TRANSCRIPT: Why We Still Need the United Nations with UN Secretary-General António Guterres
António Guterres:
If there will be a vaccine that is effective, it's very important that that vaccine becomes a global public good, a people's vaccine, something that is affordable and accessible to everybody in the world.
Ian Bremmer:
Hello and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast where you'll find extended versions of the interviews from my show on public television. And today I'm taking a look at the largest intergovernmental organization in the world. This year, the United Nations turned 75, a diamond anniversary, but when it comes to solving some of the biggest issues today, has the UN lost its luster. I'm talking to UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Let's get to it.
Announcer:
This episode of the GZERO World Podcast was made possible by Lennar, America's largest and most innovative home builder and the number one destination for foreign residential real estate investment in the US. Learn more at www.lennargzero.com. That's L-E-N-N-A-R-G-Z-E-R-O.com.
Ian Bremmer:
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations. 75 years ago, born out of the crisis of World War II, it gave the Americans and others the gumption and the willingness to put together this idealistic institution that we all need. We have a crisis today. Is it helping?
António Guterres:
It's not yet clear whether it'll help or whether it will further undermine the possibilities of multilateral institutions to deliver. I think that we are now confronted with two kinds of attitudes. Those that look at the COVID-19 and feel that it has shown the fragility of the world, fragility in relation to a pandemic, a microscopic virus that's put us on our knees. Fragility, that would require us to be humble, to understand that we need more unity, more solidarity, and that we need better governance in global affairs, which means to strengthen international cooperation. On the other hand, the same situation has led many people to think that, well, what we need is to do it by ourselves. Let's deal with our problems and forget about the others. This is a big crisis, so let's take care of ours. And this is of course exacerbating feelings of nationalism, of populism, even of xenophobia and racism in more extreme situations and the denial of the need of multilateral governances and multilateral institutions.
The two things are now confronting each other. This will be a very important ideological battle in the months to come. I'm on the side of those that believe that the world needs more governance, not less governance, but I am not naive and I know this is going to be a very tough ideological battle. We might come out of it with the capacity to build back a world with more inclusive and sustainable perspectives, but we might come out of it with a world where chaos will become the main logic of international relations.
Ian Bremmer:
The direction we're heading in right now, as you admit, is not towards stronger multilateralism certainly and first and foremost in the technology sphere, but also in terms of broad governance, in terms of trade, in terms of geopolitical competition. Right now we're heading in the direction that you don't want to see. What are the things if they were to happen in the next months that would give you a little more hope that actually we're starting to turn the corner in another direction, some plausible things that you think could really occur?
António Guterres:
I think there are two main issues in the months to come. One is whether we will have or not, vaccines and treatments that can be considered a global public good. We see at the same time initiatives to bring people together. We have seen statements by different countries that they would be ready to share whatever it is produced by them. On the other hand, we see a competition in which several countries are trying to guarantee the vaccines for their own people. If there will be a vaccine that is effective, it's very important that that vaccine becomes a global public good, a people's vaccine, something that is affordable and accessible to everybody in the world, which I believe is in the interest of everybody because we will not be safe if the others will not be safe. And we have seen how the virus moves from east to west now from north to south, and then how people speak already of a second wave potentially appearing in Europe.
I mean, it is clear that never as today we need international corporation and we have this question, the vaccine and some treatments that in my opinion are a problem and an opportunity if this will become a problem, it'll be a disaster. If this will become an opportunity and are still on time for that, it'll be a very important signal of hope. And the second is the discussions that we are going to have in 2020, early 2021 about climate change and the new national determined contributions. I am personally involved at the present moment in a very strong campaign, especially the big emitters, to make sure that we move clearly together into a commitment to carbon neutrality in 2050, which means to the 1.5 degrees limit at the end of the century. And questions like coal, it is my deep belief that doesn't make any sense to go on building coal powered energy plants.
