“AI must belong to everyone. We must replace hype and fear with sharing evidence,” insisted UN Secretary General António Guterres at India’s AI Impact Summit this February. “The future of AI cannot be decided by a couple of countries, or left to the whims of a few billionaires.” That same month, Guterres launched a global AI panel that came with a warning: “AI is transforming our world. The question is whether we will shape this transformation together, or allow it to shape us.” With his term ending in December 2026, what is the legacy of Guterres, and how does his administration embody the UN’s relations with states?
The tension of Guterres’ legacy centers on identifying global warnings with legitimate calls to action that rely on cooperation. It is up to presidents, kings and communities to act
The age of warning
It is a challenging time for the UN. As we recover in a post-COVID world, candidates for his post are under no illusions: Former Costa Rican Vice President Rebeca Grynspan – who currently serves as Secretary-General for UN Trade and Development – is running for Secretary General yet warns that the UN must “do less with less.” Guterres himself inherited a UN presiding over a world of increasing chaos. Within months of his election, the Qatar Blockade of 2017 erupted, which pitted Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt against Doha. COVID spread in 2019, accelerating a digital and AI revolution. In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Each disaster has needed a UN response. And Guterres has often been its face.
Covid: the first test
COVID was the first major pandemic of the 21st century. Guterres urged global solidarity. “We are at war with a virus – and not winning it.” In a 2020 speech, he set out a three-step plan to halt COVID’s impact: global ceasefires, coordinated socio-economic responses and a global recovery plan “that builds a more sustainable, inclusive and equitable economy, guided by our shared promise — the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
The UN had the platform to promote and coordinate global unity. But it could not compete with Realism. As I mention in my book, Covidocracy, this global challenge saw a return to statism rather than international cooperation. States competed to produce the first vaccine, hoarded medical supplies and failed to coordinate restrictions that could have lowered deaths.
AI: The second test
COVID spread another challenge: the digital revolution that risked creating a new class divide and more. As those who could worked from home, Guterres questioned the rise of AI. If left unchecked, AI could galvanise digital abuse. It could create a new elite able to monopolise an emerging technology that we increasingly depend on. Guterres’ response: convene a 40-expert panel to shape AI use “for the benefit of humanity.” What’s at stake? “[G]eopolitical tensions are rising, and conflicts are raging,” Guterres explains. And AI can be an instrument for or against these issues. “I have seen how quickly fear can take hold when facts are missing or distorted – how trust breaks down, and division deepens.” Today’s conflicts are not only fought by boots on the ground. They are fought by drones, keyboard warriors and disinformation. With a three-year term, from February 2026 to February 2029, it is hoped that the first Global International Scientific Body on AI will catch up with what AI can do and guide the world on what it should do.
The private power problem
Guterres has seen what happens when conflict is privatised. The Russian mercenary Wagner Group, for instance, was active throughout his tenure in Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Corporate warriors have invaded the battlefield, answering to CEOs, not public accountability. AI risks a similar path; the concentration of power in the hands of a new elite, the transformation of warfare and of politics through disinformation, surveillance, and digital literacy as a privilege. For Guterres, the privatisation of power will undermine democracy.
In a speech marking the UN’s 80th anniversary, he warned that reduced UN funding has consequences: empowered authoritarians and rampant military spending. AI is the new arms race, and the UN must be a beacon of global cooperation.
The limits of the UN
During my trip to the UN House in Brussels, I faced online harassment for posting photos with the UN flag. I reminded a troll that much of the UN’s criticism ignores the fact that it is often uncooperative states that are the problem. The UN is probably the largest, most enduring global institution. UN recognition bestows an international legitimacy on states. When I worked in Jordan for an NGO, the initiatives we supported had widespread interest because the UN endorsed them. Recognition by the UN matters because we in the global community recognise the legitimacy of what the UN can do: set international norms, warn of global crises as they are happening and establish frameworks on how to address them. But there are limitations: the UN cannot force global cooperation or stop the US from withdrawing funding. It cannot force big pharma or AI influencers to act against perceived interest in the name of equality. The tension of Guterres’ legacy is exactly that: identifying global warnings with legitimate calls to action that rely on cooperation. It is up to presidents, kings and communities to act.
