United Nations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      How the G7 and UN Can Make Multilateralism Sustainable

      by

      “Progress towards an equitable world” is Germany’s goal for its G7 presidency program, which frames the G7 states as “leading industrialised countries and value-based partners” with a particular responsibility to “shape a positive future… in the spirit of sustainable economic recovery.”

      Clubs such as the G7 itself and the “climate club” envisaged by the German presidency are often able to make quicker decisions and act faster than more inclusive multilateral organizations such as the United Nations. Despite this, a speedboat, for all its pace and maneuverability, cannot cross the ocean on its own. So, too, the G7 cannot tackle any global challenges alone.

      Time for a Sober Look at the Ukraine Crisis

      READ MORE

      The German G7 presidency has thus announced in its program that it intends to forge close links with the UN and the G20 in particular, with the goal of achieving a “fair and rules-based multilateralism.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also underscored the importance of pioneering initiatives and partnerships within the framework of an “inclusive and networked multilateralism.”

      In his report, “Our Common Agenda,” building on the commitments in the declaration adopted by the member states on the occasion of the UN’s 75th  anniversary, Guterres develops numerous ideas for how to strengthen international cooperation. He calls for progress to be made wherever there are common interests.

      Embed from Getty Images

      So, is what belongs together growing together? Unfortunately not (yet), as the G7 program is rather abstract and dutiful in its references to the UN. However, the German G7 presidency has an opportunity to change this and implement shared priorities on a collective basis.

      Tether “Strong Alliances for a Sustainable Planet” to the UN

      Both the G7 and the UN are opting for pioneer projects and partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders, such as the COVAX vaccination drive and the G7 initiative for infrastructure projects in poor countries. It is positive to see the UN secretary-general not shying away from dealing with these formats and advocating for their greater use in order to implement global goals, most notably those of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 2015 Paris climate agreement. While many UN member states may support such partnerships, there is no agreement on this kind of multilateralism beyond mere inter-governmental relations.

      In order to achieve the greatest possible impact, it is important for the G7 that as many states as possible consider its initiatives to be beneficial and legitimate. To this end, it would be worthwhile to tether these initiatives institutionally to the UN system, which would ensure that partnerships meet human rights standards, are transparent in their design, monitored on an ongoing basis and further developed in line with the needs of the target groups.

      The UN secretary-general has proposed strengthening the existing UN Office for Partnerships, which is not currently in a position to carry out the aforementioned tasks. After the failure of earlier reform attempts, due not least to financing issues, digital solutions are now to be employed. The G7 should support the development of an effective UN hub and link its own initiatives through this hub. This could help the G7 generate acceptance and, at the same time, galvanize other partners. By subjecting partnerships to this kind of quality control, the UN could strengthen its central role in global governance.

      “Investing in a Better Future” — With the UN

      Like the German G7 presidency, the UN secretary-general places a particular focus in his report on future issues in conjunction with matters of justice. The world organization needs to become far better at avoiding shipwreck — that is the UN must respond more inclusively and justly to acute and future transnational crises. Developing greater strategic foresight, taking increased account of the interests of young people and future generations, and bringing key players together quickly in the event of the outbreak of new crises — these are the ambitious proposals for placing the UN further into the center of global problem-solving.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Here, too, the member states are divided when it comes to the increase in authority and knowledge for the UN that would go hand in hand with these measures. The issue of upgrading the UN is also contested within the G7 due to concerns about effectiveness and sovereignty and given the influence of states such as China and Russia.

      In view of overlapping interests with regard to major concerns for the future, the G7 should, nonetheless, insist upon pooling the existing capabilities of the UN system more effectively, while at the same time supporting the targeted development of the UN’s strategic capacities politically and financially. This can be done via voluntary contributions or, beneficially in some cases, the expansion of the regular budget. In 2021, the G7 committed in the Cornwall Consensus to make crisis management more effective and fair in the future. This year, the G7 should discuss the role of the United Nations in this.

      Currently, member states are discussing in the UN General Assembly which of the secretary-general’s proposals they intend to support, while preparation processes for the G7 summit are also underway. It is time to consider processes as one whole and bring them together for a future-proof multilateralism.