And I've been in dialogue from China to Japan to Korea to India on this issue. I mean everywhere. We are spending trillions of dollars in the recovery from the COVID. Let's not spend them in subsidies to fossil fuels, When we bail out industries, let's do bailouts that at the same time create conditions related to the acceptance of a transition to carbon neutrality. When we invest in the creation of jobs, let's recognize that today in renewable energies you create three times more jobs than in any fossil fuel industry. So again, it's a question, are we going to change course or not? Or are we going to invest and rebuild exactly the kind of economy and society we had before? If we'll do it, we'll miss an opportunity. If we are able to understand that things can be done differently and many are already doing it differently, then I believe there is an important signal of hope.
Ian Bremmer:
Well, because there are two so clearly global challenges, I mean not only urgent and of scale, but also affecting every country in the world. And it's very clear that if you don't have that kind of collaboration and cooperation and leadership on both of them, that the responses are going to be substandard for everyone, everyone gets hurt. And so it is in that regard, it's a message that you are uniquely positioned to actually deliver.
António Guterres:
And I'm trying my best to deliver it. And we believe the next General Assembly will be a very important moment to discuss both the COVID, the need to coordinate better in the response to the disease itself, the need to look into a vaccine as a people's vaccine. And at the same time, the needs to reorganize the way we are mobilizing our resources for a recovery that, let's be clear, the developed countries are doing from the point of view of the mobilization of our course is what needed to be done. They are mobilizing more than 10% of their GDP, but the developing world is still not benefiting from enough solidarity both in the transfer of resources and in the depth restructuring and other aspects.
So there is still a lot, and I hope the G20 will play a more active role on this. There is still a lot that needs to be done in order to make the recovery more effective globally. But it's not only a question of the volume of resources and the equality in the way different countries are treated. It's a question of where are we going to spend the money, for what purpose? With what orientation? With what strategy? And taking or not into account the need to indeed build a better, more inclusive and the more sustainable economy in the world.
Ian Bremmer:
When you think about the drivers of chaos right now, is the US China relationship the primary driver of decoupling of confrontation or are there others that are deeper, that are more systemic inside our societies that you're more worried about?
António Guterres:
I think that we are in a kind of a transition situation before we look into the Chinese US relationship. We are the bipolar world than we are the unipolar world with a one only super power the United States. The nineties I was prime minister of Portugal, I have witnessed very clearly. And then we moved into a situation that tends to be multipolar, but it's not yet multipolar, is rather chaotic in power relations becoming less and less clear. And it is in this context that in itself is a driver of chaos that we have now the two largest economic powers. Russia is still a bigger military power than China, but the two largest economic powers that risk to create a big rupture. And I say risk, I think we are not yet there. We are in a process that is still unpredictable and we'll have to see what happens in the next two or three years to have a clear perspective of it but the risk is there.
And the risk is the risk to have two economies with two sets of trade rules, with two Internets, with two different strategies for artificial intelligence, with two dominant currencies, and then to move based on that into two geostrategic and military dimensions that could lead one day to a confrontation. I think we are still on time to avoid it, and I do still believe that it would be possible looking now even beyond United States, looking into the United States, Europe, Japan, and the so-called Western world that to a certain extent shaped the economic relations of the past. I still think it's possible for this group of countries to look to China to recognize that the rules that were established when China entered the World Trade Organization were rules that were still based on China seen as a developing country. So indeed there are a number of areas in relation to intellectual property, in relation to trade itself, in relation to excess investment, access to finance in which we need some rebalancing in these relations.
And I do believe that if the US, Europe, Japan, if these countries would come to China and say, "Look, there is a system that to a certain extent is imbalanced in your favor because of the way it was designed one or two decades ago, there is a time we need to renegotiate this and to have a more balanced system in which in all these questions there is a set of rules that we all will be able to share." Then if that will happen, I think it'll be possible. And I think China is ready to engage in this discussion. It'll be possible to move into a situation in which we have one global economy with one set of rules and with I would say, trust being built to create conditions for in the most delicate aspects and the most delicate aspects are related to technology, in my opinion, artificial intelligence, all these questions in those aspects to have the possibility to have one single world and not the decoupling you were mentioning. Because if we decouple everything in the end, there is a risk of confrontation that is very, very dangerous.
Ian Bremmer:
One place of optimism, at least so far, both on the vaccine, on the economic side and on climate change seems to be Europe. The Europeans seem to be taking the lead on multilateralism on all of these issues right now. Am I right in that assessment?
António Guterres:
I believe Europe has understood that the climate question is an existential question and is ready to lead, but Europe is not enough. We need to have the US, you need to have China, we need to have India, we had to Japan, Russia because those are the countries that are the make it or break it in relation to the capacity to reduce emissions. And we need to reduce emissions dramatically up to 2050. We have already, it's important to say 120 countries that have committed to carbon neutrality in 2050, but they only represent one forth of the global emissions. So the big emitters are what matters now, and that's where the pressure needs to be put. And I'm happy Europe has recognized it and is leading I in that way. But again, in all these aspects that you mentioned, it is clear for me that we face an existential question.
I mean, this pandemic is what it is, but it kills a relatively small amount of the people infected. I mean, it's a lot of people, but it's a relatively small percentage. If you take Ebola, 50, 60, 70% of people die with Ebola, of course it's a different virus, is different in transmission, but we can have tomorrow another virus that instead of killing 2% of the population infected can kill 10, 20, 30%. We would be completely doomed. And climate change again, I mean if we go on with the present perspective, we'll come to the end of the century with three to five degrees increase, it'll be devastating for the planet. So this is the moment in which there are basic choices that need to be made. And I'm optimistic that some countries are recognizing it. More and more leaders are recognizing it and more the business community is recognizing it.
We see more and more asset managers representing trillions of dollars of assets moving into carbon neutrality. We see people asking for regulations, establishing the need for disclosure in financial institutions. We need more and more the idea that climate risks need to be taken into account when investments are programmed. And I now to be honest, see the private sector moving more quickly than many governments and this is a source of hope for me. And when we look at the multilateralism of the future, we think about the multilateralism of the past was essentially intergovernmental. The multilateralism of the future must be much more multi-stakeholder. We need to give voice and institutional influence to businesses, to society. We need to give also more voice to the cities, to the regions of the world that today are where most of the decisions are taken and we need to adapt our multilateral institutions to be more inclusive.
And this means that this is also an opportunity to change the power relations in relation to the different entities that we have in the international system and to open up governments to recognize that they do not represent the monopoly of political action, to open up and to make other actors being also influential in the decisions that we'll have to take both for the pandemic that are to come, the climate change, the cyberspace, and many other of the challenges that we face at the same time. Not only we need to stress multilateralism, but we need a much more inclusive multi-stakeholder multilateralism.
Ian Bremmer:
Now that multi-stakeholder idea is something that people have been talking about for a while, but you're certainly pushing it beyond the reality of where we are today. If I think about some of the conversations you and I have had in the past where you describe the potential for multinational corporations, for example, to become formal signatories of treaties, to be actual full stakeholders, is that something that you, for example on climate, the United States pulls out of the Paris Climate Accord, but suddenly you'd have a whole bunch of other actors inside the United States that formally were actually still in. Do you think that's something that is feasible in the near-term?
António Guterres:
I think we'll probably have less and less of the kind of treaties we had in the past, which were international treaties and conventions that would take 10 years to be negotiated. And then were signed during one or two years and ratified during two or three more years by parliaments all over the world and to move into more flexible instruments in which we have a multi-stakeholder approach, in which we have protocols, best practices that are exchanged, red lights that all are ready to accept with flexibility because I mean if you look at technology, if you look at the cyberspace, it's changing so quickly. If you do today a treaty, that treaty will no longer be valid in two years time. So you need to create more than a set of rigid rules. You need to create a system of participation, of interaction, of corporation in which a number of entities are permanently able to discuss with each other.
And that is where the UN can be a platform to bring people together to discuss with each other and to establish a number of protocols, a number of norms, a number of best practices that can allow to transform these things that are either a threat or a huge potential. The digital world is a example of that, to make them essentially a force for good. And I do believe that in these multinational corporations, but also the different forms of association of the business community, but also the civil society, but also coalitions of cities can to they take extremely important decisions. They're taking them in relation to climate. So it's a dual world with a different geography. And in this new world in a different geography, you need to form mechanisms of governance that are at the same time more flexible, less probably rigid in relation to the way things work, but at the same time much more inclusive. And I believe that there is no way to address the problems of digital technologies if you don't address them in a multi-stakeholder approach.
Ian Bremmer:
I mean, the upside of that approach is if you end up with a government that doesn't do very much or a couple of countries that are fighting, it doesn't matter as much if you actually have all these institutions inside their countries that are still able to work together and engage flexibly. The downside is there are a lot of authoritarian governments out there that are not necessarily going to be really happy about seeding power and creating flexibility for people that might have very different ideas of what sort of agreements they'd like to get into than the government up top.
António Guterres:
Well, this is not going to be easy, but I see things moving and I see things changing. And for instance, when we discussed the role of the business community in these questions, I see that countries that were totally opposed to it a few years ago now understanding that it'll be needed. So I'm cautiously optimistic about the possibility to progressively move into a more inclusive multilateralism. It'll take time, it'll be done in different ways. In some aspects we'll have variable geometries, in some aspects we'll have different speeds but I feel this is the direction of the future. And I mean, what needs to be needs to be. I mean, this is a necessity. There is no way we can look at today's world based on a strict analysis of what's happening considering that only governments are the interlocutors in the international sphere.
Ian Bremmer:
And where would you say you have the most engagement, interest, strength in non-state actors to proactively be a part of that?
António Guterres:
Interestingly enough, in my opinion now the financial sector is moving more quickly than any other one. And-
Ian Bremmer:
On climate, for example.
António Guterres:
And I think there is a reason for that. If you own assets and if you own assets in the fossil fuels, you understand that the value of those assets in 10 or 20 years time will be smaller. And if that is the case, you will tend to reduce your investments in the areas that have no future and increase your investments in the areas that inevitably will become the areas of the future, be it in the digital world, be it in relation to the green economy. So it is very interesting to see how the financial sector is now becoming much more active and much more pressing than even the traditional industrial sectors that of course, to be frank, they always will pay much of the cost of the transition. But this push of the financial sector and my special envoy on climate action and on finance, Mark Carney has been extremely active on pushing both for the action of the actors and for regulations at the level of the financial systems. I believe that they can be a very important accelerator of the changes that are needed.
Ian Bremmer:
Now, another one of your advisors has said that diplomacy is a contact sport, and I'm wondering, as we look forward to this general assembly, how much are you losing because we're not able to get the heads of state together in person? How much are you personally losing because you're not able to be on a plane and engaged physically the way we are normally?
António Guterres:
Inevitably a lot. It's clear. I mean, we are doing our best in diplomacy. We are trying to end the conflict in Yemen. There is a ceasefire that goes in and off in Libya, Sudan, we had this peace agreement, but of course it's much easier to do diplomacy and it's much easier to solve conflicts when you are able to physically contact people and to put everybody together in the same room for sometimes one or two or three days. Now everything is virtual and it's much more complex, it's much more difficult. So it would be naive to pretend it's not the case. There is a huge loss in the efficiency of diplomacy for the fact that this lockdown doesn't allow us to be together and especially doesn't allow to use this General Assembly for a multiplication of contacts that would be extremely helpful because we have a number of situations of conflict in different parts of the world where you need to put together a number of vectors in order to make sure that we have a breakthrough to move in the direction of a consolidated ceasefire and peace.
Ian Bremmer:
Is there as we think ahead about, I mean how much the geopolitical order has changed, how much the challenges have changed, how quickly they're happening, and yet the institutional framework is much more as it has been for decades now, aside from reforms and efficiency, is there new architecture that you believe we need, that needs to be created?
António Guterres:
I think this is the most difficult part because it goes into the center of power relations and power relations are the most difficult to change. But I do believe that the present architecture is in many aspects outdated and especially we need to make the architecture correspond to what the world is today. The architecture we have is still largely corresponding to what the world was after the second World War. You see it in the security council, you see in the Bretton Woods System. So it would be useful to have an improved architecture. In the absence of that, what I've been trying to push for is to have a much stronger interconnection of different multilateral institutions. And fortunately, we are moving in that direction.
I mean, today the UN works much more closely with the IMF and World Bank. We are today a meeting of ministers of finance sponsored by the UN with the participation of the IMF and World Bank. This will be unconceivable just two or three years ago. The same with the regional organizations. The cooperation between the UN, the African Union and the UN and the EU, just to give two examples is today exemplary. At the same time, linking those things with the aspects of trade, linking those things with the aspects of technology. I mean, we need to make sure in the absence of a change in the structures to make the present structures be much more flexible and mobile interacting with each other and working closely together.
But of course, let's be clear, what we have today in the Security Council or we have today in the Bretton Woods System is not what corresponds to the political relations in the world and the political power distribution in the world or with the global economy as it exists in the present times. But I know that it'll be much more difficult to change architecture and we should not be waiting to change architecture to make things move. I think that we need to be firm in trying to say what we need to do in relation to architectural reform, but we need to be active and engaged in improving whatever can be improved. Because what matters is to change the lives of people for the better.
Ian Bremmer:
As you see the Chinese creating Belt and Road, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a lot of new institutions and architecture that didn't exist before. Do you view this as something that should help stimulate the rest of the world to say, "Hey, we need more and better global architecture because the Chinese aren't incorporated the way they should be. Look at what happens otherwise." Is this the beginning of what could be a new global order or is this something that we are likely to ignore?
António Guterres:
Well, at the present moment, I don't think that this is moving in the direction of a stronger corporation, but it is clear that if one countries has a global project of infrastructure and probably of infostructure, other countries that can compete with this should be doing something. I mean, and sometimes people talk too much and do too little. But when in our relations with China, we are also the ones telling them, I mean in the Belt and Road, we want to support countries in order to make sure that those countries do have a positive impact of these projects in their economies and their societies. That those projects are not to a certain extent linked to a global strategy of mobility, but they are really support to the development of countries.
And then there are depth questions that need to be discussed as you know. And then there is a question of the green aspect of infrastructure and projects. We have been telling the Chinese, as Japanese, as the Koreans, that we do not agree with the trends to go on financing coal power plants in the developing world. It doesn't make sense anymore. It's not profitable. We are moving to those countries assets that will become stranded assets and that are not the most profitable way to produce energy in the developed countries. So we need to help the developing world move to the green economy and not try to keep the developing world in the energies of the past.
Ian Bremmer:
So António as Secretary General, who's more frustrating, who's more of an obstacle to deal with the Americans that think we have the answers for absolutely everything, or the Chinese that feel like they're being excluded by the West?
António Guterres:
Neither is frustrating. Everything is a challenge and we need to talk to everybody and we need to discuss with everybody, and we need to bring everybody together knowing that there are huge differences, huge political systems, huge conceptions about many other aspects, but the truth is the challenges we face are such, our fragility is such. Either we do it together or we are doomed.
Ian Bremmer:
António Guterres, great to see you and hope you have a very successful couple weeks at the General Assembly.
António Guterres:
Thank you very much and all the best.
Ian Bremmer:
That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast, like what you've heard. I hope so. Come check us out at gzeromedia.com and sign up for our newsletter, Signal.
Announcer:
This episode of the GZERO World Podcast was made possible by Lennar, America's largest and most innovative home builder and the number one destination for foreign residential real estate investment in the US. Learn more at www.lennargzero.com. That's L-E-N-N-A-R-G-Z-E-R-O.com.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
