Check against delivery
Translation from Norwegian

Sometimes there is a contrast between the UN we like to like and the UN we meet in the brutal light of reality, with its mix of successes and failures.

In Norway, we have a number of idealistic images of the UN that we have maintained and believed in since 1945. But the headlines are giving us a different picture. And UN failures make big headlines.

It is easy to conclude that the UN is generally in a pretty bad way. The organisation’s goal is a world where security, human rights, peace and development prevail, and the picture we are given is generally of the discrepancies, of all that is wrong.

But this gathering, just a few days before the 2006 session of the UN General Assembly, is a good opportunity to highlight the UN’s strengths and the part that Norway is playing in its achievements.

Look at the Middle East. Who is behind the leading diplomatic efforts to secure the fragile ceasefire? Who is travelling from one country to another spreading the message of peace, seeking compromises, making progress? Who has gathered a military force to follow up the Security Council’s resolution?

The answer is the UN and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In the middle of July, the world was disheartened by the Security Council’s failure to stop the war in Lebanon. But the response of the Security Council is the sum of whatever its permanent and elected members are able to agree on together. And once agreement – unanimous agreement – was reached, the guns fell silent. No country was able to stop the fighting alone. It was the joint UN effort that was decisive. I will say more about this later.

Look at Oslo. The UN reform agenda moved to Oslo last week, with Norway’s Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, co-chairing the high-level panel that is identifying ways of making the UN better able to solve its humanitarian, environmental and gender equality tasks. This is an important opportunity to set the agenda for tomorrow, to make an ambitious blueprint for a better UN, which is one of the cornerstones of the Norwegian Government’s foreign policy.

Look at the field. Norwegians are taking part. One hundred are on their way to Lebanon on four missile torpedo boats – these are Norwegian men and women we can be proud of. More than 150 are preparing for a possible operation in Darfur.

And furthermore, Kofi Annan had a Norwegian on either side at his meetings in Lebanon – Terje Rød Larsen on the one side and Geir O. Pedersen on the other. Meanwhile, another Norwegian, Jan Egeland, is leading the UN’s humanitarian efforts and directing the world’s focus to both the familiar and the less familiar disasters. There are Norwegians working in staffs and services throughout the organisation. We believe there is room for more – particularly among the Blue Helmets.

I mention this at the beginning of my address to underline that the UN is a key foreign policy arena. Not an arena for solo performances, but an arena for joint efforts for peace, security and development.

And the events of the last weeks show that the UN does work, especially in a situation where hardly anything is working – and certainly not the use of arms.

*****

So what are our aspirations for the UN?

What are our aspirations, the Government’s, the parliamentarians’, the youth representatives’, the whole of the Norwegian civil society’s? What are your aspirations for the UN?

Why do we need the UN? Why is there no good alternative?

These are the main questions I intend to explore today, but first I would like to welcome you to the first meeting of the UN Forum.

There is a great deal of commitment, expertise and experience in this room today. Many of you will be travelling to New York this autumn, as delegates or observers. I know that the LNU network of youth organisations selects a couple of young delegates each year. This is very positive. Several of you are preparing interventions for the various meetings, as I and my colleagues in the Ministry are.

Your commitment is a positive force in Norway’s UN policy. It has helped to make Norway one of the countries where the general public knows most about the organisation.

Knowledge fosters involvement, commitment, continuity.

It is now 61 years since the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco, on 26 June 1945. “We the peoples of the United Nations [are] determined to save succeeding generations” and will “practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours…”

On 26 June this year, Montenegro became the 192 ^nd> UN Member State. A great deal has happened during the course of 61 years. One hundred and ninety-two countries are now members.

*****

Let us take as our departure point the fact that – and let us make this quite clear – the UN Charter is not an outdated document. Moreover, like our constitution, it is not open to renegotiation.

But the organisation has an outdated architecture that is struggling to deal with new issues. This is why we need reform, why we need new, forward-looking solutions.

There is a good deal wrong with the UN, as many point out; but there is much that is good too. It is important to bear in mind the obvious limitations of the alternatives: unilateral solutions where individual countries take matters into their own hands, the shifting coalitions of the willing with unclear mandates and questionable legitimacy.

The UN is unique in its political legitimacy because it is global, because it is made up of 192 Member States, and because it has given us the UN Charter.

The problems we are facing are to do with implementation, effectiveness.

