6주차｜국제 정치·외교_임정은_Finland President's UN Speech on Multipolar World Order

[임정은]

WK6_국제정치·외교: Finland’s President Delivers Most Inspiring, Powerful UN Speech Yet on Multipolar World Order

[편집본]

출처: DRM News

Date: 2025. 9. 25.

word count: 756

Glossary
1. the Security Council: 안전보장이사회 
2. the Charter of the United Nations: 유엔 헌장 
3. multipolarity and transactionalism: 다극화와 거래주의 
  - multipolarity: 여러 강대국이 국제질서를 주도하는 체제 
  - transactionalism: 가치보다 국익과 실리를 우선하는 거래 중심의 외교 방식 
4. Sudanese or Congolese territory: 수단 또는 콩고 영토 
5. proxy wars: 대리전 
  - 강대국 등이 직접 충돌하지 않고 제3국이나 무장세력을 통해 대신 벌이는 전쟁 
6. opportunism: 기회주의 
  - 원칙보다 상황에 따른 이익을 우선해 행동하는 태도 또는 정책

Mr. President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

In its simplest form, foreign policy is about three things: values, interests, and power.

I come from a relatively small country, Finland, and our toolkit is mainly about two of those three things—values and interests. Power, whether hard or soft, is usually the luxury of bigger players.

The strength of a smaller country lies in its capacity to cooperate with others.

Smart diplomacy gives smaller players relative influence.

The United Nations is a case in point.

Big powers exercise influence through the Security Council, while smaller states shape international relations through active diplomacy.

The world order is changing, much as it did after the Second World War when the UN was founded.

I believe the post-Cold War order is over, but we do not yet know what will replace it.

It may take five to ten years for a new order to emerge.

My message is simple: regardless of size, every Member State has agency.

We all have a say in shaping the new world order, and we should use that power wisely and responsibly.

Our interests differ because of geography, history, development, and culture.

But fundamental values are something we should all share.

We have collectively defined many of these principles in the Charter of the United Nations.

They are enshrined in the UN Charter.

Today I want to do two things: analyze where we are and suggest what we should do together.

I would like to highlight three related developments.

First, there is growing tension between multilateralism—an order based on the rule of law—and the ideas of multipolarity and transactionalism.

I understand the rationale behind these approaches, but can they solve challenges such as climate change or sustainable development?

Many states now pursue transactional or multifactorial foreign policies, seeking relations with multiple actors instead of aligning with one bloc.

This may be opportunistic, but it can also be justified.

Such policies are driven by interests and a realistic understanding of power, and that is entirely legitimate.

However, values should underpin everything we do.

Even transactional foreign policy should rest on fundamental values.

Without them, foreign policy ultimately leads to conflict.

If we abandon values in pursuit of power and interests, we will eventually face the very problems we tried to ignore.

Second, the balance of power is shifting toward the Global South and the East.

Countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America are becoming key players in shaping the new world order.

Their economic growth and expanding populations are increasing both their hard and soft power.

They will naturally use that power to advance their own interests, as every nation does.

The 193 Member States do not need to agree on every detail, but we must share a common understanding of the fundamentals: sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

These principles define who we are as the United Nations.

The broader international community has an overwhelming interest in upholding them.

Let me be clear.

Russia has no right to continue its aggression against Ukraine.

Israel has no right to violate international law in Palestine.

States have no right to use Sudanese or Congolese territory to wage proxy wars for their own interests.

War is always a failure of humanity and of our shared values.

Finally, let me say a few words about the United Nations itself.

The UN was created to maintain peace, stability, development, and friendly relations among nations.

The Security Council represented power, the General Assembly reconciled interests, and the Charter embodied our common values.

Today, however, the UN is struggling to fulfill its central promise.

Countries increasingly violate international law and use force against others.

The UN no longer reflects today's balance of power.

Too often it fails to reconcile interests, and too often its core values are ignored.

We all want the freedom to make our own choices and the opportunity to influence the world around us.

If the United Nations cannot deliver, the shift toward multipolarity and transactionalism will only accelerate.

Let me conclude with the three pillars: values, interests, and power.

Our values should unite us around humanity, the rule of law, and the prohibition of aggression.

Our interests differ, but our choices have consequences.

Opportunism eventually creates the very problems it seeks to avoid.

Power will always seek a new balance.

We must adapt to change without allowing the rise of hard power to blind us.

The power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong.