Moderator: A lot has changed since you were here last, two years ago. Many events affected the international atmosphere. With great interest I read your recent public comment on how unfortunately the world returned to the situation reminiscent of the Cold War. This is of great interest for us as social scientists – there are many discussions on how to describe the current political situation in the world – is it really Cold War-like and can we even draw such parallels? There are many different opinions on that. Why do you believe the current political situation is Cold War-like?

Secretary-General: It’s a pleasure to be back to Valdai after two years since I last came here as a High Commissioner for the Refugees. When I said that, as you may remember we were in the period, in the climax of the confrontation in regards to Syria, namely between the United States and Russian Federation in the follow up of the chemical incidents in Douma and then the strikes that took place. And indeed I believe we were running into a situation reminding of that of the Cold War with two main fundamental differences.

First, during the Cold War there were two blocks, with two leaders with the ideological differences, and with the capacity for the leaders to be in control which meant that the others will more or less follow the leaders of the blocks. Now today we still have the Russian Federation and the United States as clearly two most relevant powers in the world, but first of all there are a number of other countries -  like we talk about Syria at the time and we talk about the global Middle East at the time - the number of other countries that escape the leadership and the control of the two blocks. As you look at the Middle East – Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran – they do not necessarily follow the Russian Federation or the United States, they have their own strategy, they play their own game, they act according to their own interest, which may sometimes be unpredictable, but on the other hand the mechanisms of dialogue, the control to avoid an incident, to escalate that would replace the Cold War are no longer there.

These would make the present moment more dangerous. I think there was a lot of wisdom in which the two countries related to each other in very difficult circumstances and I believe some channels have been put in place in between, but we still have a central question to be solved. And in my opinion as these came out of the crisis in Syria, I think it’s important to recognise and it’s my deep belief that there is no fundamental contradiction from the geostrategic point of view between the United States and the Russian Federation in relation to Syria or in relation to broader Middle East. I think that interests of the countries coincide; in relation to Syria Russia’s aspiration is to have a Syrian government, to have a united Syria with Syrian government that is friendly towards Syrians. The Russian Federation has always had a very good relationship with Syria in the past, and the Russian Federation has some bases in Syria which come from the past and I don’t think they are a problem to anybody. And for the United States I don’t see any other special but to have a stable Syria that can be a positive interlocutor in the context of the Middle East. I do believe that the interests of the two countries coincide. Unfortunately, things have developed from the beginning in a way that all of a sudden two countries found themselves, to a certain extent, indirectly fighting each other. And I think this is unfortunate, and I think this should be corrected and I’ll do everything I can in the good offices of the Secretary-General as I said it today at the press conference in order to make sure that the United States and the Russian Federation are able to overcome these differences and to indeed recognise that their interests in relation to the broader Middle East actually coincide.

There is a central question in today’s world. Power relations became less clear. During the Cold War power relations were clear. Then we had a period – let’s say – clearly American supremacy in the 1990s, in which again power relations were relatively clear. After the war in Iraq things have become less clear and today power relations are not clear, unpredictability and impunity became the name of the game. And these means that we are moving from what it was to a multipolar world but we are not yet there. We are in a kind of a chaotic world and I think the main objective is to progressively structure a multipolar world that not only a multipolar world – let’s not forget that Europe was a multipolar Europe before the First World War. And it ended in war, because there were no multilateral mechanisms of governance and not a rules-based international relations in the European context of the time. So I think we need to move progressively towards a multipolar world but through strengthening multilateral institutions and strengthening the rules set by international relations. And there I believe is where the common interests of the Russian Federation and the UN because this means that we need to be able to strengthen the UN and show the added value of the UN in this context of the progressive construction of the multipolar world. And here it is something that I need to clearly underline: we cannot take these things for granted. Globalisation was of course a very positive thing from many aspects – like technological progress was seen as a very positive aspect – but a lot of frustrations were generated. The inequality has grown, we have lots of people left behind, we have the rust belts of this world, that world has evolved.

