Pod Save the World - Biden (sort of?) pledges to defend Taiwan

Episode Date: May 25, 2022

Tommy and Ben talk about President Biden’s trip to Asia, whether the US would defend Taiwan in a war with China, the latest news from Ukraine, including calls for Ukraine to cut a deal with Russia and the growing food crisis. They also cover a plot to assassinate George W Bush, fascism in Hungary, charges of anti-semitism against progressives and US policy towards Israel, MAGA grifters and Boris Johnson’s party pics. Then Ben talks to Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield about her efforts at the UN to help Ukraine and tackle the international food crisis.

Welcome back to Pod Save the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben. Ben, I normally like doing this show because I love doing the show because to some extent we get to focus on other countries' problems. Yeah. And not how broken our own country is and how we seem to think it's normal to have a civilian population that's better armed than most foreign militaries and how they're increasingly targeting children in mass shootings. But yeah, here we are. Kicking off a show with another fucking mass shooting in Texas. The NRA convention is in Texas on Friday as well. So I'm sure they'll be thoughtful about all this. Yeah, those people can go fuck off. I just, I, it's like unfathomable to me that, you know, I don't know what to say that people don't always say. I just watched Chris Murphy, Senator Chris Murphy, friend of the pod on the floor, like, just so angry. It looked like he was about to rip up his desk and hulk it and throw it to the other side. I mean, I guess you just have to say.

as I think Chris Murphy would, as someone who never gives up on this, so like, you just cannot allow yourself to be numbed to it. I have, you know, I have an elementary school-age daughter. And I, like, the idea of dropping her off, I drop her off at school every day. And it's always like a slightly painful moment, you know, to like give her hug. And, but, you know, the idea of, of her not being,

there when I get, I just, I can't even what these parents are going through. And, and, and that this country and, you know, in states like Texas, frankly, prioritize, like, people having military weapons over the lives of their children, like, is the ultimate expression of, of who they think this country is. It's pure nihilism. Yeah. Because it's not, after mass shootings, like in El Paso, they have not made it harder to get guns. They have made it easier in some instances, like concealed. He goes away and it's just, it's outrageous. The point I keep coming back to, Tommy, like, is that we sat in fucking meetings in the White House situation room for hour after hour after hour mobilizing trillions of dollars to meet a absolute, like, zero tolerance for someone, you know.

Terrorism. Yeah, like a terrorist, you know, killing a. few people. Like if a terrorist killed this many people with a truck bomb, we'd like go to war in three countries because of that, right? I took an airplane today and I'm still wondering why the fuck I'm taking my shoes off. Yeah. The fact that this country has such warped national security priorities that it compelled us to spend trillions of dollars and fight wars in like more countries than people are even aware of because of the risk of the kinds of attacks that, kill less people than are killed each week in mass shootings in this country is the ultimate

insane statement of a country's priorities. And then Texas in 2021, in August 2021, passed a law allowing permitless carry. I mean, it's just, it's outrageous. You can walk around with a semi-onemic weapon strapped to your fucking leg in Texas, but take your shoes off to get on an airplane because 20 years ago, some guy tried to light a match by a shoot. This is just insanity. Well, we're going to try to channel our rage into action because that's kind of what crooked media does here we also have a great show today i'm going to pivot to a happier sounding voice uh talk about a lot of stuff we're to talk about u.s policy toward Taiwan Biden's trip to Asia uh the latest from ukraine a plot to assassinate George w. Bush that was a wild story uh Somalia charges of anti-semitism fascism and

US policy towards Israel and then some fun with maga grifters and then maybe a little boris partying at the end I mean why not let's yeah you have to mix that end. And Ben, you did an excellent interview today with a VIP. What are we going to hear? Yeah, we got another cabinet-level official here, Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield, the U.S. ambassadors of the United Nations. And the U.S. as the chair of the Security Council this month, we talk about the food crisis because of the war in Ukraine, which is taking up a lot of her attention.

We talk about what it's like to deal with Russia at the U.N. and what the U.N. might need to change, given the fact that. the Russia obstructs everything at the Security Council with their veto. And we talk a bit of better efforts on a range of other humanitarian issues, including trying to get assistance into Syria, which does not get as much attention as other issues. So definitely worth checking out. Oh, cool.

I'll definitely listen to that. And I will say on sale day for the paperback of after the fall. There we go. This is the day to get it fresh off the printing presses. By the book. Buy the book. It helps. If you buy it in the first couple weeks, the paperbacks out,

that means they'll keep putting it on those tables in those bookstores, and that will really help this book have a life as a paperback. So please, please. Got to be Kelly and Conway. Okay. Let's start with some news from President Biden's first trip to Asia as president. So Biden went to South Korea and then Japan. At a press conference in Tokyo, President Biden and Japanese prime minister were asked how Japan and the U.S. would respond if China tried to invade Taiwan. Good question. So first, Biden said, our policy towards Taiwan has not changed at all. Then he goes into sort of an aside about how important it is that Putin pay a price for invading Ukraine. Then he says, China's flirting with disaster by flying jets over Taiwan. Then he

reiterates that the U.S. supports the one China policy, but added, it does not mean that China has the jurisdiction to go in and use force to take over Taiwan. Then the reporter follows up, and this is where it gets complicated and interesting. Here's a clip. You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved, military? to defend Taiwan if it comes to that? Yes. You are? That's the commitment we made.

That's a commitment we made. We are not, look, here's the situation. We agree with a one China policy. We signed onto it and all the attendant agreements made from there. But the idea that it can be taken by force, just taken by force, is just not appropriate. It'll dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine.

So real quick, the gist of the One China policy is that Biden mentioned there is that the U.S. recognizes the Chinese government in Beijing, but also believes, you know, Beijing and Taiwan need to sort out their historical differences peacefully. We can go out that history if you want, Ben, but also we arm Taiwan and help it defend itself. So after the press conference ended, Ben and I got a flurry of emails from White House press core folks, the White House official told reporters that Biden's comments were to change in policy. But this is like the third time, I think, that he has suggested otherwise when it comes to Taiwan. He's leaned into more of a hawkish position. Obviously, his words take on added meaning

given what's happening in Ukraine and because the words were spoken in Japan where this threat feels even more real. Ben, what do you think is going on here? Is Biden overstating the policy and then walking it back? Is that the ultimate form of strategic ambiguity, a term we should explain? Yeah, there's a lot to unpack here. And first of all, I will say, that clip. It's always interesting when the reporters like asked a question and the answers she's like, you are? She did not expect to get the answer. Like she expected to get the brush off. But Politico had a description of all the sort of senior officials in the front row and they said the Rahmanual's eyes like bulged out of his head. Yeah, yeah. Well, I can say, I've seen that.

You've seen that? I'm not good when it happens. Look, so first of all, this is a hugely impactful statement. And yeah. And what was particularly kind of unusual. or strange to me in the answer is when he says that's a commitment we made. Right. Because it's actually not. Like the U.S. has, we have, just to be very clear with people like with Japan, we have a treaty. They are a treaty ally like a NATO ally. And so if Japan is invaded by China, we have an obligation.

We have a commitment we made to come to its defense. And we also have bases in Japan. So we have like a military presence. Like Article 5. For that, yeah, it's the same thing, right? We do not have that with Taiwan. We do have a commitment to kind of help support. their military, but it is not like a defense commitment, like we will go to war to defend Taiwan.

