Finland, 2024

Madam President, Mr. Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The UN was founded 79 years ago. At the time, we were standing at a crossroads.

The world had been torn apart by two world wars. Something had to be done to

contain the belligerence of nation states.

We needed common institutions and rules. The mission of the United Nations was

simple: to end war and to promote peace. To promote justice and a better life for the

entire world. And for most of its history, it has been able to do exactly that.

I come from Finland. We are a small country in the northeastern corner of Europe.

We are a peace-loving nation. Our recovery from World War II — and our rise from

one of the poorest countries in Europe to one of the wealthiest and safest (and yes,

happiest) countries in the world — is closely linked to the success of the United

Nations.

Our ability to demonstrate dignity, act with respect and promote compromise has

played a critical role in our success story. We are a free and open society. We

understand the value of this institution as we have first-hand experience of what it

can bestow on a country and its citizens at best.

Today we are again standing at a crossroads. And I have to admit that I am worried.

Divisions between countries and blocks are widening. Our shared understanding of

the world has dwindled — replaced by narratives that fuel controversy, conflict and

hatred.

The number of on-going conflicts is the highest since the Cold War, and the number

of states involved in them is on the rise. Especially in three hotspots: Palestine,

Ukraine and Sudan. Human suffering has long since reached a point that should be

unacceptable in this room.

The paradox, of course, is that many countries are rejecting multilateral cooperation

at precisely the time when we need it more than ever. In my speech today, I will focus

on three points and I will try to be as concrete and constructive as possible.

1. On what unites rather than divides us.

2. On how to end the current wars, especially those in Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan.

3. And on how to reform the UN to reflect the world we live in today.

By adopting the Pact for the Future, we proved that the UN works.

My address is to all of us collectively, not to anyone individually. I am not into blame

games or whataboutism. We are all responsible. We are all a part of the problem as

well as the solution.

First, let us focus on what unites, rather than divides us. When the Cold War ended,

many of us, myself included, believed in "the end of history”. Namely, that most of the

world’s roughly 200 nation states would revert towards peace, prosperity and

harmonious co-existence.

There was a strong belief that freedom, democracy and globalisation would win the

day. That technological development, free trade and open information would

automatically lead to global development and stability for all.

But it did not. The problem was that we forgot that the dark sides of mankind —

including power — needs to be contained in international institutions, like the United

Nations. We assumed too much and did too little.

The things that were supposed to bring us together — like trade, interdependence and

information — are now tearing us apart. We must turn the tide and focus on how we

can find common solutions to common global problems.

The biggest challenges in the world — climate change, technology, sustainable

development and conflict — are precisely the ones that we must work on together. We

need the UN more than ever. We must get back to the trajectory where our common

challenges drive cooperation instead of conflicts. We must look for win-win solutions

for all, rather than zero-sum games benefiting the few.

To mitigate and adapt to climate change and to halt biodiversity loss, we need to

work together. Our future depends on our response to these challenges in very

concrete terms. We cannot respond to the very tangible concerns of small island

developing states only by planning. We need results. If we do not solve the climate

challenge, the crises that follow become unsolvable.

The same goes for technology. Some 30 years ago, we thought that digitalisation,

artificial intelligence, robotisation and biotech would automatically deliver a better

world for us. That technology would be a force for good only. We forgot that all

disruptive technologies work in both directions — good and bad.

We are slipping away from the sustainable development goals. Global poverty is on

the increase. When basic needs from nutrition to security are not met, it is impossible

to focus on a vision for the future. We have made progress on many accounts, but

we need to make sure that the fundamental rights — that we have all agreed together

— apply to everyone, at all levels; regions, nations, peoples and individuals. We need

to ensure that the rights of women and girls are respected. The rights of gender and

sexual minorities need to be protected.

No matter which region we come from, our rhetoric and actions are often inconsistent

— we say one thing and do another. Right now, we are at a stage where we must do

what we say and work together. So let us focus on what unites us, rather than what

separates us.

My second point is about conflict. When the UN was founded, the underlying idea

was “never again”. Never again should anyone experience the horror that our

predecessors went through in the first half of the 20th century. The founders of the

United Nations promised to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

They — at least partly — succeeded.

But, are we, the new generation, succeeding? The simple answer is no. Only this

year and last year, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed; more than ten

thousand children in Gaza. Child abduction is being used as a weapon of war in

Ukraine. Millions of people worldwide have been forced to leave their homes.

Malnutrition and disease are on the increase.