      *[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on a Kabul heist: snatching money from the starving | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on a Kabul heist: snatching money from the starvingEditorialAfghans are not to blame for 9/11, though they have paid for it many times over. Cruelly, they are being punished again The average Afghan was not even alive when planes were flown into the twin towers on 11 September 2001. This is only one of the reasons why handing money from the Afghan central bank to the families of 9/11 victims would be unconscionable. Parents are already selling their organs to feed their children, 98% of the population is short of food, and unless cash starts flowing again things are about to get much, much worse.The executive order signed by the Biden administration on Friday would allow Afghanistan’s $7bn US-held assets, frozen when the Taliban swept to power, to be halved. One half would be held pending the outcome of lawsuits brought against the Taliban by the families of 9/11 victims who have persuaded a judge to attach their case to the Afghan assets. The other half, if courts agree, would be used for humanitarian aid. The administration’s argument is that this may help get assistance to Afghanistan more swiftly, without having to await the outcome of the cases. The government can step into lawsuits to say what it believes is in the national interest, but decided that it would not object to any decision to award half the money to the families.Though central bank funds are supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunities, it appears that the administration can act if a “recognised representative of the Afghan government” approves – raising obvious questions about who might now qualify. Whatever the legal technicalities, the moral case is clear. Afghans are not to blame for 9/11, though they have paid for it many times over. Some of the bereaved have already condemned the idea of taking Afghan money as a betrayal. Thousands of American families were devastated that day, and $7bn compensation was disbursed to bereaved relatives and the injured (many of whom faced huge medical bills); another $10bn is still being paid out. This is in stark contrast with Afghanistan, where, on the very rare occasions that the US made compensation or “condolence” payments for civilian deaths, relatives usually received a small four-figure sum. The administration cannot claim the moral high ground because it proposes using some of the money for aid. Though most of it originally came from international donors, including the US, it is no longer theirs to spend, and some represents the personal savings of Afghans.In any case, humanitarian relief is no substitute for a functioning, if floundering, economy. It is not merely that it raises the prospect of starving Afghans paying the salaries of western aid workers, and of a flood of food aid causing more long-term damage by crippling agriculture. The UN had already warned that the financial system could collapse within months; seizing the central bank’s assets could be the last straw. It’s true that those funds alone can’t solve Afghanistan’s underlying problems – but they are desperately needed to stave off some of the worst consequences.Afghan experts and others have worked on imaginative solutions to restore liquidity without simply ceding control of assets to the Taliban. The problem is not a lack of means, but of will: relief is an easier political sell in the US, which is also believed to have blocked other countries from unfreezing funds. No one wants to aid the Taliban, whose primary victims are Afghans. But no one should claim the administration’s plan is in the best interests of the Afghan people.TopicsAfghanistanOpinionTalibanJoe BidenDemocratsUS politicsSeptember 11 2001United NationseditorialsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      A Tense Libya Delays Its Presidential Election

      by

      The postponement risks further destabilizing the oil-rich North African country, which has been mired in divisions and violence in the decade since Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled and killed in a revolution.Libya’s Parliament declared that it would be impossible to hold a long-awaited presidential election on Friday as scheduled, a delay that risked further destabilizing the oil-rich North African nation, which has been troubled by division and violence in the decade since the dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled and killed in a revolution.The announcement on Wednesday by the president of the parliamentary election committee, Hadi Al-Sagheer, confirmed what virtually everyone in Libya already knew. Nonetheless, it threatened to take political tensions to a boil from a simmer.“After reviewing the technical, judicial and security reports,” Mr. Al-Sagheer said in a statement, “we would like to inform you that it will be impossible to hold the elections on the date set by the elections law.” Western diplomats, along with many Libyans, had thrown their support behind this election, viewing it as a crucial step toward ending nearly a decade of civil conflict and reunifying a country still largely split in two. The election of a new president is regarded as the key to beginning the evictions of the armies of foreign fighters who were brought in over recent years to wage civil conflicts, to starting the consolidation of Libya’s multiple militias into a single national army, and to reuniting fractured government institutions.Libya was already on edge as the delay was announced on Wednesday morning. In the capital, Tripoli, on Tuesday, armed men and tanks had deployed on the streets and closed down the road to the presidential palace, sending residents scrambling to stock up on food and fueling fears of an imminent armed conflict. No violence had broken out by nightfall, but many feared the tenuous quiet would not last.For more than a year, Libya had been working toward the election on Dec. 24, which was to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the country’s independence. But it had become increasingly clear in recent weeks that the election could not go forward as planned because of disputes over the eligibility of the major candidates and over the electoral law. Electoral officials had already told election workers to go home on Tuesday night.The question now is not only when a vote might take place, but whether a postponed election would be any less brittle — and who would control Libya in the interim. While international mediators continued to try to find a new election date not long from now, Libyan politicians were already vying for control of a country that looked in danger of becoming rudderless with the added uncertainty surrounding the vote.The board of the High National Elections Commission has proposed Jan. 24 as a new election date.Local media reported earlier on Wednesday that the head of the High National Elections Commission, Emad al-Sayeh, said the board of the commission had stepped down after the failure to hold the election on schedule. But Ahmed Sharkasi, a member of the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum, the U.N.-convened body that set out the road map to the interim government and elections, later denied it.Nearly 100 candidates, including a few who are among the most prominent in Libyan politics, had declared they were running for president in Libya, which has a population of about seven million people. More than a third of Libyans are registered to vote, and more than two million of them had signaled their intentions to participate by picking up their voting cards. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Catastrophic implications’: UN health expert condemns US over threat to abortion rights

