The transcripts are AI-generated from the UN's English audio and can contain mistakes. We are checking them against the statements the missions publish; some errors are still expected.
Be that as it may, former Secretary General Kofi Annan once said, and I quote, whatever our differences, we stand or fall together. End of quote. When we forget this wisdom of Kofi Annan, disorder is what happens. Last year, from this very podium, I stated that foreign policy is based on three pillars values, interests and power. This year I come with something much simpler a choice, a choice between cooperation or conflict. In today's world, cooperation is undermined by a lack of trust, disregard for rules, and the weakening of institutions. And we've heard that in so many speeches here today. Conflicts are spreading, bringing suffering, violence and injustice. According to some accounts, there are currently 65 active armed conflicts, more than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Now competition will always be there. Nations compete now harder than they did a generation ago. This doesn't worry me. What does is that more and more of them now compete against the rules on which the international order rests. So this speech defends these rules, and it calls for cooperation. It calls for multilateralism. Small nations need it to survive, and large nations need it to be great. Upholding the most basic rules, values and institutions is our best option to ensure that competition does not escalate into conflict and that cooperation gains ground. Now, I want to begin by analyzing how the world is changing today. And as a pragmatic Finn, I will always try to deal with the world as it is, because it often helps in building a world that I wish we would have. In other words, a world which we can build together. I will then make a few suggestions about what we should do next. So here we go. I think we should all be steadfast defenders of multilateralism. As Strobe Talbott reportedly remarked, multilateralism is hell and can be a real pain in the neck, but it is the best option for humanity as a whole. We need multilateralism in order to address our shared agenda, ranging from conflicts and climate change to sustainable development and artificial intelligence. Currently, however, we seem to be going the other way more towards a non-cooperative and multipolar world order. This order, as it turns out, is based on zero sum deals, transactions, and unrestrained power. This is a short sighted approach. Tempting as it may be for some, such a multipolar order will ultimately lead to conflict. It will turn against us, whether you represent a great power, a middle power, or a small state like Finland. Between these two approaches, there is of course, a third option: plurilateralism. It means building ad hoc coalitions when global cooperation is unattainable. And this is my first observation today the emergence of flexible forms of cooperation around different themes and interests, be it in the economy, climate, defense, or technology. Coalition building can be a force of good but with one condition it should not challenge multilateralism, but build on it. It should support the UN system, not substitute it.
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.
Artificial intelligence, which we've heard so many times from the podium this week, is arguably the most urgent frontier. AI offers with extraordinary potential, but its capability is advancing faster than our appreciation of its risks. There are fundamentally three categories of risk. First, the loss of control of autonomous systems. Second, that rogue actors could use AI to create bioweapons or other weapons of mass destruction or mass disruption. Third, the economic, the social the political domestic disruptions are only just emerging. But excellencies, the genie is already out of the bottle. It is too late to call for a halt, especially given the superpower rivalry and the huge financial incentives for companies who already have frontier models. But let me offer a metaphor of driving a high performance car. To drive a high performance car quickly and safely, you need a powerful engine. But equally, you need good brakes. And especially if you are going to go beyond your neighborhood or cross boundaries, you need effective shared rules, traffic lights, insurance norms of behavior, seat belts. The engine is innovation. Every one of us has to continue to invest in science, the talent, and the infrastructure that will drive AI forward. For small states, this entails especially developing our people, equipping them with the skills necessary to master and deploy AI quickly, widely, at scale and safely. The real productivity gains from AI comes not from the IT department, but from our businesses and workers having the skills, the tools and the wherewithal to engineer their work processes, workflow by workflow. That's where the cutting edge of value creation arises. But having said that, every powerful engine needs good brakes, safeguards. As the capabilities of AI advance, our safeguards must keep pace. We need rigorous testing and evaluation before deployment. We need clear limits on what autonomous systems can do and mechanisms to intervene when they behave in ways we do not intend. And since the risks from AI do not remain confined behind borders, it means we also need rules of the road that will form a shared global understanding of how we will collectively