>> We are on the verge of the abyss.

And one thing it is clear -- if you are on the verge of an abyss, you must be careful about your next step.

♪♪ >> Hello and welcome to "GZERO World."

I'm Ian Bremmer, and today I'm coming to you from the United Nations global headquarters in New York City as the 76th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly gets underway.

We all had high hopes that with vaccines and proper precautions, this year's summit of global leaders and diplomats would be more or less back to normal.

But the Delta variant had other ideas.

And while some world leaders, like India's Narendra Modi, are making the trip in person, most will be attending virtually for the second year in a row.

And they're all grappling with the same question.

How do we rebuild a world that has been hobbled by a year and a half of pandemic?

Today, I'm posing that same question and many more to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.

Don't worry, I've also got your "Puppet Regime."

>> We're implementing our new metaverse technology, and I'm really excited to share it first with you.

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

>> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by... >> The day is December 26, 1941.

The place -- the House floor of the United States Capitol, just days after a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor hurled the United States into its second World War.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill has traveled across the Atlantic to shore up his nation's closest ally and now its brother-in-arms.

>> Now that our two considerable nations, each in perfect unity, have joined all their life energies in a common resolve, a new scene opens upon which a steady light will glow and brighten.

>> The Allied Forces did, of course, prevail, and out of the rubble of World War II, that new scene the Churchill foretold, did indeed open.

Victorious Western nations came together to forge institutions like NATO, the European Union, to maintain peace through military might and collective prosperity.

And in the spring of 1945, representatives from 50 countries gathered in San Francisco to draft a charter that would create the United Nations, though they soon made the wise choice to move the headquarters out east.

>> On UNO's fourth birthday, the first building of its permanent headquarters in New York is inspected by representatives of member nations.

Dedicated by the president to the cause of lasting peace, the building, whose cornerstone, as laid by Secretary-General Trygve Lie, becomes a symbol of UNO's aims for the future.

>> 76 years later, amid a global pandemic and growing climate and refugee crises, today's U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has stark words for member nations.

"In our biggest shared test since the Second World War," Guterres says, "humanity faces a stark and urgent choice, a breakdown or a breakthrough."

But what if humanity has already made that choice?

What if we're watching nearly a century of global institutions break down in real time?

And I mean, if something as immediate and catastrophic as a deadly pandemic can't spark a renewal of global cooperation, what can?

Look at the vaccination effort.

80% of shots that have gone into arms globally have been administered in high- and upper-middle-income countries.

0.4% -- that's it -- of doses have been administered in low-income countries.

Meanwhile, the virus has already killed a confirmed 4.5 million people worldwide.

The Economist magazine estimates it at over 15 million.

Or take climate change.

In an August U.N. climate report that Guterres himself called a "code red" for humanity, scientists warn that the extreme drought, severe heat waves, catastrophic downpours and flooding we're seeing now will continue to worsen for at least the next 30 years, no matter what the world does.

And while rapid and widespread emissions cuts beginning now could limit the warming beyond 2050, there's little indication that even the wealthiest nations are willing to spend the money or political capital necessary to avert disaster.

So if the United Nations doesn't have the authority to force member states to take such drastic measures, what's it actually good for?

Well, quite a lot.

I mean, where the United Nations really proves its value is in the work of its agencies.

Peacekeeping operations in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and elsewhere prevent conflict where outsiders are reluctant to get involved.

The United Nations Refugee Agency helps millions of displaced people, though millions more remain outside its reach, and the World Bank provides grants, credits, low-interest loans to help poorer countries build the roads and bridges, the ports and schools and hospitals that they desperately need.

But the challenges facing the world this year as member nations convene in New York City for the United Nations annual General Assembly seem increasingly insurmountable.

The Secretary-General tells me member states are sleepwalking into the abyss.

What's the state of our world today and what's the way forward?

I'm asking the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Secretary-General António Guterres, so good to see you again.

>> It's a great pleasure to be here.

>> As the Secretary-General, I mean, you are the man who is most aligned with global leadership, with multilateralism.

And so I have to say, from my perspective right now, when I look at climate change, when I look at the response to the pandemic, when I look at Afghanistan, it doesn't feel great right now.

The trajectory feels pretty bad on all of those issues.

How do you respond to that in your position?

>> Well, we are facing a number of dramatic challenges.

A virus is defeating us as an international community.

Climate change.

We are far from the consensus that is needed between developed and developing countries to really be able to get to net zero in 2050.

And at the same time, we see this multiplication of crises all over the world.

We are going in the wrong direction in all these aspects.