      by

      Abortion‘Catastrophic implications’: UN health expert condemns US over threat to abortion rightsSpecial rapporteur Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng argues in brief filed in a US court that overturning abortion rights would violate international human rights treaties ratified by the US Jessica Glenza@JessicaGlenzaMon 8 Nov 2021 05.00 ESTLast modified on Mon 8 Nov 2021 12.50 ESTThe United Nations special rapporteur on the right to health has called on the US supreme court to uphold the right to abortion in America or risk undermining international human rights law and threatening that right elsewhere in the world.The special rapporteur, Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, is one of just a handful of global observers whose mandate is to travel the world defending human rights.Mofokeng has argued in a brief filed in a US court that overturning abortion rights would violate international human rights treaties ratified by the US, including the convention against torture, should women be forced to carry pregnancies to term.In an interview, Mofokeng told the Guardian she could have filed a brief on abortion rights, “in any other court, in any other abortion case,” globally. However, she chose the US courts because of the direct threat posed to abortion rights in the supreme court’s upcoming session.“We have this joke among us that when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a [cold],” said Mofokeng. “So we know that politically that what happens in the United States… does have an impact in precedents elsewhere in the world.”Mofokeng’s brief was filed ahead of oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case advocates fear will undermine abortion rights nationally. Dobbs poses a direct threat to Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established a Constitutional right to abortion based in privacy.Roe invalidated dozens of state abortion bans and restrictions, and allowed people to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, generally understood to be about 24 weeks gestation. A full term pregnancy is 39 weeks.“If that gets overturned, it has catastrophic implications, not just for the US,” said Mofokeng, who said she feared overturning Roe would embolden global attacks on reproductive rights.Mofokeng is also a practicing doctor and well-known sex-positive author in South Africa. Most often, she goes by “Dr T”, an informal title which underscores the empathy in her academic analysis. Her most recent UN report outlined the challenges Covid-19 posed to reproductive rights, and how colonialism continues to affect global policies on reproduction, from sterilization to abortion bans.“It means that even those people who are conservative, who are anti-rights, in any country in the world, will actually now start referencing the US court as an example of jurisprudence that should be followed,” said Mofokeng. “And this is why this is so dangerous”.In Dobbs, the court will consider whether Mississippi can ban abortion at 15 weeks gestation. For the court to uphold Mississippi’s law, it would require the court to rewrite standards that determine whether abortion restrictions are constitutional. Advocates fear that could once again allow states to severely restrict or ban abortion.A majority of the court’s nine justices would need to agree to rewrite such standards. Conservative justices hold a 6-3 supermajority on the court. Many observers view the court’s decision to take the Mississippi case as an ominous sign. About six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases”.“If Roe … [were] overturned, many US states will implement bans or near-bans on abortion access that will make individual state laws irreconcilable with international human rights law,” the brief argued. “This would cause irreparable harm to women and girls in violation of the United States’ obligations under the human rights treaties it has signed and ratified.”While the US has not ratified several United Nations treaties, it has ratified the convention against torture, which Mofokeng’s brief argued would be violated if states were allowed to ban abortion.“The denial of safe abortions and subjecting women and girls to humiliating and judgmental attitudes in such contexts of extreme vulnerability and where timely health care is essential amount to torture or ill treatment,” Mofokeng’s brief said, citing a 2016 report by the rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Conversely, Mofokeng’s brief argued, contrary to Mississippi’s assertions, that “the right to life emanating from human rights treaties does not apply prenatally,” and that the “overwhelming trend for the past half-century has been toward the liberalization of abortion laws worldwide”.Further, since the court has accepted the Dobbs case, it also allowed a six-week abortion ban to go into effect in Texas in September, effectively allowing the nation’s second largest state to nullify Roe within its borders. Experts estimate that if Roe were overturned, roughly two dozen US states mostly in the south and midwest would immediately ban abortion.Such bans would have immediate and direct consequences for women and people seeking abortions.In one recent analysis, the Guttmacher Institute found 26 states are certain or likely to outlaw abortion should Roe be overturned. In just one example, that would require a woman seeking a legal abortion in Louisiana to travel to Kansas to access care.“The rise in global anti-gender and anti-women’s rights is such that people will grasp at anything that seems to make their case solid,” said Mofokeng. And, she said, the case before the supreme court now relies on “non-medical, non-scientific” misinformation.“It means we have a risk of now having global jurisprudence – or at least influences in the global world – using jurisprudence that’s ill-informed. And that’s very dangerous,” said Mofokeng. “To undo the court’s decisions takes decades, sometimes a lifetime – and that’s why it’s dangerous.”TopicsAbortionUnited NationsHealthUS politicsUS supreme courtfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Regains Seat at U.N. Human Rights Council, 3 Years After Quitting

