We the Peoples, Shaping the Future of the UN (HLPF Special Event)

Very good evening to everybody.

Hello everyone. Hello to you in the room. Hello to you if you're watching on the livestream wherever you are in the world. Welcome to the United Nations Headquarters and a special event during the High-Level Political Forum called 'We the Peoples: Shaping the Future of the United Nations'. You should feel free to do that a lot during the afternoon. I'm your host today, Rajesh Muchandani, and I'm a storyteller. I spent 20 years telling stories for the BBC and another 10 for non-profit organizations, including for the UN Foundation, and now I help organizations and leaders find the stories that build human connection and drive impact. And that's a little of what I want to do here today. What is the story of the future of the United Nations? And what is your role in shaping that story? We're also going to be thinking about what is the role of the Pact for the Future and the UN80 initiative. Those are key milestones in the UN's recent reform and renewal trajectory, and today we're going to take stock of them and how they fit into the story of the next era for the UN. In our conversations, we're going to surface priorities for that next era and come up with practical tools for how civil society can stay engaged with the UN. We're going to do that— with 3 conversations with experts from diverse regions and constituencies, and with the Secretary-General himself. Throughout, you'll have a chance to ask questions to our panellists. And first, I'm going to ask you all a question too. Don't answer it just yet. Just think about your answer. You'll get a chance to share it soon. The question is this, and also don't overthink it. If I do call on you, you'll only have 20 seconds. What is your vision of the UN of the future? What is different about it in the story that you want to be able to tell in years to come? It could be a really big thing, it could be a tiny thing. You might want to say the chairs need to be more comfortable. That's fine. Like I said, don't overthink it.. But just think about it for now. Let's kick off this afternoon's proceedings now by inviting you to join me as we welcome Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Dear friends, I sincerely do not know if I am talking to you as Secretary-General or as I will be 80 in 6 months' time. And I really intend to go back to the civil society. I don't know yet in what kind of organization, but some of them I'm still a member. I started when I was student in university in the times of Salazar, Marcel Caetano, dictator. I started as a volunteer in the slums of Lisbon, and then I was co-founder, and I'm still, I think, associate number one of the Portuguese Association of Consumers. And then when I left government and before coming to the UN, I was essentially involved in two organizations, one of migration and the other of refugees, particularly committed to the questions of displacement that are so relevant in today's society. And so I have no idea about what I'll be doing on the 2nd of January, but one thing I know, I will go back to be a member, an active member of the civil society. And this is the last chance you have. This is the last chance you you have to talk with me as Secretary-General, because if there is a next meeting I will be on their side of the room. And I am delighted to see such broad participation in this Chamber today. Civil society organizations, large and small; women and young people, out in force; voices from every region—you reflect the true spirit of We, the peoples. And I commend your tireless, principled work—pushing for peace, for human rights, for equality; calling for a revitalized multilateralism, with people at its centre; and demanding a more inclusive and effective United Nations. Dear friends, I hear you: we must renew our Organization to deliver better for people. And that is why we launched the UN80 Initiative. Building on earlier reforms, it offers a bold set of proposals to make the UN more coherent, more fit for purpose and more effective. It calls for change that is meaningful, action that is concrete and, most of all, impact that people can see, feel and believe in —an impact that translates itself into more effective action in relation to the people we serve. UNHCR is vital to our ability to succeed in an age of profound instability. Across our world, we see trust eroding and divisions deepening. Conflicts causing death and destruction on a shocking scale. And communities starved of resources for development. And resilience. Climate action is delayed and climate justice is denied. And new technologies racing ahead without proper guardrails represent a threat to us all. These challenges are complex, but they point to a simple truth: the United Nations can only deliver on its promise if we dare to evolve. Dear friends, renewal means earning trust through results, and that's what UN 80 is all about. Above all, it must strengthen our ability to realize existing commitments, and I am thinking of commitments like the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs are our shared promise to people and planet, and the focus of the high-level political forum now underway. But with less than 5 years to go, just 36% of the targets are on track or making moderate progress, and 15% have gone into reverse. We must correct course and pick up the pace. Humanity can help through stronger coordination and enhanced country-level delivery. I am also thinking of commitments like the Pact for the Future our global pledge to tackle shared challenges together. The Pact spells out concrete actions to turbocharge the SDGs, which I believe you are fully aware of. These include urgent steps to strengthen peace and security, accelerate sustainable development and tackle climate change, share the benefits of science and technology more equitably while reining in the risks, empower youth and future generations, and transform global governance so it is more inclusive and effective. UNHCR puts us in a much stronger position to deliver on these commitments— through greater efficiencies, stronger synergies within and across pillars, easier access for our partners, and closer proximity to those we serve. Dear friends, I will never forget the pivotal way civil society has already moved the needle—driving local action to advance the SDGs; bringing energy and ideas when we met two years ago in Nairobi; building momentum ahead of the Summit of the Future; persuading Member States to approve the Pact; and supporting its implementation on the ground. Because of you, we have made real headway despite fierce geopolitical headwinds. And you remain indispensable: as a partner, bringing frontline knowledge and capacity; as a watchdog, strengthening accountability and demanding follow-through; and as a bridge, connecting global decisions with local realities. With your continued meaningful engagement, we can turn ambition into action, and action into impact. Dear friends, UNHCR will only succeed if it strengthens our ability to deliver on the SDGs, implement the Pact for the Future, and work in partnership with civil society. And how we work together truly matters. You have shown us that genuine engagement must be structured, sustained, and linked to to decision-making. That means moving from participation to partnerships and from consultation to creation. And that is why we are strengthening our Interagency Civil Society Focal Point Network to better facilitate our work together, and soon they will cover the whole of the UN system and all our agencies, funds and programmes and other UN institutions. I'm honored to join this dialogue with civil society leaders from so many regions and constituencies, and I'm eager to hear your priorities, your proposals, and your concerns. I think probably people told you that you should ask me questions. I would strongly suggest that you can ask me all the questions you want, but beyond asking questions, please tell me what what you think is wrong in what the UN is doing and what we should do in order to correct it and how we can improve our deliver to the people we care for. So don't worry with the script. The script can be changed at any moment. Please do spontaneously what you believe I need to hear independently of the questions that you consider you need to ask. I indeed welcome your ideas for strengthening our cooperation. Multilateralism works best when it draws on the collective strengths of all key partners, including civil society. Only together can we build a peaceful, just and sustainable future for all. Thank you very much for your patience.

Thank you.

What I said about the script also applies to those that are here.

Thank you, Mr Secretary-General, and a very good way of trying to avoid being asked questions. So we have a stage full of civil society activists, by the sounds of it. Let's use you in your capacity as Secretary-General before you chain yourself to any railings. In a few months' time, and let's begin our conversation. Our first conversation brings in a range of regional perspectives to give us a sense from around the world of what the UN's future priorities should be and the different challenges and opportunities that your different regions offer. Let's say hello to our panelists. I'm going to introduce them one by one., and then maybe when I've introduced all 4 of our panelists, we can give them a round of applause to welcome them. So first, we'll go down this order. Carol Osero-Agengo is the executive director— the executive director of the Center for Global South Initiatives in Development in Kenya. She's a human rights lawyer and gender expert who helped create the UN Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls. She also empowered more than 300 African women lawyers through her advocacy and training. Silito Perez is the Executive Director of the Center for Women Resources in the Philippines, which supports movement-building initiatives in grassroots women's communities. She also leads the Asia-Pacific CSO Regional Engagement Mechanism. Rosario del Pilar Díaz Calavito is the Founder and Executive Director of the Millennials Movement in Peru and co-facilitator of the LAC Impact Coalition for the Pact for the Future and the Latin American and Caribbean Civil Society Mechanism. She's also a member of several youth boards on human rights. And Dr. Nelia Lakimova is a sustainability expert and civil society leader working to advance the 2030 Agenda, including through supporting the 2027 Global Sustainable Development Report and strengthening civil society participation in VNRs, and she's also the Executive Director of the RAD platform, which stands for Research, Advocacy and Development. What an amazing panel, let's please welcome them. So panel, we did send you beforehand some kind of guiding questions for our conversation.

You don't need to follow them. Even better.

I will just stray from the script for a second, because I want to ask you all in turn— and again, 20 seconds, don't overthink this— the question that I asked everybody at the beginning: what is your vision of the UN of the future? Karyl, you want to go first? I'm going to save you for the end, Mr. SG, unless you want to go now.

Well, the UN for the future, I hope we will be the multilateral organization that unites a world in which power relations have completely changed, a world that is no longer dominated by one power or divided between two powers, but in which there is equilibrium and there is a multipolarity that creates conditions for justice that today is impossible and allows multilateralism to be perspective, what today is very difficult because of the geopolitical divides and because of the power relations that are deeply unfair.

Anybody want to follow the SG?

Sorry, do you want to carry on?

Yes, yes, yes. Go on.

No, I didn't— no, no, I'm—

Okay, no, I was just asking if anybody dared to follow the SG.

Wow, that's a hard act to follow, but talking of acts, I think I want to imagine, thinking of the UN, I want to imagine that we're on a stage like we are right now, and when the credits run, then everybody should be in the credits so that it is not dominated by one particular group of people and that the power dynamics are kind of horizontalized, if I may use a word such as that.

Very interesting. It's quite similar.

Okay.

Well, I think for me, what I want to see as a UN in the next era is a UN that champions development justice. Champions? Development justice. At a time that we're seeing a lot of injustices, and perhaps later we'll be hearing stories of injustices, what we want to see is a UN that is people-centered, not profit-driven, and is really pursuing development justice, mostly for the marginalized.

Okay, great.

I guess in my case, I would say that I would like the UN to be the institution that keeps giving hope, that brings hope to people, you know, that as it gave me hope when I started my advocacy. The institution that brings fairness in the world, the institution that allows our voices to have a platform, the institution that help us to build the world we all envision together. That is the UN I want. The UN I envision is the one where every person can feel and see represented, and where they can hear their voices, and they can also envision a future, their own future, through the work of the UN. That's the UN I envision.

Wow.

Yeah, I probably will be a bit more practical because we are in the regional session right now. And I think it's really important that we actually strengthen regional work. Of course, I agree with everything what has been said already, but we are all representative of regional engagement mechanism here, all the panelists. And I think what we are seeing that, for example, when we work with regional commissions,— it's already a great example, but which can be even improved and make UN accessible for civil society, for— when we work with member states and so on and so forth. So— and we already know that it's possible. There are already established connections which are already working, and I think it's really important that in the near future we continue this practice and even grow that. And just another example I want to bring, which I think is really important, again, because you were talking about UNAIDS, and of course we are all following the process and trying to understand what is good, what is not so good. And I think what is really important for us to see that what is happening with UNAIDS, and I think at the same time UNAIDS is a great example of regional engagement of civil society because in the board, in the coordinating board of UNAIDS, there are 5 civil society representatives which have the same power as member states. So we know the process, it was established in 1995, it's a long-term ago, but it was possible. Like, can we make UN in the future the same? Can we actually make that this is like we can actually be that right holders and be equal with member states? This is what I want to see in the future of the UN.

Okay. Nelia Rachimova, you've skillfully connected all three of our panels with your answer there. Went over 20 seconds, I'll just notice, but that's fine. But can we just acknowledge what an inspiring first round of responses and visions for the future of the UN everyone gave us? But let's get practical. To quote you, Nelia, what are your regions telling us that the UN needs to understand better, needs to prioritize, and needs to do differently in order to help deliver those visions of the future? Who wants to go first? Well, actually, why don't you—

you're looking at me—

why don't you let someone else start? Actually, why don't you let someone else start, and I'll come back to you on this point, if that's all right, just because you have the last say in the last question. Who wants to start? Go for it, Carol.

Africa is sending a clear message, I think, that the UN developmental efforts must be grounded in local realities, and these realities must be shaped by leadership that is accountable, that is accessible and that is representative, but also that Africa is not one big country. Africa is diverse, and those— that diversity needs to be represented in terms of the political, economic, and cultural contexts. Africa is also home to a lot of policies and practices that need to begin to reflect more vibrantly in the UN. And this can only be done if it's done in partnership, so to borrow from what the Secretary-General has just said, we need to move from participation to partnership because there's been a lot of participation of African entities, African civil society, but we don't want to just participate. We want to work in partnership, because if you look at it realistically, from a democratic point of view, civil society is the majority compared to the member states. But where is our majority voice? It needs to reflect a little more. So those are priorities, shifting from aid dependency towards investment in capacity. And this is broad because we're looking at building structures for education that will sustain development rather than giving popcorn aid that withers away, and when there's a policy shift somewhere, then it affects whole health systems, it affects whole education systems. So we need to go to the root and build these systems from the root up. So those, I think, are priorities that we need to look at. And finally, as I close this part, to also say that it must also come from a place of accountability. Civil society has been agitating for accountability for a very long time, and I think that the UN can support civil civil society in the push for accountability. Africa is a very rich continent and can be self-sufficient, but Africa is buckling under the weight of corruption and mismanagement, and the UN can do something to help Africa manage its resources better.

Okay, Carol, thank you. You want to pass the mic along? Do you want to go next?

Yes, yes, of course. Building on that, I think to do that, we need to be addressing the systemic and structural barriers that impede sustainable development. In Asia-Pacific region, we're seeing a lot of this. There's the unjust debt, there's unequal trade and investments and financial systems, climate injustice. There is corporate capture, militarism, shrinking civic space, and the persistent, ever persistent unequal power between the North and the South. I think it's about time that we address that, and we see that the UN has a really big role in doing this. For a reason that is our priority, to address the systemic barriers, structural issues that impede sustainable development.

Okay, how? How can the UN help?

How? Very important questions. Civil society, people's organizations on the ground have been telling us how. If you look at our policy recommendations, you'd see that, no? If you go to the communities, they are actually already doing that. People have solutions on the ground. Agroecology, food sovereignty, community-based renewable energy systems. They are already doing that. Perhaps it's about time that UN learn from that. It— the UN has been doing that already, but I think partnerships is ever more important. Um, financing that is ever more important now, and really learning from how we do that in the community where We are talking about high-level priorities, which frankly should be ground-level conversations. Um, that needs to happen, you know, bringing those ground-level conversations to the UN, and the UN really going to the ground and seeing how we do it and learning from

Terrific, thank you so much.

Okay, I'm definitely hearing a theme here: global decisions, local realities.

Rosario, Nelia, over to you.

Yes, I think something that needs to be prioritized from now on is also fair multilateralism. We need to build it. We need to see how we can achieve a multilateralism that is representative but also that is coherent, coherent among regions so we can all achieve development in the same path. We are coming from different starting points. We have different agencies, different structures, realities, and whenever we talk think about what we need to prioritize is how do we build this fair multilateralism. Also, I think the narrative, you know, the narrative of the UN needs to be the one that correlates with the, with the people, with the UN Charter from bottom up, where the people is engaged, where the people know what is the UN, what is, what is doing, how to engage and how to also demand our decision makers to ensure that the UN has all the resources and the capacities and the leverage to keep working and have the agency to create change. Finally, I think also it's important to prioritize how do we build this, how do we focus on fair multilateralism. While we create safe spaces for civil society and for people to participate. How do we create that fair multilateralism that is accessible, intergenerational, where everyone can come here and share their voices? I think that is something that is important. And just regarding my region, that is Latin America and the Caribbean, I think one, two big priorities would be also considering what is How do we address inequalities? We are the most unequal region in the world, but also we are the most violent region in the world. How do we address that violence that perhaps is not defined by a declared conflict, but is really affecting the life of millions of people?

Okay, all right, Elia.

Yeah, since there is no script, I will a bit twist the question. I actually want to say what I think region needs to learn from the UN.

Great. Oh, okay, great.

Uh, because, uh, the point is that Europe— and I more represent UNICEF region, which includes North America, Europe, and Central Asia, and some more random countries— and, uh, and, uh, actually, even in this most prosperous countries, when pandemic came, when armed conflicts comes— and so on and so forth, and we see that the system is not resilient and we need such kind of institutions. And the point is that we know that at the same time our region is responsible for more than 50% of regular budget of the UN. So, and what is happening right now, again, who is responsible for this reform, for this shrinking of UN processes, also of shrinking civic space within the UN. We understand that sometimes our colleagues who work with the Secretariat trying to make their best actually to include us, but it's just not possible because they are out of capacities. And I just want to say that, like, dear member states, you need to learn something. We had a We have this history already in the past with League of Nations. Do we want to repeat it or we actually learn something from this process? And now when we are in this type of crisis, when, I don't know, $2.9 trillion spent on military just last year, when European countries are growing their defense budgets again and again, shrinking civic space, underfunding development, sustainable development goals. And we are seeing it happening in front of our eyes so fast. Like, do we really want to live in this world? Do we want our children to live in this world? I don't want my child to live in this world, but unfortunately there is no alternative. But yeah, this is my question. So do, like, what, where do we spend our money? Where does it go? And at the same time, as I mentioned already, we have shrinking civic space. As you mentioned, I am facilitating with other colleagues stakeholder engagement around Voluntary National Review right now here at HLPF. And from year to year, we bring less people. We don't have money. We have visa issues. We cannot bring people to this country. We actually, even sometimes people come here, they are afraid to speak because they need to come back. So, like, this is really the reality, and I just in last 3— like last years we observe, like I'm trying to monitor this, like count how many speakers refused to speak, how many speakers didn't come, and so on and so forth. But this is what we are really observing. And my question is really to member states, like you usually say we are committed, we want civic space, we want civil society, but in reality we observe completely a different picture.

So how would you change that?

Oh, this is a really interesting question. Of course, we try to do advocacy at the national level where it's possible, because this is not possible everywhere. It— like, there in some context there is no civic space. But even where it's possible, it's still super difficult because we of course understand the reality and that we cannot just, you know, push for our agenda and ignoring everything what is happening in the world. But of course, we need to find the balance. We need to keep UN alive and efficient. We need to keep UN as an institution that provides safe space for civil society. Because if we are losing this space here, I don't know where we will have it. Because we all coming from different realities, and in some countries there is no space left. And people come here actually to speak and raise their voices, the last opportunity to actually do something. And if we are losing this space, then we really have a problem.

Okay, thank you, great point. In a moment I'm going to open up for a couple of questions from the audience, but I want to pick up on something that several of you have said, and it's this idea of global decisions that are grounded in local realities. In your regions, what does that look like? What is an example that that you can hold up that everyone can learn from and say, 'This is an example of where it works'? Anyone got one for me?

I want to change your question a bit and build on something that Nelia just said, and maybe come back to that. Okay. When we have I'll speak about the Commission on the Status of Women, for example, that addresses the issues of women around the world, and it's held here in New York every year, but access is denied to a lot of women from around the world. So maybe it's time to move the UNCSW away from New York and have it held in Africa, for example. That's a solution.— and Africa does not lack the space to hold— we held— Nudhara and I held a successful conference 2 years ago, bring it to Nairobi or take it somewhere else, but I think we cannot be having conversations where half of the participants— participants again— are missing, they are not partnering, and then In terms of local solutions, let me speak to the youth of Africa. Everyone talks about the youth of Africa, but we speak about the youth of Africa like it's just a good thing to have. What are we leaving the youth of Africa? Where are we taking their creativity, their innovation? Where are we taking their energy if we only use them as a statistic to show that Africa is a young continent? I think some of the local solutions would mean using that resource that is on the ground in the form of the young people of Africa, but the other solution is using the resources that sit in Africa, not exploiting at the expense of the African people, but using the resources to build on the infrastructure, to build on sustainable development, development imperatives for Africa. Okay, thank you.

Rosario, go ahead.

I really resonate with Carol on that, because I think it's a moment for our regions to have agency, to build their agency and regional responses. When you made a question on something that was regionally, I was just thinking, what can I bring to the conversation? But I thought about COVID response that really didn't work much in our region because we didn't— our nations didn't really work together, you know. And we were on the last— in the last part of the queue for vaccinations, for masks, for respirators because we were not working regionally, you know. And even though we have a diverse scope because the region is quite diverse, and we might have different threads of thought. I guess perhaps polarization didn't allow us to work together and build that agency, an original response to that situation that took the lives of many people. I also just wanted to point— or I was listening to Nelia, and she said that about the financing, you know. And I think sometimes we tend to listen that there is no money. But in fact, there is money. This year we just saw one person become a trillionaire. There is money. It's not well allocated. It's not well distributed. Among people, to respond to their needs and to the work that needs to be done in our territories and our nations, and to support institutions such as the UN to keep working to respond to those needs. So I guess that's where I stop.

Terrific. I actually want to invite any members of the audience who have a question for our panelists to put up your hand now. If you do, I'm gonna— I think we probably have time for maybe just depending on, uh, one question, probably one question. Lots of great points being made. Um, now if I call on you, here's what I want. I want you to stand up, a microphone will come to you. I want you to say your name,. I want you to say where you're from. I don't want any speeches. No thank you for being here. We know that you're happy to be here. I want you to respond to the question I asked you at the beginning in 20 seconds: what is your vision of the future of the UN? And then I want you to ask your question, and I'm going to be listening to make sure it ends with a question mark. Okay, so who has a question? A few hands went down at that point. Okay, this guy in the middle right here. Yes, in the blue— yes, you, sir. Yes, I think you had your hand up first, so let's run him a microphone. Here it comes. So remember, name, where you're from.

I'm Eduardo Barracho, I'm from Brazil. Day One, I want for the future is one where hope meets action., and we don't make empty promises, but we also deliver accountability and meaningful infrastructure and aid.

Terrific. That's a textbook response, everyone. Take note. Terrific. Eduardo, what's your question?

My question is mostly for Dr.—

sorry, Dr.— for Carole Di Rosero. Sorry for the pronunciation. In your vision, how do we reshape the bad vision that the Global South has about the United Nations, that sometimes they don't privilege us as much as other key players, and how do we avoid that those bad feelings get in the way to avoid good faith negotiations in the future, deals, etc.?

Great question. Thank you, Eduardo. Give Eduardo a round of applause. Clear on the question?

Yes. Great. Thank you, Eduardo. It's difficult to manage the feelings because they will persist so long as the reality does not change, but we must put the reality on the table. I think a lot of my colleagues have talked about the evidence from the ground needs to reflect, and that evidence needs to cover the five continents so that the Global South, the voices of the Global South, is heard, and it is heard not from a tokenistic perspective, but it is heard from a place of informing what will come out of the processes. The member states of the UN, I think, have— operate on an equal footing. That is the textbook understanding that we have. So we would like that the voices of civil society in the Global South— and I repeat, that civil society is more than member states, so the voice of civil society needs to be heard and needs to affect the decisions that are coming out of the processes here in the UN. And we know that for a lot of the processes, including the Pact for the Future, there was space for civil society to bring its voice to the table, and we must continually take advantage of that. The challenge we have is around the physical presence here in the UN, and that is continually becoming more and more restrictive, and that's why we need to find alternatives of where to have the physical meetings. We also know that civil society space is shrinking around the globe, and I think it behooves the UN to speak truth to these issues so that member states are held accountable in terms of how civil society access is given, how human rights protection is done, because we hear very many stories around the globe and in Africa. We have very, very many cases of human rights violations, yet when the member states come to to the UN, we don't see those issues being surfaced in ways that then reflect for civil society back home. So that would be my short response to your question.

Okay, that's terrific.

Panel, did you want to add to that, Rosario? I can give you 30 seconds if you want to, but you don't have to. Okay, all right. Panel, I think we're going to have to kind of wrap it up there. Mr. Secretary-General, what have you heard that's triggered something for you, that's given you food for thought here?

Well, I think that the key mission of United Nations must be the democratization of power, and democratization of power at all levels. First, this is an intergovernmental organization and governments do whatever they can to limit the participation of civil society. And one thing I am— in my political formation, I was very influenced by Habermas, and Habermas used to say that, or wrote that, what is typical of democracy more than elections or things is the permanent interflow of communication between the political society and the civil society, and the fact —that the civil society has an influence on the decisions that are taken. And this is the question that we need to fight for within the UN and at the level of the different countries in a moment in which we are seeing a pushback against this capacity of the civil society to have a real influence in the way decisions are making and be the— I would say the destination have the accountability that governments should be entitled to respect. So this is the question we are fighting, and in the Pact for the Future we strengthen the role of civil society within the mechanisms that we were able to create. We also insisted on the power of the cities and regional organizations within the UN system. Again, big resistance from member states, but we need to decentralize power at that level. Second level of decentralization of power that was mentioned here— democratization of power— is the primacy given to the local and the regional, because it is at the local and the regional that problems are felt, and that at local and regional level problems are solved. And that is the reason why the central aspect of the reform that we are proposing in UN Haiti is the strengthening of UN capacity at country level and at regional level, because we were not very well organized, let's be honest, and not able to do the kind of request for accountability at local level in relation to the governance, but also at regional level and at the same time to have an influence coming from our country teams in the policies that the UN defines at global level. And then there is a third question of power that is extremely important, which is the power that is very concentrated in the world in relation to a group of countries that is dominant in today's world, and it's not only the North-South relation, it's more than that, but it's essentially still a North-South relation. And there I must say that was our big fight in the Pact for the Future. We fought for the reform of the Security Council and we are fighting for the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions. If you look at the World Bank and the IMF and the Security Council, they represent the world of 1945, not the world of today, and developing countries have a much smaller role than developed countries in the Security Council and also in the World Bank or in the IMF or in many other international institutions. And at the same time, the way markets are organized is such that it makes developing countries have a lot of obstacles to be able to develop. For instance, in my country, if you want to invest, we pay interests that are one-third of the interest paid by countries in Africa that have the same rigorous policy that I believe still exists in my country. I'm not there now, but this is the truth. I mean, the economic power is concentrated on a reduced number of countries and we must democratize the economic power. And then gender power. It's a question of power. I mean, women and men, they must have the same level of power and we manage in the UN to have full parity in 160 level— high-ranking leaders of the UN. Our country teams, the resident coordinators, more than 50% are women. They were 30-something just a few years ago. And the same applies today. Of the whole international staff, 47% is already women. So this was a determined policy in order to give women opportunities. And we did not discriminate in favor of women. What we discovered is if there is— if there are real opportunities for women, the women candidates tend to get a very fair share in the way organizations are compounded. And then fight for power in relation to the protection of the planet. Just one week and a half or two weeks ago, I made a very strong intervention in which I put to question the power of fossil fuel industry that is being a tremendous obstacle to the transition that is necessary to rescue the planet. Just a few days ago in the AI Summit, the question of the power of a small group of countries and a small group of companies that are having the capacity to decide things about our lives that sometimes we don't even notice that this is happening. And so I think one of the roles of the UN is on all these fronts and inside to fight for a real democratization of power. Power in relation to the guarantees of the civil society intervention as partners and not only as, I would say, participants. Power— in relation to the— from bottom up capacity to take decisions, power in relation to equity and justice, in relation to the inequalities that exist in the world, power in gender, power in the protection of nature against the fossil fuels, and power in the protection of ourselves in relation to the power that today is exercised by a small number of companies in a small number of countries with the use of artificial intelligence.

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to invite you to say a big thank you to our first panel, and panel, I'm going to invite you to step off the stage now. Let's thank them. No, no, no, you stay. And we'll bring our second panel onto the stage, and then while we do that, Mr Secretary-General, seeing as it's just you and I right now, you know, I was talking to a couple of people before this event and people are dying to know: what are you most looking forward to doing on January 1st, 2027?

I have no idea. I have no idea.

Are you looking forward to switching off your time?

I am totally concentrated in the pre-31st of December. Okay, alright. And if I start thinking now about what I will do after the 1st of January, I will fail in what needs to be done now until the 31st of December.

Okay, very skillfully done. Okay, thank you.

It's not skillful, it's true.

Even more skillful. Okay, and our second panel has joined us. So in this conversation, we're going to take a look now at the three pillars of the UN: sustainable development, human rights, and peace and security, and how more systematic collaboration with civil society can support better integrated action across those pillars. In our first panel, we talked about democratization of power, democratization of decision-making, making sure that civil society voices were not tokenistic at the UN. Let's think about how more systematic collaboration could actually help deliver across the three pillars of the UN. Another terrific panel. Great to see you. Thank you for joining us. Let's meet them one by one. Renata Giuliotti is a— has brought her fans— is a Sustainable Development Advisor at Geledes, Black Women Institute in Brazil, and focuses on human rights, sustainable development, inclusive humanitarian communication, and disability studies. She serves as Secretariat for the People of African Descent Stakeholder group. Anselmo Lee is Regional Coordinator of the Asia Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development from South Korea. He has spent 3 decades working to advance democratic resilience, human rights, peace, and sustainable development. And in May, he was appointed South Korea's first Human Rights, Peace, and Democracy Ambassador. Aissata Ndiaye is from Senegal and France, Senior Policy Advisor with Inclusion and Disability Sightsavers Together 2030. Her work focuses on advancing disability-inclusive policies and strengthening social protection systems, and she supported more than 40 voluntary national reviews. And Emilia Reyes, Program Director of Equidad de Género Ciudadanía, Trabajo y Familia in Mexico. How did I do? Um, she brings an anti-colonialist and anti-migrant imperialist lens to her work on sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and autonomy by and for the Global South, and she co-leads the Ecological and Climate Finance Working Group in the Civil Society Financing for Development mechanism. What a panel! Let's welcome them. So, panel, you heard the first set of speakers and you know the first question: 20 seconds each. Let's go down the line. What is your vision of the future United Nations?

Well, I don't want to sound very repetitive, but of course a very inclusive, participatory UN for all, and a co-creative UN. We want a UN that civil society can co-create, not only participate, be in the room, but co-create with member states, with UN agencies, and inclusive and anti-racist mandates.

Okay.

For me, UN need to be open, inclusive, democratic platform, not controlled by few powerful countries, open to all the key actor. As Secretary-General highlighted, it's not only member state but also local and cities and civil society as well, so it belongs to all. I think that should be the vision of UN in the future.

Yes, for me, the ideal UN, the UN of the future, is the UN who really— which really starts by the furthest behind, the UN which has asserted itself enough so that when power overrides It can actually have the authority to stop those powers that override, and it's a UN which is a lot more powerful because it has completely included civil society in its processes.

Thank you. For me, I envision an institution that is carrying out what I call UN disobedience against monopoly capital capture, colonialism, imperialism, and that also is not willing to dismember itself to in front of and bow down to power.

Great question. Great responses, panel. Let's move on to the themes of this discussion. Really, it's how I introduced it, you know, how can more systematic collaboration with civil society support integrated action across those three pillars: peace and security, sustainable development, and human rights? And, you know, if possible, I'd love for you to respond with actual examples, if you have of where that systematic collaboration— where you've seen it happen successfully, or where a lack of it has demonstrated things going backwards. Who wants to kick off? Renata, you have a microphone, you're nodding. I think you have something.

Let's go. Um, before I give, uh, example, I would like to just mention that these three pillars, they are currently being treated as separate mandates, but they are lived as, as one reality, actually, because sustainable development— it's in— there is no sustainable development development where rights are denied. And no durable peace where inequality is left unaddressed. So that must be said before any example. I will give one example where I address— is a good practice, actually, I think, A good practice is always good to kick off with. A good practice from a member state, from Brazil, the country I come from. We do have an SDG, a voluntary SDG, SDG 18, on racial justice and ethnicity, and this is a good example example of a practice for racial justice. Of course, it must be more promoted globally, but is an objective of development that is testing the limits of the architecture, the current architecture. And it must— it has many inequalities, of course, But race is kept as a secondary or diffuse. So that's an example of how address race throughout the whole architecture. So maybe a good example of practice. But— and also race as a gap. Throughout the sustainable development and something that we need to work on for the post-2030 agenda. Super interesting, thank you.

Okay, these three pillars— security, sustainable development, human rights— these are three agenda and values of the United Nations according to Charter, but in reality, as you know, security by Security Council and social development by ECOSOC and HLPF and human rights by Human Rights Council over there in Geneva, so there is fragmentation. There is no interconnectedness among three. This is one of the challenges we need to address. For instance, this is a very good forum for dialogue with the Secretary-General,. But can you imagine this type of dialogue with the P5 in the Security Council chamber? That I think is one of the challenges we need to address, because as many people stress today, the financing gap for social development is one of the key challenges, but we know where all the money is going. Since 2022, the breakout of war in Ukraine, we see the reduction of ODA and shrinking civic space, and this is the common challenge. It's a global phenomenon. Unless we address this problem, so-called military spending and militarization, I think we cannot address this silo approach of three pillars. So I think we need to strengthen really the role of UN General Assembly, which can oversee three pillars. Rather than Security Council control all other pillars. I think that should be the key challenge we need to address.

Thank you. Okay, Aisatou.

Thank you. I think we are at a defining moment with the UNHCR reform, the new mandate resolution, and it is the— It's really the biggest system reform that we've seen in decades, including for human rights, and at a time of heightened geopolitical tension and shrinking resources, shrinking resources for human rights. And so with that, I think it is very important to keep the human rights active and at the center. Human rights— from a human rights perspective, integrated, genuine integrated action across peace and security, sustainable development, human rights can only occur with civil society because it is civil society that connects the pillars together. It brings ground-level evidence on inequality, on exclusion, on rights violations. It brings early signals in, in terms of human rights risk and linking those risks to to conflict, and it also calls for accountability, which ultimately strengthens the development outcome. So we need to— for me, we need to start with civil society because it's really what connects the pillars together. And so for that to happen, we need to institutionalized civil society collaboration. We need to make it permanent and predictable. What would that mean practically, differently? So it would mean putting in place structured and accessible participation channels. It would mean provide the information which is needed for civil society to engage, because you were talking about examples. Sometimes we don't know when the process is going to start, at which moment we can be part of the process, and so that means that we are just relying on Friendly Mission to communicate the information. And so, yes, we really need to make that information circulated and make sure that we can then provide the different inputs that we would like to provide without asking for it every time. That we need to do it. So in some instances, we have co-facilitators who are really open, and we can submit the inputs that we would like to submit, and it works well. In some instances, we have to push. We don't want to push. We don't want to push anymore. We want it to be, you know, really a part of the process we want, As it's been said in the previous panel, we want to be— we want to have the same strength as another member states. And then in terms of the fact that human rights are at risk, we are really calling for the fact that the UN reform must include a non-regression principle. And be informed by human rights assessments.

What does that look like?

What does that mean? So for example, within the UNAT process, there is a human rights group that have been founded. There are TORs that have been issued. We weren't invited to contribute to those T-awards. We would like this human rights group to work with civil society, not for civil society, or worse, only for member states. Right? So that's one example. The other example is—

Don't worry about that.

Thank you, SG. But also the UN Data Common, We would like it to be an inclusive, multi-stakeholders public goods. We want inclusion to happen on two levels with the UN Data Commons. First, citizen-generated data, disaggregated ones, age, sex, disability, etc. And second, we want that information to be available for all. So what does that mean? It's available for the Global South. It's available for the woman with a visual impairment who wants to have access to the data to then influence its own government. And so, yes, maybe let's, let's stop here for, for here. But really looking at success through the lens of inclusion.

Terrific. Terrific points. Okay, Amelia.

Thank you.

I think civil society here, despite their better judgment and despite the context, all the people that is here is the big cheerleader for the UN. We really wanted to make— to see it thrive even in this apocalyptic context in which we are living an economy of war and actually has been denounced an economy of genocide. By a human rights reporter exactly serving under the UN human rights bodies. And I think it's quite scary to be talking about data and what we want to participate when the world is almost on the verge of an ecocidal end of life as we know it, just precisely because of the action of these actors that are just profiting And there is an alliance of power that is very perverse that is also undermining life here in the UN. We know that the budget of the UN is 5 times less just than the city of New York. And so with that, it is operating, addressing all of the challenges around the world. So to us, really, we just wanted to say, when I was saying about the UN disobedience, is that we know that there is this modus here saying that the UN caters to member states. But at this moment in time, we really want to see that the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. We really want to see a UN that stands up to power, that calls out genocidal actors, that really defends rather than undermines the acts, for instance, on people facing HIV/AIDS. So this is something that we want to see with hope, the UN, but we want to see a UN that is not acting against its own interests. For instance, in alliance with corporate power, or for instance, when it has a mandate on environment and they announce that they're gonna open data banks on AI in each region when we know that those banks are depleting water, depleting land, and they're actually demanding an increase on fossil fuels energy. So the UN has to stick to its values, has to be coherent, and for that we are just asking for political leadership. We are asking also to hear that, as other panelists have said, that civil society is very much on the side of the UN. We would wish that it would listen more to citizens than power and money.

Terrific, thank you. I'm going to come to the audience in a second, but I want to do a quick follow-up with our panelists, and you don't all have to respond if you don't want to. I just wonder if you think that there's anything that civil society organizations need to do differently as well.

Everyone's gone quiet. I want to say what shouldn't happen in the world in a new order with the UN that is weakened. Because there is a difference to the IFIs, the international financial institutions, and we just want to say that even human rights reporters are in agreement that all of those mandates are regressive and that they are against the human rights mandates of the UN. So there are just recently in April this year, the International— the I'm sorry, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it literally said it invited states to rebel and to refuse to abide by the recommendations of IFIs if they are guarding and promoting violations of human rights, of the rights of the people, that are discriminatory, that are promoting austerity measures, and that are even undermining the life and the fiscal space. So I think the UN has to be very clear that, first of all, that we really, we see the struggle within the UN. We would wish that it would hold its own sovereignty and autonomy to struggle within itself and not giving power to even those that are undermining the human rights framework and the principles that the UN would uphold. And second, we would also like to see that the UN would lead on the democratization of the international financial architecture. Architecture to really deliver on a care economy, on the rights of a healthy environment, we would like to see that they are working hand in hand with us and we would be there for it rather than criticizing the UN. So I think that would solve the final part of my answer, what you're asking.

Okay, I'm not sure it answers the question, but great points. Does anybody want to answer that question about whether there's anything that civil society organisations need to do differently?

Already we have been doing differently and I believe— we used to say civil society implement as a partner, in fact implementer, but civil society these days we are saying we are co-creators and we are setting agenda together and also as a strategic partner, but at the same time set agenda for the future. For instance, today, title of this special panel is 'We the People: Reshaping the Future of UN', but I would like to propose to change the title. If we do have this session next year with the new Secretary-General, instead of 'We the People', we need to add 'We the People, Nature and Future Generations'. This is in line with the Pact for the Future, So that means civil society is not to implement what has been agreed, but also we are creating new vision and new agenda for the future. So that's why I think the government need to listen to civil society because we are the people who work on the ground to listen to people and also listen to nature and the future generation. I think that kind of role of civil society need to be recognized and emphasized by the UN and the member states. So, in other words, because we have also practicing human rights-based approach and also sustainability-based approach and also the conflict-sensitive approach, but this is nothing new. This has been agreed with UN agencies, but we are the forefront to implement those approaches to avoid the silo among the security and sustainable development and human rights. I think we have a lot of experience, but the question is whether member states listen to our wisdom and solutions.

Okay, all right, thank you. Let's get— you wanted to jump in on that?

Yeah, quickly just complement what my colleagues said. I think we need a standing channel partnership, really, collaborative— space. When we say co-creation, it's co-creation within civil society, UN entities, academia. It is a true co-creation that we can think of means of implementation, not only thinking as civil society alone, as UN entities alone, as academia alone, but co-creating together. I think that's what we need actually happening and thinking of a framework that will integrate all of that.

Okay, terrific. Thanks, panel. Okay, I'm going to open it up to the audience. I'm probably going to have time for just one question. Actually, let's get that young lady right at the back there with the glasses on. Yes, that's right. Yeah, you. Let's see if we can run a mic to you. Where's the microphones? Okay, they're over there. And do you remember, Eduardo over here did such a great job. Name, where you're from, your vision for the future of the UN, and then your question.

Hi everyone, I'm Uma Hardeo. I'm a youth advocate, and I think we've had— we've heard a lot of discussions about the vision of the— for the UN in the future, but we haven't talked about youth and the future generation. So what is your vision of that And I think our future— the future vision of that should be more spaces, more accessible spaces for civil society, including youth, to have a space at the table, to have to be able to talk about the issues that they see in their everyday environments. We see in New York City and all over the world these youth organizations doing incredible work around climate change and different sustainable development goals, but they don't have the access that a lot of us privileged youth are able to have in the UN. And my question to the panel as well is also how do we change the conferences like—

excuse me—

conferences like this one as well as just UN space in general to be more inclusive to youth and to not forget youth in discussions but making sure that they're included both in official meetings, special events, and in the UN in general?

Okay. Yes. I will just, before panel, I invite any of you to respond to that, I'll just remember back in 2019 when I was at the UN Foundation, it's when we had the Youth Climate Summit. That was an amazing day, but 800 young people from around the world just roaming the halls like they owned the place, because they owned the place. It was such an amazing moment. So that's the kind of thing you'd love to see again. Okay, panel, what about some responses to that? How do we make the UN more inclusive, more welcoming systematically for young voices?

Um, we—

the Pact for the Future brings this perspective very clearly, the intergenerational aspect, and also how, how important the youth is for the next, the next generations. But also what we build today will set the tone for these future generations. So what we do today to set the tone for these generations, for the youth So bringing how also the young colleague said, bringing them to the table, bringing them to the room to be able to co-create with us, that's very important. But especially I want to mention, especially youth from marginalized groups because they are usually not part of the conversation. African youth from communities of African descent, disabled youth and indigenous and so on, so that's very important.

Okay, very briefly, I stress the vision of the UN should be the open platform, so in this, so I think I want to highlight 2 or 3 how. Number 1 is, as Secretary-General mentioned, next week we are going to have a VNR, but at the same time we have a VLI, local review. That means a lot of cities, local governments have been participating in the SDGs. I think we need to encourage more, and also we need to institutionalize the participation of the local government in the process. Number 2, there has been already a campaign by civil society society to include the parliamentary. We have a parliamentary assembly and the People's Assembly, especially the petition. That means, like many countries already practicing the petition mechanism, so if we bring the voice, you know, opinion to UN General Assembly, they should be able to address all the people's voice directly. I think these are the two concrete examples we have been campaigning, but still many member states did not listen. Seriously all this campaign. And also, lastly, I would like to highlight the Secretary General, the role of leadership, especially UN Secretary General. I was last week in Jeju Forum and the 6 candidates out of 7, they were there. I was listening with a lot of young people like this and they were very excited because they have a chance to raise a question with the 6 candidates. But there was a Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary General, your predecessor, he said, "I'm jealous of you, but also I'm worried about you because once day one you are elected, selected, you will be the scapegoat. Secretary General is a scapegoat." So he got kind of the warning to the most dangerous job in the world, UN Secretary General. Okay, so my point is, but young people are very They were frustrated after they knew that they cannot influence the UN Secretary-General election process. They knew that it's going to be decided by few powerful countries. I think we need to really democratize the leadership selection process. I think that's one of the key to address all these challenges. Okay, thank you.

Amelia, thank you for waiting patiently.

I think the request of participation is not a matter of format but of substance. And if the people, the aging population, the people with chronic illness, the people with disability, if they are demanding access, it's because the system is not right and those that are here keep on making the same decisions over and over that are exploiting them and plundering their territories. So I think it is very important to be mindful again what are the ways in which the UN can support the changing of the system, because inclusion in a system that is ecocidal and genocidal is actually a complicity in and of itself. So I just want to really say that, for instance, what we want— the youth have been manifesting against genocide across the world, and they want to come here to say that the UN on the one hand has been securitizing every single issue, while at the same time undermining the development agenda. But they want to say here that there are other ways in which they can feel safe, they can feel at ease in their lands, the same as indigenous peoples. So again, our proposal, for instance, is last year the president of Colombia called for a Uniting for Peace resolution because they're trying to find ways in which the Security Council can be unblocked and bring back the democratization and the sovereignty, the power to the General Assembly to decide on so many things, and that proposal wasn't taken up on. So there are many things that if people want to hear us lay their voices and then their voices of changing the system and not remaining in the system that keeps on exploiting them is not heard, then the format really doesn't matter. I think This is an issue again in which civil society will be rallying along the UN to get the strongest UN, as long as the UN is already delivering and not standing complicit with those genocidal and ecocidal actors.

Okay.

Aissata, if you want to— I can give you 30 seconds if you want to.

If I only have 30 seconds. 30 seconds, I would say to your question, just continue to do the same. I want to end up on a positive note, and if I compare the first year I came to the UN to today, there are a lot of youth going around, a lot more than other groups. So I think you've done well. Just continue to push and to implement the same strategies as the one that you've implemented until now, and yes, let's continue to push for that co-creation to be.

Mr. Secretary-General, what are your thoughts on what you've heard in this panel?

Well, first of all, the question of the three pillars. What is fashionable now is to listen to some countries and to say the UN must concentrate concentrate on its core business, and the core business of the UN is peace and security. These questions of development or human rights, they are not for the UN. The UN must concentrate on peace and security, and this is nonsense. And it's nonsense because peace and security, sustainable and inclusive development, and respect and promotion of human rights are three faces of the same coin, if we could have a coin with three faces. Because, I mean, there is no way you can guarantee peace and security if there is no development, if the contradictions within countries increase because of the inequalities that exist, because of the exploitation that exists. And again, there is no development and no peace if the human rights are not respected. But human rights— let's be clear about one thing.— and it's not always clear— human rights are not only civil and political rights. Human rights are also economic, social, and cultural rights. And one of the problems that many times exists, especially in, I would say, the Western part of the world, is to put a lot of emphasis on the questions of civil and political rights, but to forget the questions of economic, social, and cultural rights. And we need to look at human rights in its entirety because they are indivisible and they are totally interconnected. Now, obviously there is a question which is normally there are people dealing with one issue, people dealing with another, and one thing that was said is absolutely true. Our biggest effort is to bring the pillars together and one of the objectives UNAID is exactly to bring the pillars together at country level, at regional level, and at national level. And it's not easy because people like to be in their chapel and the idea that they are in the cathedral is not so easy, you know. Each chapel by itself, but we need to be all in the same cathedral. And this is the fight we are having now and one of the objectives of the UNAID. There was an observation that I consider extremely important, which is the need to have a coherent anti-racism policy. And I— and obviously racism existed during different periods for different reasons, but there is a dominant reason for racism today, and that dominant reason has to do with the evolution in the last few centuries and with colonialism and its consequences. And I am totally at ease because my country was a colonialist country, so I know exactly what I'm talking about. And of course colonialism was in itself responsible for many aspects, but always submitted to this idea of the superiority of the white and the superiority of the Christian civilization. And we know that today this doesn't make any sense, but it is still, still there in the mentality of many people that of course say, "I am not racist," but I mean, they do not really have an introspection serious enough about that. And of course the worst part of colonialism was the transatlantic slave trade. And that is one of the reasons why racism is still so intense in a number— a meaningful number of countries. And this is an area that for us is a priority in our work, is to fight any form of racism anywhere. We have our own strategy, but it's not enough because this is a persistent aspect and colonialism has to a certain extent shaped the economies, the structures of the countries that became independent, but they became independent with infrastructure that was not to link the African, for instance, countries among themselves, but to exploit African resources and take them out of the continent. There were no administrations that were solidly created. There was no investment in education and in the health and all. And so these impacts of colonialism last for decades and the problems of the Afro-descendants in the areas where slavery was important also create a structural inequality that tends to persist and needs to be fought with determination. And this is one of our major concerns. The last One point I wanted to make and about what was said in relation to the situations that are in the world, there is one thing I can tell you. One thing is the Security Council and the Security Council does what the Security Council can do and I'm not going to enter into many details because you are all aware of what's happening. But the UN is not the Security Council and in relation to the things that are happening in Ukraine, or the things that are happening in Gaza, or the things that are happening in Sudan, we have been very clear condemning all violations of territorial integrity of states, condemning all forms of massacre, dramatic violations of human rights, in some cases with marks of genocide. Both the Human Rights High Commissioner and myself have been very clear recently with what happened in the Middle East. In the Security Council, I condemned the attack by the United States and Israel, and I also condemned the attack by Iran to the other countries of the Gulf that were not the ones that attacked them. So— and we have been very careful not to have double standards. And to make sure that wherever there is a serious violation of human rights, we are on the right side of history. And these— I can guarantee that for us, the fidelity to international law, the fidelity to the respect for territorial integrity of states, and the fidelity to the rights of people, and the need to preserve especially the protection of civilians in situations of conflict is something that we have very high in our priorities. And the truth is that we have been very strongly attacked because of the positions we have taken. I mean, if you— you can read many interesting things about myself by some countries that I will not mention now, and I don't care because this is the price we pay to be coherent, and the same happens to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I believe we must also say that the UN, at the level of the Secretariat, has consistently been on the right side of history in the dramatic crisis that we have been facing in the last few years.

Okay. Folks, let's keep it going and let's thank our panel. What a terrific second panel. Thank you. Please. And let's bring out our third panel as well for the afternoon. And while they're doing that, Mr. Secretary-General, some great points made in that panel, and it also just makes me wonder, what is the one thing that you're going to miss most about this place?

The one thing I'm going to miss more, and I'm already missing because I have done much more when I was High Commissioner for Refugees, is the capacity to go to the most remote places in the world where people are suffering the most incredible situations and to be able to do something to alleviate their plight.

Well, let's see what you do next.

I have no idea, as I told you. I didn't get any idea in the last 20 minutes.

You didn't? Okay.

Okay, our third panel has joined us. Let me tell you a little about this panel. So this is our chance to think big as we kind of start to approach the end of our time together this afternoon, to think big about the vision for the future of the UN, and then to map out the path from the Pact of the Future to UNAT to get to that vision. So let's meet our guests. I'm going to introduce them, and then again, I invite you to give some applause once I've introduced them all. Rashima Quatra is a feminist governance and advocacy leader. She's brought her fan club as well. Let's hold it till the end. She's a feminist governance and advocacy leader who works to ensure that multilateral spaces are shaped by those most affected by inequality, not just those who govern them. And she's also co-chair of the UN Major Groups and Other Stakeholders Coordination Mechanism. Wambui Kamani from Kenya, Pan-African feminist, thought leader, and the founder of Zamara Foundation, strengthening the voices of women and girls in marginalized communities, and also a member of the Women's Major Group on Africa. I did tell them to clap at any time, it's my fault. Ali Jalani from Pakistan, specializes in policy advocacy with a focus on climate justice, decoloniality, democratic governance, human rights, and sustainable development. And he's also a member of the Asia-Pacific Regional CSOs Engagement Mechanism. And Nudhara Yusof is co-chair of the Coalition for the UN We Need, a platform of more than 650 organizations, and with a track record also of strengthening networks —the want to make multilateralism and the UN more representative. Now you can clap. Panel, there are guiding questions for this conversation as well, but as the Secretary-General has told us, we're going to throw the script away. But I do want to get you all to start off with this one question that I've asked everybody. 20 seconds each. What is your vision for the UN of the future?

Rashma, let's start with you.

Yeah, thank you. My vision for a United Nations of the future is one that truly lives up to the first three words of its Charter, which is 'We the People.' We've spent the last 80 years building this institution around governments alone. I think somewhere along the way we forgot who who it was meant to serve.

Great.

And let's remember, it's "we the peoples" with an S.

"We the peoples" with an S. For me, really, my vision of the UN is a place where decisions are made with the peoples and not for the peoples, where, when you think about a young girl in Kilifi, rural area of Kenya, you know, ecofeminist in Brazil, a disability rights movement worker in Guatemala, that when they come to the UN, the policies are not already made. The policies are made for them with their lived realities, by their lived realities. That the young person who spoke here and the 10-year-old who is sitting in this room today can actually see that these policies are for them and by them and they're able to shape them. So that, for me, is the vision for the UN.

Any of those people you talked about, you?

Yeah, me included, of course.

I wondered if maybe you were that 10-year-old.

No, there is a 10-year-old here as well.

Oh, right. Yes. Oh, hi.

Okay, if we have time for any questions at the end, I'm definitely going to come to you as well. Hold me accountable. Okay, Ali.

Let me quote Rawls: 'Justice is the foremost virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.' The UN of the future for me would be the one that delivers that justice by dismantling unequal power relations, decolonize global governance, and deliver on its foundational promise across the three pillars.

That's a great sentence. Decolonize global governance, that's a really good sentence. I like that.

Okay, Nadhara. Tough, tough act to follow after all of these visions. People clap anyway. Thank you. These are friends. But can I first, Rajesh, just I would just add, SG, you are always welcome to civil society if you need a plan for what comes next. And I will say, over the last 10 years, I think many people have been working here over the last 10 years, being able to produce an event like this, which is not so much a farewell but a welcome to civil society from us, I think is a testament to the avenues that continue to progress. But of course, there is always room for more. On your question, Rajesh, 4 very quick things. One, a UN that recognizes that its comparative advantage in multilateralism is middle power agency. Two, a UN that is far more future forward. Three, a UN that is visibly present in people's lives again. And four, a UN that knows when it doesn't need to ask permission.

Interesting. Okay, terrific. If we have time, I'd love to unpack that last one, but let's return to where we started, which is considering the Pact for the Future and the UNAT Initiative. What actions, panel, do you think that if they were taken today can best ensure that we deliver on the visions that you want to see for present and future generations? You know, we sort of have a roadmap, which is the Pact for the Future, which, you know, one of the greatest things about it is that it was actually passed in a time of incredible division, and then the UNAT Initiative as well. What are the concrete actions—I'd love you to be as specific as possible—that, if we take those now, are going to set us on that path for the visions of the future that you want to see? And there's a lot of similarity in the visions that we've heard today, for sure. Who wants to go first on that? No one's jumping in.

Sure, I can, I can jump in with a couple thoughts. Again, I think 3 kind of general ideas and pathways, right? First, I think we— one of the brilliant things that the Pact and Summit negotiations did, I think, was create a horizontal across civil society beyond the thematic verticals that we're used to organizing around, but actually people thinking about UN reform, the future of the UN, the global governance system. I think that really powerful horizontal constituency needs to be built on and continue to move forward. Second, I think we need to be careful about not creating competing agendas, but rather thinking about how all of the agendas fit together. So you take the Pact for the Future, UN80, the Sustainable Development Goals— they're all different parts of the same 'what,' right? The SDGs are what we need to do to deliver for humanity. The Pact for the Future is what multilateralism needs to be to get us there, and UN80 is what the UN needs to be in that multilateral system. So I think that it's about thinking about how the whole fits together, because we're playing for the same objectives. And finally, I think beyond, you know, looking at asking what we need to do, which I think is really important, and civil society has a very powerful role in putting the ask forward. I think we as civil society need to be very future-forward, which requires us to track and monitor and gather the data and plug in gaps where it's missing. Coalition for the UN We Need and the Global Governance Innovation Network have been tracking and monitoring the Pact for the Future, so have many other civil society organizations. Those are just two I work with. And I think we need We need to then look at what are member states not yet talking about but will need to talk about, like the 2028 review of the Pact for the Future. What is the framework for that? Like what happens when we get to 2027, uh, to 2029, to 2030? And I think really one of the things civil society has is the privilege of long-term thinking, which many other actors don't. And I think We really have to be the strategic pillar that is constantly looking forward and getting people to look forward and not just respond to what's already happened.

Do you really think that civil society organizations have that luxury, forward thinking, at a time when there's such challenge to civil society organizations?

I think many of the folks on this panel will speak to this, because it is a real concern, and the space is being squeezed. The problem is that— Many people in a time of crisis want to see impact and delivery and results, which means the way that we value success is the number of meals delivered, the number of children that receive education, and that's important, but no one is measuring success through systems design. No one is measuring success in prevention. No one is measuring the pandemics and wars that didn't happen. Which disadvantages civil society that works on systems, systems that work on systems. And so I think it is a call for how do we define success in the 21st century? How do we ensure that yes, those meals get delivered on the ground, but we're also fixing the food system? That yes, there are vaccines delivered, and it's great that the Gates Foundation wants to put some lots of money into delivering vaccines, but who's fixing the healthcare system and who's funding them to do that? And how are we measuring impact in that way? I think that is something that is not a civil society problem, it's not a UN problem, it's an us problem that we have to address together.

Very interesting. Okay, I'm going to break it up. I'm going to avoid going down the line again. You picked up the mic, Reshma, so you go.

I was just going to build a little bit on what Nudhara said, which is around, you know, what are the infrastructures that we're building for implementation? I think one of those things that I've said earlier, and I've heard all of my colleagues also say, is around institutionalizing participation. We have incredible roadmaps, we have the SDGs, we have the Pact for the Future, we have all of these great ambitions, and right now what we need we need to do, of course, is implement. And part of that is recognizing, as the SG also said, that we need partnerships, and that means partnerships with civil society. I think we come to the UN all the time negotiating where we belong in civil society. In every negotiation, whether in the halls of the UN now for the SDGs or the Pact for the Future, we don't know where we belong, and we need to institutionalize civil society participation at every point of the UN's engagement and delivery. And I think that's how we're really going to shift this modality from thinking only about governments and bringing it down locally to the people and building that accountability that we need to see.

My colleague has sparked a thought in my mind, and before I go to answer your question, and she mentioned in terms of What does the UN success really look like and how can you be able to also decolonize what success really looks like? And for me, and going back to the first question around what the vision of the UN is, for me, the vision for the UN that I would want when it comes to measuring of success is not about how many protocols or resolutions we have adopted. It's about are communities safer for the girls walking in in the night? You know, are women exercising their bodily autonomy? Is the civic space democratic? Are people able to really engage in their civic spaces within the countries and in this space? And, you know, if we're able to measure success in that way, we will know that, you know, then we are able to really ensure that then we are really trusting the multilateral system to deliver that. That then the measuring is not about are we able to get 10, 50 adoption of resolutions, but is my sister living in Afghanistan able to actually go to school and sit in class and actually finish education and become a doctor if she wants to do that? Is my brother able to actually go and enroll in, for example, a police system and he doesn't go to die just because of, you know, because of some of the flawed policies that our countries have. For me, really, we also need to start decolonizing in terms of how we really do measurement. But then, back to your question around the road to building for Pact of the Future, and I had 3 points and I don't want to speak so much, but I'll say, For us to be able to deliver UN80 and the pact of the future, we've already started hearing this conversation around making sure that then the women and girls and gender-diverse people are at the center of every reform and every decision. You know, the first panel spoke about it, the second panel spoke about it, and we are also speaking about it. It means that the reforms that we have are happening at the UN system are not really putting women, girls, and peoples, with the peoples, at the center of us. So I think it's high time for us to be able to do that if we are to really deliver on the Pact of the Future. Secondly, we also must be able to put people at the center of the multilateral system. What feminists have been saying for such a long time, we like the UN, We have seen, you know, amazing achievement that the UN has done over the years, but now we know that we have to make reforms, and one of the biggest issue has been that, you know, people do not trust the UN. We have lost that trust, so this next 80 years that we are working on this multilateral system, we need to start building that trust back, brick by brick, And how are we going to do that? By putting the peoples, we the peoples, at the center of that. So that's my second point. And then my last point, last point that I have is that, you know, the reform must protect human rights while at the same time really investing in prevention. Most of the time when, you know, human rights are being violated, we work to go and protect the human rights that are already being violated. We are not putting, you know, time and investment in prevention. So we want the UN that is more efficient, fit for purpose, but also the UN that really continues to think about the human rights, which they've already done that, but to really strengthen that piece of work. And last but not least, and I know one of my colleagues will call me out if I don't say this, and this is to you, really,— and allow me to read, please. Mr. Secretary-General, and as my colleague calls you, the feminist-in-chief, as you lead this reform, I hope you remember that this legacy is about— I hope its greatest legacy will not be remembered for how efficient we reformed the institution, but for whether we restored restored the people's confidence that multilateralism can deliver justice, dignity, and hope. Because ultimately, as you come back to us in 2027, hopefully, the future of the United Nations will not be defined by how long it endures, but whether the people around all over the world once believed again that this UN system, this multilateral system really belongs to them, really believes in their human rights, and really puts their safety, dignity, and justice at the heart of it. Thank you.

It's that constant battle between measuring output and measuring impact, real impact. It's not the number of agreements made, it's so what happened as a result of that. Totally. Okay, Ali.

Let me build on that. So in order to restore the credibility and faith and trust in multilateralism, that would mean that we need to ensure coherence and complementarity across purviews, pillars, and processes. I'll go to that later, but there are also some inherent contradictions in our critical consciousness as we see the development paradigm being operationalized around the world. I mean, how can you have a situation where within a decade from Global South you have $7.8 trillion taken out in illicit financial flows, while in the same timeframe just $1 trillion sent in in development aid. So those kinds of contradictions have to be removed in essence for us to be able to operationalize anything genuine, and that is what speaks to the Pact for the Future's key actions 47 to 52 on the reform of the international financial architecture. I mean, we've had some very serious examples. COVID-19 perhaps was the biggest wake-up call for us to dismantle business as usual. However, in that very moment, we saw that in my region, 43 countries were in a situation of near-debt distress. However, more than 90% of the programs negotiated at that time pushed for further belt-tightening measures. Or when the General Assembly requested the ministerial conference happening in Geneva of WTO requesting that, you know, we should apply trade-related intellectual property stipulations waiver so that countries like mine in Pakistan where more than 75% of people did not have a single dose of vaccine, and that was a situation common to the entirety of global south, but unfortunately those flexibilities were not allowed, a waiver was not allowed, and in fact, you know, something was given in the name of trade flexibilities, right? So despite in such critical moments, we've seen that there are certain parallel institutions who operate absolutely in contradiction with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and that is not a situation that will by any stretch help us in restoring the credibility and faith in multilateralism. So we need to revive those those ideas, those principles of multilateralism in terms of sovereign equality of nations, the rules-based order, shared values and collective responsibility. So until or unless we're able to deliver on that, I think the situation is precarious for all of us, I mean the people and the planet combined.

Thanks.

I'm going to open it up to audience questions in just one minute, but panel, I have one quick follow-up for you all, 30 seconds each. When you come back in 5 years' time, when you are all even more seasoned leaders than you are now, what will one difference be that to you says we're on the right track? Just one. What's that key metric?— to quote you, Vedara. What is the one thing that will tell you that this organization, that the multilateral system at large, is on the right track?

I'll start because I got excited and forgot the pillars and purviews. I mean, insofar as complementarity would be— 30 seconds, yeah, 30 seconds. Complementarity would be the focus. In terms of purviews, meaning that organizations around the United Nations as well. I mean, the macroeconomic structure, the international financial architecture, so how do we ensure coherence and complementarity across the functions there with the United Nations at the heart of it, right? And then when it comes to pillars, I mean, of course, there's been much talked about it— human rights, peace and security, and sustainable development— vis-à-vis something that came out as an emphasis in the UNATU, which is humanitarian aspect. So there has to be like complementarity across these aspects. And then in terms of processes, of course. I mean, the Agenda 2030, Pact for the Future, UNHCR, and whatever conversations we're going to have around the post-2030 framework, there has to be some level of coherence for us to be able to operationalize genuine transformation that can be tracked in the lived realities of people on the ground.

Okay, complementarity across purviews, pillars, and process. All right, terrific. One metric.

I mean, maybe for me it's less of a metric. I'll share a quick anecdote from this morning. I am the co-chair of the Major Groups and Other Stakeholders Coordination Mechanism. We work across 23 different constituencies, you know, people of African descent, women's major group, LGBTI communities discriminated by work and descent, indigenous folks. It was an incredible— it's always an incredible room of people with diverse backgrounds, with different realities. But there's one thing we we were all discussing, you know, we had this question earlier today, what's your vision of the future of the UN? What's working and what's not? What's really interesting is that very much to what Emilia also said, people believe in multilateralism. People invest and spend their time in coming to the UN in upholding the principles of multilateralism, but they're losing faith that what they put into it is equalizing to something that's coming out. They want to see that their voice actually matters, that regardless of who they are, what power they are, where they come from, whether they're indigenous or whether they're living in the Pacific Islands, that their voice matters. So I think that if I come back here in 5 years, what I hope for is that we've shifted the narrative, that we've made sure that we've truly, truly found ways to integrate institutionally, how we can protect folks coming to the UN feeling safe, recognizing that their efforts matter and that their vision is leading to the outcomes that we see.

Terrific. Wambui.

Okay, thank you very much.

I think for me, really, is mirroring what Rashima has said, that in 5 years, I want when I come to the UN, the output inputs and the outcomes of the UN, is it the Agenda 2030, you know, the Pact of the Future, the UN80, really speaks to the lived realities of the people, especially for me, I will emphasize adolescent girls and young women in all their diversities, and that then also we have them in the room, that, you know, their voice is being heard, they know that, you know, they have been listened to. But also in 5 years, I'll be so happy if I come to UN and we can mention maybe more than 50 countries that can boastfully, realistically say that they have achieved gender equality with no ifs and no buts, that, you know what, they have achieved gender equality and we have few of, you know, 50 countries that have done that and that is just a low— goal, but then we would hope that we'll have more countries that have achieved gender equality, but also that more than 100 countries have also achieved the goals of Agenda 2030 and have started implementing the Pact of the Future. Such a big dream. Oh, wow.

Okay. I want to live in that world too. For me personally, in 5 years, if I can walk into these halls and building on the incredible legacy of 80 years of Secretary Generals who have paved the way, there is a powerful, capable woman Secretary General at the table that 193 countries embraced, because that's the key indicator. It's not so much as having a woman, it's the fact that 193 3 countries were ready for that moment, that gives me trust in multilateralism.

I might venture that I think we may have heard from a few potential women Secretary Generals in our panel and amongst our audience today. Okay, we're running out of time, so a couple of quick questions from the audience. Let's get this gentleman in the front. We're going to run you a mic. Then, did my little 10-year-old friend want to ask a question over there, or is she kind of avoiding us? No, she doesn't want to ask a question. Okay, I'm not going to embarrass you. Okay, so you know the drill: name, where you're from, 30 seconds on your vision of the future, and then your question.

Okay, so I'm Alberto from Italy, and, well, about the vision, I hope that the UN will be the place where countries come back to talk when there are tensions, when there are troubles, and probably find a solution and possibly mitigate these tensions, basically.

Great. And what's your question?

The question is the following: we, as Compagnia di San Paolo Philanthropic Foundation, support the UN Scientific Advisory Board because we believe science is one of the most high-impact global public good. And so my question is, how can the UN help preserve science as a trusted and safe space for international cooperation, and where can philanthropy make the greatest contribution? Thank you.

Is that to anybody in particular? Probably to the Secretary-General. Mr. Secretary-General, you want to take that question?

Yes, of course. I can answer immediately. This is a major concern we we have. There is a global attack against science, I would say a global attack against truth, and we are trying to respond in the best possible way. I have a scientific advisory board with scientists of all areas that is publishing a number of studies in different areas, especially in the frontiers of science. At the same time, we just create the— scientific, independent panel on artificial intelligence that will produce regularly reports about where we are in artificial intelligence, what's happening, and what governments and other entities need to take into account. And we are doing the same in relation to to a panel that we created for the extract— I mean, the rare metals extraction and its problems. And one of the things we are doing in these several— and I can name one or two more— in these several panels is that the civil society is always there. So we do not have the civil society in the Security Council, that I can't do, but in the panels that we have been creating, shaping new policies or shaping our attitude in relation to science, there is always a component of the civil society, as there is always a component of the academia, and then of course there are components of governments and components of the private sector. But for us, this battle for science and this battle for truth is one of the essential battles of our time because, let's be honest, it's sometimes starting to be difficult to distinguish the fake news or the deepfakes than the true things.

OK, thank you. Everyone, I'm looking at the— everyone's hands have gone up. OK, seeing as you were so fast, this has to be quick. That gentleman over there in the black jacket, yeah, yeah, has to be quick. OK, let's get a microphone to you. You know, name, where you're from. I'm going to give you 20 seconds for your vision of the future and then a short question. Great.

Hello, my name is Justin Wang. I'm from the United States. And to answer your initial question, I want a United Nations that has the courage to say, "This worked, this failed, and here's why." The UN cannot be the global platform for collaboration if people don't trust it, and trust only comes from credibility, and credibility only comes from being honest about progress and showing the world, "This is what we'll do better next time." which doesn't bring me to my question, but I'll ask it anyway. When countries voluntarily participate and agree on international goals, but unfortunately consistently fail to meet them, how should the UN encourage accountability while still respecting national sovereignty? Thank you.

Wow, that is quite a question. Okay. Hold that question, because my panel are holding me accountable. This lady over here, in the stripy top.

Thank you so much for giving me the floor. I'm Rabih Baloui, I'm from Tunisia, I'm from the Women Major Group, so my vision for the UN in the coming years, so more inclusive UN that left no one behind, more inclusive for women specifically. My question is for the UN Secretary-General. We are seeing a lot of backlash when it comes to women's rights, especially human rights women defenders. So in your idea, what the UN— what mechanism, like, just let's say, what accountability mechanism should the UN champion to ensure that no country roll up on women's rights without consequences? Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you.

And panel, thank you for keeping me accountable. Mr. Secretary-General, I think those both questions are probably for you.

The first was not exactly a question.

Well, I think he was asking about—

It was more an affirmation, which is real, I mean, and the question is the body that is supposed to protect the territory— the sovereignty of states is the Security Council. The problem is that the Security Council, with the geopolitical divides and with its structure and the veto power, has been completely unable to protect the territorial integrity of states. The sovereignty of states in some of the most dramatic conflicts that we have witnessed. The second question was—

It was about protecting women's rights around the world at a time when they are under attack.

We have a few instruments with Human Rights Council and the rapporteurs. We can have fact-finding missions, We can— there are commissions of inquiry, but the point is that the capacity of these entities to take decisions that translate themselves in true accountability where the perpetrators are punished, that capacity is not there. And that is one of the problems of multilateralism. Is that multilateralism in general has no teeth, and when there is a teeth like the Security Council, there is not much appetite to bite. And so that is one of the problems that we face, is that in many circumstances we can denounce, we can to a certain extent reveal the truth, we can condemn, but we have not the power to effectively punish those that undermine basic human rights.

I feel bad about my gender imbalance, so I'm going to get one more. It has to be quick. Yes, lady with the red hair, actually behind you, yes. I'm afraid that's going to have to be all the questions, but thank you for being patient, everyone.

Thank you. My name is Caroline Woko.

And I'm the founder of Advancing Youth Voice Initiative.

And the question is to the Secretary-General: if you look around the room, 80 years from now we're all gone. I've got two young people here that I brought from Africa to learn what goes on on an international level.

So how would the UN support youth-led solutions Like back home in Nigeria, we create cohorts and we've been expanding into the 36 states. And we are looking in the next 2 years to expand into the African continent, empowering young people to participate in leadership and community service.

So how would the UN support this youth-led solutions?

Thank you. Solutions over the next 80 years?

Well, the UN has 4 phases in its relations with youth. The first phase was to completely ignore youth. The second phase was to understand that it's probably better to explain to youth what we are doing, and we started to have some propaganda things directed to young people. The third phase was to say, well, probably it's better to give them the impression that we are listening to them, and so a certain number of mechanisms of participation were created in which young people was convened to discuss. And now we are trying to enter in the fourth phase, and the fourth phase is to create conditions for the young people to participate in decision-making processes. The first step was done, creating our Youth Office, and the Youth Office that is led by a young Assistant Secretary-General has as main obligation to fight in all the fronts of the activities of the UN in order to create effective mechanisms of intervention of young people in decision-making. And I have, for instance, two young advisory boards. In two crucial areas of policy. I also always listen to them before I intervene on those issues. And this kind of mechanism needs to be replicated at all levels and have conditions in which the young people can intervene in the moment in which decisions are being taken. And that is the step that we are progressively trying to achieve, but the resistance, I must tell you, is very big.

You know, what you said about the 4 stages, it reminded me of a quote, I think it's by Gandhi, who said, "First they ignore us, then they mock us, then they fear us, then we win." It's very similar. Okay folks, we are at time. No more time for any more questions, I'm afraid. Sorry, but thank you for your patience. No more time for any more questions. Many more people want to ask questions, but we are at time. Thank you all for being a terrific audience. I want to invite you to thank our last panel and all our panels for being really, really informative and substantive panels. Secretary General, I'm just going to offer you a couple of minutes just to tell us what your kind of closing thoughts and reflections are from this afternoon.

Well, I would like to go back to the beginning, to the question of power. We have just heard about the injustices that exist in the economic and the financial system and the request for a reform of international financial architecture that we are being— making very strongly in the Pact for the Future. And to show how inequality is embedded in the present system of multilateralism and one of the reasons why we need the reform of that multilateralism is to look, for instance, the way the so-called Special Drawing Rights are distributed. When there is a crisis like the crisis of the COVID Special Drawing Rights were distributed by the IMF proportionally to the quotas, and the quotas are such that the most rich countries have the biggest quotas and even the emerging economies have quotas that are much smaller than their present weight in the global economy. And so in a moment in which wealth was necessary to be created and distributed, it was distributed essentially to the rich. This shows how embedded is injustice in our system. And so the fight for inequality is a central aspect in— to give credibility to multilateral institutions. And then I would remind you all of the two existential challenges that we face and say that we are totally mobilized to fight in order to guarantee that we preserve humankind and we preserve the planet. First is climate change and we absolutely need to end the addiction to fossil fuels in our societies, and the second is the risks of artificial intelligence. We are witnessing a transfer of power that has no parallel in history. This time is not power from one state to another, from one government to another, or from governments to other sectors of society. It is a power that has been moving from governments— governments of the inclusive, the most powerful countries in the world,, but their power is being moved to a number of— a very small number of companies that tend to concentrate all the information and all the capacity to influence things. And we absolutely need to preserve— to preserve institutions that guarantee that democratic values can prevail and at the same time that human agency is never put aside in decisions that are essential for our future. I had the occasion a few days ago to condemn the robo-killers, but beyond what we see in the— I mean, battlefields, I think that we need to be aware that we are becoming more and more controlled by a small number of companies and we need to fight in order to make sure that human agency prevails and that things are not done against humanity but for the future of humanity. And this battle is far from being won as the battle for climate change is far from being won. And we have two existential battles for which multilateral institutions would need to be much more powerful than what they are now.

At the very beginning, Secretary General, you said that you were looking forward to returning to being a member of civil society. I think you have found your tribe here in this room. So everyone, I want to thank you for your time this afternoon, for really rich discussion. Thanks to all our panellists, and I want to invite you to thank Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Thank you for coming.