Current wars highlight a glaring contradiction. Critical decisions about war and peace

are made by a tiny number of people, often driven by a cynical need to hold on to

power. The global majority, who have the interest in peace, do not have enough

power in the international system to keep them in check. This is true in Ukraine and

Palestine as well as in Sudan.

In Ukraine, a just peace, based on President Zelenskyy’s ten-point peace plan, is

clearly in the interests of the global majority. The war continues because Russian

leaders are not willing to end it. While Russia is doing its best to blame others for its

own aggression, we must systematically revert to the principles of international law

and the UN Charter.

Neither Russia nor any other country has a historical right to anyone else’s region or

people. The core of the UN Charter is respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Finland condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the Russian aggression in

Ukraine. Finland equally condemns the attempts to manipulate the global information

space to destroy the principles that have sustained world peace for decades. I call on

President Putin to end this war and end it now.

In Palestine, we must ask ourselves, whose interests are driving the war? Peace

meets the interests of the global majority. A ceasefire, a two-state solution and

regional security arrangements would ensure stability as well as economic and

societal development across the region.

International law holds the key to a solution that would keep both Palestinians and

Israelis safe. After the most recent tragedies, there is no other direction but forward

and we must find a solution. There are no more excuses.

In Sudan, regardless of which of the groups who are fighting will finally win the war,

the victims of that war will be the civilians and the transition to civilian rule built by

them. The civilian rule behind which the entire international community has promised

to stand and the civilians for whom we promised to seek a better future.

In Sudan, we have failed to apply the principle of African solutions to African

problems. Instead, Sudan is becoming an arena for regional and international rivalry.

Our shared goal to build Sudan that would be an equal partner for all of us in

security, trade and in the multilateral fora is moving further and further. No one

benefits from this development in the long term.

I call upon the UN to take centre stage in conflict resolution and prevention once

again. Peace-mediation cannot be transactional — it has to be centred in the United

Nations. International law, the UN Charter, and the territorial integrity and sovereignty

of states must prevail.

My third and final point is that we need the UN more than ever, and without far

reaching reforms I am afraid it will be sidelined. It all begins with agency, with a

feeling that we all have a say.

Whether it is about climate change, technology, sustainable development or conflict,

the same challenge remains: the current international institutions do not reflect global

realities. The majority of the world is not properly represented in the global

institutions and their interests are not met. This must change.

Ending wars would benefit most — if not all of us — but currently we do not have the

mechanisms to drive the interest of the global majority. Many countries do not feel

they have a say in global institutions. As a result, the institutions are losing their

legitimacy.

Shortcomings in multilateral institutions encourage many to seek solutions outside

traditional international institutions. Alliances, whether based on interests or values

(or both), are creating a transactional world of disorder where size and power

benefits a minority rather than the majority.

The cold truth is that we cannot postpone reform any longer. History is on our

shoulders, just as it was with those who founded the United Nations in 1945. If our

goal is to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us, we need a far-

reaching reform of the UN Security Council.

Finland’s three point proposal today is very concrete, some might say overly

optimistic, but I do feel we have to begin somewhere. So here we go.

First, all major continents need to be represented in the UN Security Council, at all

times. It is unacceptable that there is no permanent representation from Latin

America and Africa in the Security Council, and that China alone represents Asia. We

therefore propose that the number of permanent members be increased by five —

more concretely two from Asia, two from Africa and one from Latin America.

The total number of permanent members would thus be 10. That combined with 10

elected members would ensure that the Security Council would hold roughly 10

percent of the UN’s members at any given time. My part of the world, Europe, should

think hard about how best to divide its existing two seats.

Second, no single state should have veto power. I fully understand that the veto was

necessary in the aftermath of WWII, but in today’s world, it has too often

incapacitated the Security Council and halted decision making here in New York. The

UN agencies are not subject to national vetoes and are working effectively precisely

because no single member can prevent them from doing so.

Third, if a permanent or elected member of the Security Council violates the UN

Charter, its voting rights should be suspended. This decision should ultimately be

taken in the General Assembly. There should be no room for double standards in the

United Nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Despite all of our challenges, I want to end on an optimistic note. My optimism stems

from an innate belief that when humans are faced with a binary choice, we often end

up doing the right thing. Our choice today is simple. We can continue towards a

multipolar world of disorder, or we can start getting serious about solving our

common problems through multilateral institutions and a reformed UN.

As my mentor and great friend of the UN, the late President Martti Ahtisaari, said in

his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008: “Peace is a question of

will. All conflicts can be settled, and there are no excuses for allowing them to

become eternal.”

Let us keep Martti’s words in mind and start working towards peace.