      by

      The Trump administration called the 47-nation council hypocritical and said it was vilifying Israel. The Biden administration says the U.S. can be more effective as a member.The United States on Thursday regained a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the Trump administration abandoned in 2018 because of what it called the body’s hypocrisy and anti-Israel prejudice.In seeking to rejoin the 47-member council, the Biden administration, which has taken a far more supportive stance toward the United Nations than its predecessor, argued that American interests would be better served if the United States were a member seeking change from within.The United States won a three-year term for one of 18 open seats on the council, starting in January, in a vote by the 193-member General Assembly.Based in Geneva, the council is regarded as the world’s most important human rights body. While it has no criminal enforcement or sanctioning powers, the council can undertake investigations that help shape the global image of countries. It can also exert influence on their behavior if they are deemed to have poor rights records.But the council has a wide array of critics who argue that many of its elected members are human-rights abusers themselves, pointing to examples like China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela. The presence of such countries on the council, critics say, undercuts the legitimacy of its work.Many also object to a permanent item on the council’s agenda concerning rights abuses in the Palestinian territories, which has become the basis for its numerous resolutions condemning Israel.The Biden administration’s success at rejoining the council may now bring about a test of its stated goal of strengthening America’s human-rights advocacy around the world. Many conservative Republicans opposed rejoining, and there is no guarantee that the United States will not withdraw from the council again, should a Republican win the White House back in 2024.“The Council provides a forum where we can have open discussions about ways we and our partners can improve,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, who announced the intent to rejoin the council in February, said Thursday after the election results.“At the same time, it also suffers from serious flaws, including disproportionate attention on Israel and the membership of several states with egregious human rights records,” he said. “Together, we must push back against attempts to subvert the ideals upon which the Human Rights Council was founded.”Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke by video message to the United Nations Human Rights Council last year.United Nations, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAs if to underscore the challenges cited by Mr. Blinken, several countries with poor or questionable human-rights records also won seats on the council on Thursday, among them Cameroon, Eritrea, the United Arab Emirates and Honduras.With its return to the Human Rights Council, the Biden administration further reversed its predecessor’s moves toward American isolationism.President Biden has revived U.S. membership in the World Health Organization, re-entered the Paris climate accord and restored funding to U.N. agencies that had been cut. Those agencies include the United Nations Population Fund, a leading supplier of maternal health and family planning services, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which assists Palestinians classified as refugees.Despite the revived U.S. engagement, diplomats and rights groups in Geneva did not foresee an easy return to the kind of influence wielded by the United States at the Human Rights Council during President Barack Obama’s tenure.The United States faces a more assertive China that is pushing back aggressively at criticism of its repression in the Xinjiang region and is pressuring economically vulnerable countries into supporting initiatives that shift attention away from civil and political rights.The United States, by contrast, is short of diplomatic staff in Geneva to promote its human rights agenda. President Biden’s chosen ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva is still awaiting congressional confirmation, and he has yet to nominate an ambassador to the Human Rights Council.Under the voting system for open seats in the Human Rights Council, slates of candidates are divided into five geographic regions, and any member of the General Assembly is eligible to run except those completing two consecutive terms on the council. Voting is by secret ballot. A simple majority of 97 votes is needed to win. In cases where the number of candidates exceeds the number of open seats, the biggest vote-getter wins.This year, however, the number of candidates from each region equaled the number of that region’s open seats, meaning none of the seats were contested. Rights groups outside the United Nations called that part of the problem.“The absence of competition in this year’s Human Rights Council vote makes a mockery of the word ‘election,’” Louis Charbonneau, the U.N. director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement ahead of the vote. “Electing serious rights abusers like Cameroon, Eritrea and the U.A.E. sends a terrible signal that U.N. member states aren’t serious about the council’s fundamental mission to protect human rights.”The other newly elected or re-elected members included Gambia, Benin and Somalia from the African group; Qatar, Kazakhstan, India and Malaysia from the Asian group; Argentina and Paraguay from the Latin America and Caribbean group; Luxembourg and Finland from the Western group; and Lithuania and Montenegro from the Eastern Europe group.Nick Cumming-Bruce contributed reporting from Geneva, and Lara Jakes from Washington. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Does the world trust Joe Biden? Politics Weekly Extra – podcast