Many people are convinced that multilateralism is not a solution, that each country should solve the problems by themselves. International organizations also have had difficulties. There is mistrust in many countries between the public opinion and political establishments. And so it is absolutely essential to really fight for the need for people to understand the importance of multilateral approaches to solve our global challenges. But the challenges are there. We have now a multiplication of new conflicts at levels that are higher than anything that has happened in the last 30 years, we have old conflicts that seem never to die, we have this interlink[age] between conflicts among themselves and conflicts with global terrorism, and global terrorism is now different from what terrorism has been in the past. Because now you have really a global terrorism that can strike anywhere anytime in ways that are also relatively unpredictable. On the other hand we have climate change that is running faster than what we are, all the indicators are that the scientific predictions that were made are now to a certain extent obsolete because things are getting faster. We see that the emissions last year were higher, the emissions of greenhouse gases, than years before, when they managed to flat. We now have the concentrations of greenhouse gases, namely of CO2, that are the highest since eight hundred thousand years ago. We are seeing, and you are an Arctic country, we are seeing that Arctic is changing so quickly and we are seeing all the impacts that this is having in many aspects, in acidification of the oceans, in the multiplication of storms that are becoming more intense, more frequent and more devastating.

On the other hand, it is clear the international community today is not able to handle in a cooperative way the movements of people. The movements of people are becoming a central fact in the political discussions in many countries; you see how elections in Europe are today largely dependent on the discussion on migration. It is my belief that we can only address this with true international cooperation, of course we are working for a compact, but we need much more than that. We need to make sure that development cooperation policies address the needs in the developing country allowing for people to be able to choose to live in their own countries with opportunities that today do not exist. We need to make sure that we have more opportunities of legal migration and we have to be able to be much more effective in cracking down on smugglers and traffickers across the world. And I would like to see the same kind of international cooperation that we have in drug trafficking applying to the trafficking of human beings.

On the other hand, we are now facing a technological revolution that is probably unpredictable in many aspects, but clearly with impacts that will be much higher than in the past, the fourth industrial revolution. First of all, potential impacts in the next decades in relation to labor markets, a devastating destruction of jobs in many areas across the world, creation of new jobs, but everything done in a much quicker way than in past industrial revolutions, and I don’t see any country prepared for this. On the other hand, when one looks at the AI, the cyber-space, genetic engineering, there are a number of new problems for which we do not have an answer at the present moment. I believe that we had some episodes in the past of cyber war in the world, there is no international agreement about that question, I mean, there is a recognition that international law applies to the cyber space, but there is no recognition how international humanitarian law applies to cyber conflicts or even how the self-defense concept applies in these circumstances. So we are in a kind of a void in relation to something that is now very actual, and it is my belief that if we [will] witness a war in the near future between two countries, that war will be preceded by a massive cyber attack, so we are facing new realities for which we are not prepared. At the same time, we see AI and genetic engineering with fantastic potentials for the future of humankind, but also enormous risks in all aspects. And again, we are, it is clear for me that traditional forms of regulation based on international conventions that are discussed during a few years, and then they are approved, and then ratified during two or three more years, they do not apply. I mean the evolution, the enormous evolution of these realities is such that these will not be enough, that is the reason why I am convening now a high-level panel on digital cooperation, and I believe that the UN can be not a leader, not a regulator, but a platform where different actors in these areas can come together and discuss. So we are facing a number of new challenges for which, in my opinion, we are not adequately prepared and for which, it is obvious, there is no way this can be solved on a country-by-country basis. And so the need of a multilateral strengthened system and the need of a rule-based international relations system, and the Charter of the UN as the basis of that rules-base, is, in my opinion, more than necessary than ever. It is not an easy battle, many people do not believe in it, many political campaigns are based in slogans against it, but I’m happy to see in my discussions that I had yesterday and today with President Putin and Mr Lavrov that [the] Russian Federation sticks to the idea that we need strong multilateral organizations and that the UN has a key role to play in international relations in today’s world.

Moderator: Thank you very much. I must stay that the most interesting piece I recently read about technological challenges and AI was written by Henry Kissinger who recently turned 95 years. And it shows that experience in international relations sometimes is very important to understand these new challenges.

Secretary-General: It helps. [laughs]

Question:  SG, hello, Sergey Brilev from Russian Television. Secretary-General, we are in a football environment at the moment, so my question is going to be political, but let me start with a funny observation, a question, actually. You are a genuine football fan, aren’t you?

Secretary-General: Not really a genuine football fan. I mean, I’m not a fanatic. I’m sufficiently not a fanatic to recognize that Portugal won the game yesterday without deserving it.

