Press Conference by Secretary-General António Guterres at United Nations Headquarters
Following is the transcript of UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ press conference in New York today:
Good morning.
We are just days away from The Summit of The Future and the opening of the general debate.
Discussions on the outcome of the Summit are in the final stretch.
I will not go into the details, but I have one overriding message today: an appeal to Member States for a spirit of compromise.
Show the world what we can do, when we work together.
Why is this so critical?
The Summit of The Future was born out of a cold, hard fact: international challenges are moving faster than our ability to solve them. We see out-of-control geopolitical divisions and runaway conflicts — not least in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and beyond. Runaway climate change. Runaway inequalities and debt. Runaway development of new technologies like artificial intelligence — without guidance or guardrails. And our institutions simply can’t keep up.
Crises are interacting and feeding off each other — for example, as digital technologies spread climate disinformation that deepens distrust and fuels polarization. Global institutions and frameworks are today totally inadequate to deal with these complex and even existential challenges. And it’s no great surprise. Those institutions were born in a bygone era for a bygone world.
So many of the challenges that we face today were not on the radar 80 years ago when our multilateral institutions were born. Our founders understood that times would change. They understood that the values that underpin our global institutions are timeless — but the institutions themselves cannot be frozen in time. The architecture of global problem-solving was never meant to be preserved in amber.
The peacebuilders of the 1940s could not have predicted the changes that have swept over humanity over the past eight decades: the independence movements and breathtaking economic and geopolitical rise of many developing countries; the catastrophic consequences of climate change; space exploration in all its dimensions; the Internet, smartphones and social media — all boosted by artificial intelligence.
Like our founders, we cannot know precisely what the future holds.
But we don’t need a crystal ball to see that twenty-first century challenges require problem-solving mechanisms that are more effective, networked and inclusive; that serious power imbalances in global institutions must be adjusted and updated; and that our institutions must draw on the expertise and representation of all of humanity.
Change will not happen overnight. But it can start today.
And when we look at the work that was already done in preparation for The Summit of The Future, we see potential breakthroughs on a number of important fronts. The strongest language on Security Council reform in a generation — and the most concrete step towards Council enlargement since 1963. The first set of governance measures for new technologies, including artificial intelligence, in all their applications — with the UN at its centre. A major advance in reform of the international financial architecture with the most significant language yet strengthening the role of developing countries. A step change in financing the Sustainable Development Goals and a commitment to advance our SDG Stimulus, multiplying the resources available to developing countries.
The list goes on. It would be tragic if all of this would be lost.
I hope Member States will do everything possible to get the Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations over the finish line. We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents.
The Summit of The Future is an essential first step towards making global institutions more legitimate, effective and fit for the world of today and tomorrow. It cannot fail. I urge Member States to seize this opportunity.
Thank you.
**Questions and Answers
Spokesman: First question to Valeria Robecco.
Question: Thank you, Steph. Thank you, Secretary-General, on behalf of the United Nation Correspondent Association for this press conference. It’s always great to see you. My question is on Middle East. What happened in Lebanon and Syria is just another example… Lebanon and Syria with Hizbullah.
Secretary-General: And Syria?
Question: Yes. It’s just another example that the situation is getting worse instead of getting better.
Secretary-General: You refer to the devices.
Question: Yes. Do you have any sign or, at least, any hope that next week, with all the leaders in New York, it will be possible to make some progress toward peace? And are you planning to see Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu of Israel?
Thank you so much.
Secretary-General: First of all, as I’ve been clarifying all the time, I’m ready to receive all the heads of state and governments that will come to New York, if they want that to happen. So that question is to be asked to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
But I think it’s very important to take profit of this week for a number of contacts aiming at de-escalation of the situation in Lebanon. And I think that what has happened is particularly serious, not only because of the number of victims that it caused, but because of the indications that exists that this was triggered, I would say, in advance of the normal way to trigger these things, because there was a risk of this being discovered. Because, obviously, the logic of making all these devices explode is to do it as a pre-emptive strike before a major military operation. So as important as the event in itself, it’s the indication that this event confirms that there is a serious risk of a dramatic escalation in Lebanon, and everything must be done to avoid that escalation.
Spokesman: Thank you. Sherwin?
Question: Secretary-General, Sherwin Bryce-Pease, South African Broadcasting. You say The Summit of The Future is an essential step towards making global institutions more legitimate, effective, and fit for a world today and tomorrow. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought that was the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) Summit in 2016 that was to make institutions more legitimate, effective, and fit for today. Take the summits that we’ve had in the past. For example, the 2018 summit that was a precursor to the UN General Assembly in 2018. It’s called the Nelson Mandela Peace Summit. The declaration that heads of state and government adopted then called for said that “we, as heads of state and government, commit to redouble our efforts to build a just, peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, and fair world, revive the values for which Nelson Mandela stood by, placing human dignity. At the centre of our actions, we commit to demonstrating mutual respect, tolerance, understanding, reconciliation in our relations.” I would argue that that declaration has not been implemented — similar to all the other declarations and pacts that we’ve seen heads of state and government adopt, that are gathering dust on the on the ash heap of history. I don’t understand the case you’re making to say that this is now going to be the beginning of something new.
