RESTORING PUBLIC TRUST IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: FOUR DIFFERENT VISIONS AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Khalilur Rahman, António Guterres, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Donald Trump addressed institutional legitimacy, technological power, international law, and the future of global governance on September 22, 2026
On September 22, 2026, the United Nations opened the General Debate of the 81st Session of the General Assembly under the theme:
“Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations That Delivers for All.”
The opening statements revealed broad agreement that the international system is experiencing a crisis of confidence. They also exposed important differences concerning artificial intelligence, institutional accountability, international law, and the proper limits of public and private power.
Khalilur Rahman, President of the 81st Session of the General Assembly; António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations; Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil; and Donald Trump, President of the United States, each addressed these questions from a different perspective.
The statements were not resolutions and did not themselves create binding international law. No resolution was adopted through these particular speeches. Their importance lies in the political and institutional priorities they established for the General Assembly’s 81st session.
THE UNITED NATIONS MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WORKS
General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman directly addressed the decline in public confidence in the United Nations.
His central observation was that people outside the institution are not merely asking whether the United Nations continues to exist. They are asking whether it works.
Rahman rejected the assumption that the UN’s survival for more than eighty years is, by itself, evidence of success. He argued that rebuilding confidence requires the institution to confront “hard truths” about its failures and limitations.
He identified three principal paths toward restoring trust:
-
Honest acknowledgment of institutional failures and shortcomings;
-
Structural reform extending beyond temporary, cosmetic, or exclusively budgetary measures; and
-
Greater participation by civil society, scientists, businesses, and other actors outside government in UN decision-making, particularly in matters involving artificial intelligence.
This third element is especially significant. Rahman did not treat the governance of AI as an issue that should be decided exclusively by States, government officials, or technology companies. He emphasized the need for scientific knowledge and participation from outside government.
His position recognizes that decisions concerning technology affect people who ordinarily have little or no control over the design, deployment, or oversight of the systems governing their lives.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE NEED FOR GUARDRAILS
Rahman warned that artificial intelligence is already embedded in critical systems around the world while international institutions remain behind the pace of its development.
He called for “prudent and reliable guardrails” developed with scientific participation and warned:
“We cannot allow an arms race for control of AI to carry us over the precipice.”
His warning extended beyond the technical risks of AI. He addressed the use of emerging technologies to amplify falsehoods, manipulate public debate, disseminate hatred, and incite violence with unprecedented speed and reach.
These risks affect women and girls, minorities, migrants, refugees, persons with disabilities, religious communities, and other groups that may become targets of politically motivated narratives or automated systems of discrimination and exclusion.
The issue is therefore not limited to the future development of AI. It also concerns technologies already being used to influence public opinion, restrict access to information, rank or profile individuals, moderate expression, distribute political narratives, and exercise forms of private power without adequate transparency or accountability.
HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT BE SELECTIVELY APPLIED
Rahman also rejected the selective application of human rights according to political interests, cultural preferences, or the circumstances of the moment.
He stated:
“We must choose dialogue and tolerance and foster a culture in which human rights are respected not only in law, but in our daily interactions, and we must stop the cherry picking of those rights that fit our respective cultures or the politics of the day.”
This distinction between rights formally declared in law and rights experienced in daily life is important.
Institutions cannot credibly claim to protect human rights if those rights exist only in constitutions, treaties, judicial opinions, professional codes, or institutional mission statements while being denied in practice.
Public confidence depends on the consistency between what institutions promise and what they actually do.
MILITARY SPENDING, DEVELOPMENT, AND SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM
Rahman also addressed institutional representation and global spending priorities.
He noted that global military expenditure is approaching US$3 trillion while development assistance has fallen by 23 percent, even as progress has stalled on approximately one-third of the Sustainable Development Goal targets.
He renewed calls for Security Council reform and permanent African representation, stating:
“Africa needs a seat at the table, not to be on the menu.”
This is not merely a question of geographic representation. It concerns the legitimacy of decisions made by international institutions whose structures still reflect the distribution of power that existed in 1945.
ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE DANGER
Secretary-General António Guterres organized his statement around four tests involving the exercise of power:
- War and peace;
- Inequality;
- Climate change; and
- Artificial intelligence.
Guterres explained that power is being reshaped by the emergence of new State powers, the transfer of authority from governments to private corporations and individuals, and the increasing role of AI and autonomous weapons in decisions previously reserved for human beings.