confront this challenge. Just as all of us instinctively understand traffic lights the same way, whether we're here in New York or in Beijing, Moscow or Singapore. Most importantly, human beings must ultimately remain in control and accountable. Let me give you an extreme thought experiment. Do you want the nuclear button to be in the hands of a human being or an AI? Think about that. The scarce resource today is not legal architecture or technology. It is trust. Trust that the risks will be disclosed, that testing will be comprehensive and credible, and that cooperation will be inclusive and not be used to secure unilateral advantage. The technology has already become an arena for strategic competition precisely when international cooperation is most needed. Any durable international approach must give all states a meaningful stake. Not only those who already have the most advanced models, or the deepest pockets, or the largest set of armaments. So the question is how do we build trust? We begin with the science. Even where states have differences on governance, I believe it is possible for us to work together to collectively understand the capabilities and risks of AI models, to develop comparable methods for testing and evaluation, and to report serious incidents quickly across borders. We are not starting from zero. If you carefully go through what we already have today, the UN's Independent International Scientific Panel on AI already helps to establish a common understanding based on evidence. The Global Dialogue on AI Governance can help to translate that common understanding into common objectives, and the ITU's AI for Good Global Commission brings together leaders from government, industry and international institutions to discuss challenges and to come up with practical solutions. We must urgently establish common rules and safeguards for AI, and we should build on the many ongoing discussions in different formats and groupings. And here I want to make a point: the UN, the United Nations has a critical role to play in building convergence, because this is the only apex international institution with universal membership. We must explore all options, including the idea of a UN framework Convention on AI safeguards. We may also need an international institution that can perform for AI some of the functions that currently exist for institutions that perform this function of setting common technical standards and the examples are the International Telecommunications Union, which provides all the International Atomic Energy Agency, which provides verification. Ultimately, the global commons are best protected by collective action agreed through an inclusive process, and Singapore commits to contribute where we can. This week we joined the call for greater safety and security of frontier AI models, and I'm glad that this was led by Finland and Norway. We will continue to contribute through platforms such as the Digital Pillar for the Forum of Small States, and by making our governance frameworks and testing tools available to all. But the work of building trust and laying the ground for global cooperation must begin now.
Water security is integral to climate resilience and sustainable development. Zambia, therefore attaches great importance to international cooperation on water and has actively participated in the preparatory process of the 2026 United Nations Water Conference. Together with Finland, Zambia is co-chairing the Interactive Dialogue on Water for cooperation, focusing on transboundary and international water cooperation, scientific cooperation and inclusive governance.
Russia's bet on cruise missiles and Shaheds didn't work the way Putin planned. They still caused damage, but they didn't break us. We built our defense. What is truly difficult for us now is Russian ballistic missiles and their new jet-powered Shaheds, Iranian technologies. Just imagine this: since the beginning of this year, Russia has already used more than 2,100 missiles of different types against us, against Ukraine, our people, and our children. More than 950 of them were ballistic missiles. In 8 months of this year, Russia used 63,000 attack drones of different types against Ukraine, our people. And more than 7,700 of them were jet-powered Shaheds. Truly destructive and very dangerous weapons. Just think about it. The Russians launch jet-powered Shaheds every hour, every hour, against our cities, our economy, our infrastructure. Our combat aircraft are fighting them 24/7. And this is part of Russia's strategy: to create an air threat every hour, to make life harder for the economy, and to disrupt people's lives, and to stop children from being able to study, just to study at school. Would your country survive if, God forbid, you had to face something like this? Ukraine has. Our soldiers have already successfully tested four new jet-powered interceptor drones against Russian jet-powered Shaheds. So we are scaling up production, and we will build, of course we will build, protection against these threats too. We have also launched an anti-ballistic program, FREYJA, together with our partners. Ten countries are already part of it: Ukraine, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, and the Netherlands. Last week, I invited Poland to join. And we are also in consultations with a couple of other allied governments who want to join FREYJA. And we remain open to every country that can contribute to building protection against ballistic missiles. Our FREYJA program does not replace proven and effective systems, like, for example, Patriot systems or upgraded anti-ballistic SAMP/T systems. We want to build a system that can be produced on a much larger scale and at a lower cost, a system that can become an integrated part of Ukraine's defense and Europe's defense. One that can help any freedom-loving nation. The global waiting list for anti-ballistic systems is very long. There are more and more ballistic threats, and the industrial capacity of those who choose war is very large. So we need to produce enough protection so that every person sitting in this hall can say," My people are truly protected." That is our approach to security. Today, even the richest countries in the world can't find enough missile interceptors. Current production is simply not enough. And even those who spend years building up interceptor stocks have already used a large part of them. Unfortunately, this is the reality, even in the Gulf, where countries really worked to build strong anti-ballistic system, anti-ballistic defense. So we need a new program. We need FREYJA. Join these common efforts. And yes, sometimes it may seem that Ukraine is focused only on war, because we speak about weapons, we speak about defense and sanctions against the aggressor. But Ukrainians did not choose this war. We choose not to die, not to lose our country, our families, not to lose our independence, our freedom. And we are defending ourselves. And this matters not only for us, I'm sure. Most of you here are like Ukraine was before this war. You are peaceful nations. And you do not think about war every second. But that does not mean you are weak. And those who may wish you harm should not make that mistake. Most of you do not have nuclear weapons. You do not have a habit of attacking your neighbors. And you may not have the money to finance years of war. But that does not mean you have no chance to stay safe, to deter those who may threaten you, to make anyone who may threaten you think twice, and to protect your life and, of course, protect your people. Ukraine has proven that even against a much bigger enemy, you can stand and survive. And we also have the drone deal format. This is not simply about selling drones. Not, of course. It is cooperation with other countries to build a modern, integrated defense system against drone threats in the air, at sea, and on land. And this is not only about protecting the sky. Drones help us control our borders, it's important, mountain areas and, of course, roads, and without them, this would simply be impossible. And it is also about protecting infrastructure, critical infrastructure, about resilience, about organizing resources and defense forces so that critical infrastructure and transport can keep working even in the most difficult conditions, this is also part of the deals we offer. These are ready-made security formats that we adapt to each specific country and each specific region. We are already working with partners in the Gulf, the South Caucasus, and across Europe through drone deals. Today, I signed a drone deal, serious drone deal, with Finland, and this is significant. Also, today, I signed a security agreement with Australia, and drones are part of it too. And we are preparing drone deals with Canada and with other countries as well. When Russia started this war, it could never have imagined that Ukrainian long-range drones would one day reach its factories, its military factories, somewhere in Siberia and on the Yamal Peninsula, thousands of kilometers from our borders. Thousands. No Russian admiral expected that we would be able to sink Russia's pride cruisers that were supposed to dominate the sea but could not survive our naval drones. And along with different types of drones, we also produce a wide range of conventional weapons quickly, at lower cost than in many other countries, and tested in modern war. Ukraine is building its security so that we reinforce our role of a real provider of security and help others get the protection that has already worked for us and that can truly reduce the space for starting and spreading wars in the world. Peace through protection. Ladies and gentlemen, just think about it. No Russian official ever imagined that Army General Winter, which had fought on Russia's side for centuries, would one day switch sides and support those defending themselves from Russia. We will make that happen this winter if Russia continues to target our energy system and our heating. Ukrainians understand that this winter could be very harsh for us. But in response, we will have no choice but to make it painful for Russia too. And that's exactly why we say that de-escalation steps are important, are needed before winter, now. We need diplomacy, and we need strength. And step by step, we are closing the gaps in both. Yesterday, we met with the President of the United States, and this is exactly what we discussed. Unfortunately, we have not had a chance to speak directly with the leader of China, who is in America today, but not here. And he is someone who can influence Russia too, more than many, many others can. And we would like him to want peace as much as we do in Ukraine. We believe the world has the power to make this happen. We are sure the world needs this. This is about energy, about critical infrastructure. This is about food security.