Secretary-General: It’s very simple. The SDG Summit and the SDGs themselves and all the declarations you mentioned are about the “what”… “what is needed?” The Summit of The Future is about the “how”. The Summit of The Future takes into account the fact that to be able to implement the Agenda 2030, to be able to implement all the extraordinarily important declarations that you have mentioned, we need to have reformed institutions. Because today’s institutions are institutions that correspond to the world of the post-Second World War, and are totally enabled, they have proven to need to address the challenges of today and namely the challenges of developing countries. And the Summit of The Future is about the “how”. It’s about the reforms that are necessary in all areas, Security Council, Bretton Woods Institutions, aspects related to artificial intelligence, to climate. I mean, in all those areas, there is a serious problem of governance, and it is about that governance that this summit is about. And that is new and essential.
Spokesman: Benno… [cross talk]
Secretary-General: Because if not, all the rest will fail.
Spokesman: Benno… [cross talk]
Secretary-General: As it has been a failure until now. [laughing]
Spokesman: I apologize, sir. Benno, Gabriel, then Ibtisam.
Question: Hi, Secretary-General. Yeah, I’m Benno Schwinghammer with the German Press Agency. Good luck for the high-level week. So, you emphasized already that the negotiations for the pact of the future are still going on, but diplomats say this paper will not turn into a visionary paper till Sunday. The P5 know that. They will not or they don’t plan to attend on level of head of government or head of state in this summit. What’s your message to them? Is that the leadership you wanted to see from the P5?
Secretary-General: Well, first of all, one of the P5 will be present as far as I understand. So only P4…
Question: Not on the level of Head of State or Government, at least, to the provisional speakers list.
Secretary-General: I presume President [Joseph] Biden will be intervening in this high-level week, in…
Question: I’m talking about The Summit of The Future.
Secretary-General: Ah!
Question: Sorry.
Secretary-General: But I mean, he’ll be speaking in the general debate. So, I mean, there will be a presence at the level of Heads of State and Government. But one of the very important aspects that is in the Summit of The Future is the recognition that our institutions need to be reformed. And one of the institutions that needs that reform is the Security Council. And one of the questions that is important in relation to the future relates exactly to the role of the P5 and to the need to have a certain redistribution of power to make things more fair and more effective.
Spokesman: Gabriel then Ibtisam.
Question: Hello, Secretary-General. How are you? Gabriel Elizondo from Al Jazeera English. Thank you for the briefing. I want to ask you about the UN agencies and their health right now, particularly, as you know, UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency), for example, under incredible strain with more than 200 staff members that have been killed in Israel’s continued war on Gaza. But it’s not only UNRWA in Gaza. It’s World Food Programme (WFP), other agencies in Africa and Sudan not getting the funding that they need, get under pressure from host Governments, also dealing with political pressures from the Security Council. How do you ascertain the health of UN agencies as a whole, and what more can be done to bolster their effectiveness in the life-saving work that they do around the world?
Secretary-General: Well the UN agencies are healthy. They need to be properly funded, but they are healthy. They are doing the job. They are working in a very effective way, and I’m proud of the work that our agencies and their staff is doing everywhere.
Of course, we quoted the very specific situation that has nothing to do with funding. When we have around 200 members of the staff of not only UNRWA, but also other agencies that are killed in a war context, this is absolutely intolerable, and this is something that requires effective accountability. So, we need, first of all, international humanitarian law to be respected in all conflicts, humanitarian workers to be protected in our world in all conflicts, UN and non-UN humanitarian workers. And we need the humanitarian funding to be able to follow the dramatic increase in the needs because of the dramatic multiplication of conflicts and the dramatic impact of climate change that is accelerating in a very dangerous way.
So, what we see now is not that there was a meaningful decrease in the humanitarian funding, even if there are some negative signals in the horizon. The problem is that the humanitarian funding did not follow the dramatic multiplication of the needs, which makes many of our humanitarian operations be in an extremely, extremely difficult situation to be able to respond to the dramatic problems of the populations they are in contact, because simply they have not enough resources to do so.
Spokesman: Ibtisam, then Edie and Miriam.
Question: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, here in the middle. Yeah.
Secretary-General: Sorry, yes.
Question: My name is Ibtisam Azem, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed newspaper. As you know, more than 41,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are civilians, were killed in Gaza, and still weapons are being delivered to Israel. So, my question to you, do you believe that there should be weapon halt on delivery to Israel, and/or weapon embargo? And what is your message to the Palestinians in general and the Palestinians in Gaza who feel that the world left them alone, being killed?
Thank you.
Secretary-General: Well, I have no illusions about the possibility of what you are requesting. Knowing the world as it is today and knowing the decisions taken by the powers that are relevant, I have no illusions that that would be possible. And that makes the situation be what it is. And, obviously, there is something that needs to be underlined once more. It’s that the level of death and destruction that we witness in Gaza is by far the largest that I’ve ever seen in my mandate as Secretary-General and that the violations of international humanitarian law are totally unacceptable. I condemned as I did, and I feel that that condemnation was essential, the terror attacks by Hamas, but what’s happening today in Gaza is totally unacceptable. And I follow with a lot of interest the work of the international courts in this regard.