Question:  So you are here for Portugal, of course. Have you got a second choice?

Secretary-General: No, I mean, I haven’t got a second choice. I must say that your distinguished ambassador in New York and I were both complaining about our national teams, but he was proven wrong and I was proven right. [laughs] And so I mean I hope that the very good results of the Russian team in the first two matches will have a continuity in the near future. I believe it would be a big joy for the Russian public and I congratulate you on the fantastic organization.

Question: So let me come to the political side of it. We’ve heard people in Moscow chanting «Russia! Russia!», as far as second choices are concerned, not necessarily being Russian. As a matter of fact, the day before yesterday Polish fans were marching along Moscow streets chanting «Russia! Russia!». And there’s so many other examples, not necessarily chanting «Russia!». You have Brazilians supporting some European teams, etc. Now, you’ve just mentioned a gap which is growing between the public opinion and the political establishment. Well, the easiest way to describe this is of course in football terms. Speaking seriously, don’t you think that we are now facing an unprecedentedly growing gap between these two things and how does it affect our international politics at large?

Secretary-General I think this gap comes largely from the fact that...the level of insecurity that people feel in all aspects. And the political establishments in general, I’m not saying every country in the world, but in general, because they have not been able to respond to them. You have insecurity related to terrorism, but you have insecurity specially related to jobs, to the way economies are evolving. And the feeling that political establishments are not answering that question. I mean, if we look at results of elections in several countries, we see that the areas that have been more negatively impacted by globalization and by technological change, have been areas…the rust belts, the areas that usually, really normally vote against the establishment. You see that multilateral institutions are put under question, it’s not only that, look at the Brexit result. So it is clear that there is a feeling of people that feel not protected. There is insecurity, we don’t know what the future [is], things are changing very quickly, they can affect my life, my job, the wellbeing of my family, they can affect my security, and the governments or the establishments are not responding to that, and even international organizations are not giving an answer to that.

Now, how to respond. First, recognizing the kind of problems we have, and the problems we have are global, and recognizing that we need to have global capacity to respond to those problems. That’s why I am so strongly committed to multilateralism, not because I am the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I was already very strongly committed to multilateralism when I was prime minister of my country, that is a small country. And in everything else I’ve done in my political life. I do believe that we need strong global governance mechanisms that are democratic and I do believe that we need a rules-based international order. Because the levels of unpredictability that we are witnessing today are a factor that increases the insecurity, and that insecurity diminishes trust, and the deficit of trust among countries and between people and institutions is today the main obstacle for us to be able to have a rational approach to the problems we face. The level of irrationality in so many political debates around the world is frightening.

Question: Thank you, Elena Chernenko, Kommersant daily. A few weeks ago, you came up with a global initiative in the sphere of disarmament. Today, some talk about a possible summit of Russia and the US in a month’s time. What do you expect from the summit in the field of disarmemnt?

Secretary-General: Well, first of all, the initiative for disarmament has three dimensions. One – disarmament in favor of humanity, and that has essentially to do with weapons of mass destruction, and the other is a central question that for me is essential today, which is to preserve non-proliferation. That is why I am so worried with the possible end of JCPOA, and that is why I am so happy that in North Korea there is a chance for effective denuclearization to come possible. The second dimension is disarmament to save lives, and that has to do essentially with conventional weapons and the process of spreading small arms and especially with the fact that we have more and more civilian casualties in urban contexts, and the third is disarmament in relation to future generations, it has to do with this question of technology evolution. I think a fundamental principle is that we should clearly not allow weapon system to escape human control. And we are, as you know, very close to that possibility. So these are areas in general…  from my point of view, in general, of the international community and in which again the role I can play is just the catalyst, is just to push for member states to assume their responsibilities. Now, in this context I believe that in relation to Russia and the United States there are important things to look at. In three years’ time, I believe, the New START agreement will end and I think it is really important to renovate it. And, on the other hand, we have seen a number of very important moments of disarmament, progressive disarmament, I mean reduction of arsenals and a set of very important agreements that took place in the decades before, last century. There are different interpretations between the gain, the Russian Federation and the United States to medium range nuclear weapons. So I think it is very important to create a consensus allowing for all the gains that were obtained in the past, some of them in moments of great confrontation during the Cold War, but it was possible to reach agreements that were very important agreements for our common security. I think it’s important to come back to this dynamic and I strongly hope that, I mean, this cannot be done without the leadership of Russian Federation and the United Sates. They are not the only players, but they are clearly the most important players, and I strongly hope that they will be able to come together for the benefit of us all.

