Secretary-General's press conference on his 2026 priorities

Dear members of the press, happy new year.

This is an especially meaningful moment for me since it’s my final opportunity for our customary exchange at the beginning of the year.

These are early days – but 2026 is already shaping up to be a year of constant surprises and chaos.

Before I entered public life, I trained as a physicist.

And in times of profound flux, I return to some of the fixed principles that explain how forces act upon the world. 

One stands out -- Newton’s Third Law of Motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

In physics, this law is a stabilizing principle.

In geopolitics today, it is a destabilizing factor.

We are living in a world where actions – especially reckless ones – are provoking dangerous reactions. 

And unlike in physics, these reactions are not symmetrical or predictable.

They are being multiplied by geopolitical divisions and magnified by an epidemic of impunity. 

The law of power is prevailing over the power of law.

International law is trampled.  Cooperation is eroding.  And multilateral institutions are under assault on many fronts. 

When perilous actions do not meet the adequate reaction, the system destabilizes. 

Impunity is driving today’s conflicts – fueling escalation, widening mistrust, and kicking the doors open for powerful spoilers to enter from every direction.   

Meanwhile, the slashing of humanitarian aid is generating its own chain reactions of despair, displacement, and death.

At the same time, inequalities are deepening and roiling societies.

Climate change is the most literal and devastating illustration of Newton’s principle.

Every action that heats the planet triggers a ferocious reaction -- storms, wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, rising seas.

And then there is technology.

We are witnessing perhaps the greatest transfer of power of our times – not from governments to people, but from governments to private technology companies.

When technologies that shape behavior, elections, markets, and even conflicts operate without guardrails, the reaction is not innovation, it is instability.

As I look across the spectrum of global challenges, one truth becomes unmistakably clear:  our systems of global problem-solving face a reckoning. 

Those systems are out of time.   

They still reflect the economic and power structures of 80 years ago.

But the world is moving on.

Every day, the share of global economic activity by the traditional group of developed economies recedes – quietly, gradually, but undeniably.

Every day, emerging economies expand in scale, in influence, and in confidence. 

Every day, the dynamism of South-South trade further outpaces traditional North-North flows.

Yet our structures, our institutions, our assumptions, our habits of cooperation, remain tethered to another time.

This must change.

Our structures and institutions must reflect the complexity – and the opportunity – of these new times and realities. 

Global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots.

Nor will they be solved by two powers carving the world into rival spheres of influence.

It is important to accelerate, deliberately and with determination, multipolarity -- one that is networked, inclusive by design, and capable of creating balance through partnerships.

Partnerships in trade, in technology and in international cooperation.

But multipolarity, by itself, does not guarantee stability or peace. 

Europe before the first World War was multipolar.  But in the absence of effective multilateral institutions, the result was confrontation and war. 

For multipolarity to generate equilibrium, prosperity and peace, we need strong multilateral institutions where legitimacy is rooted in shared responsibility and shared values. 

And let’s be clear about something else as we strongly pursue reform: 

Structures may be out of date – but values are not. 

Leadership today is not a choice about being principled or pragmatic.

It’s the recognition that principles are pragmatic. 

The Charter of the United Nations was written by people bloodied and bruised by war. 

They understood that the values enshrined in our founding documents were not lofty abstractions or idealistic hopes.

Those values are the sine qua non of lasting peace and enduring justice.

Values matter – and people are risking everything to make those values real.  

That is on full display around the world – whether it is a protestor standing up to repression …a journalist standing up for press freedom … or an everyday citizen standing up for their neighbour.

Despite all the hurdles, the United Nations is acting to give life to our shared values. 

And we won’t give up.

We are pushing for peace – just and sustainable peace rooted in international law.

Peace that addresses root causes. 

Peace that endures beyond the signing of an agreement.

We are pressing to reform and strengthen the Security Council – the one and only body with the Charter-mandated authority to act on peace and security on behalf of every country.

But there is no lasting peace without development.

We are acting to accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals and insisting on reform of the global financial architecture.

That includes ending the crushing cycle of debt, tripling the lending capacity of multilateral development banks, and ensuring developing countries just participation and real influence in global financial institutions.
 

On climate, we recognize the overshoot of global temperatures above the 1.5-degree threshold and that it now requires an overshoot of ambition – starting with deep emissions cuts this decade and a just, orderly and equitable transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

We are demanding far greater support for countries already confronting climate catastrophe, expanded early warning systems, opportunities for nations rich in critical minerals to climb global value chains.

And on technology, we are working urgently to help craft a framework for governance – through a global dialogue here at the United Nations, the new International Scientific Panel on AI  and enhanced capacity support for developing countries.

I will soon submit to the General Assembly a list of 40 names of proposed Panel members. 

I am also calling for the creation of a Global Fund on AI Capacity Development for developing countries – with a target of $3 billion.

As we begin this year, we are determined to choose actions that generate concrete and positive reactions – as called for in the Pact for the Future.

Reactions of peace, of justice, of responsibility, and of progress in our troubled times.

