Newsfilter article unlocker

Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Please take your seats. The program is about to begin. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please take your seats. The program is about to begin. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We are stronger. We are more powerful. We are strong. We are powerful. stronger together is the vision that united two powerhouses in girls education to become one earlier this year she's the first and girl rising merged combining over 16 years of experience and trust working with girls their communities and public school systems around the world stronger together is why you are here at the clinton global initiative as well you understand that there is no single organization or sector that can solve global poverty, gender inequality, and the intricate barriers that stand in the way of opportunity for girls. It takes an ecosystem of support. And we are so proud to announce our commitment as a merged organization to model this ecosystem approach. We're working in Murshidabad, West Bengal, one of the most difficult places in India to be a girl, where more than half are married before they turn 18. Our three-year initiative will reach 10,000 adolescent girls in and out of school, and alongside girls will engage over 50,000 parents and community members, delivering 45 weeks of a RISE curriculum to build girls' knowledge, confidence, leadership, while shifting the norms that hold them back. Working with six partners on the ground, Girl Rising will lead program design, storytelling, and measurement and evaluation. Girls' education is one of the most powerful investments that we can make, but education alone doesn't guarantee that a girl graduates into a job that can support her and her family if we want girls to break barriers and to be the first in their families to choose their futures then we need to do more it's far more powerful than individual interventions today as a global nonprofit we are working to change what is possible for girls please join us because we won't stop until every girl is educated respected and heard Please welcome to the stage, Anmara Connolly, Global Network for National Service. Good afternoon. My name is Anmora Connoly, and as President of Voices for National Service and Executive Vice President of City Year. I'm honored to be here today alongside organizations from across the globe that know the transformative impact national citizen service can have on individuals, communities, and economies. Last year, leaders from City Year, Ecogenia, City Year UK, UK Year of Service, Glasswing International, City or South Africa, and Voices for National Service sat around a table right here at the Hilton during CGI's Economy Working Group to discuss the challenges facing civilian national service initiatives, we realized that though we come from all over the world and our contexts may differ, our goals are remarkably similar, helping young people develop skills, pathways, and purpose while strengthening communities. Around the world, civilian national services programs are helping countries tackle some of their most pressing challenges, from youth unemployment and poor educational outcomes to environmental sustainability, disaster response, and community resilience. At the same time, they help young people develop leadership, teamwork, communication, and problem solving, the durable human-centered skills that employers increasingly need in an AI-driven economy. Now, until now, national service leaders around the world have operated in isolation, with too few opportunities to learn from one another, share best practices, and build partnerships across borders. Through our discussions last year, we saw an opportunity to work together to scale national service programs to help young people achieve economic mobility and reach their full potential. So today, through the Clinton Global Initiative, we are honored to announce a commitment to action to establish the Global Network for National Service. This new coalition will bring together organizations from across Africa, Europe, the United Kingdom, North and Central America, and beyond to create a structured platform for collaboration, learning, and advocacy. Together, we will strengthen the evidence base for civilian national service as a powerful workforce pathway, connect emerging and established programs, educate and recruit employers, and accelerate the expansion of high-quality service opportunities around the world. By working together, we can amplify what works, inspire innovation, and expand access to national service for the next generation. We look forward to working with CGI and our partners to build a global movement that harnesses the power of service to strengthen communities, expand opportunity, and prepare young people for the future of work. Thank you. Thank you. Please welcome to the stage Sophia Bush, actress and activist. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm so happy to be here with you all today, especially because I bailed out of a car and ran and made it on time. For anyone else who did too, I see you. All kidding aside, around the world, crises are accelerating as the resources to respond or advance meaningful progress are shrinking. Meanwhile, many leaders are reconsidering their commitments to social impact and advancing the common good, and we are left asking, who leads now? I'm honored to be introducing four commitment makers whose leadership has not faltered despite the increasing headwinds they're encountering. Instead, each of them has seen an opportunity to close gaps, improve lives, and rewrite the traditional playbooks that are no longer enough, and they're running with it. Please join me in welcoming to the stage Florence Reed from Mandela, Panama, Jennifer Sir Angelo from Points of Light, Rahab Al-Salabani, the United Nations Development Program, and Marina Otto from Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Despite producing around 30% of the world's food, smallholder farmers lack the agroecology training, access to markets, and income-generating opportunities to achieve economic security. At the same time, the climate crisis is putting outsized pressure on these farmers, leaving them vulnerable to shocks. Mandela Panama is establishing an integrated agroecological farm service model to reach 400 smallholder farms in Panama's Cocle province. Across four service pillars, Mandela will provide agroecology training, direct market access, affordable ecological inputs, and agro-tourism opportunities. This will not only improve farmer incomes, it will also strengthen climate resilience and promote sustainable food systems. Mandela's proven model provides a blueprint for implementation that can be scaled to other parts of Panama and ultimately replicated around the world. Volunteering is a proven mechanism for forging stronger communities, improving social cohesion, driving civic engagement, and building confidence To give more people around the world the opportunity to reap the individual and societal benefits it can provide, Points of Light is committing to launch a global volunteering movement to empower 25 countries to establish national volunteer strategies. Drawing on its U.S. national volunteer strategy and experience working in 33 countries, Points of Light will develop a learning and action framework and provide forums for knowledge exchange and peer learning, as well as technical assistance and shared tools to establish the civic infrastructure that supports a culture of volunteering. In crisis and disaster-prone settings, women-led and women-focused civil society organizations are often the first ones to respond and remain engaged long into the recovery process. Yet they remain chronically underfunded. I know I don't have to tell you all that. And left out of the decision-making process. The United Nations Development Program is launching the Frontline Women's Resilience Fund to provide flexible support to women-led and women-focused organizations