Front Page

The Prime Minister´s address to the Storting about Ukraine

Mr President, we are approaching the one-year anniversary of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. A year of unrelenting war and war crimes, destruction and death on a scale that we have not seen on our continent since World War II.

The war in Ukraine has changed the world, has changed Europe and has brought change to our everyday life.

But above all, it has reminded us of the profound human tragedy of war.

So many millions of people have lost their homes and been forced to flee.

So many innocent people have lost their lives.

So many mothers and fathers have lost their children – in apartment blocks destroyed by bombing in Kyiv, in the trenches outside Bakhmut, in the battlefields – the killing fields – in the East.


Mr President,  

In the year that has passed, Russia has responded to our condemnation and that of the international community – and to its own defeats – with more destruction, more warfare, and even greater brutality.

This has created a deep chasm between those who support Ukraine’s legitimate self defence and the current regime in Russia. 

Mr President,

An iron curtain has once again descended on Europe, dividing the continent in two.

A new fissure has emerged in Europe, but we have also become more united.

The war has brought allies together, united democracies.

It has united the parties here in the Storting, and from what I can see, the people of Norway stand firmly and unanimously behind a Norwegian position that supports Ukraine’s legitimate fight.

This support is reflected in the widespread solidarity with the Ukrainian people and their right to defend themselves, as well as in the acknowledgement shared by many people in Norway that this war is also about defending our security, our values, and our neighbourhood.


In the four previous addresses I have given to the Storting on the war in Ukraine, I have pointed out that this war will in all likelihood last for a long time, and result in even worse human suffering.

And that is still the status today.

Russia’s objective is to occupy and subjugate Ukraine.

There is nothing to suggest that this objective has changed.

The Russian President seems intent on a protracted war.

Over the past year, we have seen the inherent weaknesses of the totalitarian Russian regime: endemic corruption at so many levels of Russian society, distrust within the Russian armed forces, incompetence and low morale among troops and officers, and a lack of interoperability across military branches and forces.

And something we recognise from authoritarian regimes through history: a leadership that is impervious to criticism and detached from reality.  

Mr President,

Nevertheless, we should not underestimate Russia’s military capacity.

Russia can mobilise huge numbers of troops. Its military-industrial complex can produce great quantities of weapons. It has large stockpiles of ammunition and military equipment such as tanks.

Both we and Ukraine are expecting new Russian offensives. These may be imminent.

And if Russia wants to, it can keep this war going for a very long time, for years.

This is what we are seeing on the front lines.

The Russian troops are well-entrenched in the south and the east. They are preparing for a prolonged war.

We are witnessing a Russian strategy that we have seen before. When they fail to make progress as planned, they take a sledgehammer approach, striking without precision and with no mercy, demolishing whatever is in their path – entire cities, apartment buildings, power plants and more. Even hospitals.

The aim is to wear out the Ukrainian people and divide those who support Ukraine.

Mr President,

At times like these it is important to maintain our faith in people and countries, faith that they can do better things than wage war, and that the day will come for fair and equitable negotiations, peace and the reconstruction of Ukraine. The Government is in close contact with the Ukrainian leadership and European and US allies on following up President Zelensky’s peace plan. 

Mr President, we must continue to have dealings with, and talk to, the current Russian regime. Even in the midst of a destructive war, it is vital to maintain contact so that we can find solutions for grain exports, the exchange of prisoners of war, nuclear safety, and more. Ukraine is seeking to create a framework for this.

But with no sign of willingness from Russia to withdraw and cease its war of aggression, we must acknowledge that the most important thing we can do now is to help Ukraine defend itself, and try to convince Russia to change its course.


Mr President,

February 24th last year was a watershed moment for our continent.

That is precisely what I called it from this podium just days after the war broke out.

Previously, we talked about a world order under pressure. Now we have a world order under attack. The first war of aggression in Europe since World War II with the objective of conquering a neighbouring country.

This has profound implications for Norway. This war concerns us all.

International law is our first line of defence. Our security, prosperity and freedom all rest on a rules-based order.

Where relations between states follow the power of the law, and not the law of power.

Where we do not differentiate between the rights of large and small states.

Where sovereign states – be they large or small – can choose their own way forward.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine violates all of these principles that are of such fundamental importance to Norway and our national interests.

