Newscasts - U.N.'s Guterres addresses WEF 1

Permian Resources

22/01/2025 11:30

Click the following link to watch video: https://share.newscasts.refinitiv.com/link?entryId=1_y4mydjt7&referenceId=1_y4mydjt7&pageId=Newscasts
Source: 'Reuters - Business videos'

Description: United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addresses the
World Economic Forum in Davos.
Short Link: https://refini.tv/42nuToM

Video Transcript:

>> Ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, welcome to one of the highlights of our
annual meeting. It is really an honor and privilege to welcome back to Davos,
His Excellency, Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations. In
September, you said that the purpose of the summit of the future was to bring
multilateralism back from the brink.The adaptation of the pact for the future
was a pivotal moment to focus minds and attention on our collective response
to changing the world. This year, the United Nations celebrates its 80th year,
a testament to the vitality of the organization and its centrality for
multilateral cooperation. The United Nations is more needed than ever, and
thank you for your leadership. It is clear that global cooperation is
stagnating, but the most pressing issues that we are faced with still need us
to collaborate because they're trans-boundary. We do live in a world that is
less predictable and more chaotic. We are grateful in this respect, also for
your personal efforts to maintain global dialogue, and the forum remains
steadfast in our commitment to work together towards a better future. Mr.
Secretary General, dear Antonio, at the beginning of this year, I invite you
to share with us your assessment of the state of the world. Welcome. >> Ladies
and gentlemen, dear friends, it's good to be back in Davos. Your focus this
year is on collaboration for the intelligent age, and it is a noble vision.
But let's face it, when many people look around the world, they don't see much
collaboration and perhaps to their minds, not enough intelligence. Despite
progress on many fronts, investment in renewables, technological, leaps,
health advances, many of our old problems are getting worse. We are living in
an increasingly ruderless world. Last week, I delivered my annual priorities
speech to the General Assembly and I said that our world is facing a Pandora's
box of troubles. We face widening geopolitical divisions, rising inequalities,
and assault on human rights. And we see a multiplication of conflicts, some of
which are leading to the reshaping of different parts of the world, not least
the Middle East. And there is finally a measure of hope when a ceasefire and
hostage release deal in Gaza takes place, and we are working to surge up
desperately needed humanitarian aid. I was also just in Lebanon where a
cessation of hostilities is holding and the new government is taking shape
after two years of stalemates. From the Middle East, to Ukraine, to Sudan and
beyond, we still face an uphill battle. But we will never give up in calling
for peace, but peace grounded on values, the UN charter, international law,
including international humanitarian law, and the principles of sovereignty,
political independence, and territorial integrity of states. Meanwhile,
developing countries are in economic dire straits. Some are facing double
digit inflation rates while interest payments in Africa are earning up 27% of
all government revenues. On every front, our system of governance are often
ill-equipped to deal with these challenges. Many were built for a different
era, a different economy, and a different world. We are working to reform
institutions for the 21st century from the global financial architecture to
the UN Security Council to basic aspects of our summit of the future. But
reforming institutions requires a reform in mindsets because we face big
challenges, existential challenges, and I'm not convinced leaders get it. Yes,
we all understand the nature of an existential threat. Those of us who lived
through the Cold War remember the decades spent living under the constant
shadow of nuclear annihilation. Of course, the nuclear threat is still with
us. But when it comes to existential threats, nuclear is no longer alone.
Today we face two new and profound threats that demand far more global
attention and action because they threaten to apend life as we know it, the
climate crisis and the ungoverned expansion of artificial intelligence. >>
First, climate chaos. I recently saw an analysis that exposed the green irony.
Thirteen of the world's biggest ports for oil super tankers will be
overwhelmed by rising sea levels. Rising seas, which are caused by rising
temperatures and rising temperatures which are overwhelmingly caused by
burning fossil fuels. Our fossil fuel addiction is a Frankenstein monster
sparing nothing and nowhere. All around us, we see clear signs that the
monster has become master. We just endure the hottest year and the hottest
decade in history. 2024 is likely to be the first calendar year that's pushed
past 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Now, breaching the limit does
not mean the long term goal of keeping the rise in global temperature 1.5
degrees is shot. It means we need to fight even harder to get on track.