His central warning was:
“The danger is not technology. The danger is technology without accountability.”
This distinction is essential. Technology is not an independent moral actor. Responsibility remains with the people, governments, corporations, institutions, and professional bodies that design, control, deploy, purchase, regulate, or misuse it.
Guterres called for:
- A multilateral AI risk-management framework;
- Credible and independent oversight;
- Binding international cooperation on AI governance;
- Protection of children from unregulated technological systems;
- Safeguards against the concentration of power in data, computing capacity, and algorithms;
- A prohibition on transferring life-and-death decisions to machines; and
- The exclusion of autonomous “killer robots” from humanity’s future.
He stated:
“Life-and-death decisions must never be surrendered to machines.”
Guterres’s recognition that authority is shifting from governments to corporations and private individuals has consequences for human-rights analysis.
Modern abuses of power may involve not only governments but also digital platforms, financial institutions, professional regulatory bodies, private associations, data brokers, technology companies, and other entities whose decisions can affect housing, employment, professional licenses, public reputation, access to justice, communication, and political participation.
LULA: THE UNITED NATIONS MUST BECOME A “TEMPLE OF PEACE” AGAIN
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the United Nations is experiencing one of the most critical periods in its history.
He attributed the organization’s loss of credibility in part to the paralysis of the Security Council, the use of veto power, and the failure of the international system to prevent or end armed conflicts.
Lula stated:
“We are all held hostage by the inaction of the Security Council.”
He argued that diplomacy is the appropriate means of addressing collective international problems and called for the United Nations to become a “temple of peace” again.
Lula addressed the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, sovereignty, organized crime, corruption, climate change, inequality, scientific evidence, and the protection of democracy.
He also defended greater regulation of major technology companies and artificial intelligence, warning against a technological race without ethical safeguards.
This portion of his statement aligns with the warnings issued by Rahman and Guterres. All three recognized that technological development without rules, accountability, and meaningful public safeguards can deepen inequality and undermine rights.
Lula also declared:
“No one is above the law.”
That principle is fundamental to the rule of law, but its credibility depends on equal and consistent application. It must apply not only to politically weak individuals but also to judges, prosecutors, regulators, lawyers, public officials, corporations, financial institutions, professional associations, and technology companies.
TRUMP: “WHOEVER WINS SUPERINTELLIGENCE WINS”
President Donald Trump presented a different approach to artificial intelligence.
He argued that AI should be called “superintelligence,” because the word “artificial,” in his view, incorrectly suggests that the technology is fake.
Trump stated:
“Whoever wins superintelligence wins.”
He emphasized technological leadership as a central element of future economic and geopolitical competition. He said the United States would encourage the development of the technology while monitoring its risks.
This creates a clear tension between two approaches.
Rahman, Guterres, and Lula placed greater emphasis on guardrails, regulation, independent oversight, ethical limits, and international cooperation.
Trump emphasized competition, technological leadership, and national advantage.
The difference matters because an international race for technological dominance may conflict with the objective of slowing development when necessary to investigate risks, prevent abuses, and establish effective safeguards.
The question is not whether innovation should end. The question is whether technological competition will be subjected to law, human rights, independent supervision, and public accountability.
TRUMP’S CRITICISM OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Trump also used his address to criticize several international organizations.
He described the International Criminal Court as an institution “full of evil people,” disputed its jurisdiction over the United States, and called on other countries to withdraw from it.
He also criticized the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and the International Maritime Organization, arguing that international institutions should not advance forms of global governance that conflict with national sovereignty.
These statements are particularly relevant to the debate over international accountability.
International institutions can be criticized and must themselves be subject to transparency, due process, and institutional reform. However, rejecting or weakening international oversight raises a separate question: where can people seek protection when domestic institutions are unwilling or unable to impartially investigate themselves?
If national courts, regulatory bodies, professional associations, or political institutions are accused of structural conflicts of interest, international review may be one of the few remaining avenues through which victims can seek scrutiny outside the system responsible for the alleged harm.
The proper response to defects in international institutions should therefore be institutional correction, transparency, and fair procedure—not the elimination of every external mechanism of accountability.
IRAN, VENEZUELA, AND THE USE OF FORCE
Trump devoted a substantial part of his statement to Iran.