Now, I will say that the one China policy that Biden referenced does feel like a bit rickety here in the sense that just to do the quick history piece of this, the government of Taiwan for a long time was basically the Chiang Kai Shek exiles from mainland China. The people who lost the Chinese War to the Communist Party moved to Taiwan. where there, by the way, already were a bunch of people. And they kind of set up this government that was an autocracy, a U.S.-backed autocracy. And they claimed that they were also the government of China. When the United States repaired relations with the People's Republic of China, part of what we did is we said, we recognize there's only one China.

But everybody kind of thought. Thank you, Dick Nixon, by the way. Shout out, Tricky Dick. It was the ultimate, like, kick a can down the road and assume that it all sorted itself out. Well, what's happened ever since the time? Taiwan Relations Act around, you know, the Carter administration is that you've had the Taiwanese government become a democracy. You've had the Taiwanese government really lose its roots in that kind of mainland Chinese exile community. And they're, they don't want to have anything to do with

China. They don't want to be swallowed up by, by the People's Republic of China, which has also become much more belligerent. And the kind of negotiated settlement that they once envisioned where you might have one country, two systems in China and Taiwan, they live. looked at that promise broken in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese are like, we don't want any part of this. So the idea that the U.S. needs to think about, what does that mean? That is an important conversation. The problem is saying outrightly that you would go to war for Taiwan when we haven't made that kind of formal diplomatic commitment, is that ironclad? Like, how do the Chinese react to that? The Taiwanese might want to like keep the strategic ambiguity because they don't

want to provoke China into being more aggressive because they're trying to get out. in front of the U.S. getting more involved militarily. So look, I understand what he's speaking to, which is like he doesn't want to look like he's hiding behind some gobbly-gook diplomatic language because usually you stand up the saying, we have one China policy and we recognize, you know, the three communiques from decades ago.

But this is one where if you can't explain after the fact what that means, I think that it doesn't really help add clarity. Yeah, it's all like clearly. Biden is trying to signal that he thinks it would be immoral, horrific evil for China. All right. All right. Right.

It's always funny that when you sort of lean too far over policy and then a bunch of senior officials have to give statements sort of like, no, nothing changed. I don't know what you're talking about. What are you talking about? Nothing. But you're right that he's- Nor your lying eyes. He's said this now like multiple times in very different venues. He said in like a town hall once, I think.

Yes. So clearly Joe Biden believes this. That's where he is. Like in that matters. He's the president. But it does kind of call on the question, though, like, what does that mean? Like, how do we square a status quo in which the United States formally says there's only one China and Taiwan is a part of it with the idea that actually, no, this is a democracy that has moved in its own direction that wants nothing to do with China and the Chinese are building up their military to potentially invade that country? This is a huge flash button issue.

And so I think that there's there should be, I think, more transparency and discussion about, like, what is our commitment? What are we willing to do? Why are we willing to do it? And what does it mean for our China policy with large? Yeah, for sure. A couple more notes from Biden's trip. So Biden met with the quad, which is how NSC nerds try to brand meetings between the U.S. Australia, India and Japan for some reason. In one of his press avails, Biden said that when he gets back home, he will talk to Secretary Yellen about potentially lifting U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, Wall Street like that a lot. Biden met with the new prime minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese for the first time. Shout out to our Aussie friends for taking out Scott Morrison, the McDonalds. Yeah, sent him back to McDonald's.

A dozen or so countries announced the Indo-Pacific economic framework, which basically sounds like an intention to work together to try to forge new diplomatic agreement. around trade, climate change, supply chain resiliency, and sort of tax and anti-corruption measures. Taiwan was not a part of that announcement, notably. And then finally, Biden was asked if he had a message for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. He said, hello. That's pretty good. That's pretty good, right?

That's pretty good line, yeah. Any meta-takeaways in the rest of the trip for you, Ben? I mean, like, look, they are clearly, well, first of all, like, the Albany's win, like, huge win for the planet. Great work. Clap it up. Laver party did well. The independent parties did well. The Greens.

Yeah, the Greens. And I think, you know, look, if you look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, you've seen a succession of center-of-left victories. Hopefully that spreads the United Kingdom as we're moving around the Commonwealth here. I think that they want to demonstrate that these relationships that they have in the Asia-Pacific region or the Indo-Pacific region as it was rebranded in the Trump years, which is part of the. The point is that India, they want to be a part of these conversations. They want to, and this is a Kurt Campbell special, right? Like our former colleague, Kurt Campbell. I emailed him today because he got a shout out from the Australians.

He wrote me back while they were refueling in Alaska. He did. Diligent Kurt. Like, he's on it. He's always working. But one of the things that we used to always talk about is like, can you turn these relationships that we have in Asia into kind of an architecture? Like in the transatlantic relationship, you have, you know, NATO and you have, you know, G7, which is a very European-centric organization, even though you have Japan in there.

And you have, you know, all manner of transatlantic institutions, the OSCE, a lot of acronyms. In Asia Pacific, you have, the U.S. has a bunch of allies. And they're trying to create connectivity among those allies that begins to look like an architecture like we have in the U.S. European relationship. So the quad is an effort. The quad also refers to the U.S. and France and Germany and the UK. So I think they're trying to kind of signal like we're going to stitch together these relationships into something that's more of a structure. And we're going to engage the 10 Southeast Asian countries. That's ASEAN. And we're going to go to the East Asia summit where we meet with ASEAN. The challenge with this is that, you know, what is the what at the end of the day? And I think that

the trade and investment framework thing that you mentioned, you know, raises one of the awkward realities for them, which is that the trans-Pacific partnership trade agreement was that before. The Japanese prime minister said, like, well, I wish you'd get back into the TPP, but this is okay. We'll talk about this. Yeah. So, like, that's a formal trade agreement that the U.S. negotiated that then all the other

parties that agreement joined it, but the U.S. pulled out because Trump was against it. Okay. And Hillary. And Hillary. So maybe don't like free trade agreements. But the question is, can this become something that is actually meaningful and is not just something you announced on a trip, but something that has depth and weight to it? So I think, look, they're drawing the outlines of what they would like the future of collaboration in this region to look like. They want India in the deal.

They want these countries talking not just to the United States, but to each other. That's all good. But there's just a lot of follow through this. Yeah, it's going to come behind it. Take a lot of time. Last really quick thing. You mentioned New Zealand. Prime Minister of Jacinda Ardern is in the U.S.

She's going to New York, D.C., and Boston. It's mostly a trade mission, but she's giving the commencement at Harvard University. Very fancy. Congratulations. What is TBD, however, is whether she will meet with Joe Biden in D.C. Because she got COVID. Or come to Patea, the way. On May 14th.

Yeah, she's invited here. Well, that's what I'm going to say. So she got COVID. She had to isolate. There's some sort of, like, I don't know, they're trying to figure out if she'd get in there to see Biden. I don't know. It's been like more than 10 days since her diagnosis of anxiety.

