Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. We have an important
Speaker 1: conversation to bring you now as we work our way
Speaker 1: up to Anger Week in New York. My colleague David Gura,
Speaker 1: the host of The Big Take podcast here on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: sits down with Antonio good Terras, the United Nations Secretary General,
Speaker 1: and a conversation you'll only hear right here on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: TV and Radio.
Speaker 2: David Joe, thank you very much, mister Secretary General. Thank
Speaker 2: you very much for the time so good.
Speaker 3: It's pleasure to welcome for you.
Speaker 2: I want to start with the relationship between the United
Speaker 2: States and the United Nations. This is a time when
Speaker 2: it's being called into question. The funding commitment is being
Speaker 2: called into question. So a basic question to start, can
Speaker 2: the UN continue to exist without US financial support?
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, it's important to say that the
Speaker 4: US was essential in the phoning of the DUN and
Speaker 4: it was the most important partner of DUN for most
Speaker 4: of all life. And it's still an extremely important partner.
Speaker 4: And I'm very grateful for all the UN has done
Speaker 4: to the US. At the present moment, as you said,
Speaker 4: we are having some massive cuts. The agencies have responded
Speaker 4: in humanitarian aid and the Development Corporation, which means that
Speaker 4: they reduce stuff, they shrunk their operations. So the UN
Speaker 4: moves on, but of course the people impacted by the
Speaker 4: cuts suffer, which means less food distributed, less vaccines distributed,
Speaker 4: less HIVH treatment distributed. So obviously the impact is not
Speaker 4: in the UN. The impact is in those that benefit
Speaker 4: from the action of our humanitarian development agencies. On the
Speaker 4: other hand, we have the assessed contributions, which means the
Speaker 4: mandatory contributions that would reread by member states for the
Speaker 4: Secretariat and for the peacekeeping operations, and there are cuts
Speaker 4: announced and cuts that probably will take place in the future.
Speaker 4: We have been doing enough measures in the implementation of
Speaker 4: the year's budget to be able to move ahead, and
Speaker 4: we are preparing, if necessary, a series of emergency measures
Speaker 4: to drastically reduce our peace keeping operations, which again is
Speaker 4: not a problem for the UN. We shrink, we shrink,
Speaker 4: we reduce what we are doing. The problem is that
Speaker 4: those peace keepers, that many of them are in places
Speaker 4: where there's no piece to keep with terrorist groups, with
Speaker 4: armed groups. They are sometimes the last resort for the
Speaker 4: protection of civilians, and those are the ones that will suffer.
Speaker 4: So the UN can move on, but the people that
Speaker 4: we support will suffer as.
Speaker 2: The UN, as the US rather steps back or takes
Speaker 2: on this different role. Are there member states who are
Speaker 2: doing more? I think of China and the work that
Speaker 2: you've done to get China to participate more in this body.
Speaker 2: Are they picking up the slack or are they doing
Speaker 2: more now?
Speaker 4: The contributions of China have not changed, and China is
Speaker 4: not going to pay for what the UN doesn't pay.
Speaker 4: What is clear for me is we are moving into
Speaker 4: a multi polar world and that is the reality. People
Speaker 4: usually talk about US and China, But I look at India,
Speaker 4: I look at Indonesia, and look at the Vietnam, I
Speaker 4: look at Brazil. Every single day, these emerging economies represent
Speaker 4: a larger share in the global wealth.
Speaker 3: Every single day.
Speaker 4: They have more influence, and we need to adapt our institutions.
Speaker 3: We need to adapt.
Speaker 4: The UN, the Security Council, we need to adapt the
Speaker 4: Bereton Wood's institutions. We need to adapt all the governance
Speaker 4: mechodis that exist in the world to that reality. This
Speaker 4: is no longer a multipower world, This is no longer
Speaker 4: this is no longer a bipolar This is no longer
Speaker 4: a unipolar world.
Speaker 3: This is at the present.
Speaker 4: Moment a chaotic world, but moving into a multipolar world.
Speaker 4: And we need to build the multilateral institutions of the future.
Speaker 4: That's why we are informing the UN And let's not
Speaker 4: forget there was multipolarity in Europe before the First World War.
Speaker 4: In the absence of multilateral institutions.
Speaker 3: The result was war.
Speaker 2: It's the era of a liberal international order over No.
Speaker 3: No, I believe that.
Speaker 4: If we manage this multipolarity in a way in which
Speaker 4: we bring the emerging economies to fully participate in the
Speaker 4: present bodies, we can preserve the rule of law, we
Speaker 4: can preserve international law in general, and we can preserve
Speaker 4: the nature of our institutions. But the question some people
Speaker 4: think that the Chinese are trying to build a parallel
Speaker 4: system or games. Now I mean the Chinese, the Indians,
Speaker 4: the Indonesians. They want to participate in the present system.