But we must not forget – and we must repeat this again and again – the UN is the sum of the will and the actions of its Member States. Security Council resolution 1701 on Lebanon, which put an end to the fighting within Lebanon and to the rocket attacks on Israel, is not ideal. But it does the job. It is a non-ideal resolution for a far-from-ideal world. And now good political efforts are needed to make further headway.

The Norwegian Government’s political platform sets out an ambitious UN policy. The UN is track number one in our foreign policy: helping to build a world based on justice, where the strongest do not take the law into their own hands.

I would like to use the forthcoming General Assembly as backdrop to highlight certain lines in our UN policy.

I am not going to go into every possible issue. We have published a booklet (Aktuelle FN-spørsmål) giving the status of the issues on the UN agenda and the Government’s standpoint on these.

What are the UN’s strengths and weaknesses?

Both the strengths and the weaknesses relate to the fact that all progress requires close agreement. There is still a tendency for Member States to promote their own interests, without being willing to commit themselves to global norms, compromise on the issues closest to their heart or contribute to the world community, unless they stand to gain directly themselves.

When everyone has to agree, the situation easily arises where those who are least willing have the most influence.

The UN is good at operating the political arenas and keeping the discussions going. But it is up to the Member States to reach agreement on international rules.

The UN is good at providing humanitarian assistance, good at providing development support and advice, and quite good at promoting human rights.

The UN is good at peace operations, quite good at peace negotiations when the opportunity arises, but not quite so good at peacebuilding.

The UN has problems with disarmament and non-proliferation.

And not least, the UN has too many tasks in relation to its resources.

The UN has too many old mandates.

The UN writes too many reports.

And the UN does not always use its resources where they should be used.

The most important thing for the UN now is to become better at delivering common global goods – goods that can only be the responsibility of the world community, goods that everyone, especially the weakest, can benefit from.

This can only be achieved if the UN is modernised and made more effective. We – who consider ourselves among the UN’s best friends – must take a leading role in reforming the UN.

We who appreciate the UN must dare to be critical. We criticise because we want a stronger UN. Others criticise because they want to weaken the organisation.

The UN is frequently criticised for its failures, but the real situation is always more complex that it may seem at first.

The oil-for-food scandal has severely undermined the UN’s reputation. Flaws have been discovered in the UN’s administration of the programme.

But this is also a good illustration of the difficulties the UN faces. As is the case with everything undertaken under its umbrella, the programme was the result of a compromise. The conflicting views among the permanent members of the Security Council made it very difficult to resolve the weaknesses in the scheme. Dominant Member States did too little to prevent corruption.

No national authorities presented concrete information about corrupt practices involving companies from their own countries to the Sanctions Committee. Today we know from the reports that have since been submitted that many had such information. And, it must be said in the UN’s favour, the facts were made public in the end – at least most of them were.

Similarly, great damage has been caused by incidents of sexual abuse by UN personnel in countries where the UN has deployed peacekeeping forces.

The UN has done too little to prevent such abuse. It has been too slow to react. It has not allocated sufficient resources. It has not done enough in its mandates, organisation and control of its operations to prevent abuse.

Nevertheless, and this is something many people forget, it is the troop-contributing countries that are responsible for their own soldiers – not the UN as an organisation.

In both these cases – the oil-for-food programme and the personnel involved in sexual abuse – it was the UN that uncovered these problems through its own internal control mechanisms.

And it is up to the Member States to follow this up.

*****

Kofi Annan visited the ruins in Beirut last week, and was booed at by demonstrators. Who – and what – do war-stricken people see when they boo at the Secretary-General of the UN?

It took too long to stop the war. The humanitarian assistance was slow to reach the people who needed it. For ordinary people all over the world, the UN Secretary-General is a symbol of the world community. A world community that, from the perspective of the ruins in southern Beirut, seems indifferent, or worse – is implicated.

But the reaction to Kofi Annan in Beirut is also due to something else. It reflects the expectations people have of the UN, the key role it is expected to play in bringing about peace, development and humanitarian assistance. It reflects the great disappointment that the UN – of all actors – is seen to have failed.

Are these people right?

We must in any case explain why we still believe it is utterly wrong to burn UN offices, and why we still spend a great deal of Norway’s money on a large organisation that many are criticising.

*****

Much of the recent discussion is about whether the UN works or not.

The US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, says openly that the US regards the UN as one of several alternative forums and that the US will choose which is best suited to promote its policy in any given situation. This is what is called “forum shopping”.