      by

      This week, Joe Biden spoke to the UN General Assembly for the first time as president. After watching him oversee a disastrous exit from Afghanistan and sign up to a controversial nuclear submarine deal with the UK and Australia, Jonathan Freedland and Dr Leslie Vinjamuri discuss how the world views Biden

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: BBC, and Sky News Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Biden’s UN speech: cooperation not competition | Editorial

      by

      OpinionJoe BidenThe Guardian view on Biden’s UN speech: cooperation not competitionEditorialThe US president is right to say he does not want a cold war with China Wed 22 Sep 2021 14.10 EDTLast modified on Wed 22 Sep 2021 14.45 EDT“We’re not seeking – say it again, we are not seeking – a new cold war or a world divided into rigid blocs,” President Joe Biden told the United Nations general assembly on Tuesday. That is a relief. Washington’s undeclared opponent is, as almost all observers agree, Beijing. In his address, however, Mr Biden made it clear he is determined to ensure that the rise of China will not mean the decline of the US.The US president said he was willing to “work together with our democratic partners” on breakthroughs in technology which can be “used to lift people up … and advance human freedom – not to suppress dissent or target minority communities”. This is admirable rhetoric, though some sceptics may spy the promotion of US national interests under the guise of a foreign policy that favours democracies. There are also dangers in an overly hawkish prosecution of this approach. Pushing Ukraine’s membership in Nato as a pro-democracy step may bring about a Russian military response. Taiwan’s democracy has to be defended without Washington being pulled into a confrontation with Beijing. The challenges of this era, such as the climate emergency, also require international cooperation to deliver global public goods and prevent beggar-thy-neighbour policies.The problem is twofold. First, Mr Biden seems to see US rivalry with China as a zero-sum game, where one country’s gain is another country’s loss. Second, China’s president, Xi Jinping, has the same view of the US. This has the potential for competition between the two powers to spiral out of control. Mr Biden talks of carefully managing relationships so that they do not tip “from responsible competition to conflict”. His policy is a world away from the cold war strategy of “containment”. But the risks are real. Cooperation is needed to balance competition in world affairs, otherwise nationalism will become even more of a driving force in international affairs.That might explain why Mr Biden had no time for a US-UK trade deal, which would only feed Boris Johnson’s delusions. Brexiters may seek solace in the argument that Mr Biden is anti-free trade, but that neglects his support for a new US-Mexico-Canada deal that included worker and environmental protections. Claiming Britain could sign up to this free trade pact is gathering Brexit crumbs from the US table.New forms of cooperation and coordination are needed in the international arena. Britain’s search for a trade pact that could replace the EU’s market may prove fruitless, but that the country is looking for one underlines what it has lost. Mr Biden, whose formative political years were spent with Kremlin officials on arms control, knows that multilateralism requires working with nations irrespective of their system of government. There can be no reduction in nuclear weapons without deals with autocrats.Mr Biden withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan crystallised two questions: what is the future of US alliances, and what should be done about China? The time for foreign policy crusades is over but the fight goes on against poverty, the pandemic and global heating. With a majority of American voters now favouring diplomacy over military intervention, the US president ought to embrace collective action rather than go-it-alone policies.TopicsJoe BidenOpinionUnited NationsUS politicsChinaBiden administrationBrexitTrade policyeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s UN speech will try to convince member states that ‘America is back’

