28 Sep 2026 - A Tale of Two UN Speeches

A Tale of Two UN Speeches

FundMonitors.com

September 2026

If you wanted an illustration of two very different views of how the world should work, you could do worse than compare Donald Trump's address to the United Nations this week with Anthony Albanese's a few days later.

Trump spoke for around twice as long as Albanese -- roughly 38 minutes against 19 -- although anyone familiar with either man's speaking style probably won't be terribly surprised by that.

But it wasn't just the length that was different. The underlying messages were almost mirror images of each other.

Trump's was essentially America first, sovereignty first, and international institutions a distant third. Albanese's was much more traditional Australian diplomacy: the rules-based international order matters, multilateral institutions matter, and middle powers such as Australia need both of them.

In fairness, there is a perfectly logical reason for the difference.

The United States is the world's largest economy and possesses the most powerful military. Australia, for all its advantages, is a nation of 28 million people sitting a long way from most of its traditional allies. When the schoolyard gets rough, the biggest kid and the medium-sized kid understandably have rather different opinions about the importance of playground rules.

Trump: power talks

Trump's speech was dominated by national sovereignty, American strength and the proposition that diplomacy works rather better when backed by economic and military power.

Iran featured prominently, as did Ukraine and the wider Middle East. His message was characteristically uncomplicated: America would negotiate where negotiation worked, apply economic pressure where necessary, and retain the option of military force.

He was equally forthright about the United Nations and other international institutions. Trump's longstanding suspicion is that too many international bodies have accumulated bureaucracy, expense and influence without producing results commensurate with any of the three.

His answer is less multilateralism, not more.

And then there was climate change.

Trump remains fundamentally opposed to much of the international climate agenda and the economic costs he believes it imposes. Albanese, by contrast, put climate change -- particularly its implications for Australia's Pacific neighbours -- firmly among the challenges requiring greater international cooperation.

You would struggle to find two more different approaches.

Albo: rules matter

Albanese approached the same podium from almost the opposite direction.

His argument was that the international system is under considerable strain, but the solution is to strengthen and reform it rather than abandon it.

That position makes strategic sense for Australia irrespective of domestic politics.

International rules are generally rather more valuable to countries that aren't superpowers. If the alternative is simply that might is right, Australia has considerably more to lose than the United States, China or Russia.

There was another reason for Albanese to emphasise the virtues of the UN: Australia wants a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for 2029-30. His New York visit was therefore as much a job interview as a philosophical defence of multilateralism.

Nothing wrong with that. Diplomacy, like politics, is partly about counting the votes.

And then there's AI

Possibly the most interesting difference between the two speeches -- particularly from an investment perspective -- concerned artificial intelligence.

Trump views AI primarily through the prism of technological and strategic competition, particularly with China. His instinct is to resist international regulation that might constrain American companies or slow innovation.

Albanese took a markedly different approach, arguing that governments need to cooperate on safeguards and standards so that humans remain in control of the technology rather than the other way around.

Again, both positions contain a legitimate economic dilemma.

Regulate too aggressively and you risk stifling innovation, investment and productivity. Regulate too little and governments may discover that by the time they understand the consequences of the technology, the horse hasn't merely bolted -- it has designed a faster horse, bought the stable and automated the bloke who used to close the gate.

Two speeches, two worlds

The temptation is to view the speeches simply through the prism of Trump versus Albanese, or Republican versus Labor.

The more interesting interpretation is that they reflect the countries they represent.

Trump believes the United States has spent too much money supporting an international system while allowing other countries to take advantage of American markets, defence spending and security guarantees.

Albanese believes Australia benefits enormously from that same system and therefore has a strong interest in preserving it.

In a sense, they can both be right about their respective national interests, even while reaching very different conclusions about what should happen next.

For investors, however, the important point is not who delivered the better UN speech.

It is what the speeches tell us about the environment in which we're investing.

The post-war consensus around free trade, globalisation, multilateral institutions and increasingly integrated economies is being challenged. Defence spending is rising. Trade barriers are back. Energy security has become as important as energy transition. AI is developing faster than governments can decide how to regulate it. And geopolitical risk is no longer something investors can safely relegate to the final paragraph of an investment committee paper.

Trump's answer is essentially strength, sovereignty and fewer constraints.

Albanese's is rules, cooperation and stronger international institutions.

Whether either approach produces the desired result remains to be seen.

But after listening to almost an hour of speeches between them, one thing seems reasonably certain.

The world is becoming a considerably more complicated place in which to invest.

And unfortunately, unlike the delegates at the UN, investors don't have the option of walking out.