They could just sit outside on the porch. outside the Oval, whatever. But what I'm trying to say is, Prime Minister Arden, if you want to fill the void of not having a Biden meeting, give us a call. Come on the show. I was welcome at this table. Huge fans, I guess I say. I think he, look, it's really important that the U.S. express, like, support for leaders trying to do the right thing. So I hope that they're able to meet her. You know, we just like one of the most successful leaders of the last half decade. Well, and Trump wraps his arms around people like, you know, Victor Obon. And like, I think we should be less bashful on the center-left progressive side of things in, you know, backing up our

people around the world. Yeah, I think it's just a COVID thing. They're kind of like, no, no, I know. And it's not a shot of that. I'm just saying I hope it works out. Yeah, me too. Me too. Okay, let's talk about Ukraine because the war has been raging for exactly three months as we record. So a quick little roundup of news. A guy named Boris Bandarov, a diplomat at Russia's mission to the United Nations in Geneva, resigned, went public with his criticism. Then I hope this guy has been approach by some intelligence service and offered some protection because this kind of stuff gets you killed by Putin. Yeah, you get poisoned by Putin. Yeah, somewhere like a UFT in London and all of a sudden things go south. Russia has been caught stealing Ukrainian grain reserves just in case you didn't

think Putin was a monster. Russian ships have taken Ukrainian grain to Syria and to parts of Crimea they control. Russia is also blockading Ukrainian ports and preventing food and fertilizer exports, which is exacerbating global shortage and famine. I want to dig into that a little more in a second. The British government has decided now is a good time to cut direct humanitarian aid in half. Boris had to find a way to pay for all those parties, I guess. Ukrainian court sentenced, captured Russian soldier to life in prison. The U.S. is now very publicly speculating on secondary sanctions, something we've talked about in the past, ways to punish countries for buying Russian oil or potentially setting like an artificially low cap

the U.F. to pay, like break-even for Russia is like $40 a barrel and maybe saying to the international community, you can buy at this price, but any more will sanction the shit out of you. And then the last thing is the first of these American made M777 Howitzers are slowly getting deployed. They're active in Ukraine. That means the Ukrainian military now has this very lethal, long-range artillery capability so they can fire from even further away than the Russians can. And it comes as fighting in eastern Ukraine is getting more intense and brutal.

Zelensky, I think, I don't know if this for the first time, said that up to 100 Ukrainian soldiers a day are dying or getting killed. So that's a pretty stark casualty count. So Ben, the New York Times ran editorial the other day calling on Biden to basically lay out goals in an endgame. They wrote a decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014 is not a realistic goal. They basically said you have to tell Zelensky that there's a limit to U.S. support, get ready to cut a deal. This pissed off basically everyone in Ukraine, a lot of progressives, a lot of conservatives. Where are you like three months into this? Because you and I talked a lot about like an off-ramp talks between Zelensky and Russia,

us facilitating them. But I mean, I don't know. I'm not sure. Like a lot of people are saying, no, there's a chance for them to roll back Russia completely and maybe, I don't know, check Russian imperialism or militarism for a longer timeframe. I think, first of all, like all the things you say speak to kind of a third phase of the war, right? Like, phase one was this kind of failed effort by Russia to the capital of the Ukrainian government. Phase two was this kind of beginning of the protracted fight that is still ongoing in the Dombos and southern Ukraine. This phase is also about just kind of sustainment. And if you look at the different things you mentioned, right, you worry about will all the assistance to Ukraine

start to dry up when it's no longer like the headline news, right? Like a Boris Johnson who jumped on the PR bandwagon, is he going to be there? Went to Kiev, like three weeks ago. Yeah, is he going to be there in three months, six months? The sanctions, the sanctions, the holes that emerge in sanctions regimes are when basically other countries around the world are like, oh, we're going to keep buying this Russian oil and we're going to keep doing business with these people. And then the secondary sanctions you say is, are we going to be willing to kind of go around

and sanction other countries, not Russia, but the countries that can to do business with Russia. That is harder to do. It is time consuming. It is difficult. It is economically disruptive. But that is going to be required if you really want this pressure to stick on the Russians. And all of this leads to the question of like, well, how does this end? If we're in this kind of grinded out, protracted really deadly fighting in eastern Ukraine and southern Ukraine, and there's this kind of status quo hardening. I see where the New York Times editorial is coming from, right? Like if you want just an end to the killing, you know,

if basically someone could say, hey, like, you know, go back to the way things were at the beginning of this war, which is kind of what the Times is suggesting. And that's better than all these people dying every day. I understand where the impulse comes from, but, very big butt. First of all, like, we don't get to decide. I mean, like, I just, I think, you know, whatever you think, the Ukrainians are the one whose country was invaded. And if the Ukrainians don't feel like they can say, yeah, like, you can keep Moriopal and you can keep the whole Donbos if we just have a ceasefire, if they're not going to do that, this is kind of like a discussion that assumes we have more agency than I think we do.

Unless we're willing to say, hey, we're going to stop giving you weapons unless you agree to this, which I think. And that's kind of where the time is getting at, I think. And I don't like we might cut off, you know, 40. Well, to your point, I mean, it does seem like President Zelensky has zero running room here. I mean, I saw the Kiev Independent said that there was a poll that showed that basically 82% of Ukrainians refused to leave territory under Russian occupation. I think that was the statistic. I mean. Yeah, he was willing, by the way.

to the off-ram advocates, like, of which, you know, I've been one a lot. But, like, he was willing in the early days of the war. He made noises about saying he wouldn't join NATO. He made noises about, you know, Crimea, we understand is there's a status quo there. Send his defense minister to negotiations. And then the Russians basically destroyed Maripal and, you know, committed all manner of war crimes around Kiev. and you can understand why they're not in a position yet to say, well, you know, these parts of our country are occupied and their mass deportations and killings happening in those parts of the country. But, you know, the people in Davos say, like, we need an off ramp. I mean, like, they won an off ramp. I bet you that the Ukrainians are like an off ramp from the war.

I just think we have to be humble about our capacity to dictate that off ramp. And. And we also have to understand here that, like, you know, Vladimir Putin gets a vote too. And the reality is, like, we did pause this war. There was a negotiated kind of quasi-seas fire for a bunch of years. And it's not like that ended the war. The Minsk agreements were reached in 2015. So it's just more complicated. Like, I understand where this is coming from.

But, like, I think the Ukrainians have to be the ones to dictate. what kind of end state they can live with. And, you know, we're not, I think, at the point yet where we can tell them three months into this thing, hey, like, we're going to cut you off if you don't agree to X, Y, and Z. Here's one area where the clock is really ticking, which is this issue of an impending food shortage because we've got, you know, Russians now we're learning they're stealing grain from Ukrainian silos. Farmers can't plant for obvious reasons because they're fighting or their fields are being blown up. Russia is sanctioned so they can't export things. commercial ships can't get to Ukrainian ports and move their stored grain abroad because the Russian

Navy is blockading the ports. Experts are saying that we might have, you know, a couple months before this becomes a huge crisis, especially in poor countries. And on top of that, Russia is a huge exporter of fertilizer. And so I was listening to like a BBC World Service report today about a farmer, a rice farmer in Thailand who's not going to be able to have the same crop that he normally has because he can't get his hands on fertilizer. So, like, this is a ticking time bomb for the world, for the poorest countries in the world, more than anybody. Yeah. No, I talked to Linda Thomas

Greenfield about this, the ambassador of the U.N. in the interview. I think that one of the things that needs to be done is, you know, some of the remaining islands of support, or not support, but kind of fence sitting vis-à-vis Russia are in parts of the world that are quite vulnerable to these food shortages. And so I think diplomatically, you have to stitch together an effort to try to unlock at least some of the flow of this wheat and other and fertilizer from the Odessa poured in Ukraine, from, you know, all the blockaded material that's not getting out of Ukraine. Like, this is one where it shouldn't just be the U.S. and Europe. Like, everybody has skin in this game. And I do think that if you have a different assortment of countries in this vis-a-vis Russia

saying, like, you know, you are going to kill untold numbers of people in all parts of the world and unleash greater instability. Like, you just got to keep pushing and pushing on this. Yeah. All right. We're going to take a quick break. And we come back. We are going to talk about an assassination plot against George W. Bush. Okay, Ben, so here is a very weird story. The FBI arrested a Columbus, Ohio man named Shihab Ahmed Shihab for allegedly trying to get four to six individuals from Iraq into the U.S. via Mexico to kill former president George W. Bush. The attack was supposed to be in the name of ISIS. This guy was, I guess, under FBI surveillance the whole time, so presumably there wasn't a huge risk. He was talking to a confidential U.S.

informant. Doesn't seem like Bush was in any real danger, but he did travel to Dallas and take video around Bush's home so it's scary. I don't know. I never know. The FBI always like announces and rolls up these plots where like they've been communicating with some 19 year old gave them an inert bomb said planted at this parade. Like something like that. And it's always hard to judge like how real the threat was or was not or this is just, you know, an idiot that got pulled into something.

But I don't know. Caught my eye. Yeah, no, it would. I think that the way in which you try to separate it is like is there. some kind of formal terrorist organizational planning behind this? You know, is it like, is there an al-Qaeda cell somewhere plotting this or whatever? This has the flavor of like a radicalized individual like texting with the FBI. So it feels less acute than other threats, although it reminds you what's out there. It reminded me of that Iranian, you know,

that plot where allegedly they were going to smuggle people across Mexican border and then assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Cafe Milano. Yeah, and like a Georgetown, like, witsy restaurant. Yeah, yeah, which again, like, you know, there may very well have been some planning behind it, but, you know, sometimes the ambition outstrips, like, anything that is actually going to happen, you know? I remember Ben and I used to share an office in the basement of the West Wing. I remember that one breaking and kind of looking each other being like, I don't think, yeah, like that's crazy.

Like, but this one feels, I mean, that one, though, there was like, I think, some chatter and some, you know, some, you know, the potential IRC involvement. This, this, this, this feels like a guy sitting in this computer talking to the FBI. Yeah. Speaking of counterterrorism. So, last week, the New York Times reported that President Biden signed an order redeploying hundreds of special operations forces to Somalia. So that reversed a decision by Trump that he made on a. way out the door to pull about 700 guys ground troops from the country. Biden is not sending that full number back in. It forces are going to be capped at 450, but he's also given the Pentagon the

authority to target about a dozen leaders of al-Shabaab, which is a terrorist group in Somalia that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda back in 2012. So that's why I think they're treated pretty differently. The Somali parliament selected a new president in early May. They welcomed this announcement. So, Ben, it seems like this might be, I can't tell how big of a change this is, because Some of the reporting suggested that U.S. military trainers were basically flying in and out of Somalia for two months at a time. That approach was wasteful and effective, dangerous, kind of like screwing up the mission. But I don't know. I mean, it's also kind of hard for me to judge at this point, like a decade after reading intelligence, how much of a threat al-Shabaab is.

Well, and a decade of this approach, you know, which again, like, you know, full disclosure, like the Obama administration pursued, the Trump administration pursued, so this is not one in any way originated with Biden. But like, to me, one other thing to look at is the pace of drone strikes in Somalia, which, you know, there have been a lot of allegations of civilian casualties over the years. And Al-Shabaab is still there, despite all this effort. And you would like to see more of a focus on the political viability of Somalia, which is, by the way, also at great risk from these food shortages that we just talked about. And, like, we talk about ending Forever Wars.

This is a reminder that's not just Afghanistan. Like, that's Somalia as well as other places. So I think the thing to watch is this a training mission? Is there an uptick in drone activity and kind of U.S. kind of direct military activity in Somali or not. If it's just like something to facilitate additional training, I think that's less of an escalation than if more special ops leads to more drone strikes, which leads to kind of just more, you know, U.S. involvement and the conflict that is, you know, doesn't have, appear to have a military solution when it's been going on for not just a decade, but in some ways

several decades. Yeah. And I think it's the question of, is this really a super targeted effort to get al-Shabaab leadership, or are there going to be a bunch of drone strikes on, you know, fighters? What is assumed to be, yeah, a dozen guys in the back of a truck who are presumed to be fighters that are doing something that looks defarious to someone. Yeah, exactly.

And that's a big distinction. Yeah. And you got to make sure that all these countries in the region are on board here and rowing in the same direction. And so it's not just kind of a U.S., and that's generally been the case. You've had Kenya play a big role here. But, you know, I don't think turning the escalation dial back up makes a lot of sense at this point. Yeah. And I'm not suggesting that the super targeted sort of intelligence version is perfect either.

By the way, this is another reason why there should be a new authorization for the use of military force out of Congress, right? Because, like, we are in Somalia at war under the authority granted to George Bush after 9-11. Now, the legal rationale, and I know because it was in the Obama administration, too, is that because al-Shabaab pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda like a decade ago, they're an associated force. And that is past its expiration date. And it has been for a long time. This is a reason why if the U.S. thinks it should be at war with the terrorist organization in Somalia, the executive branch should be able to go to Congress and say, hey, Congress vote to authorize the deployment of these special forces to Somalia. that doesn't happen and that's part of the way you get forever wars. And again, that's on everybody. That's on Democrats, Democrats, Republicans, Obama, Biden, you know, definitely Congress. Yeah.

Yeah. For sure. Okay. Let's dive into the not at all sensitive topic of anti-Semitism, nationalism, and support for Israel. Excited? Yeah, it always works out well. It works out well for everybody. So first, a little background. So the conservative political action conference or CPAC is happening in Hungary this week. President Trump spoke to it via video, so to Tucker Carlson. CPAC Hungary also featured a notorious Hungarian racist who uses racial epithets to describe black people and refer to Jews as, quote, stinking excrement. I have not seen CPAC Hungary get called out for featuring the speaker or condemned by the ADL or relevant groups. The ADL, however, did condemn the communications director of a progressive group called the Justice Democrats for tweeting a joke about a fictional news outlet called Goy Outsider. He was retweeting an

article from the Jewish insider, making a stupid joke, whatever. Now, Ben, I'm not the arbiter of things anti-Semitic or not. I've been called a Goy a lot of times in my life, usually by my Jewish friends who make fun of me for being the most Aryan-looking person they've ever seen. I think I've probably called you a Goy. But I don't know if you have a... I don't have called you a Goy outsider, but I think I've called you separately a Goy and an outsider. Do you have a gut check on Goy, does that one ring your, any bells for you? Is that bothered you? Is that canceled?

I don't. I have no idea. Look, I, I, this is worth, look, the hungry situation, you know, Victor Orban is an anti-Semite who engages in, not just dog whistles, but, you know, dog shouts at George Soros as his shadowy international. All day, every day. Seeking to control Hungarian politics. Like, I've been to Budapest and been shown, like, the kind of rehabilitation. of like fascist era Hungarian collaborative governments and the diminishment of what happened to the Jews in Hungary,

in part because of the collaboration of their own government. Like the bill of goods that one could assemble on Victor Orban as an anti-Semite is very clear. What he's also done is he forged an alliance with Bebeenanyahu. There was a total alliance of convenience, wherein Victor Orban would block EU, efforts to support the Palestinians. And then Bibi Nanyahu would say, oh, no, Victor Orban, he's a good guy. And oh, by the way, like Victor Orban's first political consultants when he ran for prime

minister in 2010 had been previously Bibi Nanyahu. So there's just kind of this weird. It's a right wing thing. It's not an ethno-religious thing. But it's uncomfortable. And look, I write about this in my book out on paperback today about being spied on by Black Cube. an outfit of former Mossad agents who were also spying on Hungarian civil society on behalf of Victor Orban. It's a very strange set of bedfellows happening here. To get to the ADL point, though, this is, it's a total absurd joke for them to be singling out, like that kind of speech, you know, goy outsider as the issue. Like, the issue, and I talk about this with Hungarian Jews in my book, like, the

rise of right-wing ethno-nationalism is a problem. It doesn't end well for Jews specifically. It's a problem for the Jewish people specifically. These are not forces that you want to align yourself with or make alliances of convenience with. It always leads to the worst possible places for Jews. And yes, is there some hatred directed at Israel that speaks to a dangerous strain of anti-Semitism?

Yes. I would also argue, though, that like the rise of far-right national. around the world cries out for attention from organizations like the ADL that are dedicated to combating any Semitism. And this kind of like putting points on the board against the progressive left in this country, like on behalf of Israel is not the center of gravity of where people should be focused on any Semitism. So let me flesh this out because I agree. And I think I don't raise this CPAC Hungary and what was said about Walid just to do what aboutism, right? Because that's not that's not what I'm trying to do here. But I think that when charges of anti-Semitism or criticism of,

you know, policy towards Israel is used to just sort of attack political opponents, that's where you get into trouble. For example, you mentioned this last week. APEC's political action committee is called United Democracy Project. It was ostensibly created to support pro-Israel candidates. The group spent over $2 million attacking a Democratic congressional candidate named Summerlee in Pennsylvania's district by saying she isn't a real Democrat. But A PAC also endorsed over. over 100 Republican candidates who voted to overturn the 2020 election result. So that's just as cynical an attack that you can get. Including some who have quite flirtatious relationships with far right national.

For sure. The similar group, the Democratic majority for Israel at DMFI in 2020, DMFI spent millions of dollars attacking Congressman Jamal Bowman in his primary against then-Congressman Elliott Engel. One of the ads said Bowman had unpaid taxes and DMFI left it on air despite Engel telling them that pull it. My point is, if you want to attack political candidates for being insufficiently pro-Israel, by all means do. But endorsing insurrectionists and then calling Summerlee a bad Democrat is just too cynical for me

not to call out. Similarly, when the ADL criticizes a dumb joke like Walid's goy outsider and then tells the press specifically, their spokespeople said, we did this because his organization, the Justice Democrats, criticizes Israel. That is also bad because you aren't objectively calling out anti-Semitism. you are saying liberals who criticize the Israeli government need to be on notice. We will check your ass. We will primary your ass.

And this is. But even more, but random spokesman for the Justice Democrats, like we're going to fucking destroy your reputation for the rest of your life because you're part of an organization that, you know, criticizes settlement construction. But Donald Trump can go to CPAC Hungary, say whatever he wants. Yes, this is the point. But as long as he's up BB's ass, we will never criticize him. And that, in my opinion, harms effort.

to call out and stop anti-Semitism. It is flat-out dangerous and disingenuous. It's bullshit. And look, if they wanted to sit down and have a debate and say, okay, justice Democrats, let's sit down and argue about Israeli-Palestinian policy. That'd be one thing. The fact that they run ads that don't even, like, this is what is so, like, this is the biggest tell in the world.

They're not even running ads saying, here's something that ex-congessional candidate said about Israel, like, we believe this. No, they run bullshit ads saying that they're bad Democrats or they're scary this or scary that. They're not even willing to engage in that debate. They just kind of, you know, they dump money on people's heads and then call people who point that out any semites, you know. And that is that is bad for everybody. Like that is and it's the ADL and this whole like whatever happened to like the social justice traditions in the American Jewish community that literally like used to make arguments on behalf of Israel. like based on on social justice.

Values. Now are making arguments based on ethno nationalism, which is not the argument that I think is the one that it ends well for the Jewish people. Or anybody. Yeah.

Or anybody. And by the way, there might be some listeners who think you're just defending your buddies in the Justice Democrats or in DSA, the Democratic Socialists. I've never met most of these people.

Just to be clear, like I think when the DSA attacked Jamal Bowman for supporting the Iron Dome system, that was incredibly stupid. It was even dumber when they attacked him for visiting Israel with a J Street trip. So yeah, I'm more than happy. Some of the people, some of the leftists who are part of the DSA have been some of the most vicious critics of me personally, of you of media. Right. So we're not defending

our buddies. Like, I think I have a little more credibility here to call out what is actually a really bad faith attack against Walid, Bernie Sanders, Summer Lee, Jennifer Cisneros down in Texas. this like they're just attacking these groups are pretending to be in support of uh pro as real policies but they're just attacking progressive democrats and i think we should call it out because they're spending a ton of money and they're pushing people away from a constructive conversation especially young jews yeah you know like it's just anyway okay well that will uh certainly not get us in any trouble on the internet yeah it's yeah like i mean i like last time i'd you that's great I waited about this.

Mike Pompeo called me an Asimite. Oh, did he? Yeah, yeah. Well, honestly, enemies like that. It's kind of a good thing. Speaking of MAGA grifters, Ben. Mike Pompeo. Credits in New York Times for continuing to report on Jared Kushner and Steve Mnukin's new investment firms.

They pointed out that Jared's final three trips to the Middle East after the election and Mnukin's Middle East swing after the election. It was cut short by the insurrection, by the way, clearly mixed government and future. business interest. They also reported on how both of them hired a bunch of people from their respective sort of government teams, the sort of Abraham Accord teams, to set up these new investment shops, despite not having any investment experience. I think these stories are still kind of missing the other piece of this, which is this inherent suggestion that Jared Kushner is making when he goes to a foreign government for investment money, which is to say, Daddy's running again. Yeah. I'll be back in there. Don't you worry. Yeah. I mean, like this is the

I mean, these guys literally cashing in while they're in government, like, greasing their post-government careers to the tune of billions of dollars, a scale of corruption that, you know, we just haven't seen. Unfathomable. Yeah. But also, like, clearly, very clearly trading on the likelihood that, you know, Trump is going to run again. And maybe these guys, you know, think that they're making a down payment on the next administration as well, knowing that people like Jared will deliver the goods for them. And and also like, by the way, undermining, I mean, the quaint notion that we have a president now who has interests like that he's seeking to deal with in that region. And these guys are like, no, no, like, you know, wait it out. Like, we'll do everything you want.

We got you covered. The other thing we learned last week is that the Department of Justice is suing disgraced casino magnate Steve Wynne for lobbying for Trump on behalf of the Chinese government when he was finance chairman of the RNC. Wynne tried to get a Chinese billionaire dissident deported, and then he tried to help out his business in Macau. So great stuff happening. These are the people that, you know, this is just shocking corruption. Well, and it's like, you know, Mnuchin and to a lesser extent Cynne are supposed to be like the, you know, more mainstream mega grifters, I guess. Yeah, they're sort of beginning around. Like it just, everybody, it's just when you have a corrupt enterprise like this,

like it makes like it brings out the worst aspects of I mean like Steve Wynn you know he's a disgrace for a disgraceful guy to begin with um so I'm not so but like it is the case that these aren't just like the sep Gorkas and the you know Alex Joneses and the you know this is the entire enterprise of this is what Trumpism is about at the end it's basically that people weaponizing ethno-nationalism been grievance for personal profit, you know, talking out of one mouth about how tough they are in the Chinese while they're like seeking to deport Chinese billionaires and get like Macau casino licenses. Like it's all agrift, you know. Yeah. I mean, Steve Wins just like taken calls from the vice premier and thinking that's just another thing he can trade and, you know,

pass the message along to Donald Trump and then help out his casino. Yeah. It's just it's so brazen. Also, he could have avoided these charges if he just filed under Farah, the foreign agent registration Act, but you refuse to do it, which, you know, probably tells you everything you need to know about how these rich guys think about laws. Well, that's exactly the point. It tells you the guy like C. Wynn thinks that if, oh, if I do my R&C duty, like, I don't have to follow law. And that's what they think.

They think the law doesn't apply to that. Yeah, well, you know, in fact, Trump did pardon Elliot Broody, who was accused of, you know, sort of similar crimes. He pardoned Steve Bannon. So pardon all these jokers, Mike Flynn. And like, so they have already, like, we, we always. have the threats to democracy and where we're going like, we are here. We are living in a country where there are different sets of laws that have been applied to these people. And they're trying

to build an entire system where that has made permanent. You know, like that is the stakes involved here. Meanwhile, in the actual Middle East, President Biden has reportedly decided to keep the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on the foreign terrorist organization lists, which is a Trump era sanction that will probably do nothing in practice to hurt Iran, but will prevent Iran from getting back in the nuclear deal. This sanction was put in place by Trump after he pulled out of the JCPOA precisely because it was meant to be politically difficult for a future Democratic president to lift this sanction to get back in the JCPOA. This sanction does fucking nothing. The IRGC is not coming out with their hands up and saying, hey, we surrender, guys, we give up.

We're going to stop our malign behavior and give up our nuclear program because you put us on a list, okay? No, in fact. Whereas like the JCPOA would roll back. their nuclear program. So given the choice, you have a choice, do I keep a meaningless designation that has a political benefit in the United States, or do I roll back the Iranian nuclear program and avert a potential nuclear crisis in the Middle East, deciding that that designation is more important than that deal will never make any sense? Just so you know where I stand on that. In fact, Iran, I think this week vowed revenge in Israel for the assassination of Iranian colonel in

Tehran, I guess this guy was linked to plots to kidnap Israeli dip him out to abroad. Someone pulled up next to a motorcycle shot into his car five times. He's dead. Now Iran's plotting their revenge. So, yeah, it doesn't seem like the malign activities have stopped. Hopefully they cave, by the way. I mean, like, hopefully the Iranians still come in this deal. Like, this could still have a good ending.

I just, I don't think this sanction. People need to be making the point that it's, that I'd like someone to lay out what has it been a comp, like look at the IRC, the Rev.C. the Revolutionary Guards behavior before this sanction and after is anything different. Yeah. Yeah. Last thing on the Middle East, Biden is reportedly considering a visit to the Middle East in June. Visit Israel might be on the table and a meeting with Muhammad bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince who likes bone saws and executing American journalists.

So it's not worth it. Depressing state of affairs in terms of the political risk to Biden. from high gas prices, at least in his advisor's sets, versus, you know, the risk of meeting with someone who is a sociopath. Yeah. I mean, like, it's not worth it. It's just not worth it, you know. And by the way, it's not like, do we really think Mahan bin Salman is going to solve our gas price problem?

I know, I think he's just going to wait it out for Trump to come back. Yeah. That's what he wants. Otherwise, he wouldn't be syncing $2 billion into Jared Enterprises. Nope. Nope. Nope. He's got his down payment in.

Last thing, Ben, did you see that ITV got a hold of pictures of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson partying during lockdown? ITV's been owning the story, by the way. And there's like a lot of booze on the table. So he's boozing with like nine people. There's bottles everywhere. He's literally doing a toast with some bubbly. This rager was on November 13th, 2020. I think that is like almost the exact day when Hannah and I canceled our flights to see her parents for Thanksgiving.

We knew it was unsafe. It was a going away party for his country. communications director at Downing Street who presumably knew that lockdown rules were in place and you were only allowed to mix two people from different households. Also, complicating this for Boris, the police find others who are at this rager, but not Boris. Boris got fined for being at a different rager. The full official report on partying in culture at number 10 comes out this week. It could not be more obvious that Boris lied to Parliament and the British people. Here's a fun little clip of how ITV

described it. Have these photos taken the Fizz out of his defense? Because they call champagne fizz. Oh, I didn't know that that clip was coming. That is so perfect. It seems like he's going to get away with it, though. Yeah, because he doesn't give a shit. There's like a bottomless

absence of shame. I, like, what is next year? Like, did you ever have those ragers in college where you had like the bathtub full of like the ever-clear publishers? Like, I could literally see these guys like dipping, like sharing like some, yeah, I don't know. Though, yeah, they're going to come out with Boris Johnson at the ice looge during lockdown. Like swimming in a hot tub full of booze with like a bunch of staff.

I mean, like, what more do we need to establish that this guy broke the rules and thought there were one set of rules that applied everybody else? And I don't know. And what are these rangers like, these Tory party? I mean, maybe they're fun. I don't know. Well, we did read about all the cocaine. Well, maybe Madison Cawthorne was a little confused.

Maybe he was over there and they're doing key bumps in the bathroom, you know. Toya HQ, I don't know. He just connected the dots for me. Yeah. That's pretty good. Okay. Well, you know, we exercise some demons. I'm sure the Daily Wire is going to have fun with this episode.

When we come back, you will hear Ben's interview with Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield, so stick around for that. I'm very pleased to be joined by the United States ambassador to the United Nations, a member of the Biden, cabinet, national security team, long time, outstanding diplomat for our country. Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield. Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you, Ben.

I'm really delighted to be here. It's great to see you. Yeah, so I, you know, there's so much, you know, going on up there. And obviously, you know, the U.S. has had a little extra work, too, as chair of the UN Security Council. Obviously, Ukraine is what people are focused on. I want to get to a couple elements there. But I just want to, you know, people follow the developments on the ground in Ukraine. They follow military developments.

but I'm just curious if you could lay out for our listeners. What is the center of gravity on Ukraine at the UN? What are you focused on up there? What aspects of the war are crossing your desk or crossing the attention of the Security Council? Well, certainly what we worked on last week was food insecurity. That is a huge, huge issue. The food insecurity issue was an issue before Ukraine, but it has, been made 10 times worse by the war. I've learned just over the course, it's only been three months,

believe it or not, but that Ukraine is really the breadbasket of the world. A world food program purchased 50% of the wheat that they use for humanitarian programs in Ukraine. And Ukraine provides wheat to a number of countries in the Middle East as well as Africa that depend on somewhere, around 35 to 40% of their wheat requirements come from Ukraine. Some come from Russia as well, and both Russia and Belarus are the main source of fertilizer. So that has become a huge issue in the midst of this horrific war, this horrific, unconscionable attack on the Ukrainian people that we're watching on a daily basis. And we have engaged on this issue in the Security Council, And you may be aware we actually took the vote to the General Assembly and got 141 member states to condemn the Russians.

140 states supported Ukraine for humanitarian assistance. And then we were able to successfully suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council. These are all extraordinary achievements. They have isolated the Russians here in the Security Council. and we're working with our partners and colleagues in the council, as well as in the General Assembly to continue to put the pressure on the Russians to stop their unconscionable attack on the Ukrainian people. On the food insecurity issue, a couple questions. The first is, are there particular countries, regions that are facing kind of really acute challenges,

risks of famine or places in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, where there's already conflicts where this could make worse? What keeps you up at night in terms of the places that are most vulnerable to these disruptions? Well, we're certainly, just to look at the Middle East, Lebanon is in critical condition as a result of this war because they depended on the majority of their wheat from Ukraine. And the situation there has gotten decidedly worse since this war started. Somalia is another country in the Horn of Africa, where we are on the verge of famine because of the lack of wheat. Ethiopia in the midst of a conflict dependent upon Ukrainian wheat as well. So there are a number of countries and regions that have been impacted. We hosted a ministerial

in New York, chaired by Secretary Blinken, and brought together about 30 countries who signed on to an action plan to address food insecurity. And again, we know food insecurity has been impacted by the pandemic. It's been impacted by climate change, but the impact that this war has had is extraordinary. For example, there are 22 million tons of wheat sitting in silos in Ukraine that can't move. 84 ships sitting in the Black Sea that the Russians have blockaded in the Black Sea that can't move. They're trapped in the ports in Odessa port. So this is having a serious, serious impact on food insecurity. And in terms of the solution, I mean, you've got the Russians literally, as you said, blocking wheat and other material from getting out.

Then you've got, I think, a challenge from some countries that tend to hoard their food supplies, particularly when there's global shortages. And then there's just a question of, is there any ramp up in capacity that can come from other places? I mean, what is the formula that you all are pursuing globally to try to address these shortages and what? What tools do we have to bring to bear for that? Well, first and foremost, we're encouraging countries not to restrict exports, not to shut down their exports. There are a number of countries that have taken those decisions, and we're engaging with them on a regular basis to discourage them from taking these decisions.

Secondly, we are looking at other sources of product that might come from. from other regions and encouraging countries to look at those other sources. And then as more a response to the crisis, we have ramped up our humanitarian assistance in response to the situation in Ukraine. As you may have heard the president just signed a bill providing $44 billion in assistance

and a significant portion of that will be going toward humanitarian assistance while some of it, of course, will be supporting the Ukrainian's effort to defend themselves against the Russians. So I wouldn't ask you kind of a broader question, which is that, you know, look, the eight years I was in government, the Russians in particular became more, I think, aggressive in utilizing their veto and their role in the UN system to obstruct progress, including on Syria, which I was going to get to in a second here.

But, you know, Ukraine, I think, is really spotlighted this. And there's nothing, you know, you or anybody could do about the fact that, you know, literally the day the invasion starts, I think we all remember, the Russians are like sitting in the chair of the Security Council, it kind of embodied the president of the Security Council. Yeah, exactly, right? And nothing could more starkly demonstrate the way in which the international system that was built to prevent these kinds of conflicts, to prevent the kind of famine that is, coming out of these conflicts, that the Russians are just sitting there throwing wrenches in the

gears, stopping it from doing what the United Nations is supposed to do. Is there like a conversation about, is there a reform that can deal with that? Is there a process by which the UN can free itself to some extent from this? Or does that just require such a radical redesign of something that is 75 years old that is difficult to think of on a day-to-day basis? Not so radical. Two things have happened since this situation occurred. One, we have, in a sense, marginalize the Russians. We blunted their veto power by going to the General Assembly. And we've seen the General Assembly actually rise to the challenge. And none of us, I will honestly admit, expected that we would get 141 member states supporting a condemnation of the Russians.

When we went into the room, our goal was to get 100. And 141 was extraordinary. And then we were able to maintain that by getting 140 countries to express support for the Ukrainian people. The third thing that has happened that is unusual in the area of security council reform, the government of Liechtenstein proposed the resolution that called for members of the P5 when using their veto to have to come to the general assembly and explain to other member states why they found it necessary to use their veto. and we co-sponsored that along with other countries. We co-sponsored that resolution. And so it puts pressure on the Russians to have to come and explain themselves before the general assembly.

So I think that kind of action may not have been possible prior to this Russian attack on the core values of the UN system. And there are other discussions that are taken. taking place related to UN reform. And we think those discussions have gotten a bit more exposure and support because of the current situation that we were in in the Security Council. But what has happened is, again, I use this over and over. Russia has been isolated.

They went into this war thinking that they would defeat the Ukrainians in a matter of two weeks. They thought they would divide and break up NATO and that they would divide the Europeans broadly. And what they've done is actually bolstered NATO's resolve. They have strengthened our alliances with our European colleagues. And they have kind of given the Ukrainians a lot of courage. And the Ukrainians have been able to defend themselves. against this onslaught in ways that the Russians didn't expect.

And I'm not even sure when the Ukrainians went into this, that they realized the strength and resolve and courage that they were going to bring to this fight. Yeah, you know, just that's an interesting adjustment in the international system that bears watching is just trying to find ways to move the center of gravity to the General Assembly to other parts of the international system, you know, ad hoc coalitions, obviously they include NATO really featuring in the Ukraine context. I wanted to ask you about Syria because I know you've been focused on this. I know there was a lot of work you did diplomatically

to keep a degree of humanitarian access open into Syria. I know that the U.S. has been pledging additional humanitarian assistance. People, I think, have, you know, lost sight of this conflict and the suffering of the Syrian people, given all of the other world events to consume our attention. What is the current state of the U.S. role in Syria? And what have you been focused on through the U.N.? You know, we have not forgotten about Syria. The dire humanitarian situation facing millions of Syrians remain a significant priority for us. As you know, last year I went to Turkey to the Syrian border, to one just get a sense of the situation on the ground. So I met with NGOs, I met with the UN, I met with the white helmets, I met with refugees, and really was able to come back to New York,

grounded in the situation. We were able to succeed in negotiating with the Russians to get them to agree to a 12-month extension of the one last border, El Hawa. that border extension is going to expire on the 10th of July. So I am planning to go again before the extension expires to update myself on the situation on the ground. One thing the Russians asked for last year that we gave them was an agreement that we would do more cross-line distributions of humanitarian assistance. And that effort has worked somewhat. We've had four efforts and we were able to access about 40,000 people. But that only is a mere complement to the millions of people we're feeding crossline. And so we have to keep crossline open. And