Thank you.  And I am at your disposal.

***

**Questions and Answers

Spokesperson: Thank you. We will go to Valeria. Just a note to please limit yourself to one question, so we can have as many of you ask questions. But Valeria, please.

Question: Thank you, Steph. Just a quick word before I ask my question. I really want to salute our friend and colleagues, Michelle Nichols from Reuters. And let me say, I don't see you, Michel, but I know you're here. How much we will miss you… hey, how much will you miss you here? After 14 years, you have been such a constant presence, a friend of many of us here at the UN. So, the empty spot in the briefing room will be hard to be filled, but we can’t wait to see all the breaking news that will come next. Thank you, Mich. [Applause]

So, thank you, Secretary-General, for the press conference. It's Valeria Robecco from ANSA Newswire. My question is, in Italy, there has been debate and concern about the involvement of ICE in the security framework of the Olympic Milano Cortina Olympics, especially in light of the all the controversies and allegations of violence in Minneapolis. You will attend opening ceremonies. And from a UN perspective, do you believe the Olympics can also serve as a moment to reaffirm global commitment to civil rights and the responsible use of force? Thank you so much.

Secretary-General: I think the Olympics are excellent moments to symbolize peace, to symbolize respect for international law, and to symbolize international cooperation. And I believe that, in these circumstances, the sovereignty of Italy must be fully respected.

Spokesperson: Sorry, I have to go to Michelle second. Sorry, then I'll get you, Edie.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General. I'll take this opportunity to ask two really quick questions. In your speech, you said global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots; who is that directed to? And with tensions rising again between the US and Iran, what efforts have you made to try and calm the situation?

Secretary-General: In the present moment, it is clear that the most powerful of the countries in the world is the United States. Obviously, we see - and many see in relation to the future - the idea that there are two poles, one centred in the US and one centred in China. That was the second reference I made. And my point is, if we want a stable world, if we want a world in which peace can be sustained, in which development can be generalized, and in which, in the end, our values will prevail, we need to support multi-polarity. We need to support a dense set of relations among different countries. And I see with a lot of positive expectations recent trade agreements: You had EU with Mercosur. You had EU with Indonesia. EU with India. You had Canada with China. You had UK with China. So, it is this network in trade, this network in technology, this network in international cooperation among a progressively larger group of countries and entities in a true multipolar world that, in my opinion, can create the conditions for strong multilateral institutions and for a world in which the values that are the values of the Charter of United Nations can prevail.

Question: And on Iran?

Secretary-General: Sorry?

Spokesperson: On Iran?

Secretary-General: We have condemned vehemently the horrible repression that took place in Iran. We see with concern the discussions that are taking place. And we believe that it's important that there is a dialogue allowing for an agreement in relation, namely, to the nuclear question and that we can avoid a crisis that could have devastating consequences in the region.

Spokesperson: Edie?

Question: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary-General. President [Donald] Trump's charter for the Board of Peace envisions the board as promoting global peace and makes no mention of Gaza, where the Security Council authorized the board to promote permanent ceasefire and reconstruction. Key global leaders have viewed this vision of the board as an attempt to usurp the Security Council. What is your reaction, and how do you envision the future of dealing with peace and security around the world?

Secretary-General: Well, first of all, there is a resolution of the Security Council. That resolution is related to Gaza. In that resolution, there is a number of attributions that are given to the Board of Peace and to other institutions. It is absolutely essential that this resolution is implemented, which means we have in Gaza a ceasefire that a very distinguished journalist has classified recently as a lesser fire, which means it’s a ceasefire, but the fire goes on. We must have a ceasefire in Gaza. And we must move with the second stage fully, which means full withdrawal of Israeli forces, decommissioning of armed groups, and also to pave the way to the two-State solution to finally become a reality. This is something that is supported by the Security Council. This is something in which we are deeply engaged, namely in humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Biesan? Oh, sorry.

Question: No. on the issue of the charter of the Board of Peace trying to usurp the Security Council?

Secretary-General: We are talking about the Security Council, and the Security Council only talks about Gaza. Everything else is something that is different. And, obviously, in my opinion, the basic responsibility for international peace and security lies with UN, lies with the Security Council. That, as you know, the Security Council stands alone in its Charter-mandated authority to act on behalf of all members in questions of peace and security. Only the Security Council can adopt decisions binding on all, and no other body or ad hoc coalition can legally require all Member States to comply with decisions on peace and security. Only the Security Council can authorize the use of force under international law and set out in the Charter. So, the centrality of the peace and security system lies in the UN and within the UN in the Security Council, and that is the reason why it is so important to reform the Security Council. And it's very interesting to see that some that criticize the UN for being not effective are the ones opposing the reform of the Security Council. That is the reason why the UN can sometimes not be as effective as we all want.

