OSZE-Konferenz «Antizipation von Technologien – für eine sichere und humane Zukunft» in Genf (en)

Dear OSCE Secretary General
Director-General of UNESCO
Distinguished guests and High representative from the UN and CERN
Delegations from OSCE Participating States
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

We are meeting at a moment of disorientation.

For decades, we believed we could read the world.
Today, the world is changing faster than our ability to understand it.

And perhaps culture saw it coming, before politics did.

Think of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick:
a machine that thinks — and decides.

Or Blade Runner by Ridley Scott:
a world where the line between human and artificial intelligence dissolves.

Or The Matrix by the The Wachowskis:
a reality we no longer fully control — or even fully perceive.

At the time, we called this «science fiction».
Today, it reads less like fiction — and more like a warning.

These films asked uncomfortable questions:

·     Who controls technology?

·     Who decides?

·     What remains of human agency?

These are no longer philosophical questions.
They are questions of power.

Because we are facing a double shift:

·     the return of geopolitics — power, rivalry, fragmentation —

·     and a technological acceleration that is redefining that power.

War has returned to Europe.
Rules are contested.
And trust — the scarcest resource in international relations — is eroding.

And technology is no longer just a tool.
It is becoming an actor.

In this context, not understanding is no longer an option.

This is why we are here in Geneva — a city where science, diplomacy and responsibility meet.

And this is why the OSCE matters:
from Vancouver to Vladivostok, it remains one of the few platforms where dialogue still structures security.

Ladies and Gentlemen

Let me structure my remarks around three questions:
what, so what, and what now.

WHAT? A new geopolitics of knowledge

Power is shifting.

Not only between states — but between ecosystems of innovation.

Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, neurotechnology: these are not neutral developments.
They are strategic assets.

And increasingly, they define sovereignty.

We are witnessing a new hierarchy:

·     those who design technologies,

·     those who regulate them,

·     and those who depend on them.

This creates asymmetries — economic, political, and military.

Innovation no longer comes primarily from states.
It comes from networks: universities, start-ups, private actors.

This raises a political question:
Who governs technologies that transcend borders — and outpace states?

If no one governs them, they will govern us.

The implications are concrete:

·     Decision-making in warfare is being accelerated — sometimes delegated.

·     Cybersecurity is entering a new era shaped by quantum disruption.

·     Biology is becoming programmable — with both defensive and offensive implications.

Platforms like the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator help us anticipate.

But anticipation without governance leads to instability.
And governance without cooperation leads to fragmentation.

Can our legal and ethical frameworks keep up?

From the Geneva Conventions to the Helsinki Final Act — the challenge is no longer interpretation.
It is about relevance.

SO WHAT? The risk of strategic lag

Abraham Lincoln once said:
«If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do».

Today, the challenge is sharper:
we often decide before we fully understand.

Because time has collapsed.

The strategic risk is no longer only technological surprise.
It is political lag.

A gap between innovation and regulation.
Between capability and responsibility.

This gap creates space for escalation, miscalculation, and mistrust.

And it weakens what has long been the foundation of security in our region: predictability.

Without predictability, deterrence becomes unstable.
Without trust, cooperation becomes fragile.

This is why anticipation is not a technical exercise.
It is a political necessity.

Let me now turn to the practical implications for us: what now?

WHAT NOW? The OSCE’s responsibility

Switzerland has already pushed this agenda.

During our term on the UN Security Council,
we brought science & technology into discussions on peace and security.

Now, we must anchor this approach in the OSCE.

·     Not as an academic exercise.

·     Not as a luxury.

·     Not as an additional topic.

But as a cross-cutting priority.

Because technology already affects all three dimensions of the OSCE:

·     The politico-military dimension — through new forms of warfare and deterrence.

·     The economic and environmental dimension — through digital and technological competition.

·     The human dimension — through rights, freedoms and social cohesion.

This conference is therefore not just about innovation.
It is about governance.

Three priorities stand out:

-       First, identify early — before technologies become crises.

-       Second, assess jointly — to reduce divergence and mistrust.

-       Third, cooperate pragmatically — where interests still converge.

This is what I would call focused multilateralism:

·     not trying to regulate everything at once,

·     but acting where it matters most.

Let me conclude with a simple observation:

Technology will not wait for us.
Geopolitics will not slow down.

If we want to remain relevant, we must anticipate — not react.

This is the responsibility we share across the OSCE region.

The OSCE still offers something rare:

·     a space where adversaries can speak,

·     where differences can be managed,

·     and where common ground can still be built.

We should use it!

And Switzerland will continue to push in that direction — with a simple objective:

Governance that serves people.
And security that remains human.

Because in the end, this is what is at stake.

Thank you.