Question: Just a quick follow-up. You say you have your… not illusion, but you have a moral authority and a position on the issue of weapon delivery. So, you do… do you support it? Do you think it would be beneficial to stop the war immediately?
Secretary-General: I think that that will not happen, and I’m more concentrated on the things in which I believe we can make a change in the immediate…
Spokesman: Edie, Miriam, then Talal.
Question: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary-General. You are bringing world leaders together to press for a multilateral future where countries work together. And yet we have two major wars in Gaza and Ukraine, a war in Sudan and many others, and with exploding pagers in Lebanon and Syria yesterday, how worried are you that instead we may be heading toward World War III?
Secretary-General: I think we are perfectly on time to avoid to move into World War III. What we are witnessing is a multiplication of conflicts and the sense of impunity. And the sense of impunity that is not in the relations among the big Powers, where the risks of world war are bigger. It’s a sense of impunity everywhere. I mean, any country or any military entity, militias, whatever, feel that they can do whatever they want because nothing will happen to them. And, that, contrary to the situation during the cold war, where there was indeed a serious risk of a third world war because of the nuclear arsenals, and you remember the dramas that we faced in that moment. But at that time, it was true that there was some guardrails, that there were some norms. And, when things would get out of control, the two super-Powers would come together and solve the problem. Today, this no longer exists. And the fact that nobody takes even seriously the capacity of the Powers to solve problems on the ground makes the level of impunity an enormous level. So, I’m much more worried with the dramatic impact in the life of civilians, women, children, elderly people, everywhere, from Sudan, from Myanmar, from Gaza, then if the risk of the Second World War… the third world war, that I still believe we have all the conditions to avoid.
Spokesman: Miriam, Talal, then Maggie.
Question: Thank you, Steph. Mr. Secretary-General, I’m Miriam Ramati, Afghanistan International News Channel. My question is on Afghanistan. As you know, right now, your recent report on the situation in Afghanistan is being discussed at the Security Council. Roza Otunbayeva is here. As you know, the situation is getting worse. Women are completely removed from the societies as a situation on human rights is dire. Medias are banned, and the Taliban are jamming satellite channels, including my channel, Afghanistan International. Do you think it’s time for you and the international community to change course in policy on how to deal with the Taliban? It seems that they don’t want to work with you.
Thank you.
Secretary-General: This is a matter of great interest to me, in particular. We will have a meeting during the high-level week in which I’ll be present, especially on the horrible violations of the human rights of women, that I can see the most horrible aspect of the present regime. But, of course, we are extremely concerned with all human rights violations, and we are extremely concerned with the lack of inclusivity in relation to other ethnic groups within the context of the dominant mechanism of the country, as we are concerned about the risks of the country being a supporter of terrorist organizations able to act in other countries. And so, it is our intention, and that is the reason why this meeting will take place. It is our intention to be more, I would say, effective as much as we would be able to be more effective in doing everything possible to revert these situations, knowing that it will not be easy because the Taliban, at the present moment, have a full control of the situation in the country.
Spokesman: Maggie, then Joe, and then Dezhi.
Oh, sorry, Talal. Sorry Talal. How could I miss you? I apologize.
Question: Mr. Secretary-General, thank you very much. It’s good to see you. The war in Sudan has been raging since 15 February… April 2023 with many, many people injured, many people losing their lives. Millions are refugees in the surrounding countries and even more displaced within the country. Can you brief us where are we now from finding a way to implement a ceasefire in Sudan, especially in the presence of General [Abdel Fattah] Al Burhan during this session of UNGA? Do you have new plans, or we go on talking and talking about people losing their lives every day?
Secretary-General: The description that you have made is the exact example of the situation of total impunity that I mentioned in the previous question that was made by the distinguished representative of Associated Press. [laughing] I mean, the truth is that you have two generals, and you have two groups, one army and one paramilitary institution, that are fighting each other, without any consideration for the needs and the dramatic impacts of their people. The level of hunger is spreading terribly in Sudan. The number of people killed and named is increasing dramatically. And as a matter of fact, all this is done with total impunity, plus the interference of a few other countries that also have some, I mean, interests, apparently in relation to these developments in Sudan. We had a number of initiatives, the so-called Jeddah Process. We have the Bahrain-Manama Process. We have the African Union Initiatives. We have the Arab League Initiatives. We have the meeting, the summit in Djibouti. We have the high-level panel of the African Union, and we are all working together. And, as you know, my Special Envoy, Lamamra, managed to have in Geneva the two groups at the same time, but not talking to each other. The problem is that in all those initiatives and in all those attempts until now, there was really no progress at all in relation to the central question, which is, of course, a ceasefire and the opening of a political process. No progress at all. And this is something that, of course, if I will have the opportunity to do so, I will express my enormous frustration to leaders. And if one is coming, to the one that is coming. It’s absolutely intolerable that things go on and that the international community is totally unable to… sometimes some improvement here and there in relation to conditions of humanitarian access, sometimes here and there, some promises in relation to the protection of civilians, but in practical terms, huge violations even of these promises. And then the most dramatic is that no progress at all in relation to what really matters, and that is a ceasefire and the beginning of a serious political process.
Spokesman: Maggie, then Joe.
Question: Secretary-General, it’s Margaret Besheer with Voice of America. Just continuing on with Sudan, then. You said that the question is the ceasefire and opening a political path. What role do you see for the United Nations specifically in achieving that? There seems to be a lot of players, but can the UN play a uniting role amongst all of them? Where do you see the UN in this process?
Secretary-General: We are extremely active in all the processes that I mentioned, and even trying to promote initiatives, to be more effective in bringing the international community together. But I have to say, I’m deeply frustrated, deeply frustrated with the fact that the present situation is such that the two parties feel that they can do whatever they want, that nothing will happen to them. And this is the situation of impunity that, unfortunately, we see in other parts of the world.
Spokesman: Joe then Dezhi?
Question: Joseph Klein, Canada Free Press. Thank you for this briefing.
Secretary-General: Sorry… [cross talk]
Spokesman: Right there.
Question: Oh, yeah. Senior Hamas officials have said recently that Hamas intends to maintain a dominant role in a post-war Gaza and that while Hamas is ready to work with the Palestinian Authority on civilian matters, Hamas’s military wing and internal intelligence forces are off limits and would remain under Hamas’s control. Given the UN’s vision of a post-war Gaza under Palestinian Authority control, what is your view on whether Hamas’ expressed intentions, to maintain its control post the war are an obstacle to peace, as well as Hamas’ rejection of successive ceasefire proposals?
Thank you.
Secretary-General: Our position is very clear. We hope that that will be an end to this horrible war, that finally there will be a ceasefire. And in our opinion, it is important that that ceasefire creates the conditions for a transition for the Palestinian Authority to assume authority in Gaza, as well as in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and for that to be the basis for the construction of a two-State solution, a State of Palestine, the State of Palestine that, of course, will be ruled according to its own constitution and its own rules. But for us, there is a legitimate authority, which is the Palestinian Authority, and we believe that it’s essential to have the Palestinian Authority, with a position of control both in Gaza and West Bank as a preparation for the two-State solution.
Spokesman: Dezhi, Iftikhar then Carrie.
Question: Secretary-General, here. Xu Dezhi with China Central Television. Let me go back to the pagers’ explosion. Just a couple minutes ago, it’s been reported by Lebanese news agencies that there are new explosions reported. You just mentioned the danger of this explosion. Let me get to the other way. This is… they used civilian devices to do this attack. Would this be a very dangerous precedent for the future war, that using civilian device to have this kind of large-scale explosions? And may I ask, is there anything to do with all these things with the releasing of hostages in Gaza?
Thank you.
Secretary-General: Indeed, I think it’s very important that there is an effective control of civilian objects, not to weaponize civilian objects. That should be a rule that everywhere in the world governments should be able to implement. The link of what’s happening in Lebanon with what’s happening in Gaza is obvious since the beginning. I mean, the Hizbullah has been very clear in saying that it has launched its operations because of what’s happening in Gaza and that it will stop when there will be a ceasefire in Gaza.
Spokesman: Iftikhar and then Carrie.
Question: Thank you, Steph.
Spokesman: Sorry?
Question: Mr. Secretary-General, Iftikhar Ali…
Secretary-General: I’m not seeing…
Spokesman: All the way in the back. Can you raise your hand please?
Secretary-General: Ah, yes, yes.
Question: Okay, sir. Iftikhar Ali from Associated Press of Pakistan, sir. My question is a follow-up on Afghanistan, which my colleague asked earlier. Sir, you are aware of this UN report, which warned of a serious threat of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan, especially from Da’esh and the Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda and has carried out hundreds of cross-border attacks against Pakistan. Sir, how does UN plan to respond to this terrorist threat from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?
Secretary-General: We are particularly worried… when we look into the neighbouring countries, we are particularly worried with the fact that there is a penetration of terrorists from Afghanistan into Pakistan and that that is creating, of course, many innocent victims and being a threat to Pakistani security. So, one of the things that is absolutely essential is that Afghanistan controls its territory and doesn’t allow terrorist groups from any other country to operate from Afghanistan.
Spokesman: Carrie.
Question: [translation from French] Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General. Thank you. Thank you for this press conference. Carrie Nooten for Radio France Internationale. I Give two seconds to my colleagues to grab their translation device — it’s not gonna explode. [laughing] Haiti, that’s going to be one of the biggest crises that’s going to be discussed behind the scenes next week. Haiti. We know only six countries have disbursed now $68 million to support the multinational support mission led by Kenya. The United States were also calling for this force to be turned into a peacekeeping mission now, while nothing is planned for UN police to do anti-gang operations. So, what do you think would be the best thing for Haiti in your opinion? What do you think we’ll be able to achieve next week?
[in French: Merci Monsieur le Secrétaire général. Merci steph. Merci pour cette conférence de presse. Carrie Nooten pour Radio France Internationale. Haïti, ça va être l’une des grandes crises discutées en coulisses la semaine prochaine. Haïti. On le sait, seuls 6 pays ont pour l’instant versé 68 millions de dollars en cash pour soutenir la mission multinationale de soutien qui est menée par le Kenya. On le sait aussi, les États-Unis réclament que cette force soit éventuellement transformée en mission de la paix maintenant, alors que les policiers de l’ONU ont, à priori, rien n’est prévu pour qu’ils fassent de l’anti-gang. Qu’est-ce que vous pensez qui est souhaitable pour Haïti, à votre avis? Que souhaitez-vous voir se concrétiser la semaine prochaine ?]
Secretary-General: [translation from French] What would be good would be if the countries could see Haiti as a human tragedy, a protracted human tragedy with a very well-known history and with a sense of responsibility. This is something that’s been going on for over a century. And what would be good would be if the countries could assume the responsibility of properly funding the ongoing operation in Haiti.
I must say that for me, it’s absolutely incomprehensible when people tell me that there isn’t enough money. If you take a bank that’s close to here, that’s at risk of going bankrupt then probably billions and billions of dollars will be mobilized to save that bank. And we see crises, wars, arms proliferation, things that we talked about during this press conference, there’s always billions and billions of dollars available to do what needs to be done. However, when it comes to just a small operation in Haiti, where all we need is a few hundred millions of dollars in order to guarantee the presence of this mission, there’s no money for that, and that’s something I can’t accept. And then we say, well, since there’s no money, let’s bring in a peacekeeping operation because then we have mandatory contributions for that. But I must say, for me it’s a moral issue. If the Security Council and the Haitian Government are agreeable and there’s no other solution, then in that case we’d be prepared to work in line with the mandate of the Security Council. However, I must say that it’s really quite difficult to understand the fact that we’ve got to the point where we’re talking about a peacekeeping operation where there’s no peace to be maintained, no peace to keep there in a situation where it’s impossible to find the money required for one of the most disastrous humanitarian situations in the whole world. To be perfectly honest with you, for me this is something that I’m really struggling to understand, and it’s something that I feel very strongly.
[in French: Ce qui est souhaitable, c’est que les pays puissent regarder Haïti comme une tragédie humaine qui se prolonge, avec une histoire qui est bien connue et où il y a beaucoup de responsabilités, pendant des dizaines, même plus d’un siècle ou deux siècles de vie.
Ce qui est souhaitable, c’est que des pays assument la responsabilité de financer proprement l’opération qui est en cours. Je dois dire que pour moi, c’est absolument incompréhensible quand on me dit qu’il n’y a pas d’argent. S’il y a une banque très proche d’ici qui est en train d’être en risque de faillite, il y aura probablement une mobilisation de milliards et milliards pour sauver la banque. Quand on décrit les guerres et les armes dont on a parlé pendant cette conférence de presse, il y a des milliards et des milliards toujours disponibles pour ce qu’il faut. Et pour une petite opération en Haïti, où il nous faut quelques centaines de millions de dollars pour garantir la présence de cette opération, il y a pas d’argent. Ça, je n’accepte pas. Et après on dit, comme il n’y a pas d’argent, mettons une opération de maintien de la paix, parce que là, il y a des contributions obligatoires.
Je dois vous dire, pour moi, il y a une question morale. Si le Conseil de sécurité et le gouvernement haïtien sont d’accord que parce qu’il n’y a pas aucune autre solution, nous sommes prêts à travailler d’accord avec les instructions du Conseil de sécurité. Mais je dois dire que c’est un peu difficile de comprendre qu’on puisse discuter d’une opération de maintien de la paix là où il n’y a pas de paix à maintenir, seulement parce que, apparemment, c’est pas possible de trouver l’argent nécessaire pour une des situations humanitaires les plus désastreuses dans le monde. Ça, pour parler en toute franchise, ça c’est quelque chose qui me, enfin, que je sens très fortement.]
Question: [translated from French] And would a peacekeeping operation be effective in Haiti if UN police officers can’t fight against the gangs? Is that really a real solution?
[in French: Mais est-ce que ce sera efficace une mission de maintien de la paix en Haïti, si les policiers de l’ONU ne peuvent pas faire de l’anti-gang, est-ce que c’est une vraie solution ?]
Secretary-General: [translated from French] Just like I said, we are prepared to do everything that the Security Council asks us with the agreement of the Haitian government. But that doesn’t mean that we may not have our opinion on what’s happening in Haiti. [in French: Comme je vous ai dit, nous sommes prêts à faire tout ce que le Conseil de sécurité, avec l’accord du gouvernement haïtien, puisse nous demander. Ça ne veut pas dire que nous n’ayons pas une opinion sur ce qui se passe en Haïti.]
Spokesman: [cross talk] then Marta.
Question: [in Portuguese] Muito obrigada, secretário-geral. I’ll switch back to English now because I know we don’t have a Portuguese translator yet. This is Augusta Saraiva with Bloomberg News. I wanted to follow-up, on Valeria’s question on your relationship with Israel. Right now, what do you think, what is necessary for the UN to man its relationship with Israel? And in practice, how much worse is the fact that there’s no direct line between you and Prime Minister Netanyahu making things on the… how much harder is it making things on the ground for the UN?
Secretary-General: There is a relationship between Israel and the UN. I have a special envoy in Jerusalem that is the UN authority, in contact with the government and the institutions of Israel. We have a country team in the occupied Palestinian territories that, of course, is in permanent contact with the Israeli authorities. The Security Council has decided that there will be a special coordinator, and I appointed Sigrid Kaag, [who] is in permanent contact with Israel authorities. And, I myself have been in contact in different moments with several, high-ranking Israeli officers. So, the contact exists, the relationship exists. It is true that the action of the UN agencies, the humanitarian agencies, namely in Gaza, has suffered a systematic set of obstacles from the Israeli authorities. And it is also true that my position and the position of the United Nations bodies in relation to what is happening in Gaza, independently of the condemnation that we made about the Hamas attack, is [that] what is happening in Gaza is unacceptable.
Spokesman: Thank you, Marta. And then…
Question: Thank you, Steph. Hello. [in Portuguese] Marta Moreira da agência Lusa de Portugal. Podemos falar em português? Ou tem de ser em inglês?
Secretary-General: [in Portuguese] Pode, pode. Fique à vontade.
Question: I know we don’t have a translator, but the question is about Portugal. [in Portuguese] Senhor secretário-geral, como sabes Portugal está a arder, o norte e o centro de Portugal estão a arder, com grandes incêndios. A minha pergunta é sobre a questão ambiental e a questão das alterações climáticas. Sete pessoas morreram, muitos milhares de hectares ardidos. Pergunto-lhe se está a acompanhar esta situação, se acha que está relacionado com as alterações climáticas, e qual a sua mensagem para os portugueses neste momento tão difícil.
Secretary-General: [in Portuguese] Eu ainda pouco emiti através dos meios sociais uma mensagem em relação aos incêndios e às suas vítimas. Mas é absolutamente evidente que o agravamento dos incêndios em Portugal, o agravamento das cheias na Europa Central e Oriental, o agravamento das cheias na Nigéria e o conjunto de outros desastres que vemos multiplicar por toda a parte do mundo, tem uma relação direta com o agravamento da crise climática. Hoje ninguém tem dúvidas a esse respeito. A crise climática é um fator multiplicador de todas as tragédias a que assistimos.
I was referring, first of all, that, I’ve been following the situation of the fires in Portugal with a lot of interest, and I recently issued through social media my own message in this regard. But, what’s happening in Portugal with fires, what’s happening in Europe with floods, what’s happening in Nigeria with floods, and Viet Nam, I mean, a number of other situations around the world, in which we see natural disasters multiplying and increasing in intensity in a dramatic way. It is obviously linked to the aggravation of the climate chaos that we are witnessing.
Spokesman: Justicia then Abdelhamid.
Question: Secretary-General, my name is Justicia Shepena.
Spokesman: Great if you could raise your hand.
Question: Yeah. Dag Hammarskjöld fellow from Namibia, reporting for Eagle FM. You spoke briefly on the reform of the UN Security Council. During the global call, last week, Namibia’s President, as well as other African leaders, called for that reform. And this has been a debate that has been ongoing in terms of Africa’s representation on the UN Security Council. Despite this, I wanted to find out what progress has been made, to realize this reform for Africa’s representation. And this, despite waiting for this pact of the future from the global, of the future summit. And I also wanted to find out, are you in agreement with this reform in Africa’s greater representation? And, should this representation happen, how will then UN ensure that Africa is not sidelined and their voices are heard?
Secretary-General: First of all, if there is an injustice in the way international organizations are ruled, that injustice is related to Africa. Africa is a double victim of colonialism. First of all, because of the colonialism itself, and second because the institutions we have today were created, many of them, when African countries were not yet independent, and so they were not present. And because of that they are clearly underrepresented, and their voice and their influence is clearly reduced. And obviously, in no place this inequality is more obvious and more, I would say, unacceptable than in the Security Council of United Nations where you have, for instance, three European permanent members and no African permanent member, which, of course, doesn’t correspond at all to the present situation of the world.
I would like to say that when I started as Secretary-General to talk about reform of the Security Council was taboo. This was something that, there was even a committee of the [General] Assembly, but the committee couldn’t even have written documents to be published. So, this was something that was completely untouchable. Situation has changed dramatically. Now everybody recognizes that reform is needed, and we had recently a meeting, of the Security Council in particular relation to Africa, where all members of the Council, including the P5, recognize the need to have an African representation at the level of permanent members of the Security Council, plus also an increase in the non-permanent members. And recently, the ambassador of the United States announced that the US would support two permanent members of Africa. And in the text that is, at the present moment, being discussed, for The Summit of The Future, there is a very clear and strong commitment that, of course, if approved, will validate the United Nations, in relation to that African presence and relation to the reform of the Council in itself. So, I think that we have witnessed enormous, enormous change. And now, we need to make sure that the concrete things that need to be done are effectively done. And this means, work for the UN, and this means work also for the African Union, the African continent, in the selection of their representatives as soon as a decision of the reform is taken. And I hope that we are witnessing an acceleration in that direction that I would like to see with the results produced, in the short term.
Spokesman: Abdelhamid.
Question: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, Abdelhamid Siyam from the Arabic daily Al Quds Al Arabi. Sir, in a few minutes, the GA will vote on a comprehensive resolution introduced by the Palestinian State, as you know. And this resolution is like a blueprint for ending occupation within 12 months. The resolution includes many instructions to you personally and to the UN and UN agencies to deal with Israel according to this resolution. Are you planning to cooperate? Would you put that record, in three months, how the UN will behave after this resolution, and what are you planning to deal with Israel according to that illegal occupation, illegal settlement must be evacuated and must end within 12 months.
Thank you.
Secretary-General: First of all. We fully abide by the decisions of the International Court of Justice. We fully respect also and recognize the need for them to be respected by everybody the opinions issued by the International Court of Justice, and I will implement any decision of the General Assembly in that regard.
Question: Thank you.
Secretary-General: Without any doubt.
Spokesman: Kyodo, you.
Question: Secretary-General, thank you for your briefing. My name is Yu from Kyodo News, Japanese Media. My question is about Security Council reform, especially about the veto. So, what do you think about the veto? As you know, US Ambassador said it, no P5 member want to let it go. So, what do you think about the veto? And one more. So, to complete reform, so do you have any timeline, or do you have any deadline to complete the Security Council reforms?
Thank you.
Secretary-General: First of all, we have to approve the resolution, the pact of the future. So that’s the first step. So, I cannot give you a time framework when I do not know even if the first step will take place, but it is absolutely essential that that moves forward. Now if you think that I like vetoes, [laughing] obviously, I don’t.
If you think that I’m convinced that it will be possible to abolish the veto, I would be lying to you. I think that it is easier to have an agreement on the expansion of the Council on the new permanent members and on a number of, I would say, improvements in the transparency and procedure of the council. And in the increased role of the General Assembly, I think all those things are possible, and I’m hoping for progress in all of them. I am sceptical about the possibility to have an abolition of the veto. That doesn’t mean, as I said, that I like it.
Spokesman: We’re going to squeeze in a few more questions. Serife, Celhia, and then Richard.
Question: Secretary-General, I’m Serife, Anadolu Agency. I have the urge to ask in Turkish, but I won’t. Leave it to the future maybe. Please allow me to offer my condolences to all the UN workers that have been killed in Gaza. And as the number of casualties show, we can all see that the United Nations is trying its best to alleviate the situation in Gaza and deliver aid. But as it has been mentioned before in this room as well, your voice is also your power. So, I want to know if you feel the international community is doing enough, and do you have a specific and concrete call for the Member States regarding Gaza?
Thank you.
Secretary-General: Well, I don’t think it’s doing enough, and our call in relation to Gaza is to put pressure to stop the war as quickly as possible, and that has been our position since the beginning. But, I would like to say something about what you have mentioned. We insist that all humanitarian workers that are killed in a war situation should lead to a serious investigation and to effective accountability. If this is true everywhere, it is particularly true in Gaza, where the number of humanitarians killed is unparalleled. I’ve never seen any other part of the world in which so many people were killed. And I think that if there is something the international community should be strongly committed is to put all pressure for that accountability to take place.
Spokesman: Celhia then Richard.
Question: Mr. Secretary-General here. Celhia de Lavarene, Africa Confidential. What do you say, what do you answer to those who said that the Summit of The Future is a well-orchestrated ruse?
Secretary-General: Sorry. I couldn’t understand. Those who say the Summit of The Future…?
Question: Is a well-orchestrated ruse…
Secretary-General: Is…?
Question: To divert attention away from prior commitment. Meaning, that it’s a way to not paying attention to the real problem.
Secretary-General: Well, we can say everything about… but the Summit of the Future is about the need to have effective governance of artificial intelligence. Isn’t that a serious problem of today’s world? The Summit of the Future is about accelerating the fight against climate chaos. It’s not that a serious problem of the world that needs to be addressed. The Summit of the Future is about the reform at the Security Council under the international financial architecture. Isn’t that something that we all feel? It’s absolutely essential. The Summit of the Future is about all the questions related to debt, lack of financial resources that are undermining the development of developing countries around the world. Is it not a serious problem that need to be addressed. The Summit of the Future is about the questions of disarmament and especially, the problems of weaponization of new kinds of technological devices is not that… the use of autonomous weapons for instance is not that a serious concern for all of us. So, I believe that if there is something today that addresses the real challenges that we face or tries to address, the real challenge that we face, it is the Summit of the Future.
Spokesman: Richard?
Question: Mr. Secretary, Richard Roth… [cross talk]
Secretary-General: Where are you?
Question: All the way in the back. I was watching some video the other day of you leaving your home and supporters of the Israeli hostages were talking to you, and you said, “I have no power”. I don’t know if that was about specifically the hostage story. How do you feel nine years [sic] into this job? Compare it to your first day on the job. When you look in the honorary Secretary-General mirror in the morning approaching UNGA yet again and during one of the worst times ever for the UN. What are your feelings?
Secretary-General: Well, it is absolutely true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has very limited power, and it’s also absolutely true that he has very little capacity to mobilize financial resources. So, no power and no money. [laughing] But, there are two things the Secretary-General of the United Nations has, and I have to say that I’ve been using them. And some people even criticize me to, say that I’m using too much of it. One is my voice, and nobody will be able to shut it up. And second is the capacity to convene people of goodwill to address and solve problems. And I’ll give you an example. Artificial intelligence. We were able to convene, the high-level body that met and that produced a report that will be published…
Spokesman: Friday, next week. Friday.
Secretary-General: Friday?
Spokesman: Yep.
Secretary-General: And that was given before to the co-facilitators of the Global Digital Compact, and many of its recommendations are already included in the text the co-facilitators prepared. And we managed to have together, Americans, Russians, Chinese, then people from the global North and the global South. We managed to have together, people from the companies, the Governments, the academia, the civil society. We managed to have half women, half men, half North, half South. And they were by far the most representative group on artificial intelligence that was created until now. And that produced a set of conclusions that everybody recognizes are the first serious work on the possible levels of governance of artificial intelligence, that’s, of course, as we all know, have their difficulties and their obstacles. So that convening power also exists, and I intend to use it as often as possible to bring together people of goodwill, Governments, non-government organizations, business community, cities, to try to, find solutions for some of the most dramatic problems that we have.
So, I do not complain about power and money, but I can guarantee that the voice will not disappear and that the convening power will be used, as much as I will be able to do so.
Spokesman: One last question, Mercedes.
Question: Thank you. Mercedes Gallego with the Spanish newspaper…
Secretary-General: Sorry. I don’t see you.
Question: Hello, I’m here.
Secretary-General: Yes.
Question: Hi. Mercedes Gallego with the Spanish newspaper El Correo. Regarding the…
Secretary-General: I’m fluent in Portuñol. [laughing]
Question: That would be nice, but I don’t think we have a translator.
Spokesman: We have Spanish translator.
Question: Yes. But not for Portuñol. [laughing] It’s fine in English. Thank you. Regarding the devices, last night or yesterday…
Secretary-General: The…?
Question: Regarding the explosion of the devices, are you concerned that the communication devices that UN workers are using could be potentially programmed to explode like what we have seen, were seeing in Lebanon, and what kind of actions is the UN taking in this regard technologically? And you personally, diplomatically, after what’s happening that you said it could be the prelude of a bigger military operation?
Thank you.
Spokesman: Well, I think what precautions are we taking and if this is a prelude to a wider conflict?
Secretary-General: About the…?
Spokesman: The devices.
Question: I’m sorry. In terms of the UN devices that your UN workers are using also, communication devices in terms of…?
Secretary-General: We don’t use those devices. [laughing]
Question: No. But any one, any device, cell phone or any kind of transmitters. [cross talk]
Secretary-General: We don’t use those devices. And this time, it’s important to say that there is no member of the UN that had any of the device that exploded. So, that is very clear. But it is obvious that our… we have a Department of Safety and Security, and one of the things we do is a complete checkup of the devices of different sorts, namely telecommunications devices that we distribute to our staff everywhere. So, we take a lot of care about the security in relation to this kind of equipment.
Question: And diplomatically, what actions have you undertaken since yesterday?
Secretary-General: Since yesterday, I have not yet undertaken any diplomatic action to be entirely frank, but because, I mean, we issued a statement, and we will, of course, with our people also on the ground, prepared whatever actions will be considered necessary.
Spokesman: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Secretary-General: Thank you very much.
Question: Mr. Secretary-General there was another set of explosions.
Secretary-General: On what devices?
Question: It’s talking about walkie-talkies. [murmuring]
[after camera turned off]
Question: On drought in the Amazon.
Secretary-General: Firstly, I express my solidarity with Brazil, because the drought in the Amazon is largely caused by climate change. Regardless of this, Brazil, naturally, is always fully committed to preserving the Amazon jungle, and avoiding deforestation, the deforestation of the Amazon, but the phenomena we are witnessing today are essentially of climatic origin.
[Portuguese] Em primeiro lugar, manifestar a minha solidariedade com o Brasil, porque a seca na Amazónia é em larga medida causada pelas alterações climáticas. Independentemente disso, o Brasil, naturalmente, sei que está totalmente comprometido com a preservação da selva amazónica, e com o evitar a desmatação, com a desflorestação da Amazónia, mas os fenómenos a que estamos a assistir hoje são essencialmente de origem climática.