We see a geopolitical divide that is becoming deeper and deeper.

That geopolitical divide today is such that in crucial areas like vaccine equity or climate action, we do not see the international community united, especially because the big powers are not united.

The big powers are deeply divided and this is a dramatic situation.

Now, look at COVID.

I mean, in my country, 80% of the population is vaccinated.

Many African countries have 2% of the population vaccinated.

We see mutations all the time, we see variants all the time.

Now they speak about variants that might be able to be immune to vaccines.

So as the COVID is spreading like wildfire in the developing countries, we risk to make the vaccines that are essentially available to developed countries useless.

This is a suicide.

I mean, look at climate.

When we've seen what happened in Germany, when we've seen what happened in Canada with the heat waves, when you see what's happening with the glaciers in Greenland and the high level and the level of the seas rising, when we see Antarctica being put into question, I mean, it is clear that we are facing a disaster in climate change.

But at the present moment, there is a lack of trust between developed countries and developing countries, especially emerging economies.

It is clear emerging economies need to be more neighborly on coal.

But it is clear the developed countries must abide by the commitments they made in Paris, namely to mobilize 100 billion U.S. dollars in support to developing countries, both to reduce emissions and to support their population in resilience, in building better infrastructure, being able to resist to these horrible events that climate change is creating.

Now, we need to rebuild trust between developed countries and developing countries if we want to rescue COP26.

And the worst thing that could happen to us is this mistrust going on, the developed countries not being able to meet their commitments, developing countries, special emerging economies, not being able to reduce emissions as much as needed, and we will get, in some aspects, to tipping points, and then it's irreversible.

>> I mean, talking specifically about COP26, and your first term as Secretary-General has been at least as much about climate as anything else.

Biden becomes president.

For the first time ever, John Kerry, a cabinet appointee for climate change.

He knows the issue.

He has the network.

The U.S. rejoins Paris Climate Accord.

And yet, right now, everything I hear is that COP26 is actually set up to fail.

What happened?

>> There was a time in which the fact the United States was engaged in an important international issue, that would mean that the issue could be solved.

The fact the U.S. was engaged on an issue would mean that the whole world would become engaged on that issue.

We are no longer in that situation.

Today, no issue can be solved without the United States.

And so without the United States on climate action, we were doomed.

But the fact the United States are on climate action is not enough because today the largest emitter is not the United States.

It's China, and today the emerging economies represent a very large percentage.

And the emerging economies, of course, can blame the developed countries, saying, "Well, you have been polluting for decades and decades, and now you want us to do an extra effort," and they need to do that extra effort.

But to do that extra effort, developed countries must show that they also will do what they were supposed to do, namely in financial and technical support to developing countries.

And what we see now is this lack of capacity for a dialogue to come together and to understand that each one needs to give something and everybody -- It's like the chicken and the egg.

Now everybody is waiting for the other side.

I've been telling our English friends that, beside the COP, we need to bring together the G7 on one side, Brazil, China, India, South Africa on the other side and create a situation in which both understand that we are in a very, very dangerous situation because there are some tipping points, we are very close to, which means a little bit more time and 1.5 degrees will not be a possibility as maximum, the increase in the amount of temperature, which means we are on the verge of the abyss.

And one thing it is clear -- if you are on the verge of an abyss, you must be careful about your next step.

And if COP26 does not become a success, if we are not able to cope with this challenge and finally bring the countries together, I mean, we need to make these countries understand this is the moment for an historical compromise, and whatever divisions they have, whatever geostrategic problems they have, whatever completely different visions they have on human rights, the question is it is the survival of humanity.

It is the survival of the planet and we need to come together.

>> For right now, when we talk about climate and the COP26, is it fundamentally a U.S.-China breakdown that's causing the problem?

>> No, it's a developed world versus developing and in particular emerging economies, because emerging economies are already too important to be neglected.

We need them also to make an extra effort.

But for that extra effort to be possible, we must have a lot of support from the developed world.

Coal, for instance.

I've been advocating for no more coal power plants and for the phasing out of coal until 2030 for all OECD countries, until 2040 for all the other countries.

But it's true that several economies are completely dependent on coal and we need to help them create a transition.

And for that, they need financial and technical support.

Countries like Indonesia, like Vietnam, not to mention China and India themselves.

I mean, so we need to have a kind of a global alliance to solve the coal problem in which everybody needs to contribute.

But we are not yet there.

We need to raise the alarm because world leaders need to wake up.

And as you know, it is possible to sleepwalk into a conflict and it is possible to sleepwalk into a disaster in climate.