      by

      Biden administrationBiden’s UN speech will try to convince member states that ‘America is back’But president will contend with skepticism in wake of Aukus, disagreements over Israel and the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal Julian Borger in WashingtonMon 20 Sep 2021 16.25 EDTFirst published on Mon 20 Sep 2021 15.13 EDTJoe Biden will make his first speech to the United Nations as president on Tuesday, seeking to “close the chapter on 20 years of war” and begin an era of intensive diplomacy.Biden will however have to contend with hostility from China, an open rift with France and widespread scepticism among UN member states over his commitment to multilateralism following disagreements over Israel, a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a nuclear submarine deal that took adversaries and allies by surprise.The White House sees the speech to the UN general assembly as a chance to reclaim the global initiative and convince UN member states that “America is back”, as Biden promised when he took office.It will be followed by a week of bilateral meetings, a US-hosted Covid summit on Wednesday aimed at drumming up more funding for global vaccine distribution, a meeting of leaders of the Pacific-oriented Quad group– India, Australia and Japan – on Wednesday, and a UN security council meeting on climate insecurity on Thursday.“It’s an important, consequential week for President Biden and his leadership on the world stage,” a senior administration official said.Tuesday’s speech, the official added, will “center on the proposition that we are closing the chapter on 20 years of war, and opening a chapter of intensive diplomacy, by rallying allies and partners and institutions to deal with the major challenges of our time.”However, Biden is arriving in New York just days after the disclosure of a new security agreement between Australia, the UK and US, which will involve helping Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.The announcement of the Aukus deal has deepened tensions with China, which portrayed it as a hostile act, and with France, which had a contract to supply Australia with French vessels and which was blindsided by Aukus.In his speech, Biden will say he wants to avoid a new cold war with the world divided into blocks.“He believes in vigorous, intensive, principled competition that does not tip over into conflict,” a senior US official said.However, at the start of UN general assembly’s summit week, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, expressed concern that US-Chinese rivalry was stopping progress on urgent global issues.Guterres told CNN that the efforts of US climate envoy John Kerry to reach a compromise with China have “largely failed because the Chinese have said … we cannot have cooperation on climate or anything else”.“I believe that we need to avoid a new cold war, because the old cold war was more easy to manage. It was clear. Now things are more complex,” the secretary general said.Biden starts the week with the added burden of a serious fracture in western cohesion. France is still furious at being taken by surprise by the Aukus agreement and warning there will be further diplomatic fallout.On Monday, Biden was trying to set up a phone call with French president Emmanuel Macron, and US secretary of state, Tony Blinken, was seeking a meeting with his counterpart, Jean-Yves Le Drian, in New York, but the French were being elusive.The state department said the schedules of Blinken and Le Drian were “dynamic”. A French official said no bilateral meeting was planned.Richard Gowan, the UN director for the International Crisis Group, said that the Aukus row “will fit in with a narrative that has emerged around Biden that he talks a good multilateral game, but when it comes to the crunch on a lot of issues he is still a bit of an America First-er.”In May, the US blocked the UN security council from making a statement calling for an end to Israeli-Palestinian violence, while Israel was conducting a bombing campaign aimed at Hamas in Gaza, with heavy civilian casualties.Sherine Tadros, the head of the New York office of Amnesty International, said that Biden will benefit from the comparison with Donald Trump, who was openly hostile to the UN, and delivered bellicose speeches from the lectern.“The bar is low,” Tadros said. “There is no doubt there is reengagement … But when you look at Afghanistan, when you look at the Gaza war, the UN was circumvented by the Biden administration and treated as a Plan B.”In normal times, Biden would have found it easier to smooth over cracks by schmoozing with fellow leaders, but Covid-19 and New York City rules for preventing its spread have made that difficult.He is due to hold only one bilateral meeting in New York on Tuesday, with Australian prime minister Scott Morrison, before returning to Washington, where he will meet Britain’s Boris Johnson.TopicsBiden administrationJoe BidenUnited NationsAukusUS politicsnewsReuse this content More