John Bolton also believes that the UN would work just as well if several stories of the UN headquarters were removed. This is his vision. It is not ours. And we make that quite clear.

It is interesting to note that the US and other dominant members keep returning to the UN when major problems are to be solved. When the solo route has come to an end and the difficulties are building up.

*****

Peacekeeping operations are a good example. The number of UN personnel in peace operations has reached 90 000. The expanded UN operation in Lebanon, together with operations in Darfur and Timor-Leste, will soon bring the number up to 120 000.

Never before has the UN had so many soldiers on the ground, and never before has it been involved in so many conflicts at the same time. In other words, it is not just the “small” countries that need the UN. The major powers do too.

The UN provided the framework for a force in southern Lebanon. Experience from Darfur shows that it is difficult to find good solutions outside the UN. The AU-led peace operation is up against serious challenges, faced with the unacceptable actions of the regime in Khartoum.

Most people realise that the UN’s planning system and its established funding mechanisms are necessary in such a complex operation.

Each in its own way, Lebanon and Darfur illustrate the advantages of working within a UN framework, using the UN’s established routines.

Kofi Annan has done a good job. Not since Dag Hammarskjöld was Secretary-General has anyone worked so intensely and with such determination to implement reform and modernisation of the UN, and to adapt the organisation to our time – and the future.

UN reform will take time, but Kofi Annan has steered this “supertanker” organisation onto the right course.

Now the successor to this Nobel laureate is being sought. But one thing is certain. The reform process must continue. The course must be held. For the need for the UN will not diminish in the future. On the contrary, it will increase.

*****

How many new wars will have started in five years’ time? How many refugees will there be? How many lives will have been lost in Darfur and DR Congo?

It is not long since we witnessed genocide in Rwanda and Srebrenica. Will we witness new genocides in the next five years. Will we have brought the perpetrators to justice?

How many new nuclear weapons states will there be?

Will we succeed in the fight against poverty? How many will die of HIV/AIDS? What will the child mortality figures show? What about access to clean water, deforestation, the environment? More people are going to bed hungry today than in the 1990s – more than 800 million. How many will there be in ten years?

There are no set answers. But regardless of whether the questions relate to human rights, poverty, international terrorism or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the UN has to be part of the answer.

The UN has become better at delivering results in three areas that Norway gives priority to. These are:

• The ability to create and maintain peace
• The ability to promote democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law
• The ability to foster development and provide humanitarian assistance.

Let me comment on each of these points.

*****

First the UN’s ability to create and maintain peace.

Peace operations are one of the most important areas of the UN’s activities. The number of operations is growing – and they are becoming increasingly difficult.

In most of the operations in recent years it has been necessary to authorise the use of force to establish peace. Building peace is often more difficult than stopping war, and peacebuilding operations depend on good mandates.

Humanitarian efforts, human rights and development must be included in the planning of multi-dimensional operations from the very beginning.

And we must include the gender perspective. Wars and conflicts affect women and men, girls and boys, in different ways. We must take this into consideration in the planning and implementation of the UN’s and our own peace efforts.

Although the demand is increasing – and it is good that the UN can mobilise forces – we know that the UN’s capacity to provide troops is not unlimited. This is creating an interest in other solutions, such as assigning tasks to NATO or coalitions of willing countries.

The UN cannot bear the burden of ensuring peace and stability alone. Neither is this expedient. The troops needed vary according to the assignment. Sometimes there are grounds for establishing a coalition of the willing outside the UN, but generally it is easier to organise willing nations within a UN framework.

Norway supports the further development of the UN’s cooperation with NATO, the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU). But in all cases there must be a proper basis for such operations in international law and there must be no doubt of the UN’s overarching role and its responsibility in providing legitimacy.

The military operation in Lebanon comes in addition to the UN operation that is intended to take over from the AU in Darfur. Two such major operations will be a heavy burden on the UN apparatus and will require considerable funding from the Member States.

An important legacy that Kofi Annan will leave behind is the UN’s integrated approach to operations, whereby military and police operations are coordinated with humanitarian efforts and development measures.

This is one way of utilising one of the UN’s comparative advantages, which is the breadth of the organisation’s efforts. This is the path we must follow, but we still have far to go.

*****

It was decided at the UN summit last year to establish the Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office in the UN Secretariat. Norway is taking active part in these reforms; the Government has given them priority right from day one.