>> Has COVID, over the last two years, made it more challenging for the climate agenda to move forward?

>> To a certain extent, yes, and to a certain extent, no.

To a certain extent, yes, because obviously COVID also generated a lot of mistrust between developed and developing countries.

I mean, vaccine inequity doesn't help to build trust.

The fact that developed countries are today mobilizing about 28% of GDP to recover their economies and they have the resources for that.

Middle-income countries probably about 6% of their GDP.

Low-income countries, probably about 2% of their very small GDP.

The fact that you have huge debt problems that are not properly addressed in the developing world.

This inequity in relation to vaccines and in relation to recovery doesn't help to build trust.

So obviously, the COVID has created an environment that does not facilitate the countries coming together because they didn't come together effectively on the COVID.

But at the same time, the COVID demonstrated our enormous fragility.

I mean, it's a virus that is defeating -- We are more than one year and a half after it started.

And look at the United States.

It's getting worse again.

I mean, this is almost unimaginable.

You have one wave, another wave, a second wave.

I mean, we are extremely fragile as a planet and as societies, and we have many other problems in our societies, as you know -- mistrust between people and institutions, all the problems that democratic societies are facing.

Many talk about the end of truce.

The scientific evidence is being put into question.

So we have plenty of problems, but at least in relation to climate, less and less people are in climate denial.

More and more people understand it's necessary to do.

But we are not yet there.

And even this increased conscience of fragility that the COVID brought is -- has not yet allowed to wake up our -- or at least many of our most powerful leaders.

>> As someone who talks to all of these leaders all the time, how have your perceptions changed of the Americans in the world and of the Chinese role in the world over the last -- over your first term as Secretary-General?

>> I think the two countries have evolved enormously in the sense that the United States moved from the Trump administration to the Biden administration.

And that, of course, represents a totally different view to look into governance.

And I think that there is a serious effort to make lying wrong again in the American society, which is a positive thing.

But we know that these things are always fragile.

On the other hand, the truth is that China has become much more assertive about its economic weight and much more conscious about its role.

And this has created this evolution.

It created a basic misunderstanding about the two countries and I've been saying since the beginning, it is clear for me that there is a clear divide in relation to human rights and a clear divide in relation to some geostrategic issues, namely the South China Sea.

It is clear to me that there is an area where there should be convergence -- climate -- and there are areas where there should be a serious negotiation.

There are differences, but I mean, I don't want to see the world divided into two.

I don't want to see a decoupling, a global decoupling, economic and technological.

I think it would be good to have one single economy with one single set of rules.

But this requires a serious negotiation because obviously things have evolved.

So obviously, we need to redesign.

That requires a serious negotiation.

The problem is that we had the division exacerbated on the questions of human rights and the questions and the geostrategic questions.

That was inevitable.

And we also had a division on all questions related to trade and technology.

And so the only thing in which that is an area of potential convergence is climate.

>> And you said yourself it used to be the United States could do the driving.

Now it needs other actors.

Increasingly, it used to be the states that could do the driving.

Now, increasingly, it's also the big companies that are needed as well.

Could you see a future where major cities, metropolitan areas, major corporations, major banks actually had envoys to the United Nations, could become signatories to international treaties?

>> I would say treaties by definition today are treaties among states.

But we can find other instruments in which I believe the contribution of the private sector, the contribution of civil society can be incorporated.

I think we need to have the capacity to reimagine the way international cooperation was established.

Of course, we still need intergovernmental bodies and governments have the legitimacy to represent their countries.

But the truth is that power is less and less the monopoly of governments, and it's more and more distributed in society and power in the private sector, private power in the financial sector, of course, as always in the past.

Power in the civil society.

Power in movements that I mean, sometimes we see all of a sudden coming out of nothing, and social media, et cetera, gained an enormous importance in countries.

And so we need to have multilateral institutions in which cities have a word to say and regions have a word to say, in which the private sector has a strong contribution to give, in which the civil society must be the environment in which new things are generated to force governments to move and to have the multilateralism that is inclusive.

>> So, a couple other questions before we close on Afghanistan.

Are we heading towards civil war right now in that country?

>> Let's hope not.

But there is a lot of unpredictability, and I think the international community has some leverage.

First, the Taliban wants recognition.

Second, there are sanctions that they want to see disappearing, and, third, they need international financial support.

And at the present moment, as you know, the accounts of Afghanistan are frozen by the United States.

The IMF and World Bank are not providing any resource.

There is a serious cash problem in the country.

