 Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, it's a special honor and privilege to welcome back to Davos his Excellency Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN has never been as important as it is today in a fractured and fragmented world. We are all grateful, Mr. Secretary-General, that despite all those fractions and difficulties, you stand up for global cooperation and that you also have the courage to speak out and to remind all of us of the danger and of the possible catastrophic consequences if we don't get our act together. You can count on us, Mr. Secretary-General, to support you in your efforts by engaging all stakeholders into collaborative action to ensure, despite the headwinds, that we achieve the sustainable development goals. At the beginning of this year, we are grateful that you share with us again your assessment of the state of the world. This will be followed by a conversation with my colleague, Berger Brande, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General. Please, we welcome you very cordially. Excellencies, dear friends, thank you very much for your welcome and thank you, dear President Schwab, for your kind words. It is very good to be back in Davos and once again in person. Your team perfectly sets out the dilemma of today's world. We need cooperation, yet we face fragmentation. And I'm not here to sugarcoat the scale of that challenge or the sorry state of our world. We can't confront problems unless we look them squarely in the eye. And we are looking into the eye of a category 5 hurricane. Our world is plagued by a perfect storm on a number of fronts. Start with a short term, a global economic crisis. The outlook, as we all know, is bleak. Many parts of the world face recession. And the entire world faces a slowdown. And we see deepening inequalities and the rapidly unfolding cost of living crises affecting women and girls the most. Supply chain disruptions and an energy crunch. Soaring prices. Rising interest rates along with inflation. And that levels pounding vulnerable countries. And to all of that, the lingering effects of the pandemic. COVID-19 is still straining economies with the world's failure to prepare for future pandemics that failure is straining our credulity. Somehow, after all we have endured, we have not learned the global public health lessons of the pandemic. We are nowhere near ready for the pandemics to come. And to all that, another major and indeed existential challenge. We are flirting with climate disaster. Every week brings a new climate horror story. Greenhouse gas emissions are at record levels and growing. The commitment to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees is nearly going up in smoke. Without further action, we are headed to a 2.8 degree increase. And the consequences, as we all know, would be devastating. Several parts of our planet would be uninhabitable. And for many, it will mean a death sentence. But this is not a surprise. The science has been clear for decades. And I'm not talking only about UN scientists. I'm not talking UN scientists. I'm talking even about fossil fuel scientists. We learned last week that certain fossil fuel producers were fully aware in the 70s that their core product was making our planet. And just like the tobacco industry, they rode roughshod over their own science. Some in big oil pedaled the big lie. And like the tobacco industry, those responsible must be held to account. Today, fossil fuel producers and their enablers are still racing to expand production, knowing full well that this business model is inconsistent with human survival. Now, this insanity belongs in science fiction, yet we know the ecosystem meltdown is cold, hard, scientific fact. And to this toxic brew yet another combustible factor. Conflict, violence, war. Especially the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not only because of the untold suffering of the Ukrainian people, but because of its profound global implications on global food and energy prices, on trade and supply chains, on questions of nuclear safety, and on the very foundations of international law and the United Nations Charter. We are doing our best, making progress where we can, particularly in facilitating exports of food and fertilizers from Ukraine and also from Russia. But we are a far cry from peace in line with international law and the United Nations Charter. So, dear friends, all these challenges are interlinked and they are piling up like cars in a chain reaction crash. Now, let's be clear. It would be difficult to find solutions to these global interlinked problems in the best of times and in a world that would be united. But these are far from being the best of times and the world is far from being united. Instead, we face the gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations and it is undermining everything. First, the east-west divide. We risk what I have called the great fracture, the decoupling of the world's two largest economies, a tectonic drift that would create two different sets of trade rules, two dominant currencies, two internets, and two conflicting strategies on artificial intelligence. This is the last thing we need. The IMF reported that dividing the global economy into two blocks could cut global GDP by a whopping 1.4 trillion US dollars. Now, there are many aspects in which the US and China relations will inevitably diverge, particularly on questions of human rights and on some areas of regional security. But despite that, it is possible