He defended United States military action, said he would not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and called for the country’s continued economic isolation until it ended attacks on commercial shipping and support for terrorism.
At the same time, he said that an agreement with Iran remained possible.
Trump also discussed United States actions and negotiations involving Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland, Gaza, and Ukraine. He stated that it was time to end the killing in Ukraine.
These positions differ substantially from the emphasis placed by Lula on diplomacy, sovereignty, multilateralism, and the containment of regional conflicts before they become global tragedies.
FOUR VISIONS OF POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The four statements can be understood as different responses to the same underlying question:
How should power be controlled in a period of institutional distrust and rapid technological transformation?
Khalilur Rahman argued that trust must be earned through acknowledgment of failure, structural reform, inclusion, and results.
António Guterres warned that power is increasingly concentrated in governments, corporations, data, algorithms, computing infrastructure, AI systems, and autonomous weapons. He called for independent international oversight.
Lula defended diplomacy, regulation of major technology companies, ethical safeguards for AI, scientific evidence, and reform of the Security Council.
Trump emphasized sovereignty, technological competition, national leadership, and resistance to several forms of international oversight.
These positions are not interchangeable. They represent different views of the relationship between technology, government, international law, corporate power, and human rights.
WHY THIS DEBATE MATTERS BEYOND THE UNITED NATIONS
The loss of public trust is not confined to the United Nations.
Similar questions apply to courts, professional regulatory bodies, financial institutions, law-enforcement agencies, private associations, digital platforms, and other organizations exercising public or quasi-public authority.
Public trust cannot be restored through declarations, public-relations campaigns, or institutional self-praise. It depends on evidence that institutions are willing to:
- Investigate their own failures;
- Disclose relevant records;
- Correct factual errors;
- Provide meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard;
- Prevent decision-makers from judging matters in which they have an institutional or personal interest;
- Preserve access to independent review;
- Apply rules consistently;
- Protect dissent and lawful advocacy;
- Distinguish criticism from misconduct;
- Subject automated systems to human supervision; and
- Provide effective remedies when rights are violated.
An institution cannot rebuild trust merely by demanding that people believe in it.
Trust requires verifiable conduct.
PEOPLE MUST PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEM
One of the most important elements of Rahman’s statement was his recognition that governments alone cannot decide how artificial intelligence and emerging technologies should be governed.
Scientists, civil society, affected communities, independent researchers, human-rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, and ordinary people must have meaningful opportunities to participate.
Participation cannot be limited to symbolic consultations conducted after governments and corporations have already made the decisive choices.
It must include access to information, the ability to submit evidence, protection against retaliation, transparent procedures, independent review, and a genuine opportunity to influence outcomes.
This applies not only to AI governance but also to judicial reform, professional discipline, housing, banking, foreclosure, digital surveillance, platform governance, and every other system capable of affecting fundamental rights.
CONCLUSION
The opening of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly showed that institutional trust and artificial intelligence are no longer separate subjects.
Both concern the exercise of power.
Who designs the systems?
Who controls the information?
Who decides what is true, false, lawful, dangerous, or permissible?
Who investigates errors and abuses?
Can the decision-maker be independently reviewed?
Can affected people see the evidence, challenge it, and obtain an effective remedy?
The answers will determine whether artificial intelligence strengthens human dignity or expands systems of unaccountable control.
Khalilur Rahman’s statement identified the necessary starting point: institutions must acknowledge their failures, undertake structural reform, include people outside government, and demonstrate through their conduct that they deserve public confidence.
António Guterres added an equally important principle:
“The danger is not technology. The danger is technology without accountability.”
That warning applies not only to artificial intelligence, but also to every institution exercising power without effective transparency, impartiality, participation, or review.
SOURCES
Complete opening session of the General Debate — September 22, 2026
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k17/k17s3dutob
Khalilur Rahman — President of the 81st Session of the General Assembly
Video:
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1i/k1ihdx54zp
Official UN summary:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168394
António Guterres — Secretary-General of the United Nations
Official UN summary:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168392
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — President of Brazil
Official UN summary:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168395
Donald Trump — President of the United States
Video:
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k17/k17vgtoa6m
Official UN summary:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168397
Official page of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly
https://www.un.org/pga/81/
Theme and general information about the General Assembly
https://www.un.org/en/ga/
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário