The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters. President, distinguished delegates. These words stem from the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, written in one of Mussolini's prison cells in the 1930s. The monsters he refers to were the dark, political, social and ideological phenomena of his time. Gramsci describes the time of transition, of insecurity and the collapse of hegemonies. His worries were not unwarranted. His era ended with the largest catastrophe of them all the Second World War. Our United Nations was founded by leaders who had lived through two world wars, a devastating economic collapse and the rise of fascism and Nazism. They had experienced firsthand that all nations suffer in war and conflict, and when international cooperation fails. We too are living in turbulent times. Yet at the very moment when we need it most, our United Nations faces its most serious challenge. We see an erosion of respect for international law, a loss of confidence in the merits of cooperation, of financing, and of effectiveness. These are symptoms of the same disease, a growing belief that power matters more than principle. A growing temptation to seek national advantage at the expense of common rules. But history teaches us a simple lesson. When rules are undermined, instability grows. When cooperation weakens, instability spreads. Smaller countries like my own, and in fact, the vast majority of this assembly are particularly dependent on common international rules.

But we also learned that all states end up suffering if unchecked violence is unleashed. Today, the repercussions of ongoing wars are felt across the globe. I am here with one message: we who honor the UN Charter must also stand ready to make some tough calls.

Reform is necessary not because the United Nations failed, but because it matters. President, today our United Nations finds itself in a triple crisis. It's a normative crisis. It's a financial crisis and an institutional crisis. First, the normative crisis. The fundamental rules that protect the integrity of sovereign states and prohibit the use of force except in self-defence, are threatened. The number of ongoing wars is alarmingly high. Most dramatically, the number of wars between states is the highest since the United Nations was established. Yet this was the key motive for establishing this organization in the first place to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. International law is not charity to the weak. It's a common investment in a system that reduces risk, friction and cost for everyone, including the great powers. Take freedom of navigation as an example. This long standing principle, enshrined in our Convention on the Law of the Sea, benefits every state.

The Strait of Hormuz shows us why: its closure raises energy prices, disrupts global supply lines and curbs growth far beyond the region itself, from petrol pumps in Minneapolis to Oslo, from Cape Town to Mumbai. International law is not a menu you can choose from at will. It must be upheld universally.

When we condemn Russia's clear violation of international law in Ukraine, it is equally important to speak out of Israel's violations of the same rules in Palestine. International law is only relevant if it's enforced. There is no alternative to the two state solution. At this General Assembly, there has been a record number of Palestine related meetings. The support for a Palestinian state has never been stronger. Yet the situation on the ground is more dire than ever. We must act now with moral clarity and ensure that the coming year becomes a year of implementation. My message is this: only if we apply international law to all people in all places and at all times, can we claim that these are universal rules. Double standards quickly translate into no standards at all. Secondly, the UN is in a financial crisis. Major contributors are withholding or delaying payments. Wars and security concerns diverts resources away from the fulfilment of our Sustainable Development Goals. And when resources are available, they too often come with strict earmarking.

We, the donors, should earmark less and allow more flexible use of resources. Norway remains one of the UN's ten largest donors. We will use our funding to support and promote reform because we believe in investing in the UN. We believe that active, constructive implementation of the UN80 reforms is necessary for its future. This will be a key factor when we assess future voluntary contributions to agencies, funds and programmes. Thirdly, the UN is in an institutional crisis. I am a strong believer in this organisation, but I also recognise that over time we have added excessive complexity to our United Nations. Too often when we identify a new challenge or a new idea, we create a new agency, a new convention, a fund or a programme to address it. Which then comes with secretariats, staff, resources and bureaucracies, and on the ground, an average developing country hosts no less than 23 different UN organisations. In the most vulnerable states, the number is even higher. We also have ten human rights treaty bodies and 11 secretariats for global environmental treaties. I pay tribute to the dedicated and serious staff that is representing us all out there, in at times very difficult places. But those who care about the UN must ask, are we improving the delivery or just creating more fragmentation and duplication? The United Nations derives its legitimacy from the sovereign equality of states. Yet many member states are struggling to keep pace and to participate. We must simplify. We must focus. We must improve our capacity to deliver as one and create more impact on the ground. We, the Member States, must give guidance to the Secretary-General in succeeding with the ongoing reform endeavour. At times this might require a solid dosage of tough love. President, the cost of war affects us all. Grain and fertiliser supplies disrupted by Russia's war against Ukraine undermine food security far beyond Europe's shores. Russia's war against Ukraine and the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz teach us the same lesson. When might succeeds over right, we all pay the price.

Often the consequences of war also come home to haunt the aggressor. What was described by President Putin as a special military operation that would be over in days or maybe weeks, is now well into its fifth year. Likewise, there is no end in sight for the war in the Gulf. Both wars reminds us about the limitations of military power. Military action is never the goal in itself. Clausewitz described war as the continuation of politics by other means. Well, if the war's political goals cannot be achieved, war just becomes unnecessary death, destruction and loss. And frankly, demonstrations of weakness. The limited success of these and other ongoing wars is in itself a strong argument for prevention, mediation and peace building. Diplomacy can work if we allow it to. We saw a good example of this this week. The agreement between our neighbour Denmark, Greenland and the United States serves as an example of how good diplomacy can lead to a lasting solution that respects the interests of all parties while fully respecting their sovereign rights.

