PM, the Assembly laughed.

Boris Johnson speaking at the 2019 United Nations General Assembly

He then pursued, “It is customary for the British Prime Minister to come to this United Nations and pledge to advance our values and defend our rules, the rules of a peaceful world. From protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf, to preserving in the vital task of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East. And of course I am proud to do all these things. But no-one can ignore a gathering force that is reshaping the future of every member of this Assembly”.

“There has been nothing like it in history…” he then went on to say.

And just like that, in less than 45 seconds, he had opened what would become a 15-minute dystopian description of the dangers of a digitalized world. Or as he would say “Digital authoritarianism is not, alas, the stuff of dystopian fantasy but of an emerging reality”. One must recognize that this is a serious issue, and one that should not be ignored by citizens, companies, governments or regulators. As he explained himself: “the reason I am giving this speech today is that the UK is one of the world’s tech leaders — and I believe governments have been simply caught unaware by the unintended consequences of the internet”. I looked at ambassadors, diplomats and ministers in the room. I could tell that, like me, they were confused.

Yet, we can all agree that his speech had one undeniable virtue: it stood out. Indeed, almost all UNGA speeches share a similar structure: countries start by sharing the successes of their government, stating their support for key issues, ongoing crises, etc… inviting everyone to an upcoming event in their country and reaffirming their commitment to the UN’s work while praising the importance of the institution.

His speech also included other memorable moments, such as when he cautioned synthetic biology could “bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables”. The peculiarity of this speech can be seen in the articles later published by British newspapers with the headlines “Pink-eyed terminators and limbless chickens: Boris Johnson’s UN speech in quotes” (The Guardian) or “Boris Johnson delivers bizarre speech to UN warning of ‘terrifying limbless chickens’ and comparing Brexit to having ‘liver pecked out by an eagle’ ” (The Independent).

A picture is worth a thousand words

Before starting his address, El Salvador’s President, Nayib Bukele took a selfie from the United Nations General Assembly’s podium.

“Believe me, many more people will see this selfie than will hear this speech,” he said.

No comment. But is he wrong?

Gold Medal goes to Barbados

Prime Minister of Barbados Hon. Mia Mottley delivered arguably the best speech of the 2019 United Nations General Debate. Three themes/passages stood out from her speech:

First, her warnings with regards to climate change:

“Will our small states survive this climate catastrophe before mankind finds, ultimately, as I know it will, the solution to halt and reverse climate change? And it is we in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, in the oceans of the world, as small islands, we are the ones on the front line. But as I say to you all the time, make no mistake about it. Others are also in the line behind us.”

Second, her criticism of ‘bigger countries’:

“And I ask myself, really, how many times are we going to come and make the same speech from this platform? SIDS [Small Island Developing Countries] are the canaries of the international community. You will ignore us at your peril. We are the canaries. We are only noticed, regrettably, when it is time to garner votes or to support seats on the Security Council or when a person wants a candidate to head up an international organization.”

Third, her peaceful conclusion:

“There is no profit sufficiently large to be worth the price of war or the destruction of our planet. The people of Barbados and I, as their leader, choose to honour the legacy of our great civilization. Our freedom fighters who fought for better. Barbados chooses to fight for the path of peace, prosperity, planetary protection and hope, Barbados chooses love of self, love of neighbour, love a planet, love as a virtue. Barbados chooses a spirit of love, courage and hope, brotherhood for all humanity. We pray that each of you will make the same decision. I am obliged to you. Thank you.”

I encourage you to watch or read her full address.

Final Thoughts

This raises a legitimate question: are these speeches not a waste of everyone’s time? Or at the very least, a missed opportunity for something more meaningful?

Discussing with colleagues, I learned that not long ago, addresses used to be more interactive. So what happened? First, I believe that increased international cooperation, as observed by the inflation in the amount of international summits, (regional, economic, or recently environmental), has decreased the significance and impact of the UN’s high-level week. Second, I would hypothesize that an increased mediatization of the speeches, led leaders to modify the purpose of their address, which gradually became a platform to describe their country’s foreign policy.

These speeches still allow for some debate (as illustrated by the globalists vs patriot dichotomy previously discussed), even though these tend to be limited to a few addresses in the first two days. The debate seems to have been transferred to the numerous bilateral meetings, side-events and international summits organized during this week. Indeed, sideline talks almost led to a Macron-negotiated agreement between Trump and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani.

So although the World Leaders’ address to the General Assembly appear to have less impact than they used to, I think the high-level week remains unique for three reasons: first, as the only annual event uniting all world leaders it is not only the world’s biggest summit, but undoubtedly the annual forum and symbol of multilateralism and diplomacy. Second, it allows all countries, no matter how big or small, to speak on the “world’s most prominent diplomatic stage”. Last, it offers probably the most comprehensive picture of a country’s foreign policy priorities in a given year.

But again, is anyone listening?