We have already contributed NOK 200 million to the Peacebuilding Fund. And we have been given a leading role in the Peacebuilding Commission. This means that we will play an important part in the efforts to establish the Commission as a strong actor with focus on concrete results.

It is vital that the Commission demonstrates that it is capable of doing what it is intended to do: mobilising the political will and resources to help war-torn countries in the transition from war to lasting peace.

In this connection, I would like to highlight three factors: women and the gender perspective, security sector reform and efficient mobilisation of resources.

All our peace efforts will be based on Norway’s action plan for implementing Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. This will be one of Norway’s highest priorities in the UN in the year ahead.

We launched our plan on 8 March this year. That will be a good date for summing up and evaluating the follow-up of the plan.

Two countries are currently on the Peacebuilding Commission’s agenda: Sierra Leone and Burundi. Norway has been given particular responsibility for leading the efforts to help Burundi. Following a positive transition process, Burundi is facing major challenges that have to be met in order to secure political, social and economic development.

This will be the touchstone for the Peacebuilding Commission.

*****

One of the areas where the UN has a history of achieving important results is disarmament and non-proliferation. Now there are grounds for concern.

Last year we were disappointed that the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) did not produce the desired results. This year we have had a set-back in the area of small arms.

The uncertainty relating to Iran’s nuclear programme and developments in North Korea illustrate the fragility of today’s NPT regime. Both these issues must be resolved politically within the framework of the UN.

The UN’s role in disarmament must be strengthened. The Security Council has passed resolutions requiring Member States to draw up measures to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

However, it is important that the UN General Assembly also has a key role in this area.

We must therefore continue our efforts to reform the General Assembly’s First Committee, which is responsible for disarmament and international security. Norway has previously made a concerted effort in this area. This year we will have a real opportunity to contribute to this work as Ambassador Mona Juul has been elected to chair the Committee.

We will initiate discussions on key disarmament policy challenges: themes such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, small arms and cluster munitions. We will draw on external expertise, particularly from NGOs.

We will strive to ensure that the Committee reaches the broadest possible agreement on the resolutions that are put forward. International consensus is decisive for bringing disarmament efforts forwards. The requirement of consensus must not, however, result in resolutions being watered down until they become meaningless.

We have – so far – avoided the frightening scenario of a world with 50 nuclear weapons states. It is therefore important that we safeguard and strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. All countries must participate in a constructive way in these efforts. Not least the nuclear weapons states. We will make no progress unless they are actively drawn into the disarmament process.

We, for our part, intend to continue our efforts in the seven-nation initiative together with the UK, Australia, Romania, Chile, South Africa and Indonesia. This is a promising group of countries that can exert pressure in many different directions.

*****

So, to turn to the second priority area: the UN’s ability to promote human rights, democracy and the principles of the rule of law.

Darfur, Uganda, DR Congo. The scenes of the most grotesque crimes of our time.

We are not talking about random incidents, but premeditated crimes – planned, and carried out by warlords who believe that spreading discord, hate and atrocities is in their own interests. It is a setback for international law that certain people find their interests are served by genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The perpetrators must be made accountable.

Here we see important and promising trends in the world today. Although it is difficult to understand how people like Mladic and Karadic can still be at liberty, there is a glimpse of hope when we see that Charles Taylor has finally, after massive international pressure, ended up in the Hague.

The development of international criminal law is taking place in several arenas. Norway will play an active role in all of them.

A central role is being played by the UN, which established international criminal tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. These are cornerstones in the development of the international criminal justice system. Now that they have started winding down, Norway will give them all possible support to ensure that this progresses in the best possible way so that their legacy will be of value for the further development of international criminal law.

It was also through the UN that the foundations for the International Criminal Court (ICC) were laid.

The important role Norway played in the establishment of the Court has given us valuable experience, expertise and influence. Influence that is valuable for a country that wants to make a difference.

And now that the Court is finding its place in the world community, we must use our influence wisely. Our focus should be winning the war against impunity, not necessarily winning every little battle on the way.

The fight against impunity cannot be won at the international level alone. The success of the ICC and the international criminal tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda depends on each state taking national responsibility.

And here too Norway can exert an influence.

Norway has consistently advocated strengthening the UN’s role in the international protection of human rights. Important progress has been made. The Human Rights Council, which has replaced the Human Rights Commission, has started its work.

Other major steps forward made at last year’s summit are a doubling of the budget for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and an increased focus on human rights in all the UN’s activities.