Question: Good afternoon, thank you… Boa tarde, o senhor Secretário Geral. Agradeço a sua presença aqui. My name is Ekaterina Nenakhova, the special correspondent for Sputnik Brasil and my question is as follows: there is much talk about the possible reform of the Security Council throughout the years and, especially, about extension of its permanent seats, and Brazil has been one of the leading candidates for that. So, in your opinion, what are the chances to conduct this kind of reform in the short-term? Thank you.

Secretary-General: That is the million dollar question, and I hope I could be able to answer that question…[laugh]…I would have got a million dollars. I think, to reform the Security Council is an important thing. Kofi Annan said once and I agree that no reform within the United Nations would be possible without the reform of the Security Council, but I recognize that this is something that first of all is of the competence of the Member States, it’s up to Member States to move in that direction, and second, this is a very complex issue. I believe that there are aspects of methodology in which progress is relatively easy and possible and some progress has been made in the recent past. There are questions of composition or enlargement of composition that I believe are relatively easy to be discussed even if it’s not so easy. The most difficult question is of course in relation to permanent membership and we have to recognize that we are far from a situation in which a solution is outside.

Question: Interfax news agency: My name is Nina Yablokova, Interfax news agency. From your perspective, is confrontation between Russia and the United States in any way affecting the activity, the functioning of the UN, especially when it comes to the more frequent use of the veto rights in the UN Security Council? And what is your attitude to the initiatives of some countries that restrict the veto right of the permanent members of the UN Security Council?

Secretary-General: This is a question that is of strict competence of the Member States. I’m not going to interfere in that debate because if I interfere in that debate I will be doomed, but it is clear that one of the difficult problems we have today from the point of view of the UN is the difficulty of the Security Council to come together in solving the most important crises in the world. And what is very instinct is that the Security Council is able to come together and the situation of the Korean Peninsula is typical: the Security Council came together and we saw that that led to a perspective of solution. When the Security Council is paralyzed for the visions that exist within the Security Council we see how difficult it is for the problems to be solved. So, independently of the norms that regulates the Security Council, the capacity of announced dialogue among the members and the capacity for unity of the Security Council is the central, in my opinion, for the preservation of peace and security in the world. Because one of the thing that is true now is that many actors, we have proliferation of actors around the world, state and non-state actors. And the fact that Security Council is not able to have a strong position in a number of circumstances facilitates a certain sense of impunity for many actors to do whatever they want, and this is of course a big danger for us all. So, independently of the regimes that are in place I will do everything I can, of course, again, my role is not a leadership role. My role is the role of service, I’m there to serve Member States. The only thing I have is good offices, but whatever I can have with my good offices is to support the Security Council more united. This is something that I think is very important.

Question: Hoshei Mahamat from Kurdistan 24 TV. As is known, the Kurds live in several countries of the Middle East. That have complained that the UN has so far failed to raise political questions on their behalf and has not tried to tackle their problems. Also, they are criticizing the UN for its failure to solve the issue of delivery of humanitarian aid in the aftermath of 16 October developments in Kirkuk and Afrin. What is your take on these issues? Thank you.

Secretary-General: First of all, I have to say that you were referring to Syrian Kurds at the present moment. For several years in my past capacity, as you know, there was a serious problem of statelessness in Syrian Kurds and I interfered as much as I could with the Syrian Government in order to solve that problem and I’ve been also very active in Iraq dimension to make sure that it is possible to have a united Iraq in which, of course, Kurdish [issue] is fully taken into account, so I, I’ve always been very interested in the situation with Kurdish people. In relation to Afrin, there’s been a very clear commitment of our humanitarian organizations to act. We have been able to dispense a lot of help in city from where many of the people from Afrin fell is called Tal Afar, I think. And even in relation to Afrin there was some cross boarder support and we are really very committed to make sure that all needs of people that were impacted are addressed. As you know, the situation is very complex in that region. There are some limitations in which what can we do, but I can guarantee to you that that is something very closed work in service.