Table of Contents
Opening Perspectives on Values, Interests, and Power
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the session opened with a profound reflection on the foundations of international relations. In its simplest form, foreign policy was described as revolving around three essential pillars: values, interests, and power. From the vantage point of Finland, a relatively small country, the emphasis was placed on values and interests rather than on hard or soft power, which are often the luxury of larger nations. The Finnish representative highlighted that the power of smaller countries lies in their capacity to cooperate with others. Through smart diplomacy, even a smaller player can gain relative influence on the global stage.
The United Nations was presented as a key example of this dynamic. Larger powers exercise influence through their permanent membership in the Security Council, but smaller states can help shape the ebb and flow of international relations by working tirelessly in the corridors of diplomacy. The speaker drew historical comparisons, noting that much like the transformation that followed the Second World War and the founding of the UN, the world order today is again shifting. The post-Cold War order is now over, but uncertainty remains about what the new order will look like. According to this vision, it will take at least five to ten years for global dynamics to settle.
The message carried to the Assembly was clear: regardless of size, every member state of the United Nations has agency. Each country has a voice and a role in shaping the future world order, and it is essential that this power be used wisely and responsibly. Acknowledging that interests differ based on geography, history, culture, or level of development, the Finnish voice urged leaders to anchor foreign policy in fundamental values enshrined in the UN Charter.
The Debate Between Multilateralism and Multipolarity
One of the core themes raised was the growing tension between multilateralism—an order based on international law—and multipolarity or transactionalism, where states pursue diversified relations with multiple actors without aligning with a single bloc. While proponents of multipolarity argue that it allows states to protect their interests flexibly, the question was raised whether such an approach can address the world’s most urgent challenges, such as climate change or sustainable development.
The Finnish representative warned that although transactional or multifactorial foreign policies may be pragmatic, they must still rest upon core values. Without them, foreign policy risks collapsing into a cycle of opportunism, ultimately confronting the very problems it seeks to ignore.
Another point emphasized was the shifting balance of global power towards the south and the east. Africa, Asia, and Latin America are no longer peripheral players; instead, they are becoming central in shaping the emerging global order. With their growing economies, demographics, and political influence, these regions will inevitably transform into forces of both hard and soft power. The call was made to recognize their agency, as well as their legitimate aspirations to wield influence in international decision-making.
Condemnations of Aggression and Violations of International Law
The Finnish address turned to concrete examples of values being violated. It condemned Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine, Israel’s violations of international law in Palestine, and the use of Sudanese and Congolese territories for proxy wars. These acts were described as collective failures of humanity, undermining the very principles upon which the United Nations was founded.
“War is always a failure of humanity. It is a collective failure of our fundamental values. It is a failure of us as human beings.”
The call was made for states to return to the core building blocks of the international community: sovereignty, territorial integrity, prohibition of the use of force, and respect for human rights. These are not optional principles, but obligations that underpin the stability of the world order.
The State of the United Nations
Reflecting on the UN itself, the Finnish speaker acknowledged that the institution has struggled to fulfill its central promise of delivering peace and stability. Too often, countries break international law, use force unlawfully, or disregard humanitarian principles. The Security Council, in particular, was described as outdated, reflecting the world of 1945 rather than today’s realities.
The call for reform was clear and unequivocal. Permanent membership should be expanded to include underrepresented regions, especially Africa and Asia. Veto power should be abolished, and member states that violate the UN Charter should lose their voting rights. The audience responded with applause, recognizing that such changes are essential if the UN is to maintain credibility and relevance.
Finland pledged to remain deeply engaged in the work of the UN, announcing its candidacy for a Security Council seat for the term 2029–2030. The commitment was presented as both principled and pragmatic—anchored in international law, but flexible in seeking incremental solutions to advance peace and security.
The Iranian Perspective: Moral Principles and Condemnations of Aggression
The Assembly then heard from Iran, which invoked a spiritual and moral framework to analyze the current state of world affairs. Beginning with the invocation “In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful,” the Iranian representative emphasized that the theme of the year—better together for peace, development, and human rights—was in fact a summons to solidarity and a brighter future for humanity.
Drawing from religious and ethical traditions, references were made to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Muhammad, the Torah, and ancient Eastern philosophy, all converging on one central moral maxim: treat others as you would want to be treated. This universal principle was contrasted with the present state of the world, which Iran described as rife with violations of sovereignty, destruction of infrastructure, forced starvation, and systematic targeting of civilians.
The speech accused the United States and Israel of committing acts of aggression against Iran and the wider Middle East. The aerial assaults against Iranian cities and infrastructure were described as “a grave betrayal of diplomacy” that undermined peace efforts. According to the Iranian representative, these actions have killed civilians, scientists, and leaders, while stripping international law of its legitimacy.
“Would you countenance such acts for yourselves?” the speaker asked rhetorically, challenging the Assembly to reflect on double standards in global politics.
Calls for Resistance and Resilience
Despite severe economic sanctions, psychological warfare, and efforts to divide its people, Iran asserted that its citizens have demonstrated unity and resilience in defending their nation. The speaker stressed that Iran, as one of the most ancient continuous civilizations on earth, would never bow to aggressors. The 12-day defense against recent attacks was portrayed as evidence of Iran’s national strength, cohesion, and faith.
With gratitude, the Iranian leader acknowledged nations and organizations that stood in solidarity with Iran during its time of crisis. At the same time, the speech emphasized that those responsible for atrocities in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria must face accountability. According to the representative, over 35,000 innocent civilians in Gaza had been killed, deprived of food, water, and medical care, in what was described as genocide.
The American Voice: Peace Efforts, NATO, and Middle East Diplomacy
The session also featured remarks from the President of the United States, who addressed pressing questions from the media on topics ranging from Turkey, NATO, and Russia to Gaza and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
When asked about sanctions against Turkey, the President indicated that decisions could be made very soon, particularly in light of meetings with Turkish leadership and the easing of tariffs on U.S. goods. On Russia and NATO, the President criticized European countries for failing to reduce reliance on Russian oil but praised their increased defense spending, noting that NATO members had raised contributions from 2% to 5% of GDP. This, he argued, translated into trillions of dollars being used to purchase advanced American military equipment such as Patriots and Javelin missiles.
The President insisted that unlike the current administration, which he claimed gave away resources, his approach was to ensure that NATO partners paid in full for the weapons they acquired. He further declared that if he had been president, the war in Ukraine would never have started.
On Gaza, the President spoke about ongoing negotiations and the humanitarian urgency of the situation. He expressed a strong desire to secure the release of hostages, noting that while some had already perished, efforts continued to recover both the living and the remains of the dead. Meetings with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan were described as productive, with the aim of advancing a ceasefire and working towards peace.
“We want to get Gaza over with,” the President said, stressing the need for both humanitarian aid access and progress on a lasting solution.
Shared Themes: Reform, Peace, and the Urgency of Action
Though their tones and priorities varied, the speeches from Finland, Iran, and the United States revealed overlapping themes that resonated across the Assembly. All three emphasized the importance of values, whether drawn from international law, morality, or faith. Each acknowledged the shifting balance of global power and the growing agency of new players in the international system.
All three also expressed frustrations with the current state of global governance. The UN, while indispensable, was described as outdated, insufficiently representative, and at times incapable of addressing the crises it was created to solve. Calls for reform—from Finland’s push for Security Council expansion, to Iran’s demands for accountability, to America’s insistence on stronger defense contributions from allies—reflected the widespread recognition that the system must evolve.
Most importantly, each speech underscored the urgency of action. Whether condemning wars of conquest, decrying humanitarian catastrophes, or demanding ceasefires and negotiations, the message was that peace cannot wait. As conflicts continue in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and beyond, the credibility of international institutions and the moral integrity of the global community hang in the balance.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the United Nations
The combined voices of Finland, Iran, and the United States painted a vivid picture of a world at a crossroads. The post-Cold War order has ended, but the contours of the new order remain unclear. The question is whether it will be defined by values and cooperation, or by opportunism and raw power.
The Assembly was reminded that every nation—large or small—has agency in shaping the future. Reform of the UN is not optional, but essential. Accountability for aggression and violations of humanitarian law must be pursued. And above all, peace must be prioritized, because war is always a failure of humanity.
As the applause echoed through the hall, one thing was clear: the future of the world order will not be written by one power alone. It will be forged collectively, in this chamber and beyond, by nations willing to uphold their values, pursue their interests responsibly, and recognize the enduring power of cooperation.
