The transcripts are AI-generated from the UN's English audio and can contain mistakes. We are checking them against the statements the missions publish; some errors are still expected.
Madam President, excellencies, our world is undergoing a profound disruption characterised by great-power contestation, the wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, Africa. We're witnessing the rise of trade barriers, supply chain disruptions, worsening climate change, and a new industrial revolution driven by digital technologies, biotechnology and renewable energy. This means we face both great peril and great promise. Yet we are in a more polarised and fractured world, and one that may be unable to protect the global commons at precisely the moment that we need that protection. Our inter-state relations are increasingly dictated by raw power, where the outcomes are determined on the basis of size, leverage and coercion. And this poses obviously, a clear and present danger for smaller states like Singapore. But the point I wanted to make is that even the more powerful states would ultimately pay a price, because hard power on its own cannot secure supply chains, protect populations from pandemics, or stabilise a warming planet. Even big powers need partners to secure their long term national interests. The bilateral and regional arrangements can complement global frameworks, but on their own, they cannot replace shared rules that apply universally. A system built on individual coercive bargains would inherently be more volatile and more unstable. And therefore, our thesis today is that multilateralism offers a different bargain, one that is, in every state's enlightened national interest. These shared rules and norms provide predictability. They constrain the capricious exercise of power, and they maximize autonomy even when power is unequally distributed. Actually the multilateral system today still works more often than the headlines would suggest. A few examples. The World Food Programme feeds over 100 million people a year. The common ICAO standards enable 100,000 flights to operate safely every day. With the ITU, our telecommunications networks and the internet continues to operate safely, smoothly on a planetary scale. The question is, therefore not whether we need multilateralism, but how to make it fit for purpose. And I suggest three priorities. First, we all have to consistently comply with international law and the norms of multilateralism. Second, we need to reform existing institutions where needed. And third, we need to collectively formulate new rules and create new institutions for new technologies.
And I'm here not to sell you a product or a policy, or yet another declaration. I am here to sell you an idea. An idea conceived and spearheaded by His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, an idea embraced by the people of Bhutan. An idea already being built. That idea is Gelephu Mindfulness City, GMC. And my sales pitch is simple. Come and build it with us. Now, the world has built new cities before financial centers, freeports, technology hubs, special economic zones. But GMC is different. You see, Gelephu Mindfulness City is a special administrative region, an SAR. Under its Royal Charter, GMC exercises full autonomy in governance, legislation and the judiciary. Think one country, two systems. Think of the agility of a microstate. But GMC was not inherited from history. It was not created to manage a transfer of sovereignty. It is being deliberately created by Bhutan within Bhutan on sovereign Bhutanese territory for the future. GMC covers more than 4000km². That is more than five times the size of Singapore. But its greatest opportunity is not its size. Its greatest opportunity is an institutional blank slate. GMC was given something extraordinarily rare the freedom to design an entire city and its operating systems from first principles. So we asked if you could begin again. How would you govern? What laws would you write? How would we regulate business? How would we guarantee an independent judiciary? How would we attract the best talent? How would we use technology and especially artificial intelligence? How would we create wealth while protecting nature? And ultimately, what would all that prosperity be for? These were not theoretical questions. We answered them. And we are making full use of that institutional blank slate. If Singapore has legal principles that work, we learn from Singapore. If Abu Dhabi has financial regulations that work we learn from Abu Dhabi. If leading jurists from the United Kingdom can help us build an independent judiciary, we learn from them. And if international experts can strengthen our institutions, we learn from them. The principle is simple. Search the world for what works. Take the best, adapt it, and make it work for GMC. The result is a core operating system that is now in place, designed to give investors clarity, familiarity, and predictability. But GMC's operating system was designed around a deeper conviction that prosperity and values should reinforce one another. That means rejecting the assumption that we must choose between enterprise and well-being, between technology and humanity between development and nature. At GMC, we believe a balanced approach can deliver substantial profits while protecting the values that make prosperity worthwhile. Balance is not the enemy of profit. It is the foundation of lasting profit. And at GMC, balance is not a slogan. It is built into the operating system. And this matters deeply to Bhutan. You see, Bhutan is peaceful and stable. Our forests are intact. Our culture is alive. Our people are educated. But our economy is small. It cannot yet create enough opportunities for our young people. So too many of them leave home to find opportunity elsewhere. For a country as small as ours, this is not only an economic challenge, it is an existential one. We cannot simply tell them to stay. We must give them a reason to stay and a reason to return. Jobs. Opportunities. Enterprise, a future. So Bhutan must transform. But we refuse to believe that transformation requires us to become somebody else. We want economic growth. We want investment. We want technology. We want successful companies. We want our people to become wealthier. But we also want to protect what makes Bhutan Bhutan. That is the driving force behind His Majesty's vision for GMC. And that is why His Majesty is personally spearheading its development. GMC is not a project on the margins of Bhutan. It is at the heart of our national transformation. Our people have embraced GMC as a people's project and investment in our children, our economy and our shared future. Bhutan is not waiting to see whether the world believes in GMC before committing to it.
Recent tension and conflict have seriously eroded trust and confidence between Cambodia and Thailand. Beyond putting a strain on relations, this conflict has left deeper and more enduring scars, including damage to cultural heritage and lingering threat posed by unexploded ordnance, among others. Yet geography binds us together. As permanent neighbors, our two countries will always live side by side and peace, stability and prosperity of our peoples are closely interconnected. Rebuilding trust is therefore not merely desirable. It is essential to the future of our bilateral relations and to a shared interest in lasting peace and good neighbourly relations. For Cambodia, restoring trust must be grounded in concrete commitment. It requires the full and effective implementation in good faith of the agreement reached between our two countries. These include the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration, the Fuxian Consensus, and in particular, the joint statement of 27th December 2025, under which both sides committed to the renunciation of the threat or use of force, respect for international boundaries and to concrete measures to de-escalate tensions, rebuild trust and advance the normalisation of bilateral relations. Among those measures the prompt resumption of the survey and demarcation work of the Joint Boundary Commission would contribute significantly to addressing outstanding boundary related claims and establishing a clear and mutually recognized boundary in accordance with international law and the existing treaty and agreement between the two countries. Equally important, and with direct humanitarian implications, is enabling the more than 20,000 Cambodian civilians who remain unable to return to their home due to the continued military occupation and obstruction. In the words of the UN special rapporteur who visited the border last July, they need and deserve to go home. Likewise, the cessation of activities in occupied territories that could create or consolidate a fait accompli would provide a tangible demonstration of goodwill and respect for international law. This same commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes is reflected in our approach to the maritime dispute between Cambodia and Thailand. Last May Thailand decided to unilaterally terminate the MOU 2001, the only existing legal framework between our two countries specifically established to address our maritime disputes, despite our repeated call not to do so. Cambodia was thus forced to place its trust in institutions that uphold the principle of international law by initiating compulsory conciliation proceedings under UNCLOS. As our Prime Minister, Samdech Moha Borvor Thipadei Hun Manet, stated in his special address last June, we have taken this step to protect Cambodia's sovereignty and maritime rights in accordance with international law. Cambodia has always sought to resolve disputes with our neighbour peacefully. We continue to seek a relation with Thailand based on peace, cooperation and mutual respect. Both Cambodia and Thailand stand to gain from a fair and lasting settlement agreed with the guidance of international expert conciliator and in accordance with international law. In this connection, Cambodia is grateful to the Conciliation Commission for demonstrating its strong willingness to assist the parties in resolving this dispute peacefully, during the first meeting in Singapore earlier this month. The value of conciliation should be approached as a meaningful opportunity to bridging differences, rebuild trust and lay a stronger foundation for peaceful and constructive relations between our two countries. Mr. president, the question is no longer whether our world is changing, but whether we can shape that change together and turn transformation into opportunities rather than division and insecurity.
We must defend free and independent science. Let's protect the IPCC, IPBES. We need scientists who measure, who analyze, who assess. Let's uphold our commitment to the Paris Agreement, to our decarbonization pathways, to our 2050 carbon neutrality target. Let's shoulder our share of responsibility. We need to innovate, cooperate, restart, work on biodiversity credits, and achieve our objectives on forests and oceans. We have many decisions to take. We cannot give in to fatalism. We are already the victims of climate change. We must do it for them, and even more so for our children. Last but not least, we must hold fast and not yield on artificial intelligence. There are some who wish to make us believe that only two powers, the US and China, will be taking the decisions. They want us to believe that just a few economic actors will make all the decisions, the kinds of economic innovations that will be implemented, whether they want to take a break or not, the kinds of innovations that happen. Some of these technological developments might attack the security of our states, our hospitals or banks. They say that just a few will decide what kind of society we live in. No, no. Starting in 2018 at the G7 with our Canadian friends, we launched the Global Partnership for Artificial Intelligence under the auspices of the OECD to kickstart discussions on the need for regulation. At the AI summit in 2025. The AI Governance Summit. The next edition will be held in Switzerland next year. There was also the Indian edition. We advocated for two very simple things for everyone in the world to have their own LLM model capabilities, calculation capabilities, AI capabilities, so that we can craft a way of auditing these models instead of being reliant on just a few private actors. And in fact, Europe was the first with the AI Act to take forward these principles, to take forward these models, and we must continue down that path. Therefore, I wish to emphasize a particular point. Our young people and our children. We've spent far too long not protecting our young people and adolescents. And as a result, we're living with the consequence. Their capacity to learn is in decline. We're seeing mental health problems. The facts are stark, and the correlation is clear cut. That's why we've kickstarted a large scale initiative aimed at protecting our young people, our adolescents, to stop them accessing social networks before the age of 15. Underway in various countries. And I wish to commend our Australian colleagues, the first to take legislation on this front. We must continue down this path and see it through, but let's not wait for the consequences to come raining down on AI. We must act now to protect our children and our young people. Look at the impact chat bots have on our children. This is why, together with Kenya, Spain Australia, we've built a coalition on children's rights in the era of AI. We are mobilizing already this afternoon and also at the Paris Peace Forum on the 10th and 11th of November of this year. Governments, organizations, public and private actors, academics, private companies everyone will be rallying behind this agenda. So I hope to see you on the 10th and 11th of November in Paris. Going beyond that, we can clearly see the race that is underway in cutting edge models we must all be investing in. France is proud to have a competitive frontier model, and we will continue supporting them. So that we can have this kind of model. But we must also forge new kinds of cooperation. And I very much hope and wish for all sovereign states committed to their independence. India and Brazilian, African Gulf states, Singapore. The list goes on. This independent coalition, which I mentioned earlier, I don't want anyone to become the vassal of one of the great powers. Rather, we must come together to build an open source frontier model, a cutting edge model. Using all of the calculation capabilities you have pooling them. Our investment capabilities must be pooled to build a cutting edge, open source AI model, which we will share. We should not depend on somebody else. This is the agenda we must take forward and this through cooperation. Furthermore, there are other areas where we must set new rules AI in outer space, AI and defense, and cyber security. This has very serious consequences which affect the very heart of our national security. In Evian at the G7. Many of us lend our support for the call launched by our Finnish and Norwegian friends, and we want to continue within the framework of the G7, but also working closely with our UK colleagues who will hold the chairmanship of the G20 next year. We want to set a cooperation agenda on AI so as to protect the most sensitive components thereof, which affect our national security. We are coming to an agreement to build a new international architecture. We did this on chemical weapons. We did this when it came to other risks, and we must do the same when it comes to outer space defense, cyber security issues on which we must take control. And we need very specific kinds of cooperation, a specific framework for cooperation between member states in these areas, so as to be able to take this cooperation forward within a specific framework. We must not yield on this either.