Speaker 4: They want to have their fair share in the present system.
Speaker 4: And I think it's important to look into all of them,
Speaker 4: not only to look into an specific country, because the
Speaker 4: world is changing everywhere.
Speaker 2: Are you going to meet with President Trump when he
Speaker 2: comes here at next week, and what do you expect
Speaker 2: that meeting to be like? He has had plenty of
Speaker 2: criticisms about this institution and the way it operates.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: I hope that this will be a good opportunity to
Speaker 4: strengthen the cooperation between the US and the UN. I mean,
Speaker 4: the relationship between the US and the u N has
Speaker 4: always been a fundamental period of international relations, and I
Speaker 4: hope that it would be possible to work in that
Speaker 4: they're Should.
Speaker 2: We read anything into the fact that there are world
Speaker 2: leaders who didn't get visas to come here this year?
Speaker 3: What does that say about that relationship?
Speaker 4: This is the violation of the past country agreement. This is,
Speaker 4: in my opinion, unacceptable, and I think it's a mistake
Speaker 4: because it's better to have everybody here than to let
Speaker 4: people out when dead people are directly involved in the
Speaker 4: possible solution of the problems.
Speaker 3: That's who you are having.
Speaker 2: You used to be the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
Speaker 2: and a meeting that the US is going to hold
Speaker 2: next week centers on putting new restrictions or limitations on asylum.
Speaker 3: How do you.
Speaker 2: Interpret that effort here to use the UN this forum
Speaker 2: to advocate for something that seems so antithetical or not
Speaker 2: in keeping with what the UN's perspective has been for someone.
Speaker 3: This is a UN convention, the fifture and convention.
Speaker 4: That I believe is one of the most fantastic instruments
Speaker 4: of human rights that was ever created. So it's logic
Speaker 4: that those that want to change the convention do it.
Speaker 4: In the UN, I was a commissioner for Refugees for
Speaker 4: ten years. It was the most exciting work of my
Speaker 4: life where I felt I could really do something directly
Speaker 4: in the most remote locations where people were suffering in.
Speaker 3: A terrible way, and I could take decisions to change
Speaker 3: their lives.
Speaker 4: So that was a fantastic job, and I considered the
Speaker 4: protection of refugees something fundamental and I am completely against
Speaker 4: the idea that we should build a different convention. I
Speaker 4: think the fifty one Convention is one of the most
Speaker 4: important instruments of human rights in the world.
Speaker 2: There is a frustration about the way this institution operates,
Speaker 2: and when I think of the conflict in Ukraine, the
Speaker 2: conflict in Gaza, the Security Council at this moment in
Speaker 2: time is deadlocked. There is vehement disagreement among many of
Speaker 2: the prominent members of that body. How does the broader
Speaker 2: institution continue to operate when you have that part of
Speaker 2: this unable to do its job effectively.
Speaker 3: D N is much more than the scur Council.
Speaker 4: I mean, we are by far the main distributors mitarian
Speaker 4: aid in the world. We are in the front line
Speaker 4: of climate tection. I mean, I believe it needs to
Speaker 4: be recognized that the UN has played a very important
Speaker 4: role at the present moment to accelerate climate tection and
Speaker 4: to defeat climate change. We are bringing into the UN
Speaker 4: a very important discussion. We will have the first high
Speaker 4: level debate on artificial intelligence. We are going to create
Speaker 4: an international scientifical panel, independent panel on artificial intelligence that
Speaker 4: will present reports regularly to the whole community. So we
Speaker 4: are involved in lots of activities of all kinds to
Speaker 4: the benefit of the people around the world. We have
Speaker 4: a problem, yes, in the core area of our activity,
Speaker 4: which is peace and security. We depend on a security
Speaker 4: Council that today as a problem with legitimacy because it
Speaker 4: doesn't correspond anymore to the world of today. When we
Speaker 4: were talking about multipolarity, where is the multipolarity in.
Speaker 3: The Security Council? Clearly not and it has a problem
Speaker 3: of efficiency, and that.
Speaker 4: Is a serious restriction for our activity. But I usually say,
Speaker 4: when we do not have a dog, we hunt with
Speaker 4: a cat, but we hunt.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a couple of questions about the
Speaker 2: conflict in the Middle East. The first is, a number
Speaker 2: of states are coming here intending to recognize a Palestinian state.
Speaker 2: Help me understand in concrete terms what that will do
Speaker 2: if you have a wider number of countries recognizing that,
Speaker 2: what does it mean in concrete.