So I mean, there is leverage, but it would be necessary for all the elements of the international community to come together and to engage with the Taliban positively, because I think we need to engage with the reality that is there.

But at the same time, to provide the Taliban the idea that they can become part of a normal world if they are able to do a number of things that are the things I have described.

It's not yet clear the international community will be able to do so.

What we decided to do, as U.N., was to make a bet that if we are able to prove to the Taliban that we can in relation to humanitarian aid, support the people of Afghanistan effectively, which also they need, obviously I think we gain leverage to be able to obtain from them conditions for us to work properly, which means impartial distribution of aid to everybody, which means women are allowed to work, which means that the girls can go to school and things of this sort.

So what I decided to do because I mean, I have no army, I have no financial power.

What I decided to do, I sent my Under-Secretary-General on Humanitarian Affairs that corresponds to, I would say, a ministerial level.

And he was the first person at ministerial level that went to Kabul.

And Qatar was instrumental in allowing that to happen.

He went there a few days ago, he met with key Taliban leaders, and we tried to establish a platform to see how humanitarian aid and the conditions to make it acceptable could work.

All the countries, they are ready to support humanitarian aid to Afghanistan.

Many are not ready to do many other things.

>> Did that meeting make you feel that the Taliban is prepared to act more pragmatically in order to maintain some level -- >> That was the message conveyed by the Taliban.

But if there is something about Afghanistan that I am totally convinced, it's that the situation is still unpredictable.

>> You know, when you and I talk, we always are talking about challenges on the global stage.

I'm wondering, what's a surprise that you feel optimistic about that isn't in the headlines right now?

Can be small, can be big.

>> The only thing that makes me optimistic is to see young people that are more cosmopolitan and that feel that they are citizens of the world.

And I hope that this will contribute for the need to be constantly waking up political leaders not to be necessary anymore from some time onwards.

>> António Guterres, Secretary-General.

Great to see you.

>> It was a great pleasure to be here.

♪♪ >> And now it's "Puppet Regime," where our global leaders can't seem to cooperate in any universe, let alone this one.

>> Hi, it's me, Mark Zuckerberg.

Now that the pandemic has normalized meeting remotely, which is great for people like me, who hate people, we're implementing our new metaverse technology, and I'm really excited to share it first with you, our world leaders.

>> Well, I hope this is easier than opening an umbrella.

[ Thump, thump ] >> Yeah, it is.

Okay, does everyone have their goggles?

>> You mean these goggles, right?

I'm also wearing a heck of a Speedo underneath.

Whoo!

>> Mr. President, get your VR goggles and let's get started.

♪♪ >> All: Whoa!

>> Yeah, see?

The metaverse makes you feel like you're together.

>> Yeah, because at this point, all we want is to be more together, right?

[ Scoffs ] >> Hey, chin up, Angela.

And remember, here in the metaverse, you can customize your avatar.

>> Ha, Boris, you can finally do something about your amazing hair.

>> And you can do something about your amazing fat.

You know what?

Never mind.

Is Narendra Modi in here?

>> Yes.

Help.

How can I make sure there are no Muslims in this metaverse?

>> As you know, we can help with that.

>> And we must kick all of the communists and gays out of the Brazil-verse, okay?

>> Yeah, this man is an idiot.

But speaking of the communists, where is President Xi Jinping?

>> Great question.

I actually prefer to have only one technology authoritarian running things here, and that's me.

[ Thump, thump, thump ] Now, an important feature of the metaverse is you can customize the room.

Just try to imagine -- [ Tone plays, all gasp ] >> Jiminy peepers, what just happened?

>> What?

I customize room to my liking.

It's giant golden palace full of shirtless horses.

>> This is not going well.

>> Alright, everyone, stay calm.

America is back and I can get us out of here smoothly.

>> Oh, you mean like in Afghanistan, da?

>> [ Laughs ] Nice one, Vlad.

>> [ Scoffs ] Thankfully, I have only a few more weeks of this nonsense, then I am retiring and I am off to a nice hot-girl winter.

How do we get out of here?

Where is that Zuckerberg?

>> Ha!

Sorry, guys.

Exiting the metaverse will be just like deleting your Facebook account.

The more you hit it, the harder it is to leave.

>> "Puppet Regime"!

>> That's our show this week.

Come back next week, and if you like what you see, why don't you check us out at gzeromedia.com?

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> Major corporate funding provided by founding sponsor First Republic.

At First Republic, our clients come first.

Taking the time to listen helps us provide customized banking and wealth-management solutions.

More on our clients at firstrepublic.com.

Additional funding provided by... ...and by...