across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean. and the Middle East and North Africa. The fund aims to support 20 civil society organizations that are critical to closing the delivery gap to fund women-led crisis recovery and support women's leadership in the recovery, peace building, and preparedness systems. Ultimately, UNDP and its partners aim to reach more than 222,000 people directly by the end of 2028. And finally, super pollutants like methane and black carbon are having a devastating impact on the environment and human health. And while mitigation technologies are available, many developing countries face barriers to national scale implementation. In response, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition is expanding its accelerator to a minimum of 22 developing countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to close the gap between ambition and execution. The accelerator will help governments integrate superpollutant mitigation across national policies, including budgets, regulations, and investment plans. Over three years, the initiative will mobilize $75 million in funding, strengthen implementation capacity, and support policy and regulatory reforms. Not only will it improve air quality, but it will also improve public health, food security, and climate progress. While it can be easy to talk about the issues and ideate on opportunities, we all know it can be far more difficult to act. These commitment makers know that solutions can't wait. The stakes are that high and the situation is that urgent. They are showing us what action is possible. I hope each of you will consider how you can join them in their work because our collective future is worth fighting for and we can start right now. Congratulations. I'm supposed to give the ladies this aren't I or is it someone else supposed to do it? I get to do? Great. So you can get your photos. I didn't see you there. Please welcome to the stage Ian Bremmer, Eurasia Group. We've got a packed house. It's very good to see that, thank you. We're going to have a fun hour and a bit with you all. This is all about who runs the world. And for those of you watching your phones, President Trump has just delivered his answer at the General Assembly. He said, to the victor goes the spoils. He was talking about Venezuela, but that is also his view on Iran and artificial intelligence and on who runs the world. And yet I have to say, I have never seen or heard of from an American president in 81 years since the United Nations has been formed a more antithetical statement to the charter that the Americans drafted in 1945. Because in 1945 in San Francisco on the ashes of World War II, the American answer to the victor does not go to spoils, but goes the responsibility, the accountability, the governance, and the leadership of a stable and just order. And that's why we are here today. So there are different views on who runs the world. Now, later this week, Xi Jinping, by most accounts, the most powerful single individual in the world, will come and be greeted by President Trump in Washington, D.C. And these are the most powerfull countries in the wold. So how is that going to go? I actually think it's going to go quite well. But I think it is going to go quite well because these two leaders are looking at the world and their priorities and what they want from this meeting very differently. President Trump's view has been quite short-term. The last couple of years he wanted control of TikTok. Away from the Chinese, that algorithmic influence and data in the hands of trusted friends. He wants to ensure that the Chinese are buying lots of soybeans from farmers in the United States, important for votes coming up in the midterms and in 2028. Xi Jinping's perspective is long-term. Xi Jinping perspective is the future of the global order, its influence over the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, its influence and control over Taiwan and the South China Sea. And if one leader's focused on short-term and the other leader's focused on long-term, you can kick the can on conflict down the road. And that is what I think is going to happen on Thursday. But I'm a little more concerned about where that relationship is going. And that leads, if we talk about the U.S., we talk About China, well, then there's everybody else. And most of us in this room are also concerned about everyone else. The middle powers, the so-called rupture that our friend Mark Carney spoke of back in January of this year, the most consequential speech on geopolitics this year to date, is very concerned about a United States that has a principle of to the victor goes the spoils, but is also very concerned about a China that does not embrace rule of law, that doesnot embrace democracy and liberty, that doesn't embrace a free market system. And so what you see are a group of countries around the world that are trying hard not to be captured by, not to face predation, but instead to ensure that rule of laws And the principles that the Americans stood up for in 1945 persist. Now, in an environment of rupture, geopolitically, in a G-Zero world, as I call it, you really have three choices. You can either reform your present institutions that are not working adequately for you. You can build new institutions that allow you to govern in spaces that become priorities like AI and climate. Or you can go to war. those are your options and today on the sidelines of the General Assembly we see that all three are clearly being chosen the hope in this meeting and the discussion we're going to have on our panel is to what extent we can tip the scale we can put our thumb collectively on it towards the first two of those solutions so that's a few minutes for me and now I want to welcome our first conversation, two leaders who are united by a shared mission, which is clearing the path for others to step into their own leadership potential. Please join me in welcoming the Prime Minister of the government of Barbados, Mia Motley, and the chair of the Open Society Foundation, Alex Soros. Please. So, no small number of issues for us to cover. Prime Minister, let me start with you. And I want to say that another way to pose the question of who leads now is to ask who is trusted to lead now, who is entrusted to lead. now. So I'm going to ask you to start just that open-ended question. How do you answer that question on a global stage today? Very, very difficult. I think that the trust deficit is really what is haunting us. And to that extent, those leaders who try to be able to build that trust are standing out. I Think that's why Prime Minister Carney has emerged as a voice for so many. But the bottom line is that the engagement is not happening sufficiently. And we are really in a world where people are allowing power to dominate, and where the rules mean less and less, and with the principles mean less and this doesn't mean that they've gone away. But regrettably, because the evidence is there of the raw exercise of power, it It causes many to remain reticent and to be looking on rather than acting. But what is needed now more than ever is courage to restore trust. And so, Alex, trusted institutions, government, philanthropy, media, and our international bodies is at historic lows all over the world. Why do you think that is true today? and then we can talk a little bit about what rebuilding it might mean but let's start with why okay testing okay thanks honor to be here you give a great introduction so I'm gonna try to follow up here your eloquent start look I mean it's very clear trusted at all-time lows I mean there was some polling this summer that showed them a majority of Americans don't even trust their neighbors. And I think, obviously, when we look at institutions, the majority of people across the world see that a financial system is broken. Their political system is broken. But it's not that people are apathetic. People are actually political. They're, in a way, hyper-political. I mean, Anton Jaeger has this great term about hyper- politics, which I won't get into here but I think it really you know it serves this you know you know serves this uh you know time time well because you have a lack of institutional resilience a lack a belief in institutions but everything you know is completely you know political even you know even you know I'm sure Bill Gates didn't think that he was going to be come you know a boogeyman of the right which I thought was exclusively reserved for my father by just backing vaccines, you know. So when did this happen? I think it's going to be the big, you know, it's gonna be the debate for, you know, for historians, you know, to come and that we're still having, you know, the discourse around, you know, when trust, you know, stop. But I think, you know, both, you know, I think the Bush administration and the financial crisis probably have a lot, you know, have a lot, you know, to do with that. You know, I also think that a lack of trust is also a lack of faith uh in in the future um you know we were living in a dividend which and in a time in which people's uh parents you know um uh were worse off than they were and they went through struggles and their lives were better than their parents and now we're seeing the opposite and also people aren't having as many children so i think that a lack of trust is also a lack of our own imagination uh for the future and to answer your second question about i think you know how we rebuild that I think that we cannot allow political imagination to be the domain of authoritarians um you know and uh and uh you know um and nationalists uh you know on the right I think why Zohra Mamdani was such an inspiration to people is because he started to he started not be the guy that said hey you know we can't do this that's not possible you know these are these rules and norms he said no we're gonna have free buses you know we're going to have, you know, community grocery stores, whatever, because Donald Trump got that lane and autocrats got the lane of saying what was possible and, you know, and that they were at least going to try to make things possible. And we were like, oh, you know, we'll get you some tax deduction here, et cetera. And, you know, I think too many institutionalists, and I'm not saying I am one, but I think too many institutions were about what's not, were saying to people what's not possible and not saying what was possible and we need to be about what is possible. I think it's been compounded as well by the fact that when you combine the amplification of examples through social media with the reality of people not seeing progress in their life, they're frightened to believe. And that's why the example given by Alex is so powerful that when you start to show what is possible I was told in my country, and leaders before me were told that we could not implement a minimum wage. And in the middle of COVID, my government implemented a minimum wage. And since then, we've increased it three times. So I mentioned, Mark, you did as well, Carney, as identifying these challenges. But when you think about who is taking leadership and how they're taking leadership to rebuild trust in our existing institutions or our new ones, who do you look to for leadership on the global stage today? Ourselves in the global south. Look, we were told, for example, that we can't get longer-term money to build hospitals, to build schools, to replace water mains. And we were taught that it is impossible to attain the SDGs in this climate. When we left the UN last year at the annual meetings in October, we met with members of the Arab Cooperation League with the Inter-American Development Bank and I asked a simple question who in here in this room wants to change things because if you don't have the will to change we're not going anywhere and they asked what do you mean I said well how do you accept that you can pay for a school in 10 or 12 years you crowd out other money that you need to spend on development and it forces you to make harsh choices In the end, the OPEC Fund for International Development and the members of the Arab Cooperation League agreed to meet us where we were. We spent the next few months then working together such that in Vienna, in June of this year, we signed the Vulnerability to Viability Compact. And we're now literally concretizing that as we go into the annual meetings next month, where we're seeking, one, to amplify the amount of concessional financing for education, health and water. Two, where we're looking to be able to make sure that we can incorporate other innovative clauses, whether it is natural disaster clauses or, indeed, to be able to amplify the use of debt swaps. And these things have been done for the benefit of 74, now 77, since the compact was signed, countries across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America, the Pacific. Now, people said it's not possible. But years ago, people said it wasn't possible to amplify homeownership as a larger percentage of the population either. And then we recognized that, look, we need to make sure that the lending that is done to consumers matches the life of the asset. And mortgages became a thing of the day. And homeownership transformed and increased significantly. I am saying to you that in a world that values things that only consolidate wealth in the hands of a few, we have a problem. But in a world that sees the possibility of being able to bring benefits to people, that school that we build is going to last for a century or more, and the hospital, and the water mains. And in every instance, we're replacing assets that have been untouched by rehabilitation and refurbishment for over 50, 60 years. So Alex, in addition to the leadership deficit... And that was the Global South, helping the Global South, then joined by the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Latin American Development Bank the African Development Bank the Asian Infrastructure Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank so that we've got the global financial institutions that are working with us. The last big, big nut to crack ultimately will be the credit rating agencies. And if we don't recognize that you need to deliver at the most basic levels for human beings how they learn, how they keep from being sick, how they get access to clean, safe water, then what are we doing? Why are we here? So, Alice, it turns out we have another institutionalist on stage. So you don't have to worry about that front. But in addition to a leadership gap, another big story that anyone would focus on in the last year is that there's such... that the funding is moving in the wrong direction. UN funding is getting cut. USAID has been savaged. Global philanthropy is not where it needs to be. You personally have enormous influence over one of the most important philanthropic organizations in the world. How has this changed your view? Urgency. You mentioned Bill Gates. He's of course doing things differently now, but his focus is enormously AI because it all has to happen right now or there's no point. Is that the way you're thinking or do you have a very different approach? A few things. First of all, I think regarding who leads next. It's Mia and all the people that you mentioned. If you ask Carney, if you ask Macron, if you asked all the people, the rising middle powers, multilateralists, they'll say, Mia's the real deal. She comes with the ideas. And we've been honored to partner in the Bridgetown Initiative with her. I think we have to understand that philanthropy does not actually have the amount of money to fill the huge gap of the u.s government when it comes to things like uh you know like usa um id and i think but i think that what we can't do is retreat and say that we can rebuild aid in the future that we can't make this and and you know reframe this as something that is very important for our national interest i mean i just saw uh today that europe might be slashing its own aid they want to be a global player and they're gonna they're going to you know and they are going to slash you know and they're going to slash aid. They also don't want mass immigration, and they are going to, you know, slash aid, and honestly, I think, you know, they've asked, like, the American public if they're okay with 1% of GDP being spent on aid, and they say yes, because they think it's, like 10, you know, higher, so there is actually constituency for this, and it's in the national interest, but leaders need to not, you know, shy away from it and lean into it. It is disgusting that the richest man in the world is literally letting people and pushing for people to die of AIDS. I mean, it's absolutely horrific, and it is endemic of a type of thinking which we need to fight in our politics, that they can only be winners and losers. I mean I'm sorry that's not how America has led. That's not real leadership is, and they should go back, and if they really think about power and all these ways, I mean they definitely haven't run Machiavelli. Now, I can't let us end this part of the conversation without at least talking about technology and AI. Your government has had to deal with a lot of fake information, including that you banned Trump from your country, had to respond to that. Not true, at least not as of now. I can assure you it was not a case of future events cast in their shadows. Do you think that this is a material challenge for any democratic leader? Absolutely. Look, we work to build societies and to make them function efficiently for the majority. It's not going to happen if we can't shape values. And in many of these societies, the only place left to shape values across the board is in the school system. In this country, there was a time when you wanted information. You went to ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS. Now there's a multiplicity of organizations providing that information. And that is mirrored across the entire world, other than those regimes that are completely authoritarian and blocking out access to information. What it means is that we're going to have hell to reinforce the values necessary. and if you don't have values and you can't agree on the facts then you have a perfect storm and we have to fight hard to be able to make sure that there is a pathway of truth always because we can disagree on the opinions but let us find a way to ensure that the facts are equal for everyone to interpret I believe that we are at a stage where we're going to have to also take action and regulate The reality is that Barbados has just agreed to host in November the second scientific panel on AI because we believe, as Shirley Chisholm told us, if you don't have a seat at the table, bring a folding chair and get there because almost a quarter of the world's nations are small states and people don't appreciate the different perspective of small states. So we need to be there to ensure that that is heard. At the same time, the pace of change is so stunningly moving that it almost is impossible for the average human being to contemplate what life will be like. I mean, we grew up watching the Jetsons, and now we're living it. Flying cars are still a bit away, but yes, I'm with you. I'm fair, yeah. I'm here with you, I am. with you. Alex, on that topic, this challenge of AI to governance, to how our political systems work, has just exploded in a relatively recent amount of time. What are some early stage governments or programs that you see that you're supporting or that others are engaged in that you think could make a meaningful difference to turn the tide? I know we're against... I'm going to give you another minute or two. Don't worry about it. We're, you know, we're... They told me I was a judge, yeah, okay. Good. Look, I mean, I think when you go, I mean, the thing about AI is, you know, it's very unpopular. I mean. You know, people are, people would rather live near a nuclear reactor than a data center. And I think we have to look at, you know, also, you know, root causes. But it also says something to me about, you know, about the power of democracy and the power of collective action because I think people are fighting back against a vision of the future that's being shoved down their neck by an enlightened, self-enlightened few that say this is the way things are going to be. And they're saying, no, I don't want that future. I'm going to use my agency. I don'T want to be replaced by a robot. I DON'T want you to tell me what my future is and how we're going to live. And I think what I find at least some optimism in is that people in Silicon Valley and a lot of AI investors are worried that democracy is too slow and that there's so much pushback because people are pushing back that AI won't be able to actually come into existence the way that it is and that it isn't that AI will kill democracy but actually that democracy may wind up killing at least their version of AI. Not an easy conversation but an essential one. Thank you so much Madam Prime Minister, Alex Soros and we'll move to our next session. Thankyou very much. So now, as we transaction to our next bit, we're going to talk about a critical issue urgent for many around the world, water. And I'll go back to our top risk report. A lot of you know it from 2026, first time we've ever placed water as a top global risk for our report. what was a humanitarian crisis becoming a national security threat affecting all regions of the world from the Colorado River Basin to the Sahel. And I have a great, perhaps the most interesting person in the limelight right now on this issue. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Abdullah Balala, the Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs for Energy and Sustainability from the UAE. Please, Abdullah. So, we've known each other for a bit, and I think about the water environment, we're talking about it beforehand here, as one that has been considered a local issue, a tribal issue, across border issue, not an issue you typically see the heads of government tackling at a governmental level? How has this suddenly changed? Well, Ian, I think today it's clear that water is not only an environmental issue. It is an environmental issues, it's an economic issue, it's a foreign policy issue, as you rightly said. For us, as the UAE, this is something we've realized since inception, I have to say. The oasis in the UAV, wherever water existed, people will sit, trade, have a shared responsibility on that water source if you want. But globally, as you can see today, the geopolitical situations that's happening in our region, but also elsewhere, makes it clear how important is this precious resource affecting trade, how important it is today with what we see, the rise of the artificial intelligence. There are like over 500 million cubic meters today consumed with data centers today, for example. So the fact I'm trying to state here is water underpins everything. It's an economic issue, it's a political issue, it's an environmental issue. So we know that and we realize that and what we're trying to say, what we are trying to do actually is to shed the light on that and bring the word towards the end of this year in December to Abu Dhabi and discuss this matter. But since you've mentioned heads of governments and governments, I think it's worth mentioning that one of our findings throughout the consultation have undertook in the past two years is to bring water into leadership attention. And in Abu Dhabi at the end of this year, we have heads of states and heads of governments confirmed to come and discuss this precious resource. So it's not gonna be easy, right? I mean, the 2023 UN Water Conference was the first of its kind in 46 years. You're hosting the next one in December. And the war between the United States and Iran as well as increasingly spilling over as we see with the Houthis, is happening right now. I do not envy your position in singularly organizing a massive global event in Abu Dhabi in December. That's not easy to do. Tell us how you're doing. Well, allow me to say at the beginning, we're good at this. That's number one. And I guess most of our friends here have, or some of them