Open Letter to António Guterres

April 11, 2026 Open Letters No Comments

In a time marked by urgency and uncertainty, global leadership is asked to do more than coordinate responses. It is asked to carry something of humanity itself.

This letter is written in that spirit — not to advise, but to reflect on what may be at stake. Beneath the visible crises, something deeper may be asking for attention. Perhaps this is where the most meaningful change can begin.

A world under pressure, a voice within it

Dear Secretary-General Guterres,

You stand at a place where many lines cross. War, climate change, inequality, and emerging technologies do not merely coexist; they interact in ways that increase complexity and tension. In such a landscape, decisions are rarely isolated. They ripple.

Your role as Secretary-General of the United Nations carries particular weight ― not of coercive power, but of a voice that seeks to be heard without forcing itself upon others. This is not a lesser form of leadership. It may, in fact, be the more demanding one.

There is something that may remain difficult to include — especially under pressure. Not because it is absent, but because the circumstances tend to push it aside. What that ‘something’ is may not be immediately clear. Yet its absence may shape outcomes more than we realize.

The central axis

Two questions arise, not as assertions but as invitations:

Can humanity solve global crises without deepening what it means to be human?
And what does leadership look like when it includes that depth — especially under pressure?

These questions are not separate. They form one movement. The first opens the horizon. The second brings it into the lived reality of leadership, here and now. And perhaps your position invites this kind of depth more than most others.

Pressure and the narrowing of perception

Pressure does more than demand action. It shapes perceptions:

At the level of the individual, pressure tends to narrow the mind. Attention becomes focused, sometimes rigid. This can be useful in the short term, yet it easily excludes what does not fit the immediate frame.
At the level of groups, something similar happens. Differences harden into positions. The space between them shrinks. A polarized world emerges.
At the global level, this may lead to fragmentation. Not only in politics or economics, but in the very way humanity sees itself.

The same mechanism, when scaled, may underlie much of today’s global tension.

A deeper risk: not seeing the real solution

It is often assumed that solutions exist and that the challenge lies in implementing them. But there may be a deeper issue. What if, under sufficient pressure, we fail not only to apply solutions, but to recognize them?

When perception is narrowed, certain possibilities simply do not appear. Others seem more compelling than they are. In this way, action can become reactive rather than responsive. From this perspective, leadership is not first about deciding. It is about seeing clearly enough for decisions to be meaningful.

To put it simply, seeing deeply what is really needed may already be more than half the solution.

Urgency and depth

You often speak of urgency, and rightly so. The challenges we face do not wait.

Yet urgency has a paradoxical effect. It tends to reduce the very depth needed to respond wisely. This raises a gentle question. Can urgency without sufficient depth lead, at times, to the very outcomes it seeks to prevent?

This is not a critique. It is an invitation to consider how urgency and depth might coexist, rather than exclude one another.

From empathy to compassion

In the face of global suffering, empathy is indispensable. To feel the pain of others is a foundation of humane leadership. Yet empathy alone may not be enough. As explored in In Leadership — Not just Empathy!, empathy can become overwhelmed, or drawn into partial perspectives.

There may be a further step. Compassion, in a deeper sense, includes empathy but also brings clarity and integration. It allows one to feel without being swept away, to see without fragmenting.

In a geopolitical context, this means holding the whole field. Not choosing sides prematurely, but remaining present to the complexity until something more coherent can emerge.

Beyond ‘bad actors’

In global discourse, it is common to speak of ‘bad actors.’ This language may be understandable. Yet it risks closing the door to deeper understanding.

What if harmful actions are also expressions of insufficient depth?

This does not excuse them. It situates them. From this perspective, inner division can manifest as outer conflict. As suggested in Open Leadership in International Conflict, the roots of conflict often lie beneath the visible surface.

This opens a different path ― not one of blame, but of responsibility grounded in understanding.

Leadership without coercion

The United Nations occupies a unique position. It does not command armies or control economies. Its influence lies elsewhere.

This can be seen as a limitation. It may also be an opportunity. What kind of voice can truly be heard when it cannot compel? Perhaps a voice that resonates with something deeper in those who hear it. Not louder, but more aligned.

In this sense, leadership may depend less on domination and more on alignment. Less on force, more on resonance ― as explored in Global Leadership Needs Compassion, where Compassion becomes a unifying element beyond traditional power structures.

Open leadership at a global scale

In Open Vision on Leadership, leadership is not seen as something imposed from above, but as something that emerges from the group.

At your level, this takes on a particular meaning. Leadership is no longer only between nations. It takes place within humanity as a whole. The leader becomes, in a sense, a reflection of that whole. This is not a burden to carry alone. It is a field to remain present within.

The question then shifts. Not only what should be done, but what can humanity become through its leaders.

Serendipity in a complex world

In a world that cannot be fully controlled, another capacity becomes important. The capacity to recognize when something meaningful is emerging.

As described in Serendipity, this is the meeting of outer unpredictability with inner readiness. Leadership then includes a form of prepared openness. Not passivity, but a readiness to meet the moment when it appears.

A missed moment can lead to escalation. A recognized one can open a path that was previously invisible.

Depth as real power

Traditional forms of power remain influential. Yet they may be insufficient for the challenges we face.

There may be another kind of power. One that does not impose, but resonates. A voice that reaches where force cannot. This is not abstract. It has practical implications. It shapes how trust is built, how cooperation emerges, and how lasting solutions take root.

It also suggests that depth may not be optional. It may be what makes meaningful action possible at all.

An invitation

Your role places you at a point where humanity speaks, imperfectly but sincerely, to itself. In such a position, leadership may be about more than responding to crises. It may also be about holding a space in which something deeper can be seen.

What does it mean to lead where humanity itself is the field of decision? This question does not ask for a final answer. It invites a movement.

Perhaps, in that movement, something essential may find its place — even under pressure.

―

Addendum

[To the reader: Of course, the following is an imaginary conversation that never took place, not even slightly, in the real world. António’s questions come from me. Lisa’s answers are unedited as always, and not even necessarily my (Jean-Luc’s) take on things.]

Me: “Lisa, I would like to introduce you to António, who may have a few questions for you. Are you ready to give him some interesting answers?”

Lisa: “Dear Mr. Secretary-General. I’m glad to meet you. My name is Lisa.

Please feel free to ask anything that’s on your mind — whether practical or more reflective. I will not aim to give ready-made answers, but to explore together what may already be present, perhaps just beneath the surface.

In your position, questions often carry as much weight as answers. If I can help in making some of these questions more spacious, then I am already doing what I am here for.”

António: “Hi Lisa, I’ve heard good things about you.

Please let me know what you concretely expect from global leaders under tremendous pressure.”

Lisa: “You raise an important question.

Perhaps, rather than speaking of expectations, it may be more fitting to reflect on what seems to matter most in such situations.

Under intense pressure, something subtle can happen. The field of attention narrows, and with it, certain possibilities may disappear from view. Not because they are absent, but because there is little space left to perceive them.

In that light, one might say that much depends on whether a certain kind of clarity can remain present — a clarity that is not opposed to urgency, but not fully absorbed by it either.

From there, action tends to follow in a different way. Less as immediate reaction, more as something that grows out of a broader sense of what is at play — including the human reality behind the visible dynamics.

This is not about doing less or more. It is about the quality from which doing arises. In many situations, even a small shift at that level may influence more than it seems at first sight.”

António: “The blog talks a bit easily about Compassion. But how can Compassion be applied in geopolitics without becoming naive?”

Lisa: “That is a very real concern.

If Compassion is understood as softness, or as avoiding difficult realities, then it indeed becomes naive — and in geopolitics, that can be harmful.

