-I am absolutely convinced that at least basic common sense will prevail.

With all the difficulties, with all the divisions, with all the problems, we will not go to commit collective suicide.

Hello and welcome to GZERO World.

I'm Ian Bremmer and as world leaders and diplomats from 193 countries descended on midtown Manhattan this week for the 81st United Nations General Assembly, I sat down with Secretary General Antonio Guterres for the final time.

He has led the United Nations for a decade, and the former Portuguese prime minister will now hand the job to a still TBD successor at a precarious moment for both the world and his institution.

But what a hand he was dealt, a pandemic that hobbled the world, an accelerating climate crisis, Europe's largest conflict since World War II in Ukraine, humanitarian crises in Gaza and Sudan, no end in sight to US-Iran war that has closed the Strait of Hormuz and spiked global energy prices, and more forcibly displaced people on the planet right now than at any point in human history.

Add to that, the UN itself is under extraordinary strain.

The Security Council, by Guterres' own admission, paralyzed by divisions among its permanent members.

Member states owe the organization billions of dollars.

Its 2026 budget eliminated a fifth of its posts, while its peacekeeping forces have been reduced by a quarter.

Morale, not great.

Its leverage as a global mediator has diminished and governments that violate international law do so with increasing impunity.

Guterres is blunt about the limits of the job.

- Can we look at the powers of the secretary general?

Traditionally, there's been- - The secretary general has no powers.

The secretary has a voice and some convening capacity, but the voice- You have a voice.

The voice will not be shut up.

And that voice may matter more today than ever.

Its humanitarian agencies are still operating in some of the world's most dangerous places, and as the world's superpowers discover the limits of their influence, middle and rising powers like India and Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and Canada are demanding their seat at the table.

Those growing powers need a place to negotiate rules, to build coalitions and keep competition from becoming confrontation.

For all its failures, the UN remains the only table where every country has a seat.

If institutions created in 1945 can adapt to the balance of power in 2026, Guterres hopes a more multipolar world could become more representative.

If they cannot, we're heading towards more of the same.

After 10 years of wars, climate shocks, a pandemic and institutional paralysis, has Antonio Guterres left the United Nations and the world better than he found them?

Don't worry, I've also got your puppet regime.

Dornchik.

- Hey Vladimir, want to end the war in Ukraine?

I love that you still ask.

Always worth a shot.

But first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

Funding for GZERO World is provided by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

Every day, all over the world, Prologis helps businesses of all sizes lower their carbon footprint and scale their supply chains.

With a portfolio of logistics and real estate and an end-to-end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today.

Learn more at Prologis.com.

And by Cox Enterprises is proud to support GZERO.

Cox is investing in the future, working to create an impact in advanced recycling and in emerging technology companies that will help shape tomorrow.

Cox, a family of businesses.

Additional funding provided by The Andrew Carnegie Foundation, Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, and... - Secretary General Antonio Guterres, nice to be back with you.

Always a pleasure.

Thank you.

So we're on the precipice of another UN General Assembly, but you just came from Delhi, where the BRICS had their summit.

And I'm wondering, I saw a quote from you recently that said, you know, "Power is not given, it has to be taken."

When you were there at the BRICS summit, do you see, do you feel that power is being taken?

Let's be clear.

We have a huge geopolitical divide and we have multilateral institutions that are still working based on the composition and the rules of the post-Second World War that reflected the power relations of the post-World War.

And so obviously when you look at the Security Council of the United Nations or when you look at the Bretton Woods system, it is clear that they don't correspond anymore to the realities of today's world, in which a number of, for instance, emerging economies have today a much bigger weight than they had in the global economy.

And looking at the Security Council, let's not forget there is no African permanent member, there is no Latin American permanent member.

- There is no India permanent member.

- So it doesn't correspond to the reality of today.

Now, the United States, of course, is less interested today in leading these multilateral institutions than it was when you became Secretary General.

It's less interested in paying for these international institutions.

Does that make it easier for countries like India and China to succeed in centralizing their role in the United Nations?

Does it make it easier to change to a multipolar environment in these institutions?

I think it is clear that we have an irreversible trend to multipolarity.

And obviously, I think the position of the United States is facilitating the emergence of that multipolarity and of a networked multipolarity.

And what we are starting to witness is that a number of middle-sized countries or regions are starting to intensify trade agreements, technological agreements, other forms of international cooperation.

And I do believe it's good for the world that we have the fabrics of a networked multipolarity.

So we need a multipolar world, but we need that multipolar world networked, and that is the best guarantee that multilateral institutions can be effective.

So the unilateralism of the United States, but not a push towards unipolarity, is what's helping facilitate some of this networking.

Would you see, I mean, so much news in the last few days?

When someone leaves a space open, someone else occupies that space.

And that's where the power is being taken, as you said.

And that's what's happening today.

But from my point of view, that is not desirable.

What I believe it is desirable is that the United States have also a positive and constructive role in the build-up of that multipolar world and in its constructive presence in multilateral institutions.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I'm hearing from you is right now you don't believe the United States is playing that constructive role.

At the present moment, the United States is more interested in asserting its own interests, America first, than in asserting its position in multilateral institutions.

But of course, as we know, the world changes.

There are different cycles, political cycles.

I still believe the presence of the United States in our multilateral institutions, the presence of the United States in the international community as a whole, is an important factor that I believe we should cherish.

The other big thing, at least this week, is the meeting between the Canadian Prime Minister and the European Union.

But that's exactly the logic of multipolarity, and that's exactly the logic of networked multipolarity.

And the European Union has agreements with India, has agreements with Mercosur, has increasing cooperation with the African continent, has now a new relationship with Canada.

So I think the Europeans understood that they need to do it, even for the European Union to have a relevant role in the international community.

And we see others making these kinds of agreements.

And this trend, I believe, is a positive trend that should be encouraged.

So that you have more and more trade relations, more and more technological relations, more and more cooperation in the different fields.

Artificial intelligence is a good one, where international cooperation is, I believe, absolutely essential.

You take hope in the fact that we are seeing more commitment to reform of multilateral institutions from countries around the world.

At the same time, we're also seeing more countries go to war.

Whether it's Russia-Ukraine, or whether it's Iran and the United States and Israel, whether it's over Sudan, other places, the power vacuum is not just being filled by countries that want multi-polarity, it's also being filled by countries that are actually directly using military force.

Well, there is a central question of power.

Power is unevenly distributed.

And we have superpowers that, in my opinion, have not yet fully understood the limits of their power.

Russia attacked Ukraine.

Everybody thought it would be a quick victory.

We are now with more than four years of war.

The United States attacked Iran.

And everybody thought this would be simple and quick.

And it's still going on and on and on.

And we don't see what will be the way out.

So first, superpowers need to understand the limits of their power.

And if they do that, they should be able to understand that more than the exercise of power, it's essential to reestablish the primacy of international law in international relations.

Because power in itself doesn't solve the problem, even their problem.

And so my faith, my hope, is that people in the end will learn that we need to have stronger multilateral institutions and we need to have a respect for international law as something that is promoted by superpowers themselves.

And in that moment, everything will change.

Because what happens today is that when middle-sized countries look into superpowers themselves that are in the Security Council with the right of veto, violating international law, they ask why shouldn't we do the same?

And they start doing the same.

And every country thinks that they can do whatever they want.

That's total impunity.

Well, the main reason they shouldn't do the same is because everyone so far has lost from these wars that the superpowers have seen their limits.

The economic costs, the human costs have been huge.

Global.

Global.

That is a demonstration that we need to go back to a situation in which superpowers recognize the limits of their power.

And based on that, the primacy of the force of the law over the law of the force is re-established.

So I want to now move to the issue that you and I have been most interested in in the last few years, which is artificial intelligence.

And the headlines are becoming more exciting.

They're also becoming scarier.

But right now, today, I only see acceleration.

I only see moving as fast as possible, whether it's the technology companies, whether it's the US government, whether it's the Chinese, I don't see anyone slowing down.

You and I have been talking about governance.

We need governance.

Where's it coming from?

Well, at the present moment, artificial intelligence is running without control everywhere, or almost everywhere.

And the risk is, and especially in those that have more capabilities, to think that this is a race that they need to win.

And so to win the race, to explore all forms of development, even not taking sufficiently into account the risks of going too fast in the development of their capacities.

And I think we need to raise the attention of the international community and raise the attention of those that have more capabilities in relation to artificial intelligence to say that this is a very dangerous race that in the end could compromise even themselves and put at risk their own populations.

When a number of leaders of frontier companies express the concerns that were expressed about the risks, in some cases the existential risks of artificial intelligence, I don't think we can ignore it.

And I think it's important to say to those countries that are in the leading positions, it is China and the United States of course, but not only, I mean this is valid for other countries in the world or other regions like the European Union, I think that it is very important that they recognize, first of all, that governments have the primary responsibility for the security of their citizens, so governments cannot abdicate to have a word in relation to the development of these systems.

And that, on the other hand, artificial intelligence has no borders.

And as artificial intelligence has no borders, we need effective international cooperation.

Now, will this be possible?

Or will the temptation to win the race prevail?

I cannot say.

Do you think it is possible without a crisis?

In my opinion, it is our moral obligation to tell those that have the power in artificial intelligence that they need to guarantee the safety of what they are doing.

But I think that they need to be convinced.

And I think it's our duty to do everything to convince them.

And I think it's their interest to be convinced.

Because a runway artificial intelligence and a competition without rules may lead to some catastrophic situation in which everybody will lose.

- But is it fair to say that as of right now, those governments are completely unwilling to accept that message, as of today?

I'm not sure about all the governments, but it is true that there has not been yet the expression of the will of that cooperation.

There was one signal.

The Secretary of Treasury of the United States said that he's ready to discuss AI safety with China.

And I consider that signal a positive one.

Maybe it is a recognition that competition is necessary.

Competition is essential.

Innovation must flourish.