Russia poses a known threat to Norway in areas such as intelligence activities, cyber attacks and critical infrastructure. We have strengthened Norwegian preparedness because Russia is showing a greater appetite for risks.

It is against this backdrop that Norway, together with Germany, has initiated the establishment of a new NATO centre to improve the protection of subsea infrastructure that is so vital for Norway and for Europe.

With regard to the conventional military threat against Norway, there has been no change to the threat landscape since my last address.

Nonetheless, I would like to underline the importance of certain matters of principle for Norway and for our security.

Russia is seeking to create a different Europe by force – one that will be a far more dangerous setting  for countries such as Norway.

If Russia achieves its aims in Ukraine through this destructive war, there will be dramatic repercussions for our security – and for the security of our allies, especially in the eastern parts of Europe.

This, Mr President, is why Ukraine’s battle is a battle for our security and our national interests as well.

Russia has gone to war in the conviction that using force, a military attack, against another sovereign state can serve its own interests.

We cannot let Russia draw the same conclusions as it did from its attacks on Georgia in 2008 and Donbas and Crimea in 2014.

And we have to ask the question: If Russia takes Ukraine, which country will be next? There is a long list of countries that were previously under Moscow’s rule. And those countries are asking themselves this same question.


Mr President,

This is why the Government and a broad majority in this chamber support Ukraine’s fight to defend itself.

Together with allies, we have imposed historic sanctions on the Russian regime that over time will weaken the Russian ability to sustain the war effort.

We have welcomed large numbers of Ukrainian refugees.

And last year, Norway contributed very substantial funding – over NOK 10 billion – in civilian and military support to Ukraine.

And now, Mr President, we plan to increase this support.

Before Christmas, I informed the parties in the Storting that we were working to design a larger, longer-term funding programme for Ukraine.

The parliamentary leaders made it clear that they wished to be included in this work before a final proposal is presented to the Storting. We have taken them at their word.

We have therefore agreed to hold a new meeting with all the parties in the Storting on Monday, where the framework and other details of the Government’s proposal will be presented and publicly discussed.

It is my hope that we can reach agreement across political parties on this issue, in a way that reflects the Norwegian people’s broad support for Ukraine.

I know that this would be greatly appreciated by Ukraine and the many Ukrainian refugees who are now in Norway. And it would be seen as constructive by our allies as well if we can agree – across political dividing lines – on an ambitious programme that can be sustained over time with broad-based support from this chamber.

Norway shows its best side when we manage to stand together on issues of real significance to our country. In these circumstances, we need to put aside what divides us, and present an agreed and coherent message both at home and to the world at large.

I would also like to emphasise the need for long-term support. The war could last for a long time, and there will be a need for funding for rehabilitation and reconstruction in a severely damaged Ukraine in its aftermath.

The reality of the situation is that a year of war is taking its toll on the Ukrainian people – despite the unwavering courage and resilience they continue to show.

The Ukrainian leadership has therefore repeatedly asked key allies such as Norway to lead the way as the war approaches the one-year mark.

International partners such as the UN, the EU, the Red Cross and other joint European institutions also need predictability in order to build up systems that provide effective assistance and ensure the best possible controls in a country where corruption is a widespread social problem.

For these reasons, the Ukraine support programme will be designed as a long-term programme.

And, Mr President, it needs to provide both military and civilian support. 

We will be contributing even more funding for the repair and rebuilding of damaged infrastructure, in line with what we started and are continuing to provide.

This support package will enable us to finance more humanitarian assistance, for instance to the many millions of people forced to flee their homes, not least those who are internally displaced in Ukraine.

But the most urgent need right now, as stressed by the Ukrainian leadership, is for military support.

Increased military support is essential to enable Ukraine to defend itself, regain lost territory and continue to resist Russia’s sledgehammer approach and planned new offensives.

Over the past year, there has been a significant shift in the type of military equipment we and other Western countries have donated to Ukraine.

We have moved from donating anti-tank weapons in the early phases of the war, via support for air defence and artillery, to the announcement last week that we, together with various allies, will be donating tanks to Ukraine.

This progression can be explained as a response to Russia’s increasingly brutal warfare. It is based on what Ukraine needs. And it is based on a thorough assessment.  

Of how much we can take from our own defence capabilities.

And of what we need to do to prevent the conflict from escalating, and keep it from spreading into NATO’s territory.

I am pleased that the Storting is aware of these considerations, and that we have made a point of the need for close international cooperation. One reason for this is to ensure that our donations can be used to their full potential.

Mr President, the Ukrainian armed forces have proved that they are able to learn to use new weapons systems quickly and professionally.

They have conscientiously adhered to agreements relating to the use of these weapons, even in a situation where their country is under constant attack.

This has created a climate of trust. And, Mr President, there is no contradiction between donating arms and a desire for peace in Ukraine, as certain voices – here in this chamber as well – may claim. I strongly disassociate myself from such claims.

A victory for President Putin and his ambitions in Ukraine will not give us peace, stability or security in Europe.

This is why we must take steps now to help Ukraine to resist, including military support.

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasise that the Ukraine support programme must be designed to minimise the risk of corruption. Both Norway and our allies consider this to be important. And from what I have seen, the Ukrainian leadership is also giving it very high priority.

This is not a competition to see who can provide the most assistance in the shortest period of time.

Norwegian assistance must be built up gradually, and developed in close consultation with international partners with the aim of strengthening democratic institutions and the rule of law in Ukraine. This includes safeguarding worker’s rights in these extremely challenging times.


Mr President,

Norway seeks to see not only the needs of Ukraine, but also the great hardships that higher inflation, especially the rising cost of food, is causing in some of the world’s poorest countries. 

For this reason, we will propose an additional, one-year allocation for developing countries that are particularly severely affected by the global ramifications of the war. This is separate funding outside the framework of the adopted aid budget.

This will mean increased Norwegian support for humanitarian efforts and the fight against hunger in countries in Africa and the Middle East, which in turn can help to reduce migration pressures on Europe at a difficult time.


I can understand, Mr President, that some people may ask whether it would be better to use part of this funding in Norway instead, to help Norwegians who are having trouble paying their own skyrocketing  household expenses.

I see nothing wrong in asking that question and having that discussion.

The most important responsibility of the Storting and the Government is of course to safeguard Norway and people’s lives throughout this long and narrow country.

It goes without saying that the Ukraine support programme will entail a temporary increase in how much of our oil revenues we use.

In our view, this is justified in the present situation, where we are contending with a heightened security threat. It is in our national interests that Ukraine does not lose this war and, due to extraordinary revenues from the petroleum sector, we have some room for manoeuvre.

But this effort will not, I repeat will not, involve increasing the flow of oil revenues into the Norwegian economy.

The Ukraine support programme will not lead to higher interest rates or increased inflation in Norway.

Assistance of this type is therefore consistent with an otherwise tight budget framework and will be designed to have very little impact on the level of activity in Norway’s economy.

In short: this is money being channelled out of Norway that we neither should nor would have used within Norway at this time.


Mr President,

Let me go back to where I started. To the war in Ukraine as a watershed moment, and what that has entailed over the past year.

It is important that the members of this chamber discuss these challenges – not just from day to day, but also in a longer perspective.

The ramifications of this war have come close to home here in Norway. All of us have had to deal with the repercussions.

We have a sharp increase in the price of good and services, which has caused difficulties for households and businesses. The war is a key part of the explanation for this situation.

Russia's manipulation of the European energy market has played a central role in the soaring inflation.

This has been a deliberate Russian strategy, set in motion well before the actual outbreak of war. The aim has been to hit European industry and households – in order to weaken solidarity with Ukraine.

The Government’s response, which I have found to be broadly supported, has been to facilitate increased gas production by the companies on the Norwegian continental shelf. This has helped to increase access to energy and stabilise gas prices in Europe, and in turn electricity prices in Norway. Prices would have been higher and less stable had we not taken action.

Here in Norway we have introduced a comprehensive electricity support scheme. We have established a fixed price scheme for businesses which is bringing the agreement-based electricity prices down. We have designed a regulatory mechanism that safeguards security of supply and ensures that water levels in our storage reservoirs do not drop too low.

Mr President, we are ready to implement new measures to ensure that power suppliers continue with precisely that: supplying power – on the basis of contracts that give guidance to consumers rather than misleading them.

And we have implemented a responsible and just financial policy, to protect people from even higher prices and galloping interest rates.