and I would say it is essential for the two countries to have meaningful engagement on climate, trade and technology to avoid the decoupling of economies and even the possibility of future confrontations. For the historians that might be listening, we must avoid the 21st century sequel of the so-called Two Cities Trap. At the same time, and secondly, the North-South divide is deepening. I am not convinced in my context that the wealthy world and their leaders truly grasp the degree of frustration and even anger in the global south. Frustration and anger about the gross inequity of vaccine distribution in the recent past. Frustration and anger about the pandemic recovery, with support overwhelmingly concentrated in wealthy countries that could print money. And trillions were printed in the global north, and of course, developing countries could not print money because their currencies would go out the drain. Frustration and anger about the climate crisis that is crippling countries that contributed least to global heating and the lack of the financial resources to respond to the challenge. And frustration and anger over a morally bankrupt financial system in which systemic inequalities are amplifying societal inequalities. A system that is still routinely denying depth relief and concessional funding to vulnerable middle income countries that are in desperate need because the rules are not made to allow it. A system in which most of the world's poorest countries saw their debt service payments skyrocketed by 35 percent in the last year alone. Now, we need to bridge all these divides and we need to restore trust. How can we do it? First, by reforming and building fairness into the global financial system. Developing countries need access to finance to reduce poverty and hunger and advance the sustainable development goals. I have urged G20 to agree on a global SDG stimulus plan that would provide support to countries of the global south, including the vulnerable middle income ones. They need the necessary liquidity, depth relief and restructuring, as well as long-term lending to invest in sustainable development. In short, we need a new debt architecture. And multilateral development banks must change their business model. Beyond their own operations, that of course are very important, they must concentrate on multiplying their impact, leveraging massively private finance in a systematic way, providing guarantees, accepting to be first risk-takers in coalitions and financial institutions to support developing countries. Without creating the conditions for massive inflow of private finance at reasonable cost to the developing world, there is simply no solution. International financial institutions are too small, and the capacity to increase ODA is not to be seen in the short term. Then second, bridging divides and restoring trust means meaningful climate action and climate action now. The battle to keep the 1.5 degree limit alive will be on or lost in these decades, on our watch. And right now we have to confess that the battle is being lost. So, we need to act together to close the emissions gap. And that means to phase out progressively coal and supercharge the renewable revolution, to end the addiction to fossil fuels and to stop our self-defeating war on nature. On the other hand, the developed world must finally deliver on its 100 billion climate finance commitment to support developing countries. Adaptation finance must be doubled, as it was promised in Charmel's Shake. And the biggest emitters, namely the G20 countries, must unite around the climate solidarity pact, in which they make extra efforts in the 2020s to keep 1.5 degree limit alive. And it doesn't work if developed countries attribute the responsibility to the emerging economies and the emerging economies attribute the responsibility to developed countries. They need to come together to bring together all their capacities, financial and technological, with the developed ones providing financial and technical assistance to help the major emerging economies to accelerate their renewable energy transition. Because if they don't, we will not be able to reduce emissions at the level that is necessary to keep the 1.5 degree goal alive. And our climate goals need the full engagement of the private sector. Now, the truth is that more and more businesses are making net-zero commitments, but benchmarks and criteria are often dubious or murky. And this can mislead consumers, investors and regulators with false narratives. And it feeds the culture of climate misinformation and confusion and leaves the door open to greenwashing. That's why we created an expert group on net-zero emissions commitments. Recently, the group has issued a how to guide for credible, accountable net-zero pledges. And here at Davos, I call on all corporate leaders to act based on these guidelines to put forward credible and transparent transition plans on how to achieve net-zero and to submit those plans before the end of the year. Now, the transition to net-zero must be grounded in real emissions cuts and not relying, essentially, on carbon credits or shadow markets. And finally, what is true about private sector engagement on climate applies across a range of challenges. And government action is critical, even if obviously it is not enough. We must find avenues to boost the private sector's ability to play its full role for goods. And it must be recognized that in many ways the private sector today is living, but it is, to a certain extent, undermined