Especially when we are seeing today sea level rise, heat waves, floods,
storms, droughts and wildfires that are just a preview of the horror movie to
come. A world where every economy feels the pain. If supply chain severed, if
infrastructure destroyed, higher prices and higher insurance premiums or no
insurance at all. At the same time, another far more hopeful story is
unfolding. Cheap, plentiful energy provided by renewables is an extraordinary
economic opportunity, one that will benefit people in every country, and then
that will make the end of the fossil fuel age inevitable, no matter how hard
vested interests try to stop it. A number of financial institutions and
industries are backtracking on climate commitments. Here at Davos, I want to
say loudly and clearly that this is shortsighted, and paradoxically, it is
selfish but also self-defeating. You are on the wrong side of history. You are
on the wrong side of science, and you are on the wrong side of consumers who
are looking for more sustainability, not less. This warning certainly also
applies to the fossil fuel industry and advertising, lobbying and PR companies
who are aiding, abetting, and greenwashing. Global rethink is racing forward
and we cannot afford to move backwards. Government must keep their promise to
produce new economy wide national climate action plans this year well ahead of
Cop 30 in Brazil. Those plans must align with limiting the rise in global
temperatures to 1.5 degrees, including by accelerating global energy
transition. We also need a surge in finance for climate in developing
countries to adopt global heating, to adapt to global heating, to slash
emissions, and seize the benefits of the renewables revolution. We need to
tackle high capital costs that are leaving developing countries behind. And I
also urge all businesses and financial institutions to create robust,
accountable transition plans this year. These two must align with 1.5 degrees,
and with the full recommendations of the United Nations High-Level Expert
Group on Net-Zero. To the corporate leaders who remain committed to climate
action, your leadership is needed now more than ever. Do not back down, stay
on the right side of history. Now is the time to shift our collective efforts
into overdrive and make 2025 the biggest year yet for climate action. The
second area of existential concern is ungoverned artificial intelligence. AI
holds untold promise for humanity, revolutionizing learning, advancing health
care, and diagnosing illness earlier, supporting farmers with smarter tools to
boost productivity, clearing land mines, and better targeting aid in times of
crisis. These are real results happening right now. But with this promise
comes profound risk, especially if AI is left ungoverned. AI can be used as a
tool of deception. It can disrupt economies and labor markets, undermine trust
in institutions, and have chilling effects on the battlefield. AI could deepen
inequalities by excluding those without resources or tools to benefit from its
promise. Once again, collaboration is critical. The global digital compact
adopted in September at United Nations offers a roadmap to harness the immense
potential of digital technology and closed digital divides. It also brings the
world together around the shared vision for artificial intelligence, one where
this technology serves humanity, not the other way around. The concept
establishes the first universal agreement on the governance of AI that brings
every country to the table. It includes the creation of an independent
international scientific panel on AI, pooling expertise to bridge knowledge
gaps and help every nation make the most informed AI policy decisions. The
compact also calls for a periodic global dialogue on AI governance as an
inclusive space for stakeholders to come together at the auspices of United
Nations. It also foresees a network of capacity building initiatives for
developing countries which have the most at stake as AI-driven systems grow
and expand. We must collaborate so that all countries and people benefit from
AI's promise and potential to support development and social and economic
progress for all. By investing in affordable Internet, digital literacy, and
the infrastructure that allows every country to harness AI's potential. By
helping developing countries use AI to grow small businesses, improve public
services, and connect communities to new markets, and by placing human rights
always at the center of AI-driven systems. The United Nations is committed to
leading these efforts, and we are working with governments, industry, and
civil society to ensure that AI becomes a tool of opportunity, inclusion, and
progress for all people. Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to wake up to
these existential challenges and face them head on and transform them in
sources of progress and welfare for everybody. As a global community, we must
live up to this great responsibility, and let's do so by working as well in
collaboration as the motto of the World Economic Forum. Thank you, and I look
forward to our discussion today. >> So Mr. Secretary General, great to have
you back. One can look at the world as like a glass half empty or a glass half
full. So let's start with the latter and we'll come back to the first. You
just came back from Lebanon. It is no a president elected. There is a cease
fire, as you mentioned in Gaza, start of releasing hostages. There is a new
government in Damascus. Your special envoy is there today, working on that.
Currently, there hasn't been an escalation leading to a war between Israel and
Iran that would have huge impact. Where do you see the Middle East in a year
when you come back to Davos? >> Well, I know it will be deeply reshaped, but I
do not know exactly in what direction. All the different aspects will be
reshaped. First, Gaza. I think it's important, first of all, to recognize that
the ceasefire in Gaza is the product of the work of many, and I would praise
the United States, Qatar and Turkey for their efforts for months and months
and months to obtain the release of hostages that, by the way, should be
immediate and unconditional and also to obtain the ceasefire. But the
negotiations were dragging, and then all of a sudden it happened. I think
there was a large contribution of the robust diplomacy at the time, president
elect of the United States. I feel that when we had the position of Israel,
still reluctant to the ceasefire just two days before it happened, and then
all of a sudden there was an acceptance. I think that we have witnessed an
example of robust diplomacy that is something that we must recognize. >> Do
you expect more robust diplomacy? >> I think you have more examples of robust
diplomacy. Let's see now in what direction. But what is not yet clear is what
is the future of the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. One
possibility is to move into annexation of the West Bank and probably limbo
situation in Gaza, which of course is against international law and would mean
there will never be peace in the Middle East. The other possibility is to be
still on time with a revitalized Palestinian authority and an open approach by
the Israeli government to still be able to look into a two state solution.