have witnessed what we've done at COP28 in 2023. There is a trust in the UAE. The UAE will convene the word this coming December, despite what's going on in our region. This is heads of states have already confirmed coming to the event because what we have been doing and mobilizing for the past two years is to shed the light on how important is water to the previous sectors I've highlighted. And by the way, it's 15 heads of state, is it not, for December? Hopefully more. Yeah, but that have confirmed for Abu Dhabi in December. Just in case folks think you can't go, that's at least voting with their feet on the part of heads of government. So that's something. Yeah, and we're talking about hundreds of ministers and senior officials. But the inclusivity was by design, it wasn't random. We are bringing the right people in Abu Dhibi in order to move a needle in the water sector. So we're talking about heads of governments and heads of states. We're talking senior officials, ministers, international organizations, financiers, philanthropy, civil society, NGOs. This is important, because the numbers are shocking. Today there are billions of people lack safely managed drinking water. And with the growth and urbanization and population growth and organization, there's only 3% that's considered fresh water in our planet. And with what's going on, it's exasperating. What's holding back progress? For this to be like a wild success from your perspective, what are the features of the political landscape, of the economic landscape that you need to overcome so that this is a better story? Sustainable development goal number six, if we take that as a target. Because one of our main focus actually is implementation. Enough talking, let's do something on the ground. That's what the UN Water Conference in Abu Dhabi will be focusing on. So if we are to speak about what holds us back, there are multiple things. But I'll give examples. Finance. Today in the developing world, or maybe start by the financial gap. It's quantified by $6.7 trillion by 2030. And Goldman Sachs, in their report, mentioned it's going to be $13.2 trillion by 2040. So if you zoom in into the developing world, above 90% of the spending in the water sector comes from public money. So there is a role to the private sector. The financiers, the multilateral development banks, they all need to pitch in. But also looking at this from an investor standpoint or perspective, this is an opportunity because everyone needs water. So there is not enough spending or financing into the water sector. So that's one thing. The second thing, for a country that's technology savvy like the UAE, we don't see that the water technologies have been given the right, I would say, scale. If you focus on technology, if you look at the technology sector in terms of scaling today, three things come to mind immediately. Semiconductors and artificial intelligence, energy, and also deep tech like robotics and other stuff. Water goes far below on that list. So if we are to spend more and scale more water technologies, we will be able to solve so many of these issues. As I said earlier, it goes far beyond the 2.1 billion people who lack safe, free, managed drinking water. There are 700 million people threatened to be displaced from their communities because of water. There are 3.4 billion people living in regions that are scarce. And the numbers go on and on and On. Disputes, conflicts have quadrupled in the past 10 years. I'm speaking only on water here. So, again, we need to focus and bring this subject into the center of the international agenda. And that's what we're trying to do in Abu Dhabi. I'm glad you're talking about the private sector. I mean, the World Bank, over the last years, their budget has stayed flat. No one's putting more into it except the private center, another over $10 billion. And it's dramatically increased what they've been able to accomplish. So if I think about bringing the private sector into water, it's only 10% right now, you say, who are some CEOs that presently, companies, that are not involved right now but they're likely to come, you want them to come and in the next year you're going to say, here are some successes, this is what they're doing, this is why they'redoing it. Give us a future map. Look, I think today investing in water is an opportunity, especially in the developing world. That's number one. Number two, we need to be mindful as well that we need provide them the private sector. We need to provide the private center or enable it if you want with the right environment to invest. And here I'm talking about governments. Governments need to have the right regulations to attract the private sectors to come and invest. Financiers and MDBs need to look at this or maybe create a sort of a de-risking mechanism to get access to that capital. We hear a lot about multilateral development banks and private banks that earmarks amount, including us. Two weeks ago, we earmarked 100 billion dirham. That's what? $28 billion through First Abu Dhabi Bank. But also we're doing it in a way that we allow the private sector to have access into it. So in order for the private sector to be attracted to come and invest in water, we need to provide them with the right environment. And this is where the World Bank initiative, the Water Forward, which we are working with them on, comes into play. Countries need to work on their compacts in order to get access to the finance from the multilateral development banks. But if we are to speak to address your question about companies, there are so many companies. I mean, in Europe, in Asia, in the UAE itself. What we promise, the UAV will do its part through its financing sector, through its private sector, and through its aid and philanthropy sector. Capacity building is a huge gap because it's not necessarily capital is an issue. There are member states that capital is available for them, but they don't know how to do it in a most efficient and appropriate way. So capacity building comes into play. And that's why the UAE included the sixth interactive dialogue, which we call investments for water. And it's not only concerned with financing and investment. It's also concerned with technology and capacity building, because we're looking at this in a 360 way. So we just heard in our last conversation, you did as well, that AI and technology companies are increasingly being demonized. And not just because people are concerned about work, but because they're consumed about energy, they're consuming about water. So on the one hand, you have these data centers that are consuming an enormous amount of water. It's making it more of an issue. On the other hand is precisely these technologies that are likely to do the most to unlock greater efficiency, water usage, and availability around the world. How are you going to address that tension at your conference in December, and how should we be thinking about it for this audience here? Look, speaking about AI, if I get your question correctly, technology is at the heart and center of what we are going to talk about in December. Speaking about AI and water, today, NVIDIA, Microsoft, they're creating, because data centers and AI is consuming a lot of water. And today, there are technologies in place by NVIDia, by Microsoft, where you cool the data center, but think of it as a car radiator. So you cool The Chip itself instead of cooling the room of the data center. And these technologies are, I think it's piloting right now, but it's proven successful. So hopefully we see scaling on that regard. But if I am to speak about the conference, technology and solutions will be featured. And we have a long history on working on technology. multiple sectors and water is one of them so as of today uh if you think of zeit sustainability price which is an annual price there is a segment for water winners will be scaled will be will be deploying their solutions elsewhere if you think about what we are doing in abu dhabi and dubai there are ai enabled tool that can govern and basically uh optimize if you want the operations and utilization of water in a most efficient way smart meeting all these things will be it's already deployed in the UAE but also will be featured but this is not about the UA only so this is open for any technology owner or technology company to come and speak and exhibit and our role is to pride them with that with the right platform but also to connect them with the people or maybe partner with them to deploy such solutions before we go tell us about a technology that you're seeing early stage right now that if we get it right is going to make a fundamental difference in the way we talk about this say in dushan bay in the future other water conferences you're the first you're the person focused on it i think the technologies that would be successful the ones that look at desalination if we are to speak about sector within the water sector right um we as uae we are a desalinated nation we rely almost 90 percent on on desalinate water but also technologies that that will focus at the desalination system, the full system of desaliation. Because desalitation is energy intensive process and it's mainly concerned with the membrane. We launched in 2024, the Mohammed Bin Zayed Water Initiative. And it's concerned with coming up with a full-fledged desalinated technology and it is in partnership with XPRIZE. And hopefully by 2028, we would be announcing the winner. It's the largest ever price purse, $150 million. But I'm not gonna speak in particular or in particular about technology or qualifiers, but I think the technology that will look at the desalination as a full-fledged system, considering energy, considering mass, quantity, and scale of water, will really make a difference. Every Polly Market and Cal Shee betters right now. You've heard who might be taking that prize going forward. Excellent. Sir, Your Excellency, thank you so much for joining us today. Good luck in December. Okay, now we have one more conversation before you're allowed to go for lunch, and that is Governor J.B. Pritzker from this great state of Illinois. Come right up, please, Mr. Governor. Good to see you, Max. Yeah, no, thank you, Vinya. Well, welcome. Thank you. Great to be here. Absolutely. No small number of topics. We just have been talking about AI, so we might as well start there because it's become such a hot potato for almost every state. And so you've been talking a lot about your Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act. And so maybe if you get your wish and Congress actually passes new legislation regulating AI, despite the opposition right now in the White House, what does that get us? Where are we going? You're saying if we pass it and yet Trump in the white house still? Well, no, I'm saying just where would you like us to go? I thought I'd start aspirationally. By the way, I do think that we should pass it anyway, even with Trump in the White House, just at a minimum, because I think it's an indicator to the world and to the country about what we ought to be doing, even if Trump vetoes it. But I guess I should start by saying that the bear, I mean, you know, we all talk about guardrails. There's got to be more meat on that bone about guardrail. but critically important is the safety measures that we have in place for what happens in an emergency. I mean, literally when this, you know, when it gets out of control, where's the off switch? I mean I'm using that euphemistically, but effectively we've got to have some way, and that's what we tried to write in our AI safety measures bill, which is requiring audits, but also having a report from the companies themselves about, well, what is the plan? And the challenge, of course, is that they're not going to tell you everything that you need to know in their offering. That is why, in my view, that doing this as a patchwork quilt around the country, and Illinois has passed, I think, the toughest AI Safety Measures Act so far, but California, they led the way along with New York, and we all should be sharing the best ideas. but we can't do this just state by state by say I mean it does not work and meanwhile I do think we have to do it nonetheless and we are the laboratories of policy now because the federal government has essentially gotten out of the business of doing what's best for the entire country and so we're going to have to doing it at the state level so that's that that's the beginning I think that we have a lot to do that's underneath the question the big questions of you know, the existential questions, I guess, of AI. Underneath that, though that's obviously quite important, but underneath that, the question of how is AI going to be used, and in particular, how it affects our children, what the allowable uses are. Are we going to let AI take the place of, you know, we've banned this, but then take the space of therapy, for example, or, you know, using a essentially the services of a psychiatrist even. And so these are all things I think we are have to challenge ourselves with. In Illinois, what we've done is today, in fact, I issued an executive order creating an AI cabinet that is an artificial intelligence, a group of experts that come from our state agencies, but also from academia, from agencies outside of government and truly drawing on the world's and Illinois' best experts in this topic field so that we can get not just a report on where we are, but what are the things that we ought to be doing? What are the considerations? What about the ethicists that we need to engage in the discussion of how to regulate AI? So these are all things that I think every state ought to be grappling with. I think a few of us are maybe ahead of some others, but we should be sharing it amongst one another and being prepared for a new presidency of whichever party. I said that with some hesitation, because I know which party wants to at least more aggressively go after this subject. But we have to be prepared for that moment and, frankly, for this very moment. Another place where national policy and state policy, especially your state, very different right now, relations with America's neighbor to the north, Canada. You and I have been Canada together with Mark Carney. Certainly, Illinois has a very important economic relationship with that country. It is more uncertain today than it was a few months ago, than it was a couple years ago. How do you respond to that? What can be done to undo some of this damage? How much of it is permanent in your view? We have to start with maintaining at least the subnational relationships. So the state of Illinois is acting as a, you know, a center of diplomacy with Canada, with all of the provincial leaders, as well as the national leadership, because very, very important in this moment for when Canadians are angry, rightfully so, about the U.S. government and how the government under Trump is treating them and about our trade relationship, but very important for them to also understand that Americans love Canadians, that we are as close as any two people can be, not just physically, but in so many other ways, and that we have to keep reminding them of that because every day, of course, they are faced with the news that Donald Trump has done yet something else to insult everybody in Canada or to actually effectuate some negative economic consequence for both our countries really, but for their country. So I want to, so that's what I, my role I felt has been, and not just talk, not just the relationship and diplomacy and protocol, but also discussing what are we going to do going forward? Because I don't want us to forget that we're friends. And I want us to make sure that we've established at least enough of a relationship that when the government in the United States changes, and I believe that it will change. AndI believe it'll be my party in control of the executive branch in the United States, that we can very immediately try to repair and improve the relationship between our two countries. I hate to tell all of you, but I think this is true what I'm about to say. I don't think it'll ever go back to where it was. And that is frightening for us to recognize. I say that with the great hope that it will, or that it will even be better than that. But I am fearful because I think what has happened across the world, as you well know, not just with Canada, is that, you know, it's one thing when we elected Donald Trump in 2016 and everybody said, you Know, have they gone nuts? Yeah. Democracy sometimes elects somebody that's, you Now, out of the norm and changes things in a temporary fashion and then restores itself after one term. It looked like that's what we were doing in the United States. Instead, what did we do? We elected him again. And so we could have restored our trusted relationships with people, and we're on our way to doing that. Although, again, my grandfather used to say it takes a lifetime to build up a good reputation and about five minutes to screw it up. And we kind of did that by electing Trump the first time. But then when we elected him the Second, we essentially confirmed all the lack of trust that people were imagining that they should have with the United States because we can't trust the American people, apparently, to elect somebody who's going to be responsible about our relationships. This is a real challenge. So Canada, as far as I'm concerned, in particular Canada, because for the state of Illinois, Canada is our number one trading partner, and we value that greatly. We have Canadian companies that are based in Illinois. We have Illinois companies. We're the second largest region for Fortune 500 companies. Our Fortune 500 countries are all in Canada or most of them. And so this is, you know, we're about as tight as any two places could be. And it's all being put to the test. Thank you. I agree that permanent damage has been done, but I also think that rebuilding is going to occur. So, I mean, both of those things can be true. You've been very vocal about standing up to federal immigration operations in Illinois. And especially when we saw a surge of ICE agents come into your state, not the only state where that's been an issue. We've got midterms coming up. Lot of people, lot of senators, lot of governors concerned about what ICE agents at electoral ballot boxes and the rest might actually represent. At the same time, one of Trump's more popular issues, why he was voted in not once but a second time, was a very tough line on immigration. I wonder how you think leaders across the country, not just yourself, need to be addressing this issue right now? Look, I'll be very frank with you. I think that, you know, I have often quoted Ruben Gallego, who comes from a border state, because I believe that he has this right, which is if you don't have a secure border, you don'T have a country. So I think we Democrats and I say this all the time. We should be saying this allthe time because it is true, not suggesting that you want to just close off immigration. And I'm suggesting you have to have a secure border. Then the question is, what kind of immigration policies do you want in place? And it's fair to say that the Democrats had taken their eye off that ball for a while. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. I mean, there's no doubt. And I, by the way, we received, you know, it was a brilliant political maneuver and also tremendously inhumane that Governor Greg Abbott in Texas decided to start shipping people from his state, people who had come across the border who had TPS or other status, but were refugees or still had their immigration hearings to go to, and started shipping them all over the country. But where he shipped a great number of them to, aside from New York, was Chicago. We got about 55,000 people that arrived. And these are people who have no shelter, arriving sometimes in the middle of winter without a coat, sometimes without the right shoes, and didn't have any way to feed themselves. And so these folks arrived. Of course, at that point, it's a humanitarian endeavor. And so we, as the state of Illinois did, and the city of Chicago too, did what we felt was the right thing to do, which is feed, clothe, house people who were otherwise desperate. And we got almost no help from the federal government in doing that. I had regular conversations, I'm talking about perhaps more than every week, with the White House, with various people in the White House about, you know, help, we need help. If you're going to operate the border the way you're operating, and if Greg Abbott is going to do what he's doing, you're not stopping him in any way. We need help, and I proposed, I was very public at one point about this. I didn't love having to go after my own president and his White House but I was public about it, and there were things that we needed to do. And I proposed some of those things publicly. I also said a few privately about what we ought to do, and almost none of it, in fact, none of it, was actually taken up on. And the result is that we all suffered, and I think we all got to see firsthand the failures. And I've talked to folks who were running previous administrations in senior positions about how they handled immigration during it, and it was very different under Joe Biden. So, yeah, you asked a different another question, I think, which is, you know, the I think the the pushback on this so vitally important because we need a secure border. We do. We also need immigration in this country. I mean, we have, as you can see, birth rates are coming down in all the developed countries. We have the this is like our biggest advantage in the world economically and otherwise, that we attract the smartest, best people. We also attract people who want to be free, people who want to make a, you know, a life for themselves and their families. The most entrepreneurial people, you know, 50% of the Fortune 500 companies in the United States were founded by immigrants or the first generation children of immigrants. We should remember that because if you want more entrepreneurship, if you want to build our economy. So I, I really, I like that stat. It's a good stat. It's true. And, and, and by my great grandfather was a refugee to this country. He had absolutely nothing, came here at age 10, didn't speak English, went to a public school, one of the most patriotic people that you would ever meet. Every generation of my family has done public service because we carry that sort of patriotic gene. And I believe that is true in many immigrant families. The most patriantic people are the people who are like the first generation children of immigrants because they understand that from their parents, how dangerous the rest of the world is and how protective this country is and what opportunity exists here that does not exist elsewhere. And so I'm a big believer now. I, you know, if you just put it on a poll, you Know, do you think we should have immigration? I know there are a lot of people who are like, we don't want immigrants. But then when you sort of make the case about we're all, I mean, not everybody, but most people here, mostly were immigrants by choice. Some people, many people in this country, immigrants not by choice, and then there are people who are not immigrants. They're actually Native Americans, but recognize that immigration has been hugely beneficial for the growth of this country and the fact that we are the greatest country on earth. So I want to protect that status, and I think we ought to believe in that, and that the people who Are in this Country who are undocumented, who are following the laws, people who were holding down a job and paying taxes, There are neighbors and our friends. I mean, I have friends who are in this country, who are in Chicago, in Illinois, who aren't undocumented. These are good people. The people that I know, good people who are not breaking the law. They haven't done anything wrong. We ought to find a path for them, whether you think they ought to have a path to citizenship or just legality. Either way, we should not be hunting them down because they have black or brown skin, because they speak with an accent, or because they seek a foreign language. I do not understand. This is not the country I want my children growing up in their 20s now. So they've grown up substantially, but I do not want my grandchildren growing up in a country like that. And so we have to restore humanity, and we have to restore the greatness of this country by having really good immigration policies. A couple more. Thank you. A couple of more before we let you go. Ignore the clock. Ignore that. Ignore it. Ignore what you're talking about. Three, two, one. Yeah, no, I don't care. The room is ours. So, you talked about immigration and how the Democrats have gotten it wrong. I wanna give you another one where the Democrats, and frankly, everyone has gotten it wrong, which is fiscal policy. It's very clear, especially when interest rates go up, and we know we have an affordability crisis for average Americans, but the country has an affordably crisis, right? Because you're not gonna be able to continue to spend on defense the way you have. You're not going to get Social Security the way you have, are there any tough medicine decisions that you are willing to stand up and say, hey, the United States, here's what we're going to actually need to do to address this? I guess I want to speak as somebody who comes to this with some experience, because when I became governor of the state of Illinois, we literally had the lowest credit rating in the country. We hadn't passed a budget in a couple of, well, just barely passed a budget the year before I became governor, but we had not passed a balanced budget in a quarter century. We had had 24 straight credit downgrades in the 15 years before I became governor. I mean, and people said to me while I was running, and I have a lot of friends in the business community, I was in business before I become governor, who, Republicans and Democrats, but mostly Republicans who would come up to me and say, you don't want to be governor because you're the guy who's going to be left holding the hot potato. You're going to have to like get Congress to help you declare bankruptcy for your state. So this is what I got as, you know, It's like, here you go, congratulances, you're governor now. And so, but I knew what I was getting myself into. And the truth is that I had to balance the budget and I had to get credit upgrades and I was like, I had a fiscal, we had $17 billion and that may not sound like a lot to an international crowd, but $17 million out of a $40 billion budget. This is of unpaid bills that were averaging 250 days old. Okay, so we had to pay all of that off and balance a budget that had basically a $3 billion deficit in the $40 billion. And we've done all of That. We've gotten 12 credit upgrades in a row. So I say that just not to say those are, you know, everything that we did is the answer to the national problems, but just to say that you have to do all that. No, because you haven't said what the national answers are yet, so I'm waiting. I haven't, I know, but I just wanted to say, and by the way, we had the right to do that. We had to rebuild a hollowed-out government because my predecessor had hollowed out government. So sounds familiar, right? That's all. That's the only point of credibility and experience. We start with that. But now we're moving. OK, fair enough. Look, when you when I talk to great economists and smart business people, I what I ask this question, like, where are we? Like as a country with 40 trillion dollars in debt, you know, what like is there a path? And there are half of them, maybe it's like the business community said to me about Illinois, but half of whom are like, there's no path. We are headed to a place that is unrecoverable. That I hear from a number of people, even people on my side of the aisle who are maybe more optimistic, I'm not sure. But having said that, I don't listen to that side. And I do think that we have to figure out how we're going to pay down debt and how we are going to still have a government that works for everybody. We do need to focus our national government on working families, and we have to stop being so afraid to ask some powerful people who are extraordinarily wealthy and have large corporations to pay their fair share and do the right thing for the country. and i i don't know i don'T you know i think having guts you know to to do that because that that is what it takes because these are very powerful people and you're seeing some of them come to four the four in this november election now here we are six weeks or whatever out from the november election and all of a sudden there's a flood of money coming in and it's by these very people that i'm talking about so i whoever is leading the country i think has to have the guts to to do that now what is what is it um uh again balancing the budget which hasn't been balanced in i don't know how many years ever since i don' know maybe in my lifetime um uh well bill clinton we had we had years yes i'm quite yes twice i am yes so it can be done with good leadership um but uh and pay no attention to the logo yeah yeah i was gonna say what's this not really you know Something could be anywhere. But anyway, I was thinking about, yeah, I'll just say what I was going to say, which is, but I give credit to Hillary Clinton. But, anyway, no, I think, so it's been a long time is my only point, right? And I wasn't, I look at what the possibilities are. We have to balance the budget first. It's sort of, it's a little bit the same game plan that I had. You have to balance the budget first. You have to run surpluses and you have to have a strategy for paying down debt or at least not getting yourself further into debt in other ways. And then you've got to make investments that actually grow the economy because at least in Illinois, there's no way to get out of the trap that we were in unless you're growing the economy. Um, and I always say like, you know, there are three ways to balance a budget, right? You, you, you can raise taxes, you Can lower spending, You do both of those things or you can grow the economy, you know, and I prefer the third way because it's great for everybody. And so that's, I think, the critical thing that we have to and taking money away from research at our at our universities is a huge mistake. And, you Know, pulling back from the world is a big mistake. huge mistake. If we are no longer the world's reserve currency, which I think is the direction that if we were continuing down this road of Donald Trump, we would no longer be the world'S reserve currency. This will become an impoverished country. We need to be the world'S reserve currency we need to demonstrate responsibility. And that's not happening right now. And so that I think, is at least the beginning of a solution. But I will say one last thing. I'm not going to solve all the problems of Illinois by the time I'm done leaving I'm running for re-election now so I'll be 4 more years that's 12 years I won't have solved all the problem in 12 years we'll solve a lot but it's heading in the right taking this aircraft carrier turning it in the correct direction in the the right direction and then powering it forward yes you need more people but it is going to take years it is not going take our eye off the ball and let, you know, if it's the Republicans who are saying, you know, let's cut taxes on everybody, but let's not talk about how we're going to pay for it. We're just going to cut taxes. Or it's Democrats who will say, let'S spend a whole lot more money, but not tell you how we'Re going to pay for it. Neither one of those is the right answer, in my view. There is a third way, so to speak, to do this. And I believe that we have to all recognize it's going to take years, but we have to have a steady hand at the wheel for those many years. Governor J.B. Pritchett, everyone, please, thank you very much. Good to see you, man. And now you have lunch. That's great. I was really glad you came. Thank you for attending this session. Lunch is now served in America's Hall 1.