The establishment of the new Council marks a “new start” – a multilateral cooperation with greater emphasis on openness and dialogue compared with the Commission’s politicised, confrontational debates. New voting mechanisms, working methods and requirements to Member States should create new dynamism.

Since the Council’s first session in June, two special sessions have been held: on the occupied Palestinian territory and on the war in Lebanon.

What is the status so far?

Our impression is that it is fairly mixed. There are fundamental political differences, and the crisis in the Middle East dominated both the ordinary session and the two special sessions. Not surprisingly.

But we can also see positive signs. The Council’s first session produced a draft for a new convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, including provisions for a monitoring body. A draft UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples has also been put forward.

It is our aim that the Council will provide the new direction that the international human rights efforts merit.

*****

The third and last priority area that I want to mention is the UN’s ability to create development and to provide humanitarian assistance.

The prevention of humanitarian suffering is one of the UN’s most important tasks, and the organisation is dealing with this better and better. In many ways, the UN’s humanitarian efforts are a model for how the organisation as a whole could function once it has been reformed.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which is led by Jan Egeland, plays a key role in these efforts. Under his leadership, the whole of the UN has received greater international attention and has gained a better reputation. Yes, I boldly make that claim.

OCHA is becoming increasingly important and is delivering results through its coordination of the other bodies that provide UN humanitarian assistance: the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Programme, UNICEF and others.

Norway will continue to actively support the UN’s humanitarian efforts, including, of course, in areas that are not brought to public attention through the media.

In addition to natural disasters, we are facing political conflicts in countries such as DR Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Colombia, which are causing enormous loss of life, a large number of internally displaced persons and serious humanitarian violations.

We may have become better at implementing measures, but the world is unlikely to become a safer place over the next few years. The risk will increase most in the poorest countries, but Norwegians will also be affected. Indeed, we are all affected in this global age.

We must consider what Norway can do to reduce this risk. How and where can we make a difference? Disasters can only be prevented by taking action in advance.

We can make a contribution through our extensive, systematic commitment to peace efforts.

We can make a contribution by supporting efforts to prevent HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, for example through international immunisation programmes such as GAVI.

We can make a contribution by directing focus to climate change and through our efforts to achieve more ambitious global climate agreements.

We can make a contribution by involving all parts of the population in development assistance, and by giving women a chance to take part, contribute and be heard. All experience shows that there is no development without the participation of women.

But we can also do more.

In addition to enhancing our ability to create peace, the UN must intensify its efforts to prevent natural disasters. This is a critical factor in the fight against poverty and for our success in reaching the Millennium Development Goals. This is a vital part of development.

We should look more closely at three main factors:

• Improving the UN’s and the international system’s ability to intervene in political conflicts at an early stage, through mediation and other peace measures.
• Reducing people’s vulnerability to the effects of natural disasters.
• Preventing human impact on nature and the environment from causing floods, soil erosion and drought.

It is far more difficult to achieve an effective use of funds for preventive efforts than for reconstruction.

*****

I am not talking about creating a new UN architecture, but about the need for a new perspective, the need for the right balance in the way the UN and we work before, during and after a crisis.

For many of the world’s poor and destitute, the UN is associated with concrete efforts in the country in question. Food, water, health, education. The UN plays a key role in development and the fight against poverty.

But we also know that the UN’s development efforts are fragmented and to some extent not effective enough. Norway is the fifth largest contributor to the UN’s operational activities. It is our duty to demand that these funds are used effectively and in the right way. Are we doing that?

Twenty different UN organisations are represented in Egypt and in Bangladesh. In Ghana there are fewer – 14. More than 20 UN organisations work on issues connected to water. More than 10 work on schooling and education for girls.

Our UN Ambassador in Geneva is involved in nearly 40 different governing bodies. The UN has grown. It has an enormous number of bodies. It has become too fragmented and is too loosely governed.

Too many resources are used to run the system. Not enough reaches the people in need on the ground. This trend must be reversed.

This is why there was a call for closer coordination and greater consistency at the summit last year.

This is why the Secretary-General appointed a high-level panel to reform UN efforts in the fields of development, humanitarian assistance and the environment. This panel is being chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, together with two other prime ministers.

This is a recognition of what Norway stands for, and of the fact that we have promoted many of the reform proposals that are now being discussed.

Many of you have submitted concrete proposals to the panel. Thank you for your input. It has been useful. Both as input to the list of priorities we have set and as a means of creating positive expectations of the panel’s work.

You can continue to play a constructive role by fostering support for the reform efforts, especially those of you who have an international platform from which to do so.

The panel’s report has not been finalised. The Prime Minister expects it to be submitted to Kofi Annan this autumn. I cannot therefore go into the details of the concrete proposals.

But I can highlight five main areas:

• The first is the UN’s efforts at national level. The panel will recommend that the UN takes a far more coordinated and united approach to development in each country. Efforts should be coordinated under a single leader, with a single programme and a common budget.
• The second is UN headquarters. Here there is a need for streamlining. The situation today is that each country’s programmes are dealt with in a number of different committees. We hope that the signals given and the decisions taken will generally be in alignment, but this is not always the case in practice. The panel is aware that there is a link between the decisions made and the money flow. And we can expect recommendations that reflect this.
• The third is gender equality. The UN’s efforts in relation to women and gender equality need to be stepped up. It should be possible to amalgamate several of the smaller units. We need a watchdog and we need to take an innovative approach. Gender equality needs to be given a much more important place in all the UN’s efforts.
• The fourth is sustainable development. Environmental considerations need to be better incorporated into efforts throughout the UN system. Moreover, the follow-up of the large number of multilateral agreements – 600 are registered in the UN – would benefit from closer coordination.
• The fifth and last area is emergency relief. The reforms initiated by Jan Egeland must be followed up, and it is vital that the Central Emergency Response Fund receives the funding he has asked for. We must work more systematically to prevent disasters.

*****

As you know, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has a strong personal commitment to the realisation of Millennium Development Goal number four (MDG4) on reducing child mortality by two thirds by 2015. This goal can be reached.

The Government has decided to take a carefully targeted approach in its efforts to contribute to meeting this goal. The Prime Minister has taken the initiative to organise, in cooperation with UNICEF, an international symposium on MDG4 in New York on 18 September, which will be attended by political leaders and experts from a number of different countries.

*****

Norway has for a long time been involved in broad health efforts in connection with development, both in cooperation with other donor countries and with countries that are facing major challenges in this sector, particularly countries with a high child mortality rate.

Together with my colleagues from France, Brazil and Indonesia, among others, I am initiating efforts to chart the connections between health and foreign policy. Where do they interface? How can we help to ensure that foreign policy contributes to better health? How can we involve health institutions in the development of new infrastructure? In the building of states?

*****

Finally, I would like to return to the broad perspective – social globalisation.

Equitable global governance – a more social and sustainable globalisation – is an overriding goal for me and for this Government, as we have set out in our political platform.

And here too the UN must be in focus. The UN is the only global organisation with a holistic mandate that also includes equitable distribution and the environment.

In order to ensure more holistic global governance, we are working actively to strengthen the UN, including in the economic and social areas.

As the Prime Minister underlined at the opening of the ECOSOC session this summer, the Norwegian Government is convinced that the protection of labour rights is essential for equitable distribution, and that equitable distribution is essential for true democracy, peace and sustainable development.

We are now discussing how this can be brought forward at this year’s General Assembly. We are considering submitting a proposal for a new resolution on labour rights.

But this is a controversial issue that requires patience, the building of strategic alliances and cooperation with like-minded countries, primarily the EU and other European countries.

I have wanted a broader social debate on foreign policy. We can take it, and it is in our interests. We will soon start work on a report on our foreign policy, and our UN policy will be an important part of this.

*****

I would like to wish you all every success in your UN efforts, and hope that those of you who are going to New York have a fruitful General Assembly.

To all of us in Norway who wish the UN well, I would like to conclude by saying that we will strive to be strategic – to be a friend to the UN in matters of principle and to seek to make a contribution, to make a difference, where we have the opportunity to do so. As we did six years ago, when we focused efforts on GAVI with a view to providing vaccines for all children. This is an example of a well defined area with a clear target, and a visible effort that was made step by step.

Norway will not have a decisive voice in the reform of the Security Council. But there are other areas where we can, as it were, “punch above our weight” – i.e. achieve more than our size would suggest. Norway is not a small country in the UN. We do in fact have much more impact in the organisation than the size of our population would imply.

This is both a responsibility and an opportunity.

We need the UN. The world needs the UN. Not because we dare to hope for a world that follows the Charter to the letter. But because the UN and the whole “united nations” concept is our best guarantee of security.

As US senator said in the 1950s, “This organization is created to prevent you from going to hell. It isn’t created to take you to heaven.”