Speaker 4: I think it's a very important pressure on Israel to
Speaker 4: understand that they cannot move on with the annexation West Bank,
Speaker 4: and that they cannot go move on without accepting the
Speaker 4: idea that we need an immediate cease fire in Gaza,
Speaker 4: with the immediate release of and then conditional release of
Speaker 4: all hostages, and with free humanitarian access in Gaza. And
Speaker 4: especially to say this that for me is very important.
Speaker 4: People say, oh, but the two stage solution is very difficult. Yes,
Speaker 4: but what's alternative a one state solution in which millions
Speaker 4: of Palestdians either will be expelled or will be under
Speaker 4: the system of subjugation discrimination without rights. Is that acceptable
Speaker 4: in the twenty first century? I think it is not.
Speaker 4: If we would move into that one state solution with
Speaker 4: this kind of subjugation, there would be no peace in
Speaker 4: the Middle East and extremism.
Speaker 3: Would rise everywhere in the world.
Speaker 4: We must stop that possibility, and the only chance is
Speaker 4: to convince It will be difficult time, it will be complex,
Speaker 4: but we need to convince these two peoples that share
Speaker 4: the same lens that they need to have two states
Speaker 4: living in peace and security with each other.
Speaker 2: I asked you, if you're going to meet with President Trump,
Speaker 2: will you be meeting with Prime Minister in net Yahoo
Speaker 2: when he comes to New York.
Speaker 4: I am ready to accept any request by Prime Minister
Speaker 4: Nitania to meet the fact that we have different opinions
Speaker 4: doesn't mean that our discussion cannot be very useful.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about the conclusions of this
Speaker 2: independent commission here at the UN that Israel is committing
Speaker 2: genocide and Gaza, and I expect that you'll say in reply,
Speaker 2: this is an issue of semantics. It's a determination that's
Speaker 2: best left to the international courts. It's not for you.
Speaker 2: But I assume you've looked at that seventy two page
Speaker 2: report in which those findings are laid out and that
Speaker 2: assessment is made, how does it shape your understanding or
Speaker 2: the way that you look at this conflict that's still unfolding.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, first of all, we all condemned in
Speaker 4: clearly and in a very strong way.
Speaker 2: But you will not vollagenously.
Speaker 3: The horrific attacks by Hamas. Let's not forget that that happened.
Speaker 4: But we also consider that it is totally illegitimate, a
Speaker 4: collective punishment of the Palestinian people. And indeed, the situation
Speaker 4: Gaza is horrendous. We have the highest level of death
Speaker 4: and destruction that I've witnessed in my time as Secretary General,
Speaker 4: and we are seeing now in Gaza City the total
Speaker 4: destruction of the city, with people having to move in
Speaker 4: the most desperate circumstances, we have famine.
Speaker 3: I mean, it couldn't be worst.
Speaker 4: The legal attribution of genocide, I have not.
Speaker 3: The power to do so.
Speaker 4: It's for the courts and in the United Nations, it's
Speaker 4: the bodies of the United Nations that can decide that,
Speaker 4: the sud de Council or the General Assembly. What I
Speaker 4: can do, and I do, is of course, to denounce what,
Speaker 4: in my opinion is absolutely intolerable from the moral, political
Speaker 4: and legal situation in Gaza, and at the same time
Speaker 4: to mobilize as much as we can in very difficult circumstances,
Speaker 4: all the possible aids to the Policidian people that is
Speaker 4: suffering horrendously.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you lastly about your future. You have
Speaker 2: about a year and a half left in your tenure.
Speaker 2: Research is going to be underway for your successor, and
Speaker 2: I'm curious what is a quality you think is essential
Speaker 2: for the person who helms this organization going forward? What
Speaker 2: makes an effective leader of the United Nations at this
Speaker 2: moment when so much we have understood about the international
Speaker 2: order is, if not in doubt changing.
Speaker 4: I think the most import ORDENTI is whoever comes to
Speaker 4: be himself for herself and to fully assume that and
Speaker 4: not to be an instrument of any kind of pressure
Speaker 4: or any kind of negative influence.
Speaker 3: It's to be authentic. I think it's the most important
Speaker 3: in the exercise of this function.
Speaker 2: Mister Secretary General, thank you very much, and Joe and
Speaker 2: Cratill sent it back to you. The Secretary General has
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty bilateral meetings here over the course
Speaker 2: of the next few weeks. Are very glad you could
Speaker 2: add another one to your agenda here in this conversation
Speaker 2: with us back to you in Washington.
Speaker 1: It was a pleasure fascinating, David GA, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's correspondent, host of The Big Take podcast, in conversation
Speaker 1: with the Secretary General of the UN. Of course, David
Speaker 1: and our full team in New York will be bringing
Speaker 1: us extensive coverage of the United Nations General Assembly next
Speaker 1: week from New York