In the time that has elapsed since February 2022, we have received an unprecedented number of refugees from Ukraine.

In 2022, more than 40 000 asylum-seekers came to Norway. Most of them were from Ukraine.

This has put pressure on the immigration authorities and all of Norway’s municipalities.

But today we can say that Norwegian society accepted the challenge.

This is largely due to an enormous collective effort by municipalities, volunteer organisations, and local communities throughout Norway.

Ukrainian refugees are now settled in every single municipality in Norway, from the smallest to the largest.

The process is continuing at top speed. Most of the newly-settled refugees have embarked on introduction programmes and Norwegian language training. The objective is for as many as possible to take part in community and working life.

We are now heading into the second year of the war.

The Government has asked the municipalities to be prepared for a large number of refugees to arrive in Norway this year as well.

The numbers are uncertain, but forecasts indicate that an additional 40 000 refugees may come from Ukraine this year. And that is in addition to refugees from other countries.

We are working on plans for managing these numbers in a safe and flexible manner.

From our close dialogue with the municipalities, we have understood that one of the greatest challenges will be to find appropriate housing, and that there is now far higher pressure on municipal services. We are taking this feedback very seriously.

We are also preparing ourselves for the fact that people who arrive here directly from the war – in its second year – will be even more scarred by what they have experienced.

This will require even greater efforts by municipalities, and by us as a community in the year ahead.

Let us continue to stand united as a country and a people in our meeting with those who have had to grapple with the horrors of war. These are people who will become someone’s neighbour or colleague. We will encounter them in our local communities. Let us meet them with openness and respect.


Mr President,

The war has altered Norway’s security situation.   

Normal Russian military activity near our borders is now taking place against an unusually serious backdrop. 

There has been growing insecurity as a result. The tensions we are experiencing originate outside the Arctic but are making themselves felt here. We have lived through similar situations before at times when the winds of politics have blown cold. They may blow from far afield, but we feel their impact here too.

The Arctic and Norway’s neighbourhood are of great strategic importance for Russia. As always, we are monitoring the situation closely. 

Norway is NATO’s eyes and ears in the north.    

Russia is continuing to use covert means, cyber attacks and extensive intelligence activities, and is also targeting Norway. This is very clearly recognised in the publicly available threat assessments from Norwegian intelligence services.  

Our response has been to increase allocations to the Norwegian Armed Forces and police for monitoring the situation and maintaining a presence in the north, in close coordination with our allies.     

We have invested more in national security and emergency preparedness. We are replenishing ammunition stocks and investing in equipment.    

As we see it, there are two core needs we must address in a time like the present:   

First, we must deal with the acute tasks and challenges, those that arise in the here and now.

And second, we must look ahead to the future. We must make a thorough assessment of how best to maintain and manage our own security in a new era.    

Russia’s war in Ukraine is deepening insecurity about the future, and about Russia’s intentions,  Russia’s stability and the path ahead for Russia’s relations with its many neighbours. 

This situation has a number of implications, all of which are important for Norway.    


Mr President, I would now like to turn to some of these implications. 

The first is that the dividing line between East and West in Europe has become clearer and more sharply defined.  

A new iron curtain. A hard border.   

A more heavily militarised border, with fewer cross-border connections and less contact. Both political contact and people-to-people contact.

This is true of Norway’s border with Russia as well.   

The Storskog border crossing has been interesting as a barometer of relations between East and West. The annual number of border crossings rose from a tiny number in 1990 to a peak of more than 300 000 as many types of cooperation opened up and developed in the period after 2000. And now there has been a new steep decline.    

Together with the sanctions that have been introduced, this is having negative effects on some sectors of the Norwegian economy and Norwegian society, especially in North Norway.     

Various businesses will therefore need to re-orient their activities towards new markets. This was confirmed in my meetings with the business sector in Tromsø yesterday. We must recognise this and, unfortunately, this is a situation we will have to live with. We will need to support those who are affected as best we can.   

But our relationship with Russia cannot return to normal until Russia takes responsibility for its actions.     

Of course, some things cannot be changed. We cannot choose where we are on the map. And we have to have dealings with Russia both now and in the future, just has we have done in the past.    

We will continue to do what we can to promote orderly relations between our countries.  

We will seek to lower tensions across the border, both on land and at sea.  

We will treat the Russian people with respect, in the way all people deserve. Russians living in Norway must feel safe and secure. Our criticism will be levelled at the Russian regime.     

We wish to maintain contact and practical cooperation on border matters, sea rescue and fisheries management. These are still important issues for Norway. They are important for Russia, and they are important for Europe as a whole.     


Mr President, 

The second profound and long-lasting implication of the war is a stronger focus on security and emergency preparedness.   

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a year after a major war started in Europe, we see how important it is to be prepared for large-scale crises. A new crisis is rarely like the previous one. We have developed a new understanding of crises.  

Since the end of the Cold War, we have been enjoying the benefits of peace

Now a new era has begun, and the costs of maintaining preparedness are rising.    

The price of better insurance against crises – what we might call society’s insurance premium – is now increasing in many areas.     

Norway as a society is having to allocate more of its resources to defence and emergency preparedness. This is an issue that will run through budget debates in every democracy in the years ahead. In Norway, we have responded with substantial increases to the Ministry of Defence budget for both 2022 and 2023.   

We have appointed two independent commissions to consider further development of the Norwegian Armed Forces and Norway’s total emergency preparedness. These commissions are encouraging open, broad-based debate on security and defence policy choices at a time when we are having to invest more in our own security and preparedness. I hope there will be a similar broad-based debate when the commissions present their recommendations.       


Mr President,

The third implication is a clearer understanding of the value of robust partnerships and alliances. While we may have paid less heed to this before, we are now becoming fully aware of their importance. In a less safe world, countries like Norway – small and with an open economy – are particularly dependent on close allies.   

We are very conscious of the security that NATO membership provides in troubled times.    

Our relations with our leading ally, the US, are extensive and close, based on trust.    

We have strengthened cooperation with our European allies, particularly the countries around the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, especially relating to energy and security cooperation.   

The development that most clearly reflects growing recognition of the value of alliances is the decision of Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership. They are seeking to join the security community that has played such a vital role for Norway since 1940, in the knowledge that it has become more difficult to stay on the outside.      

All except one of the parties represented in the Storting endorsed Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO applications. We now expect all NATO members to follow up the consensus reached at the Madrid summit last year and formalise Swedish and Finnish membership. It is time to complete the process.   

The war also brings home how important it is for Norway to manage its ties to the rest of Europe and the US wisely. The main lines of our policy are consistent. We defend our interests, our values and our priorities.   

Mr President, in these circumstances it is also vital for friends and allies to be able to recognise each other as precisely that – friends and allies who stand by their agreements. And who honour not just the letter of an agreement, but its spirit as well.     

In recent months, we have seen that through the crisis, various countries have become familiar with important qualities of Norway.  

Norway is now Europe’s leading gas supplier. Other European countries were able to replenish their gas stores last autumn when companies operating on the Norwegian continental shelf boosted exports.   

We are supporting action to stabilise the European energy markets.    

We are playing a vital role in the rapid development of more renewable energy, such as offshore wind.     

Norway has deployed soldiers to Lithuania to provide security for our Baltic allies.     

Our defence industry supplies world-leading technology, including anti-aircraft systems and ammunition. I was given an in-depth demonstration of this during my visit to the Kongsberg group earlier this week.    

At the same time, neighbouring countries are aware of Norway’s substantial revenues from the oil and gas sector.   

This gives us a particular responsibility to live up to our European reputation as a reliable partner on energy issues, as well as within the NATO framework and in supporting Ukraine.      

We must act as a reliable partner because ultimately, we too need to be able to rely on our allies.  

It is in our own long-term interest to be reliable – both to protect Norway and our own security, and to ensure market access for Norwegian firms and access to critical goods and services.    

We saw how important it was for Norway to have partners in the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we needed a supply of vaccines.    

And now we are dealing with an energy crisis, and share the problem of high electricity prices with many other countries. It is in our interest to find solutions together with them and not in rivalry with them.    


Mr President,

The fourth lasting implication of the war is the new era in Nordic security policy that has been ushered in.  

The applications submitted by Sweden and Finland for membership of NATO reflect one of the greatest policy shifts in our part of the world since the late 1940s.   

The Baltic region will become part of our wider neighbourhood, and we will in future consider the North Atlantic, the Barents Sea and the Baltic more as a whole. This will have a positive overall effect on Norway’s security.      