Colleagues, we need to continue our quest to ensure that there can be no impunity for committing the most grave international crimes. The International Criminal Court is one of the most important expressions of this noble quest. Together with so many like minded countries, we will strengthen our resolve to defend and to further develop the ICC. Norway resoundingly rejects the calls for dismantling the International Criminal Court.

President, the triple crisis I have set out here is no less than an existential crisis for our United Nations. Yet, thankfully to counter this, we have concrete proposals for reform on the table, the UN80 initiative. The UN80 initiative is a test of our ability to build a stronger more robust UN. Norway supports the level of ambition that the Secretary-General has set out. We support the proposals across all workstreams, including structural changes. The UN80 process has already produced successes. The mandate resolution laid the foundation for better joint decisions. We all agree that we must rationalise mandates, streamline reporting and organise our work to allow for broad, effective participation. Norway is proud to play a role in this process, but we also do need structural change. We need to be better at delivering as one. Some UN organizations frankly overlap. They should be merged in order to serve our common interests. But unfortunately, colleagues too often member states show vested interests, engaged themselves in turf battles and become fearful of change. Let me be clear: reform will not succeed if we always keep protecting the status quo. Let us remind ourselves that we, the Member States, are the owners of this organisation, not the Secretariat. With that comes responsibility. The UN80 process needs to continue under the next Secretary-General. We need to see this initiative succeed. For an organisation of 193 states to function, we need a strong independent Secretary-General that firmly advocates the principles of the UN Charter with integrity and with authority. In a time of geopolitical tension, the Secretary-General's good offices function becomes more important than ever before. The next Secretary-General will face the formidable task of helping us lead the United Nations out of its current crisis. We need someone bold and transformative. She must be able to build trust to implement our decisions, lead meaningful reform and improve effectiveness. A true reform of this organisation must also address the composition and functioning of the Security Council. That is the common call of the majority of this room. The absence of Africa among the permanent seats of the Council is but one striking example. While striving to improve legitimacy, we must ensure that we do not reduce efficiency. We need a Security Council that is open, transparent and accountable in its deliberation.

A Security Council that is both legitimate and effective, measured in its ability to take meaningful action. President, there is no lack of challenges to be tackled. While wars and geopolitical tensions dominate the agenda, we must not lose sight of our most important shared responsibility, which is to take better care of the planet on which we all depend. Climate change, biodiversity loss and rampant pollution threatens life, property and prosperity everywhere. The catastrophic floods that struck the Himalayas last month is yet another stark reminder of the growing risk associated with climate change. The good news is that reducing emissions and ensuring a more responsible management of the world's natural resources is possible. We already have the insights and technologies to make this transition possible, and they are increasingly competitive from an economic perspective, as seen by the fast falling costs of renewable energy. But we can only succeed if we cooperate. We cannot put fences around our own climate, our own biosphere, or deal with the ills of our oceans on our own. President. We live in an era of artificial intelligence.

As the Secretary-General said in his speech, the danger is not technology. The danger is technology without accountability. I agree. Colleagues, we should not panic but we must be determined. There is nothing inevitable in this development. Artificial intelligence is developed by humans and must remain under human direction, oversight and control. It is becoming an integral part of our infrastructure, a part of almost all aspects of society and economy. And as we have done so many times before, we must maximise the positive benefits of emerging technologies while curbing its darker potentials. This week, Finland and Norway are appealing to businesses, governments and the UN alike to cooperate for responsible management of the opportunities and the risks of artificial intelligence. Defence of essential human values goes well beyond regulating technology. For decades we saw a growth in democratic governance, respect for the rule of law and respect for human rights. Sadly, this trend has now turned. Democratic backsliding, polarisation and weakening our democratic shields challenges many of our past achievements.

Increasing economic inequality in countries exacerbate this trend. We should take democratic backsliding very seriously. While this may seem to be domestic concern, we know that the way states behave internationally reflects on their domestic politics. Authoritarian and exclusivist sentiments within member states will therefore also affect our capacity to address our shared concerns. President, the United Nations is one of humanity's greatest achievements, not because it created a perfect world. It did not, but because it helped spare us from a far worse fate. For 80 years, it has provided a space where nations can negotiate instead of fight, cooperate instead of confront and build rules instead of yielding to raw power.

The world we know today is safer, more prosperous, and more just because the United Nations exists. The founders of the United Nations had witnessed two world wars and a global economic collapse. They knew something we must never forget. When law gives way to force, everybody loses. When cooperation collapses, everybody pays. When institutions fail, chaos follows. They did not build the United Nations because they believed mankind was perfect. They built it because they understood mankind is not. They built it because they knew that without rules, without dialogue without cooperation, history has a habit of repeating its darkest chapters. The responsibility is now ours. Not only the Secretary generals, ours. The United Nations belong to the Member States. We decide whether it succeeds or fails. We decide whether reform advances or stalls. The time for reports has passed. The time for action is now. It is our turn to face the monsters of our time.