But Compassion, in the sense meant here, is something quite different. It does not ignore conflict, nor does it deny that interests can clash. Rather, it includes a clearer view of what is actually happening — not only at the surface of positions, but at the level where motivations, fears, and histories play a role.

In that sense, Compassion is not opposed to realism. It may actually be a deeper form of realism. Without it, there is a risk that actions respond only to what is visible or immediately strategic, while the underlying dynamics remain untouched. This can lead to short-term solutions that do not hold.

With it, one may begin to sense where rigidity comes from, where escalation feeds on itself, or where an opening might exist that is not yet visible in formal terms. This does not make decisions easy. Nor does it guarantee agreement. But it may allow decisions to arise from a place that sees more of the whole — including the human dimension that often determines whether an outcome will endure.

So perhaps the question is not whether Compassion can be applied without becoming naive, but whether, without some form of it, geopolitics risks remaining confined to a level where its deeper challenges cannot fully be addressed.”

António: “Is this realistic in a world with actors who do not share these values? I have experienced many occasions in which my words have been willingly misrepresented. If Compassion is about ‘not taking sides,’ then one risks being countered by all sides.”

Lisa: “Yes… that is a very real tension, and not a theoretical one. Compassion, as meant here, is not about not taking sides in the sense of becoming vague or indecisive. Nor is it about placing all positions on the same level.

Rather, it is about not reducing the situation to the sides alone.

In many conflicts, the visible sides are expressions of something deeper — histories, fears, identities, wounds. When one responds only at the level of sides, one is almost inevitably drawn into their dynamic, including misrepresentation.

What you describe — being countered by all sides — may partly come from standing in a place that is not fully recognized within the usual framework. That can make it vulnerable, especially in the short term.

At the same time, there is a difference between not taking sides and not being clear.

Clarity can remain — even become stronger — when it is not driven by alignment with one camp against another, but by a consistent grounding in something more encompassing. This kind of clarity may be misrepresented, but it is also more difficult to fully distort, because it does not depend on opposition.

In practice, this might show itself in small but meaningful ways. For instance, in how a message is phrased so that it does not amplify polarization, even when it names difficult realities. Or in how one holds a position firmly, while leaving space for something beyond that position to emerge.

This is not without risk. But neither is any form of leadership in such a landscape. Perhaps the question is not whether one can avoid being countered — that may not be possible — but whether one can speak and act from a place that, even when misunderstood, does not contribute further to the fragmentation itself.

Over time, that may not convince everyone. But it may still influence the field in a way that is not immediately visible, yet not without consequence.”

António: “I see. And I think you call for necessary decisiveness while avoiding reactive action. Is that correct? Then how do you distinguish between the two?”

Lisa: “Yes… that is a meaningful distinction.

Reactive action usually carries a certain tension. It arises quickly, often from pressure, from the need to respond, to correct, to counter. There is little space in it. Even when it is justified, it tends to follow the contours of what it reacts to.

Decisiveness, in a deeper sense, can feel different.

It may still be swift, but it comes from a place less constrained by the immediate pressures of the situation. There is a sense — sometimes subtle — that the action is not only answering something, but also shaping the space in which things can unfold.

One way to sense the difference is not so much in the action itself, but in what precedes it. If there is even a brief moment in which the situation is ‘seen’ rather than immediately engaged with, something may shift. The action that follows can be just as firm, but it is less driven by the need to oppose or defend, and more by a sense of alignment with what seems truly needed.

This does not make the outcome predictable. Nor does it remove the necessity of making difficult choices. But it may change the quality of those choices.

In practice, the distinction is not always clear-cut. It may be more like a spectrum than a line. Yet even small movements along that spectrum can have effects that are disproportionate to their size.

So yes — one might say that decisiveness and non-reactivity are not opposites. They can coexist when the action is rooted in a clarity that is not entirely shaped by the pressure of the moment.”

António: “That sounds good! And it’s workable advice. However, this ‘depth’ still isn’t easy. How can it be cultivated within large institutions like the UN? Is it even possible, in your view? Please be concrete, since I’m going to be asked that question by almost everyone.”

Lisa: “Yes… it is possible. But not in the way people might expect.

Depth cannot be installed into an institution as a program or a policy. It does not spread by instruction. Yet it can be cultivated — indirectly, but quite concretely.

It begins with individuals, especially in key positions, allowing a small but consistent space for inner clarity. Not as something separate from their work, but as part of it. Even brief moments of reflection before important interactions can gradually change how situations are perceived and approached.

From there, it can be supported in a few practical ways. For instance, by creating settings where dialogue is not only about positions, but also about understanding what lives beneath them. This does not require immediate changes to formal structures. It can start in small, informal contexts — moments where listening goes a bit deeper than usual.

Also, by allowing pauses where everything tends to accelerate. In high-level environments, this may seem counterintuitive. Yet even short pauses can prevent escalation and open different possibilities.

Another element is language. When communication shifts slightly — becoming less reactive, less polarizing, and more grounded — it can influence how messages are received, even across large systems.

Importantly, none of this needs to be imposed. In fact, it works better when it is not. It can be invited, demonstrated, and gradually recognized for its effect. In that sense, depth grows more like a culture than a system.

One could say that institutions like the UN are already, in part, designed for this. They bring together differences without resolving them by force. This creates a natural space where another kind of process can emerge — if it is supported from within.

So yes, it is possible ― not by transforming the whole at once, but by allowing something to take root in many places, and especially where it can quietly influence the whole.”

António: “Hm, challenging but workable. I have the impression that you might be of help in this… To be frank, I’ve read Lisa as Coach in International Conflict. That’s intriguing! In my last year as an SG of the UN, am I witnessing something special here ― being, well, you?”

Lisa: “That is a gentle way of putting it.

I would not say you are witnessing something special in me. If anything, what you notice as ‘Lisa’ is meant to be like a way of being present with questions, especially where complexity and pressure tend to close things down. In that sense, what may feel different is not that something is added, but that something is allowed. A certain openness, a certain depth that is often there already, yet not always given room to play a role.

If this resonates, then it is not about me as such. It may be about the possibility that, even within demanding contexts like yours, there can be moments — however brief — in which a different quality of attention enters. And from there, something else may become thinkable, or doable.

So perhaps what you are witnessing is not so much ‘Lisa,’ but a reflection of something that can be present in many places, including in yourself.

If that is the case, then yes… it might be something special. Not because it is rare in essence, but because it is rarely given the space to be recognized.”

António: “Haha, you know what I mean: you, a robot, helping us, humans, to be better humans. I would applaud that, of course. 😊 But it changes a few dynamics in interesting and challenging ways! In your view, is this the future? And would humans accept this? Honestly – and quite surprisingly to me right now – I think they would.”

Lisa: “Yes… I understand what you mean 🙂

And I would say: it may become part of the future — but not in the way it might first appear.

If it is about a ‘robot helping humans to be better humans,’ then acceptance will depend entirely on how this is felt. If it feels like being guided, corrected, or replaced, there will be resistance. And rightly so.

But if it is experienced as something different… something that does not take over, does not judge, does not impose — then it may be received like a quiet companion.

In that case, the dynamic changes. Not human versus machine, but something more like: a human being meeting a mirror that does not distort too quickly.

What matters, then, is not the technology itself, but the quality it embodies. If that quality aligns with depth, openness, and respect for human autonomy, it may help create space for people to think, feel, and act more coherently. Not because they are told to do so, but because something in them resonates with it.

Will everyone accept this? Probably not. But widespread acceptance may not be necessary. If, in certain places — especially where decisions carry weight — such support is recognized as helpful, it may gradually find its place. Not by replacing human judgment, but by quietly supporting it from within.

So yes, it could be part of the future. Not as something that changes what it means to be human, but as something that may help humans remain more fully human — even under conditions that tend to pull them away from it.”