Spokesperson: Biesan, then Sherwin.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General. Biesan Abu Kwaik, with Al Jazeera Arabic. I wanted to follow-up on the Palestine issue, but when it comes to the West Bank and settlements. And I mean, you speak about the role of the UN, but the UN, UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) is being attacked in East Jerusalem by Israel. We are seeing settlement activity expanding and settler violence. You're talking about moving to the second phase of the agreement and then to a two-State solution, which now on the ground in the West Bank seems further and further away from being a reality. If you can… Are you still optimistic that there is still a two-State solution in the horizon?

Secretary-General: I always respond to that question with the same answer, which is a sentence of Jean Monnet - that's that I'm not optimistic. I'm not pessimistic. I'm determined. And I'm determined to oppose and to oppose in a very strong way all the efforts that Israel is doing to undermine the two-State solution, namely through, in the West Bank, the construction of settlements, demolitions, evictions and the violence of the settlers. And we believe that this must stop, and we believe that conditions must be created to make sure that Gaza, that will have now its new governance model, that that governance model progressively is linked to the Palestinian Authority, and that Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, will be the future state of Palestine.

Question: Can I just get one more? How is it going to be implemented? Who is going to actually put pressure on Israel to actually implement that?

Secretary-General: Everybody must make pressure. Let's recognize the reality. I mean, the country that has more power to put pressure on Israel is the United States. And that is why it was important that the United States has recognized the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Spokesperson: Sherwin then Denis.

Question: Yes, Sherwin Bryce Pease, South African Broadcasting. Given the large role that UN officials, including yourself, played during South Africa's G20 presidency, which ended with the Leaders’ Summit last November, you will have seen South Africa's exclusion from G20 processes under the United States leadership that has accused South Africa of leading an exercise in spite, division and racial agendas that have nothing to do with economic growth. South Africa, which became the first African country to chair the forum last year, since decided to step back from the year because of the US posture. Given your first-hand experience of the G20 under South Africa last year, what do you make of this development? You said in your statement, and to quote a colleague of mine, that global problems would not be solved by one power calling the shots. Is this an example of that?

Secretary-General: Well, it's an example of many other things. I must say that the G20 is not a multilateral organization in the sense that the G20 has specific responsibilities, essentially for the aspects of the economic and financial issues and trade. And it is not like the United Nations or like the World Bank or like a multilateral institution. So, the G20 is an aggregation of countries. And I must say that I was present in the G20 session in South Africa and that I was fully supportive of the agenda introduced by the South African presidency. And I consider that South Africa played a very positive role in the way it presided the G20. And it doesn't make any sense for me that South Africa is not permanently a full member of the G20 in all circumstances.

Spokesperson: Denis and then Pam.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General, for your briefing. As it was said before, in case of Greenland, the United Nations, along with principle of territorial integrity, believes in right of self-determination of nations. Does the UN believe that the right of self-determination applicable to Crimea and Donbas?

Secretary-General: We have had very interesting discussions on this. And there are two principles that are essential. First principle is territorial integrity of states. The other principle is self-determination of peoples. But self-determination of peoples has a number of requisites. So, the way it is defined has a number of requisites. And after a very careful study by our Office of Legal Affairs, it is our position that the principle of self-determination does not apply in the situations of Crimea and Donbas. So, in that situation, the principle that prevails is the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Spokesperson: Pam, then Talal.

Question: Thank you for the briefing, Secretary-General. How do you see the UN's role, given what you've said about current military conflicts, particularly unilateral moves by several members of the UN Security Council in the current situation, in the current configuration? Can the UN get back to multilateralism when so many of the conflicts are unilateral? Thank you. Or created and problems solved by some of the members of the Security Council. I’m Pamela Falk, US News and World Report.

Secretary-General: It is obvious that the fact that members of the Security Council are themselves violators of international law doesn't make life easy for the UN in its efforts. But that doesn't mean that the Secretariat of the UN does not get involved as much as possible, and I myself do not get involved as much as possible in trying to create the conditions for peace to prevail in the dramatic situations we face. Unfortunately, there is one thing that we miss. It's leverage. It's the power that others eventually have to force countries and to force leaders to abide by international law. But not having the power, we have the determination, and we'll do everything possible with our persuasion, with our good offices, and building alliances to try to create conditions for some of these horrible tragedies we are witnessing. And from Ukraine to Sudan, not to mention what has happened in Gaza, we will be doing everything we can for these tragedies to stop.

Question: Thank you.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Talal then Volodymyr.

Secretary-General: I would like to have the power to make them stop.

Question: Thank you, Steph. The UN80 initiative, which was approved by the General Assembly by at the December, how confident are you that this initiative will ensure the continuity of the UN system to be effective, albeit more nimble and cost-effective and et cetera, et cetera, and the continuity of this organization?

Secretary-General: Well, I'll just give you an example with our last regular budget. We have reduced 22% of the posts in the regular budget, which means in the Secretariat, not counting now with peacekeeping operations. And we have done it in a way that was prepared in advance. We have been working to make it possible for more than one year, namely creating vacancies in the structure in order to make sure that we were able to reduce 22% of the posts without creating a dramatic social impact, because we have previously made many of those posts vacant and create vacancies in others to which people can compete. And we are able to do this kind of reform in a, I would say, completely well-organized methodology with the participation of all the UN system and without creating any disruption, any turmoil as we have seen sometimes in other reforms in other parts of the world, which means that the UN is able to do things efficiently. And knowing public administrations as I know, because I was at a certain moment the head of one, I have to tell you that there is a lot to improve in the UN. There are many things in which we can do better, but I'm very proud of the work of the UN, and I think the UN is more efficient than many of the public administrations that criticize us.

Spokesperson: Volodymyr then Maryam.

Question: Thank you. Mr. Secretary-General, my name is Volodymyr Ilchenko, National News Agency of Ukraine, Ukrinform. We see that [Vladimir] Putin's Russia is deliberately bombing energy infrastructure in Ukraine in order to freeze the Ukrainian population and trigger a humanitarian catastrophe. As the leader of the largest and most respected international organization, what would you advise Ukrainians to do under these circumstances? Thank you.

Secretary-General: We have been in consultations with Türkiye and with others. And we have been advocating for the possibility of an agreement. In the past, we, together with Türkiye, were able to materialize and to broker the only real agreement that was possible to establish in the Ukraine crisis or Russian invasion of Ukraine with the exception of exchange of prisoners with the so-called Black Sea Initiative and Azo Stal. And we believe that a similar agreement should be established. Now in order to avoid any kind of bombings, I mean, kind of a limited ceasefire to the bombing of energy infrastructure and the bombing of harbours – as a limited contribution, but an important contribution to avoid the horrible tragedy that, especially with these bombardments, the people are suffering.

Spokesperson: Maryam and then Ibtisam. 

Question: Secretary-General here. Maryam Rahmati with Iran International and Afghanistan International. One question that I have is on Afghanistan. As you know, Rosemary DiCarlo travelled to Afghanistan, talked to the Taliban about Doha process. Do you still believe in Doha process and the pragmatic talks that you've been saying to have with the Taliban? The girls haven't been able to go to school for almost four years. Even your employees at UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan) have been banned from working at the offices or deliver aid to people. What is your red line to stop these talks with the Taliban when it has no results and it's not changing anything on the ground? And also, a follow-up on Iran: Tens of thousands of people have died and so many have been arrested. Did you pick up the phone to talk with the Islamic Republic officials to talk about the protesters who have been arrested, and some might be even hanged? Is condemnation enough for that? Thank you.

Secretary-General: The question, the answer for the second question, if I talked with the Iranians… Yes. The answer for the first question, this is a dilemma that we face every day. Should we go on engaging in some specific areas? Some of them with some positive impact, namely in relation to the private sector, it has been possible to have women working in several areas of Afghanistan. But at the same time, we are deeply frustrated by the fact that we remain without our staff, our female staff, not being able to go to our headquarters. They are able to work in the field, but not in our headquarters, what is unacceptable. And the fact that we still do not have access of girls to, I would say, standard secondary education and above. So, this is indeed a dilemma. We have until now thought that it was worse to go on with the engagement, but we share your frustration. And this is a question that we ask ourselves every day.

Spokesperson: Ibtisam, and then we'll go to Tao Xu, China TV. Ibtisam?

Question: Thank you. Here, second one. Thank you. My name is Ibtisam Azem, Al-araby Al-jadeed newspaper. I have first a quick follow-up on the Board of Peace. Some experts will say that the Board of Peace and the whole mechanism that was created in Gaza is to side-line the UN and its work. What's your opinion? And for example, the Security Council resolution that you referred to, even the report that is supposed to be submitted is submitted by the Board of Peace itself and not by the UN. And my question is about accountability and UNRWA. More than 300 UNRWA Palestinian workers were killed. Israel banned the work of UNRWA, et cetera. So, my question is, which steps would you want to take for accountability? Thank you.

Secretary-General: Well, you have asked many questions at the same time. So, let's see one by one. First of all, we are working in Gaza, and we are working in Gaza. And I have to say that since this lesser fire is working, the truth is that there was exponential increase of humanitarian aids. There was, for a long period, a discussion in which Israel would say that there was no humanitarian aid in Gaza because the UN was inefficient, and you were saying that there was no humanitarian aid because of the obstacles that were created by Israel. And the truth is that when the ceasefire, the first ceasefire took place, and now the humanitarian aid exploded. It's not enough. A lot more needs to be done, because it's not only food that matters. It's everything related to health. It's everything related to shelter. It's everything related to so many things that are still missing. But the truth is that there was a very important increase in humanitarian aid, and we are totally committed to do more and to overcome all the obstacles. So we are, in Gaza, entirely involved. On what Israel is doing to UNRWA premises, we have been taking very clear positions of condemnation, and we have acted in relation to that, based on the positions that were assumed by International Court of Justice. On the other hand, we will not stop doing everything we can to guarantee that UNRWA will be able - with all the difficulties and all the obstacles - to provide the vital support that UNRWA provides to the people. And we claim for the need of accountability in relation to the 380 UNRWA members that were killed.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Please go ahead.

Question: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General. This is Tao Xu with China Central Television. So, you said today that the global system are outdated and the multipolarity should be more inclusive. China, as the largest developing country, has been more active in development, climate and resource cooperation. So how do you see China's role in global governance going forward?

Secretary-General: I think that we need to move into a multipolar world, and we need simultaneously to have multilateral institutions. And I have to say that China has been consistently advocating for the need of multilateralism and with UN at its centre. And this was recently reaffirmed by President Xi Jinping.

Spokesperson: Ahmed Fathi then Yvonne.

Question: Thank you. This is Ahmed Fathi, ATN News. Mr. Secretary-General, you warned that tech companies now shape elections and conflicts. If their power rivals or exceed that of states, does the UN truly have leverage, or are governments no longer in control?

Secretary-General: We do not have leverage, but we are creating instruments to minimize our difficulties in the international community to put in place strategies to avoid the worst. Things will be different when we have our high-level scientific panel. I'm hoping to present the 40 names for the General Assembly in the next few days, maximum few weeks, but it's practically done. We had 2,400 candidates, which demonstrates the interest of the international community in this panel. And this panel will make reports every six months or every year about the state of the art of artificial intelligence in these different components, and it will be able to do reports on specific tasks of Member States, and this is for Member States from all over the world. I mean, it's a global institution. And this is something that I believe is essential - to have an independent scientific entity that explains what's really happening in the world of artificial intelligence and explains to what extent what is happening from a scientific point of view undermines a certain number of essential values, namely the way democratic institutions must work. I think we do what we can do with our contribution. We have not the power to do a global regulation of artificial intelligence, and that would not be impossible. But we'll be doing what we can, creating this mechanism and then an annual dialogue with all countries of the world and with the key stakeholders to take note of what scientists say and to be able to, at least, I hope, establish or agree on a certain number of guardrails to preserve the human agency that I believe is essential.

Spokesperson: Yvonne, then Arul.

Question: Thank you. Secretary-General, Yvonne Murray, RTE News. Thank you very much. My question is, in your remarks, you referred to the possibility of the superpowers, the United States and China, carving up the globe into two spheres of influence. How likely is that scenario in your view? And what would your advice be to smaller countries like Ireland, in this era of might makes right, countries like Ireland that don't have any might?

Secretary-General: As I said, that is a possibility that I hope will not materialize. And the best way to do it is exactly with the examples I just made. It's through a network of connections of which China and the United States are part, but in which all the different countries and regions of the world establish in the context of multipolarity, trade agreements, technology agreements, other forms of international cooperation, and create with that the fabrics of an international community where no supremacy can, in any case, be successful. And that is also the condition to allow for multilateral institutions to be able to work effectively.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Arul, and then Aziz, Moroccan Press Service.

Question: Arul Louis from Indo Asian New Service.

Spokesperson: Sorry. If you could raise your hand.

Question: Yeah. Last year, when you addressed us, you laid out four priorities. In retrospect, how do you think it has worked out? And if, I can sneak in a subtle question, what do you think would be your legacy?

Secretary-General: This is a problem that I do not put myself. I've been Prime Minister of Portugal, never cared about what people say about my legacy. I was High Commissioner for Refugees. I never cared about what people think about my legacy. And I will be ex-Secretary-General of United Nations. I will not lose my time thinking about what people think about my legacy. I'm doing my duty, and I do my duty in the best possible way, and this is what is my role. Legacies are usually the appreciation of others. I leave it humbly to what others might understand.

Spokesperson: Aziz, Moroccan Press Service. Then Kris, yeah.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General Aziz Rami for the Moroccan Press Agency, MAP. You have called several times, including today, for the reform or and strengthening of the Security Council. There have been many ideas put forward about continents or regions that are not represented in the Security Council. Do you think now that reform in the Security Council is still possible? And what would an ideal Security Council look like, in your opinion? Thank you.

Secretary-General: Well, it's not for the Secretary-General to define what the Security Council will be. So, the opinion I'm going to give you is a personal opinion. It's not a formal position of the Secretary-General. But I do believe that we should have permanent members from Africa in the Security Council, the same representation of Latin America. I think that probably Asia is underrepresented also clearly, and so this rebalancing needs to be done. And I see with a lot of sympathy some initiatives that were presented, namely by two permanent members of the Council, in order to put some limits to the exercise of the right of veto, namely in circumstances of genocide or terrible crimes against humanity. So, these would be the lines of evolution I would like to see the international community come together in order to have a reformed Security Council.

Spokesperson: Kris, then Namo.

Question: Thank you for this briefing.

Spokesperson: Raise your hand, please, Kris, yeah.

Question: Thank you for this briefing, Secretary-General. Kris Reyes with Canadian Broadcasting. I'd like to ask you about recent remarks from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. First, in Davos, where he described a rupture in the world order. In other comments, he talked about the breakdown of multilateral institutions that he said would lead to overlapping and dynamic alliances and likely bypass those institutions. I wonder what you think of that kind of characterization, particularly the latter part, whether you think it's accurate. And given the decision of your final view, I wonder if you could reflect on what kind of qualities the next Secretary-General should have to deal with these existential concerns.

Secretary-General: What kind of powers?

Question: Qualities.

Secretary-General: Qualities? First, I think that the Prime Minister of Canada has presented a number of risks that we are facing in the international community. I mentioned in my intervention many similar risks. But I don't think that our key institutions have been completely, I would say, destroyed or over. The UN is still there. It's still in the centre of the international multilateral system. It is reforming itself. It must reform itself. But with all the things that are happening, I'm still very proud of the work that UN is doing. What are the qualities that I wish that the next Secretary-General has? I think, if you could be a saint and a hero, it would be wonderful.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Nada?

Question: Just a follow up on [tech companies]. Because as was noted, their values now rival the GDP of some countries. You talked about guardrails. But can you be a bit more specific about what those guardrails should be? And what about the size of these companies? Do you think anything should be done by governments to also take a look at that?

Secretary-General: A central principle for me is the principle of human agency. And I think, it's absolutely essential to guarantee that there is no loss of control by humans about what happens. And this, of course, has consequences in the different ways in which we look into the different areas of artificial intelligence and its uses, including in weapons, for instance. I would be strongly against autonomous weapons that can decide who to kill, where to kill, and for what reason. As I said, the question of human agency is for me the central question in the guardrails that you have mentioned. Your second question, sorry?

Question: About the size of these companies.

Secretary-General: There are in many countries, legislation in relation to monopolies. And I think that those legislations should be adapted to take into account the realities of new technologies.

Question: Can I ask just follow-up? The US tech companies, do you think they can [Inaudible] fit in the US government politicians?

Secretary-General: What I think that is happening is a massive transfer of power from government institutions to companies, because power today relates essentially to data. And what we are witnessing is a massive transfer not only of data, but the capacity to manage data to private institutions.

Spokesperson: Namo, if I could remind you to stick to one question, please.

Question: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, for this briefing. This is Namo Abdulla with Rudaw Media Network. I have one question. In recent weeks, we've seen Syrian Government forces wage an offensive to retake areas from Syrian Kurds, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Those areas were taken from ISIS by Syrian Democratic Forces. And the Syrian Kurds say they want to maintain, to keep their arms to protect their territory, because they are sceptical of the new forces in Damascus. My question is, shouldn't the international community understand the Kurdish position given, you know, their history of persecution at the hand of the Islamic State, the Yazidi genocide, and grant them a degree of autonomy so that they can run their own security and domestic affairs within United Syria? Thank you.

Secretary-General: Well, I know something about the history of the Syrian Kurds. In the time of President [Bashar al] Assad, we had several - as High Commissioner for Refugees responsible for statelessness - several serious discussions on the fact that Syrian Kurds were for the majority stateless, not recognized as citizens in Syria. And so, there is an history of persecution to Syrian Kurds that is real and that I recognize. Now, at the present moment, I think we need to, first of all, recognize that this problem was solved. The Government has now issued a decree that confers nationality to all Syrian Kurds. This is solved. I think that the solution of the problem will not be military. I think the solution of the problem is to create institutions in which all communities feel represented, and we will do everything we can to advocate in this regard.

Spokesperson: Gabriel, then Carrie.

Question: Hello, Mr. Secretary-General. Gabriel Elizondo from Al Jazeera English. We've spoken about many topics here over the last hour or so, but one that has not come up is Sudan. You've spoken out about Sudan many times over the last months and really years. Nothing has changed in the conflict that is now, as you know, the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. What do you envision specifically your role and the UN's role in the next year, to finally change the trajectory of this conflict and bring about peace once and for all?

Secretary-General: We are very active now, myself inclusive. [Ramtane] Lamamra are very engaged in a series of contacts. Our objective at the present moment is to create conditions for at least a temporary ceasefire and for the possible demilitarization of some zones in order to allow for humanitarian aid to be not limited. So, it's, of course, not the solution of the problem, but it is a minimization of the dramatic, horrible impact in the Sudanese people. And I have to say that I worked in Sudan as High Commissioner for Refugees, and I've seen the Sudanese people extremely generous, hosting refugees from different neighbours and sharing with them sometimes what they did not have. So, the suffering of the Sudanese people is something that, I mean, I feel very strongly in my heart. But let's be honest. The question is that Sudan became a kind of a playground where a number of international actors are spoiling things in such a way that makes it very difficult for the Sudanese themselves to come together. And one thing that we will be doing as much as we can is to limit the capacity of externals to interfere in the Sudanese situation, namely providing weapons and doing other forms of, I would say, aggravating what is already an immense tragedy.

Spokesperson: Carrie, then Frank.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General. Carrie Nooten for Radio France International and Le Monde. Just a quick follow-up.

Secretary-General: En Francais?

Question: No, it's okay. We can do it in English. Don't worry. [Inaudible] Well, know, even our President now speaks English in Davos. It just a quick follow-up about your successor. You've just said that you don't have the power to stop these atrocities. So, in your personal opinion, not as your Secretary-General opinion, but can you say how could this successor have more power?

Secretary-General: I think it will depend on the Security Council being reformed, the Security Council being able to act and being able to act with the power that the Security Council has create the conditions for the good offices of the Secretary-General to be much more effective.

Spokesperson: Frank and then Camelia.

Question: Thank you. Frank Ucciardo from TRT World. Thank you for doing this press conference. We really appreciate it. Great to see you here. Want to get your reaction to reports that Iran is going to conduct some live fire drills in The Gulf beginning on 1 February and also real reaction to Donald Trump saying that time is running out for Iran, as far as getting a nuclear deal, intimating that he's going to perhaps attack.

Secretary-General: I think it's absolutely essential that dialogue prevails. I strongly encourage dialogue to take profit of the offers of mediation that have been expressed. And we do not want to see, and I believe the Iranians tell us that they also do not want to have nuclear weapons. So, if that is the case, all the conditions are there for a serious negotiation to take place, and I encourage the parties to seriously negotiate in order to avoid a confrontation that would be a tragedy.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Camelia?

Question: Thank you. Camelia Entekhabifard, Chief Editor of the Independent Persian, on Iran. Secretary-General, on date, as of today, there is not an information of an official statement by Secretary-General or any other public places at the United Nations indicating that directly you have asked Iran to accept a formal mission of the fact-finding mission to visit Iran, to investigate on the protest killings. In two days, we reported more than 30,000 people has been killed. Do you have any plan directly asking Iran to accept this request, or there is any plan for? Thank you.

Secretary-General: Well, that is in the competence of the Human Rights Council, and the Human Rights Council has established committees of inquiry in many situations or similar things. And of course, if the Human Rights Council decides so, it will have full support of the Secretariat.

Spokesperson: Pan and then Marta. Go ahead.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General.

Spokesperson: So don't touch it. It'll turn on. There we go. Okay, you're good.

Question: Thank you, Secretary-General. This is Yunzhao Pan from China's Xinhua News Agency. I have a very general question. Last year, this time, you laid out four priorities for 2025. One is conflict and inequality, climate crisis, and AI. So, in terms of conflict, US President Trump claimed he ended eight wars. So, can you give us evaluation of the progress made over the past year by the United Nations in preventing conflict? And are you concerned about the future role of the United Nations in security and peace and security? Thank you.

Secretary-General: Not at all. The United Nations is very active in several scenarios. There are areas where we are not mediators, because at least one of the parties does not want us to mediate. And it was the case as of Russia/Ukraine. Russia never wanted us to be mediator of the conflict. It was the case of Israel with the Palestinians. Israel never accepted the UN to be mediator, probably because we would mediate based on our values, the values of the Charter. And if those that violate the Charter probably are not interested in the mediation by an entity that is, in itself, the entity that represents the Charter. But we are extremely active as we speak from Libya to Sudan to South Sudan. Yesterday, we were in contact with different entities in South Sudan, and I have a number of contacts programmed now to try to avoid the worst in the situation of South Sudan. In the DRC, in Myanmar; very active now in the negotiations related to Western Sahara; quite active in the area of the Sahel and in the context between ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) and the countries of the Sahel. And I could go on and on and on with a number of situations in which we are extremely active with efforts of mediation, efforts of conciliation of positions, peace processes. There is only one thing we do not have is the instruments of power, to force parties to come to an agreement.

Spokesperson: Thank you, Sinan. And then sorry. Marta and then Sinan. Sorry.

Question: Hello. Marta Moreira from Lusa, the Portuguese National News Agency. I don't know, if we can speak in Portuguese. I'm allowed? No seu discurso inicial, disse que, ou enalteceu,  os manifestantes que se têm levantado ao redor do mundo contra a repressão. E amanhã temos aqui nos Estados Unidos vários protestos marcados contra a repressão à imigração. Dois cidadãos norte-americanos já morreram em Mineápolis. Qual é a sua visão sobre essa situação? Teme que a repressão esteja a crescer aqui nos Estados Unidos?  E se me permite, deixe-me perguntar também se considera uma falha da ONU se a próxima pessoa eleita para o substituir não for uma mulher.

[English translation: In your opening remarks, you said, or you praised, the protesters who have risen up around the world against repression. And tomorrow here in the United States we have several protests scheduled against immigration repression. Two American citizens have already died in Minneapolis. What is your view on this situation? Do you fear that repression is growing here in the United States? And if you'll allow me, let me also ask if you consider it a failure of the UN if the next person elected to replace you is not a woman.]

Secretary-General: Bem, em primeiro lugar, nós consideramos que o direito de manifestação é um direito essencial. E aqui, como em qualquer outra parte do mundo, é essencial que as forças de polícia e outras usem a contenção indispensável para evitar que os manifestantes paguem com as próprias vidas o preço da sua atividade. De qualquer das formas, espero que no quadro de uma sociedade democrática, as investigações que foram anunciadas possam levar a conclusões, que são muito importantes neste domínio. A segunda pergunta era?

[English translation: Well, first of all, we consider the right to protest to be an essential right. And here, as in any other part of the world, it is essential that the police and other forces use indispensable restraint to prevent protesters from paying with their lives for their activity. In any case, I hope that within the framework of a democratic society, the investigations that have been announced can lead to conclusions, which are very important in this area. The second question was?]

Question: Se considera uma falha da ONU se o seu sucessor não for uma mulher. [English translation: Whether you consider it a failure of the UN if your successor is not a woman.]

Secretary-General: Eu devo dizer-lhe uma coisa. Eu penso que é claramente tempo para as Nações Unidas, como para as principais potências do mundo, ter uma mulher à sua frente. Não tenho dúvidas nenhumas a esse respeito.   Agora, não me compete a mim fazer a escolha. Fazer a decisão. Não sou eu que voto. Portanto, digamos, a minha opinião é irrelevante. Mas, se olharmos as posições de maior responsabilidade a nível mundial, seja nas Nações Unidas, falando de secretário-geral, porque ao nível dos altos quadros das Nações Unidas temos paridade, e tenho muito orgulho disso, mas a verdade é que, quer nas Nações Unidas, quer nas posições de liderança dos países mais poderosos do mundo, é tempo de vermos mulheres. 

[English translation: I must tell you something. I think it is clearly time for the United Nations, as for the major powers of the world, to have a woman at its head. I have no doubt about that. Now, it is not up to me to make the choice. To make the decision. I don't vote. So, let's say, my opinion is irrelevant. But, if we look at the positions of greatest responsibility at the global level, whether in the United Nations, speaking of the Secretary-General, because at the level of senior staff of the United Nations we have parity, and I am very proud of that, but the truth is that, whether in the United Nations or in the leadership positions of the most powerful countries in the world, it is time to see women.]

Spokesperson: Sinan and then Iftikhar. I'm sorry, we'll have to close it.

Question: My name is Sinan from the Tamargi. I have a question about Kurdish rights. You haven't made a single statement regarding the right of self-determination specifically under Article 1 of the UN Charter and Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People for the 40 million Kurds. So, the question is, why haven't you issued a statement on this matter? Are you perhaps fearful of state pressure and reactions from the countries where the Kurds live? Okay.

Secretary-General: Now I must say that at the present moment, my main objective is - and we are also with our mission in Syria dealing with that - my main objective is to create conditions for Syria to be able to have a society in which all of its components feel that their rights are respected and at the same time feel that they belong to the country as a whole. This has been our priority at the present moment.

Spokesperson: Thank you.

Question: It was a very general question for Kurds, not only in Syria. I meant Iran, Iraq, Türkiye and Syria. That was my question.

Secretary-General: But I mean, in relation to Iraq, there are democratic institutions in which the Kurds are represented, as you know. In relation to Iran, the situation is different. But obviously, I think the Kurdish people has been the victim of history, but to a certain extent also of the difficulties to come together and to create the conditions for its affirmation. But we are very much committed to the defence of the interest of the Kurdish peoples, wherever they are.

Spokesperson: Thank you. Last question. Iftikhar will go online.

Question: Thank you, Steph. Mr. Secretary-General, wishing you greater successes in the New Year. My question has been asked by my colleague, Maryam, but I have more to ask on this subject. Sir, the visit of USG DiCarlo took place when there is an open split between the Taliban in Kabul and the Taliban and the leadership in Kandahar. And in in this situation, what was her assessment? I mean, does she hope things are going to get better? And secondly, sir, the United Nations Security Council reports confirm that Afghan Taliban provide full support to TTP, the terrorist group which continues to carry out deadly attacks in Pakistan. Despite the pledge given by the Taliban to the international community, they will not allow their soil to be used for cross-border attacks. Any thoughts on this, sir?

Secretary-General: We remain totally committed to four essential objectives in Afghanistan. First, to make sure that the Afghan institutions are really inclusive and that all ethnic groups are represented and all sectors of society are represented. We consider that a basic condition for the consolidation of peace. Second point, we believe, it's absolutely essential to respect human rights, but essentially rights of women and girls. Rosemary DiCarlo managed to guarantee the possibility of our staff women to work in the field, but not in our headquarters, and we are very frustrated with that. And we believe this is one of the areas where the failure of the Taliban to deliver in relation to what, I believe, the international community in a very justified way wants is unacceptable. Then, another aspect, which is the need to make sure that no terrorist organizations can operate from Afghanistan into other countries. And we are particularly concerned with what happened with the Pakistani Taliban and the support they might receive. And finally, the need to control drug trafficking, and there we have to say, we have to recognize that there was meaningful progress since the Taliban emerged. But in relation to the three other aspects, we have a frustration, because we don't see our legitimate concerns making the progress. That is essential.

Spokesperson: Thank you very much. Thank you.