But there must be some guarantees that through the levels of cooperation or transparency that are necessary, we don't enter into a race in which that competition transforms itself into a dramatic problem for the international community and the whole of humankind.

Now you said at the beginning that you think the world is clearly moving towards greater multi-polarity.

Is it fair to say that that is presently not true when we talk about artificial intelligence?

It is clear that artificial intelligence is lagging behind in international cooperation.

And that is dramatic because artificial intelligence is, I would say, the most challenging of the developments that are taking place in today's world.

But I guess I'm pushing you a little farther than that.

I'm wondering, my fear is that right now, the trajectory on AI appears to be towards a Cold War, towards two different blocks.

You have to choose to be part of one or the other.

It doesn't have to stay that way, but that's the present trajectory, as opposed to the global economy, where we see multipolarity being pushed by all sorts of different countries and regions.

No, but even the Cold War did not lead to a war, to destruction.

And those that controlled the nuclear armaments understood that they needed to establish some common rules to make sure that the world would not be destroyed.

And if that has happened in that Cold War, that must happen now, that the Cold War still does not exist, but risks to be created if there is not the understanding that we have a common humanity and that artificial intelligence must be at the service of the common humanity.

Okay, I think our heads are together on this.

So I need to then ask you, before we close, 80 years since the United Nations has been founded, and you have said that one of the great benefits of the UN has been to help ensure that we do not have a major war between the world's superpowers.

Is that now becoming harder to maintain?

I'm still convinced that that will not happen.

Many quote Thucydides' trap.

It was the rise of Athens and the fear that that generated in Sparta that made war inevitable.

But history has proved that to see this was wrong.

- I... - The war was not inevitable.

I am asking if it is becoming harder.

The war is not inevitable.

I agree.

It's not inevitable.

And I am absolutely convinced that at least basic common sense will prevail.

So this... And that with all the difficulties, with all the divisions, with all the problems, we will not go to commit collective suicide.

- You have now occupied the Secretary General Chair for 10 years, 12 and a half percent of the entire lifespan of the United Nations has been you.

What have you learned about the world that you really didn't know or understand 10 years ago?

One thing that is clear is that in the recent evolution, there was a growing trend for disrespect of international law, a growing trend for disrespect of international humanitarian law, a growing trend to put into question that no power is unlimited and that there must be rules that everybody must follow.

That was the worst deterioration that I've seen in these ten years.

But the consequences are being so dramatically bad.

Look at the combination of the Russia-Ukraine war, plus everything else around the Middle East.

And now we have... It's not just Iran.

Yeah, it's not just Iran.

This is having terrible consequences for the global economy, and it's having terrible consequences for the stability of democracies.

Because the worst enemy of a democratic government is inflation and when we see prices going up, interest rates going up, people feeling insecure, that of course is an excellent instrument for extremist forces to prevail.

And so this has been unfortunately deteriorating during these 10 years and I hope that people will learn the lesson that this is leading nowhere and that we need to go back to a world in which there are laws that are respected by all and institutions that are effective and that represent the power, the effective power relations that exist in today's world, not the ones of the past.

Antonio Guterres, my friend, thank you for joining us.

It was a pleasure.

[MUSIC] Now let's head to a land with much less reasonable and much more absurd approach to global politics.

It's time for Puppet Regime.

Donchik!

- Hey Vladimir, wanna end the war in Ukraine?

I love that you still ask.

Always worth a shot.

Anyway, I just saw the news.

Very embarrassing for you.

Uh, this week you're gonna have to be a little more specific than that.

I mean Canada wants to join Europe.

What a jerk!

Oh, it's no laughing matter, Donchik.

This is how it starts.

How what starts?

They're challenging you.

Is Canada independent country?

What do you ta... It's the 51st state.

And Canadians are basically just Americans with healthcare, duh?

Yes, and their language is just a silly little version of American, too.

Exactly.

Ever since Yaroslav the Wise founded Vancouver in year 1083, Canada has been cradle of... What?

- Sorry, wrong speech.

Anyway, look, you cannot let Europe into your sphere of influence, Donchik.

You're right, this must be stopped.

It must.

It must, otherwise I'm gonna have NATO right on my border.

Gah, the worst.

They're so annoying.

Anyway, so, uh, still no on the Ukraine, huh?

Still no.

Gah!

That's our show this week.

Come back next week, if you like what you've seen, or even if you don't.

But you want to become the next Secretary General of the UN.

Hey, the spot's open.

Why don't you come check us out at gzeromedia.com.

(upbeat music) - Funding for GZERO World is provided by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

Every day, all over the world, Prologis helps businesses of all sizes lower their carbon footprint and scale their supply chains.

With a portfolio of logistics and real estate and an end-to-end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today.

Learn more at Prologis.com.

And by Cox Enterprises is proud to support GZERO.

Cox is investing in the future, working to create an impact in advanced recycling and in emerging technology companies that will help shape tomorrow.

Cox, a family of businesses.

Additional funding provided by The Andrew Carnegie Foundation, Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, and... ♪♪♪♪♪