what I've said to the Russians and I will say to the Syrians is that this is in their interest because they don't want to see millions of people go into starvation because they're going to feel the impact of this as much as others have. I also, just a few weeks ago, was in Brussels, and we announced an additional $800 million in humanitarian assistance to NGOs and the UN working on Syrian humanitarian programs. So we have not forgotten Syrians. Even in the face of dealing with Ukraine on a daily basis, Syria keeps me aware. awake at night, along with a lot of other world issues. I also certainly think about every day what the DPRK is going to do and how we respond to that. We're engaging on a regular basis

with all of the Security Council members, to include Russia and China, on how we respond to that situation. And what's it like when you have an issue like North Korea, like you mentioned, where, you know, you're working, as you say, kind of with Russia in a group. I mean, how has that changed since the war in Ukraine started? You know, is there frostier? Is it more difficult on other issues? Like, has the war in Ukraine spilled over in other issues? Or maybe it should, frankly, given the fact that the Russians have placed themselves so far outside of any international norms. We're not engaging business as usual with the Russians, but we know we have to engage with them because we're sitting at the table with them in the Security Council.

They're a member of the Security Council. That's a fact. It's a fact that we can't change. So we have to work with them on some of these difficult issues. And I'm hopeful on the issue of Syria that we will get them to agree that it is important that we continue to keep this. one border crossing open and that we consider reopening a couple of the other crossings that were closed previously because this is important. And so I'm willing to engage with them on this

issue despite or in spite of our disgust with what they are doing in Ukraine. And I'm, you know, just as we wrap up here, a couple of broader questions of just, is there an issue that you feel like particularly passionate about pursuing through your role at the UN that may not be getting, you know, the headline attention globally? I mean, I do remember just so many things that had a center of gravity at the UN where you could really make a difference on either addressing a crisis or just trying to make affirmative progress, you know, whether it's on LGBT rights or whether it's on some other aspect of, you know, just trying to take a country that needed that extra assistance in the national community. I mean, what are the one or two things that you would like people to know about that you're working on that are escaping attention? Well, you know, broadly, Ben, I am really grounded in the humanitarian space.

And so I do focus a tremendous amount of attention on humanitarian issues, on engaging with NGOs and making sure that NGOs get the recognition that they deserve here in the United Nations. So whenever we have events where we are in the chair, we make sure that we have NGOs that are recognized to come and brief the Security Council. We want to make sure that women are also invited in a consistent way. So we hosted, for example, one of our signature events early this week on digital technology. And we had an amazing young woman in the tech field from Kenya come and brief the Security Council. So when I look at what is important to me, in addition to all of the things that are important to all of us, us. I want to make sure that we don't let any humanitarian situation be left unnoticed and that we deal with the situation in Ethiopia, that we continue to focus attention on the situation in Burma,

that we focus attention on what is happening with the Uyghurs in China, that Yemen not be forgotten. So it's a huge, huge agenda of humanitarian issues. and for me, every single one is important. So I find myself running on a treadmill because I try to do it all because I don't think anything should be forgotten. And Secretary Blinken coined this acronym Rowing, the rest of the world.

We cannot forget the rest of the world. And I take that very, very seriously, that Ukraine is important, but the rest of the world is important, the rest of the world is important as well. And what is happening on the humanitarian front in Africa and in Burma and Yemen, all of these are issues that we have to keep in the forefront. Yeah. No, you know, oftentimes the rest of the world ends up falling into the leadership of the

UN ambassador when White House gets consumed with things. So I'm glad to hear that perspective. Are you liking the job? Are you making gumbo for your counterparts? Are you enjoying living in New York City? How is it? I love the job. I'm still getting used to living in New York City. It's been an adjustment coming to New York. I came in the middle of COVID. So the first six months, everything was done remotely. So I didn't meet my team. I didn't meet my staff. I chaired my first presidency of the Security Council remotely. So that has. has required some adjustment. But I am making gumbo and looking forward to sharing it with you

and others because I think it's an important way of engaging with people when you can sit again over a good meal and talk about tough issues. So people relax and they are particularly impressed when they know that I've cooked the meal myself and didn't have it catered or didn't use my really wonderful a chef that comes with the apartment. It impresses them that I actually make a meal and serve to them. Yeah. Well, that's good. It's great to hear that. And I just tell you, I've taken a stab at gumbo

a bunch of times and getting that first, you know, that first bit right. You know, this is quite important. There's a recipe in the Washington Post. It's my recipe. I actually, when I gave the Washington Post the recipe, I made it up as I was, I made it up to send to them. And then I tried it after I sent it to. Oh, that's a risk. Oh, it was good. Good, good.

It was good. And many people have written to me to say they tried the recipe, including Senator Kane from Virginia, who said he tried it. He just didn't know what to do with all the gumbo because you can't make gumbo for four. You have to make gumbo for 12. And so try my recipe in the Washington Post. It'll work for you. All right. I'm on it. Well, thanks so much for joining and really appreciate it and best of luck with everything going forward. Thank you so much, Ben. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. Okay, thank you again to Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield for joining the show. Ben, I have two things I wanted to tell the listeners to read because we didn't

have time to cover. It's hard to cover long stories. One is the New York Times did an amazing reporting on Haiti and how the country was forced to pay reparations to the French, their former enslavers, and then take out loans from French banks, which is like compounded the interest over time. The amazing reporting. And then the BBC and a bunch of other outlets, I think, just published a bunch of new documents and photos that detail the crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs by the Chinese government. So it's an important thing to read. And then last question for you, you're currently on one of the funniest reply all mishaps

I've ever seen. Last message was from Nome Chomsky. About 300 people. How's that going? I had to say, like I fired up the Wi-Fi on my flight and I see like an all-caps email from Nome Chomsky, which to begin with kind of gets your attention. Yeah. But then I realized that somebody had, like, sent him some, like, open letter.

You know, they didn't like something Nome Chomsky said. But they didn't do the BCC thing. They did the thing where you list every email address. Brutal. Let me just say there are, like, current cabinet officials on this thing. They're all manner of, like, NSC types and, you know. Journalists. Journalists.

And these are, like, g-mails and stuff, too. So there was an email address allegedly for Boris Johnson on there. Yeah, you know, some assistants, you know, checking these emails and they're like, what the hell is going in there? There's nothing like being on an accidental CC instead of BCC, especially with old people. Because inevitably someone gets pissed off and replies all, please remove me from this chain. And that just sets off a chain of angry events from boomers. And it's just the funny thing. Some people just do the reply all to like just kind of unselfaware.

I will say, I live in fear of doing this and I did it once. I didn't do the B, I thought I'd cut and pasted my contacts into the BCC. I did it in the C, and it was super embarrassing. It happens to the best of us. Yeah. It's always a great way to farm some great email addresses. You know what? I am going through there actually and maybe updating my contacts.

Yeah. I see you, Jerome Powell. Yeah, yeah. Okay, Nome Chomsky. You now are taking this offline, you know? Noam, now we're friends. All right. That's it for today.

Good luck with your inbox. Yeah. Talk to you soon. See you. Positive of the World is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our producer is Haley Muse. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.

Kyle Seguin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Saul Rubin for production support. To our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montuth, who upload our episodes as videos at YouTube.com slash crooked media.