On 22 September 2026, António Guterres stood behind the rostrum of the UN General Assembly in New York and spoke of four "tests of power": war and peace, inequality, climate and artificial intelligence. "Cracks have become canyons," he declared, calling for AI to be regulated, conflicts to be ended and the organisation to be reformed, whose mechanisms "reflect the realities of a long-gone era".
The speech was the last for the Secretary-General, whose second five-year term expires on 31 December. Guterres, a former Prime Minister of Portugal, has held the post for ten years already and has consistently advocated multilateral solutions: from climate agreements to the protection of human rights. Delegates greeted with applause his words about two states for Israelis and Palestinians, about the fact that "polluters must pay", and about the need to reform the Security Council.
Over a decade at the helm, Guterres repeatedly encountered constraints: the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council, cuts in funding by the United States and other countries, growing scepticism towards multilateralism. His public image — that of a convinced supporter of global cooperation — matches his documented position: he has consistently demanded ceasefires in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza and other hotspots, and promoted the Global Digital Compact and dialogue on AI governance.
There is no unexpected turn in this speech. It confirms a steady pattern: even at the end of his mandate, Guterres uses the rostrum not for personal ambitions, but to remind us that "life-and-death decisions must never be delegated to machines" and that "killer robots have no place in our future". He calls on leading powers to share data on AI risks and to create independent oversight — precisely what he has advocated before.
The forces acting upon him are obvious: a departing leader seeks to leave behind not only an institutional legacy, but also a moral stance. He knows that real power at the UN is limited, but the platform allows him to set the agenda for his successor. His public statements and actions do not diverge: Guterres does not change course under geopolitical pressure.
Imagine a captain who, on his final voyage, still hoists signals warning of a storm and proposes a new course — not because he hopes to save this ship, but so that the next crew will know where to sail. So it is here: Guterres's speech is not a farewell, but the passing of the baton.
This moment shows how, in an era of fragmentation and the "law of the strong", a figure stripped of real power continues to insist on rules and interdependence. It reminds us that institutional memory and persistence are sometimes more important than momentary victories.
Guterres is leaving, but his final appeal remains: a world built on interdependence is worth fighting for to the end.