by government action or the lack of government action. Governments need to create the adequate regulatory and stimulus environments to support the private sector instead of maintaining rules, subsidies and other forms of action that undermine the efforts of the private sector to move forward in climate action. And business models and practices must be reworked to advance the sustainable development goals. Without creating the conditions for the massive engagement of the private sector, it will be impossible to move from the billions to trillions that is needed to achieve the SDGs, to lead the way, to expand economic opportunity for women, to ensure greater engagement and cooperation for vaccine equity, to achieve global food security. And for that, we need the cooperation of the private sector to keep Ukrainian and Russian food and fertilizer exports flowing and affordable. Even in the midst of the war, the insurance sector has helped support the movement of vessels from Ukraine and Russia. And we urgently need other private sector actors to engage, such as the banking sector, the traders and the shippers. Across the spectrum of global challenges, we need private sector resourcefulness and cooperation to be able to advance in our common objectives of peace, of sustainable development and of human rights. So, Excellencies and dear friends, there are no perfect solutions in a perfect storm, but we can work to control the damage and to seize the opportunities available. And now more than ever, it's time to forge the pathways to cooperation in our fragmented world, to adopt multilateral solutions, to bring trust to where trust is badly needed because the world cannot wait. And I thank you for your patience. Thank you very much, Secretary General. I think you also heard a warm applause that your call to action was well received. And I think we also have seen in the last years that businesses are taking on more responsibilities, both on climate and nature. But as you said, we are flirting with a climate disaster, a battle that we are almost losing. But what I think we all don't really understand is that we all know that the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of action. And why is not the financing happening? Why is not the money to adaptation coming there? Is there, how do you explain this? If there was common sense, we would do it. Maybe it's not that common. Well, there is a difference. The cost of action is today's cost. The cost of inaction is already today's cost, but it is essentially tomorrow's cost. And we have a dramatic bias in the political life, but also in many areas of the business life, which is the preference for the present. No, I was in politics for large part of my life. And I know how important it is for politicians to look at the polls, to see how things are going, to look at the next elections. And today in the world, most of the political choices that are made are still made in short, with a short-term perspective, and looking more at polls, future elections, political power struggles, and less and less uneffectively solving problems. And in the business community, there was a clear trend, which is now being mitigated, to look essentially into short-term objectives, to increase the value of shareholders. And to increase the value of shareholders is to bet on short-term measures to get short-term results and forget about the future, because the future we will see afterwards. So we badly need to change the mentality of decision-makers in the public sector and in the private sector. And I would say it will be easier to do it in the private sector than in the public sector. But politicians need to understand. And sometimes we are faced with these kind of challenges. It is better to take today's decisions that will eventually be not popular, but it will be essential to be able to shape the public opinion itself. My experience when I was in government is that when I was following the polls, I would have problems in the short term. And then when I was able to show leadership and go even to what was the prevailing trend of the opinion, and take the decision that was necessary to ensure the future of my country at the time, debt in the end would pay. So my appeal to decision-makers in the public and the private sector is don't look about what's going to happen to you tomorrow, look into what's going to happen to all of us in the future. And to be honest, it is already happening now. Thank you. And I think what we would hope for is that people that aspire to be leaders both in business and in governments also think about what kind of legacy they want to leave. And we need to create systems of stimulus that benefit long-term thinking, instead of the present systems that theoretically are conceived to benefit short-term results. And I guess it's very important. Social media is maybe not helping when it comes to incentivizing long-term thinking. I mean, we have in social media all kinds of things. We have fantastic contributions to social media for the most noble causes of humankind. And we have also the problems, in my opinion, of the business model of social media, in which, of course, the interest is to have as much interactions as possible and to reach as much people as possible. And as we know from traditional media that what is news is not when a dog bites a man. What is news is when a man bites a dog. The algorithms and the business model of social media are constructed in such a way that they tend to expand the, I would say, the information, the positions, the ideas that are more extreme, that are more controversial, that create more trouble. And so I think it's not a question of censorship that will solve the problem. The question is the business model needs to be redesigned. The algorithms need to be redesigned in order not to be based on evil to make profit. It's such a good point. You know, when we grew up and read the papers, the editor took the pride in everything being correct in the paper. And now there's no editing. It's up to the individual to then assess if this is true or not. Yes, but there is a responsibility of the platforms. I mean, one can argue if we have something as you mentioned in the media and if someone is attacked in a way that is wrong, there is a possibility to go to the court. In social media there is no responsibility. And I can understand the argument of social media. Platforms say, well, this is put by people, so it's not our responsibility. But the truth is that the algorithms are made in such a way that they amplify in a preferential way a certain number of things. And when the algorithm amplifies, then there is, in my opinion, a responsibility and there should be a accountability, including through the legal system in relation to those situations. At least when false information, defamation, all other kinds of things are benefited, are not only just what someone puts, but are benefited by the way the algorithm amplifies that. That creates, in my opinion, a responsibility of the platform. Well, thank you very much for that. Reflecting on the state of the world and listening to your very powerful speech, I was reflecting, have you ever in your career seen such a complex geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape? Let's be clear. I think we are in the worst situation I remember in my lifetime. I have not lived the second world war. If I had lived the second world war, what I'm saying now would not make sense. But I really think we are in the worst situation of my lifetime. First of all, the climate threat is coming to a point of no return. We are using 1.6 planets, and we have only one planet to use. And the climate and biodiversity issues have lost attraction for political decision makers. Everybody is concentrated now on the war in Ukraine, on the cost of living and other aspects. And there is a lack of the sense of urgency in relation to climate. And the question of climate, together with the question of biodiversity, is an existential threat that today is very close to a tipping point that makes catastrophes totally irreversible. And that would not be the case 10 or 20 years ago. We still have much more time to act. And we have not used that time to act sufficiently. So now we are on the verge of the irreversible changes that will completely undermine the future of the life in the planet as we today see it. Second, the geopolitical divide is different from what it was during the Cold War. The Cold War was easier because we had two blocks, and those two blocks had clear rules of engagement. They would create as much trouble as possible to the other block, but they had mechanisms to guarantee that if the trouble would become a threat to the two blocks themselves, they would stop whatever was happening by proxy anywhere in the world. Those mechanisms that were particularly relevant in relation to the nuclear disarmament and to the nuclear control mechanisms, those mechanisms have lost existence or lost capacity. People got used to the 90s, to the beginning of the 20th century, to the idea of the end of history, and there is no more risk of a global confrontation. And so the confrontations today are more dangerous because there are less mechanisms to make sure that they do not get out of control. And this is what for me is worrying. On the other hand, in the two blocks, we had a total decoupling. But the total decoupling that existed with the two blocks was in a completely different global economic situation. This was before the great globalization surge. The great globalization surge was in the 90s. And now we leave the global globalization surge. Our economies became completely interlinked, north and south, east and west. And now there is a new divide that is coming with the risk of decoupling that I mentioned. And I think it is absolutely crucial that independently of the difference that exists, we are facing, two cultural systems, two ideological systems, two historic memories, two political systems in many aspects. But we can't afford not to have the United States and its allies and China having a serious discussion on the questions relating to climate, to trade and to technology, and to find the forms of cooperation or regulation that are necessary to avoid a decoupling that would be a disaster of the global economy and to avoid the risks of future confrontations. Because today we start to quarrel about the economic scenes, being its semiconductor success or other of this nature. And tomorrow you might be quarrelling about more serious issues because there are some irritating factors that are there on the ground, some geopolitical problems that are not solved in the region. We have the Taiwan question, we have others. So it is absolutely essential first of all to be careful in controlling the risky situations and at the same time to establish mechanisms that rescue our global economy. Talking about decoupling, and you also mentioned it in your speech, Secretary-General, if there is a full decoupling it will shave off incredible a lot of growth and we will lose out on prosperity, there will be more poverty. But don't you foresee if there is decoupling that that could be just for like 10% of the goods, it could be related to national security, semiconductor, some technologies, and if you then can continue to trade on 90% of the goods will be much better off. I think what you're addressing is that a full decoupling will be a catastrophe. That's what you are seeing, what you said is what we are seeing now. I mean, as far as I understand the trade between China and the US is growing. And the decoupling that is being tried is essential in relation to technology. And we know the semiconductor situation. China still has a huge dependency on semiconductors, especially the second-duckers of the, I would say, more sophisticated dimension. They essentially are produced by Taiwan at the present moment, most of them. So there has been some attempts to limit the excess of China to these kind of semiconductors. And also to the machines that produce them and the biggest producer is the Netherlands. And the Netherlands are reacting because they would like to keep their market, which is perfectly understandable. So for the moment, this is limited to certain areas of technology. The problem is that these areas of technology will shape the future economy. And so the risk is that if there is not a serious negotiation in relation to trade and technology, and I believe that serious negotiation is still possible, if there is no serious negotiation in relation to these areas, we might have consequences in the future when the areas that are now relatively minor in the global economy will probably become the central aspects of the future global economy that will be a much more technological base than the present one. And I think, unfortunately, you're right on this because the rivalry between G2 is also based on controlling those technologies. The idea that we can live with G2 is an idea that should be put aside. The G2 would mean a G0. It would mean that we would not have the capacity to bring together the resources, the energy, the capacities, the technologies that we need to face the challenges that we're facing. Because climate will not respect the G2. Demography will not respect the G2. And the dramatic situation of developing countries will not respect the G2. Secretary General, last question I wish we could have continued. It's so much inside. I think, as you mentioned also, the impact of the war in Ukraine as on food prices, energy is substantial. Do you think there will be an end of this war this year? Do you think there will be an end of this war this year? There will be a end of this war. There is a end of everything. But I do not see an end of the war in the immediate future, unfortunately. I mean, I do not see a chance at the present moment to have a serious peace negotiation between the two parties. And let's be clear, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that was in violation of international law and the values of the charter, has created a situation in which, because to a large extent, the two sides have a basic disagreement on the past. And it's always very difficult to solve disagreements on the past. Two different ideas about what the Russian Empire was, what the nationalities were, and two different ideas about what today are Ukrainians and our Russians. It is clear that, in my opinion, this makes it more difficult to find a solution. But that solution needs to be based on international law and needs to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. And I don't see conditions for that to happen in the immediate future. What we are doing, and we are very strongly engaged, is in relation to the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which I must say, it's quite amazing that with two countries in war, it's possible to have an agreement in this regard, but also the Russian exports that are necessary for the global food security. We have been dealing with problems of rescuing civilians in difficult situations, like as of style in the past. We have been discussing with both sides the exchange of prisoners of war. We are supporting the international agency of atomic energy that is a UN body in relation to the Zaporizhia, now in relation. So, I mean, we are doing everything we can, and this is probably one of the most important areas of our activity to limit the damage, to reduce the suffering of the people, and to reduce the impacts, the dramatic devastating impact in the global economy, because it came on top of the COVID, on top of the inequalities, on top of the climate problems. So, we are trying to address the consequences, but for the moment, I don't think that we have a chance to promote or to mediate a serious negotiation to achieve peace in the short term. So, we will have still to wait and to be clear on our principles, and our principles are international law, the values of the childhood, territorial integrity, but at the same time, to try to do everything we can, talking to both sides and to other actors, in order to minimize the impacts on the suffering of the Ukrainian people and on the global economy, especially in the most vulnerable countries. Thank you so much, Secretary General. I'm sorry we had to end on such a somber note, but I think it's reflecting the world we are living. I think many of us do hope for the Secretary General's good offices and the United Nations and multilateralism in such a situation. So, thank you very much for your leadership, and thank you for being here. Thank you very much.