We are maintaining close political contact to discuss the opportunities offered by these changes. This applies to the Nordic countries generally, but particularly to talks between Norway, Sweden and Finland. We are not starting from scratch. There have been considerable developments in cooperation on defence and security policy in the past 10–15 years, in particular between Norway, Sweden and Finland in the north.  

The Nordic chiefs of defence have made a good start on identifying specific areas of cooperation for the future.   


Mr President,

The fifth implication is related to the importance of Norwegian natural gas and the future of European energy policy.        

We can see that the energy crisis has been a wake-up call for every country in Europe.    

Security of supply will be a much more important issue for a long time to come.   

Dependable supplies from reliable suppliers will be valued highly. There is no reason to believe that Europe will allow itself to become dependent on Russian gas again – almost regardless of how low the price falls.     

This means that there will be a continued demand for Norwegian gas. To meet the demand, we must further develop the Norwegian continental shelf. This offers a wide range of business opportunities. And in addition, Norwegian gas is more climate-friendly than the alternative for European importers, which is LNG from other continents.     

This underlines how important it is for Norway to continue to share knowledge and promote support for CCUS (carbon capture, utilisation and storage), using experience gained from the Sleipner field in the North Sea and the Snøhvit field in the Barents Sea.      

At the same time, the green transition is now accelerating. This is one of the paradoxes of the war: it is resulting in more rapid scale-up of renewable electricity, which is essential for achieving our climate targets and a historic energy shift. There are major plans for the energy shift in countries such as Germany and the UK, and the EU’s plans Fit for 55 and RePower EU have the same thrust.

Norway is an important cooperation partner and contributor in almost all these developments.   

They are opening up major prospects for Norwegian business and industry, employment in Norway, and local industrial development.     

We have concluded ambitious agreements on closer industrial cooperation with Germany and with the EU as a whole. Such cooperation has become even more important for Norwegian industry, since the EU is its most important market. We will be focusing closely on this throughout 2023.    


Mr President,

Even though the battlefields in Ukraine are so distant from our everyday lives in Norway, the war feels close at hand.      

It is brought so close by constant media coverage, and not least by the moving eyewitness accounts many of us hear from Ukrainian refugees we meet in the schoolyard, at work or on the bus, as we go about our daily lives.    

I myself keep recalling my encounter with people from the village of Yahidne, about 100 km north of Kyiv. I was there at the very end of June last year. The people I met had survived a month in cramped, damp conditions in a school basement while Russian soldiers occupied and looted the village. They were left almost without food, water and light. A number of people died or suffered abuse.  

I met the survivors in a sunny opening in the woods after the Russian forces had retreated. Some of them wept, many smiled, but what I remember best is their fear that the Russian soldiers might return.    


In his 2009 Nobel lecture, President Obama said that the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace.   

He argued that under certain circumstances, the use of military force is not only permissible and necessary but morally justified.

By supporting Ukraine’s in its battle to defend itself we are standing together with the people of Yahidne, those who are living with the memories of the basement and the fear that the soldiers may return, bringing more destruction and torture.     

Helping other people to defend themselves is indeed not only permissible and necessary but also morally justified.    

But at the same time, we can add, as President Obama did, that war, whether or not it is justified, always promises human tragedy.    

It is a human tragedy for our continent that there has now been warfare in Ukraine for almost a year.   

We want it to end, but on terms defined by the party that has been attacked, by Ukraine.     

And on terms that are consistent with the kind of Europe in which we wish to live.  

Where major powers must respect other states’ freedom and independence.   

And where soldiers, like those who occupied Yahidne, are held accountable for their crimes – regardless.    

Mr President,

The terms ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ are two of the cornerstones of international criminal law today. They were coined by two lawyers who were both students in Lviv, a city which is now in the far west of Ukraine, near the Polish border.    

Raphael Lemkin and Hersch Lauterpacht were lawyers and humanists, and both suffered directly from war crimes committed by the Nazi regime.  

They put their hard-earned experience to work to build a better world. A more humane world, where there is no impunity for those who commit the greatest crimes.    

Our vision is the same as theirs – a rules-based world that guarantees dignity and human rights for individuals and peoples alike.  

Thank you for your attention.