It's not yet clear how things will develop. In Lebanon, I believe that the
ceasefire is holding, and my hope is that we will witness a Lebanon that will
be able to finally have an effective government. We know the Lebanese if the
war ends at noon, at one o'clock, they start rebuilding. So the Lebanese
people have an enormous potential. I'm optimistic about Lebanon. But we still
do not yet guarantee that this ceasefire will hold and will lead to a final
peace. I think Syria is the big question mark. We have a new government that
is saying all the right things. But at the same time, it's a government that
still corresponds only with what we had in Lib. And organizations that have a
tradition that is not exactly the members of the core of a church. So there
are many questions and we see some signals that the openness and tolerance
that is said really will translate itself into reality. So we hopefully will
have a Syria with a government that represents all the communities in Syria,
which means that the problem between Turkey and the Kurds will also be solved,
and that allows for full integration of Syria international community, but we
still have a strong risk of fragmentation and a strong risk of extremism in at
least parts of the Syrian territory. So Syria is still a question mark, but it
is in the interest of us all to engage in order to make things move in the
direction of an inclusive form of governance in Syria in which all minorities
will feel represented. And I think some gesture must be made, namely in
relation to the sanctions in order to help to make it possible. >>
Incentivize? >> I think it's a quid pro quo, but I believe the first step now
must see to create some relief in the sanctions system that is causing a lot
of suffering to the Syrian people. >> And we already seen 200,000 Syrians
coming back to Syria. But also, as you said, SG is at stake because we've seen
in the past that walking the talk has not necessarily been happening, and it's
really a lot at stake now with inclusiveness, you have the Kurds, you have the
Alawites, you have Christians, you have Shiites. It's complex. >> As I said,
we might have a good solution in which all feel represented and the
contradictions are overcome or a fragmentation with extremism still ruling
parts of the territory. Let's hope that it's the first option that wins. >>
And then you have the most relevant question, which is Iran and the relations
between Iran, Israel, and the United States. And here, my hope is that the
Iranians understand that it is important to once and for all make it clear
that they will renounce to have nuclear weapons. At the same time that they
engage constructively with the other countries of the region to have a new
security architecture in the region with full respect of the independence,
territorial integrity, non-interference in the region, and with that, having
so-called great bargain that allows them to be fully integrated in the global
economy. This is my hope. But it's still possible that things do not go in
this direction and that we might have an escalation, and an escalation that
could be dramatic confrontation engulfing the whole region. >> And that
wouldn't only affect the Gulf region or the Middle East, that would have huge
double global impact. But you mentioned robust diplomacy related to Gaza. We
also heard that President Trump has said that he wants peace and stability.
That was the readout from the conversation he also had with Xi Jinping on
Saturday, and we were very close to a full-fledged war between Israel and Iran
in the fall. So I guess also on the Israeli side, they will need to work very
closely with the new administration on their approach to Iran. And there's
also different camps in the Republican Party when it comes to how to deal with
Iran. >> My feeling is that the first step now must come from Iran because if
not, we risk to have indeed an escalation. And I hope that Iran understands
that it is useful to have this first step and that it does make sense at all
to bet on the possibility because it not even a reality or the perception that
Iran is aiming at having nuclear weapons. I think to make it clear once and
for all that that will not happen. And to engage, as I said, constructively,
for a new security architecture in the region, respecting the independence of
all the other countries would be a step that would allow the full integration
of Iran in the global economy and would, I hope once and for all, pacify,
which is one of the most, I would say, serious risks in global peace and
security. >> And coming back to Gaza the implementation of the first phase is
happening now. But there's also a second phase. There's still things that have
modalities that have to be negotiated. But when you look at risks, also, we
see currently a deterioration of the situation in the West Bank. So, of
course, the PA is also seen to play a role in the next phase of the
implementation of Gaza. So it, of course, will be interesting also to see this
new administration's view on a two-state solution, the Abraham's Accords,
Saudi Arabia, having said that there is no joining of the Abraham's Accords
without a path towards a two-state solution. But the immediate challenge is
now really on the West Bank because we have seen really deterioration of the
security situation there and then the path for reconstruction of Gaza. >> I
think there is a win-win solution, and that win-win solution is that the
ceasefire holds, the hostages go on being released, and massive distribution
of aid takes place. First day,640 trucks, second day, 930 trucks. It was
proven that when restrictions disappear, aid is provided, as we've always
said. And this is important. It is a success story. Now, this success story
must translate itself into a success story in the next phases, and the next
phases leading to a situation of permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a situation
in which a transition can be established in Gaza, allowing for the
reunification of the occupied Palestinian territories and allowing for a
serious negotiation of a political solution based on the two states. This is
the win-win situation. But there is another possibility. And the other
possibility is for Israel feeling emboldened by the military successes that it
has had to think that this is the moment to do the annexation of the West
Bank, and to keep the Gaza in a limbo situation with an unclear form of
governance. It is clear for me that Israel is not fundamentally interested in
Gaza, it's fundamental interest in the West Bank. Now, that would be a total
violation of international law and that would create a situation in which I
think the Abrahamic Accords would be undermined completely, and that would
mean that we would never have a real stable peace in the Middle East. >> So
one of the challenges, Secretary General, that we're faced with is in a more
fragmented polarized world is also this notion of proxy wars. >> Of? >> Of
proxy wars. I'm thinking about what we're seeing now in Africa, in Sudan,
Somalia, also in the Sahel. I guess that this is something that keeps you up
at night. It's hard to address, it's hard to attribute. But also for Syria,
this is probably one of the real impulses also there, if you don't have an
integration because then you can have a war going on for decades. >> Well, we
live in a situation where the geopolitical divides are deep, the superpowers
are deeply divided with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, of course, the most
serious problem. But with the China-US relationship being, as you know, very
[inaudible 00:38:04], and we could have worst with the trade issues that
appear in horizon. So these huge geopolitical divides have created a situation
in which there is total impunity. As the superpowers are not able to
coordinate their action in relation to global peace and security. The truth is
that in any part of the world, anyone feels that they can do whatever they
want, nothing will happen to them. And we are seeing this in Sudan. Two groups
killing each other, fighting each other, creating a horrible situation for the
people in Sudan, and nothing happens to them, total impunity. Now, this is the
situation that I believe we need to correct because this is what makes these
wars by proxy happen. And you see that in each of the situations, we have four
or five countries that interfere with the conflict, be in Libya, be it in
Sudan, be it in the Sahel. >> Somalia. We have the president here on the first
row. >> It is absolutely essential to independently of the geopolitical
divides that exist to create a situation in which there is real accountability
in relation to the dramatic violations of human rights and international
humanitarian law we are seeing in the world. >> So coming to a close, it's a
paradox, though, isn't it that in a world where more and more of the
challenges are transboundary being future pandemics, climate change, as you
mentioned also in your speech, making sure that technology works in the
interest of humankind. Also with cybercrime, but also in all these regional
conflicts that are so interconnected, we do have the Security Council. And, of
course, there is criticism that it is not the best mood in the Security
Council, but it is a place where the big power still meet, and it's a paradox
that in a situation where all these challenges are only solved in a
multilateral context, the appetite is not always there, so it first makes your
job even more complex. But do you feel there are a few opportunities and
silver linings now in the coming years to even in a world where each nation
follow mainly their national interests, there are areas where there's so
strong overlap of the interest that you can push things through? >> Well,
first of all, let's look at Security Council. The problem of Security Council
is a problem of effectiveness, but it's also a problem of legitimacy. The
Security Council in the five permanent members, there is three European
members. Whether people like it or not, France, UK, and Russia are European
countries. Now, three in five of a continent that is what it is, doesn't make
any sense anymore. So it is absolutely essential to have a reform of the
Security Council to make the Security Council more representative of today's
world and to make it more effective. This was one of the central questions of
the debate in the Summit of the Future. But beyond that, what I believe is
that there are things that will tend, in my opinion, to unite. And I have a
lot of hope of the positive impacts of science and the positive impact of, I
would say, technological development. We can have different positions. But the
renewables became the cheapest way to produce electricity. And so
independently of the opinions that people might have, those that are now
investing in fossil fuels, in my opinion, are investing in stranded assets.
I'm totally convinced that the oil and gas that exist in the world today,
independently of new discoveries, will never be spent. And so sooner or later,
I believe that the realities created by the scientific and technological
evolution will make it inevitable, even for reasons of selfish analysis, will
make it inevitable for people to take the right decisions, and that is one of
my hopes. The second hope is that the youths of today has a different
perspective and a different vision of the world than the youths of our
generations. They are more cosmopolitan and they are more sensitive to the
questions that are related to the well-being of our planet and well-being of
the international community. >> So there are silver linings? >> I think that
the question is not to be optimistic or pessimistic, the question is to be
determined. We need to be determined in making the values and principles in
which we believe in. And if we are determined to fight for the right thing, if
we are on the right side of history, I believe in the end, we'll get what we
want. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary General. >> [inaudible 00:44:26]. >>
[inaudible 00:44:28]. Thank you