I came there directly from Africa-I can tell you that Minnesota soon taught me the value of a thick coat, a warm scarf and even a pair of earmuffs!
When you leave one home for another, there will always be lessons to be learned. I learned more when I moved from Minnesota to the United Nations. The United Nations is an indispensable public place for the whole human family, and it has been my main residence for the past 44 years.
Today, I want to talk about five lessons I learned in the past 10, during which I served as a difficult but exciting secretary-general.
I think it is particularly appropriate for me to do this in this house commemorating Harry Truman's legacy. If Roosevelt was an architect of the United Nations, then President Truman was a master builder and a loyal supporter of the organization in its early years. At that time, it had to face completely different problems from what Roosevelt expected.
Truman's name will always be associated with the visionary leaders of the United States in a great global cause. You will see that each of my five classes has led me to the conclusion that the demand for this kind of leadership is no less than that of 60 years ago.
Collective responsibility
My first lesson is that in today's world, the safety of each of us is closely related to the safety of everyone else.
In Truman's time, this was already a fact. The man who ordered the use of nuclear weapons in 1945-this is the first time in history, and we hope it is the only time-understands that for the safety of some people, it must never be at the expense of the insecurity of others.
As he said at the inaugural meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco, he is determined to "prevent the disaster that the whole world will suffer in the next few years (that is, the world war) from repeating if the human mind, heart and hope can be prevented".
He firmly believes that from now on, security must be collective and indivisible.
That's why, for example, when faced with North Korea's aggression against South Korea in 1950, he insisted on submitting the issue to the United Nations, and put the American army under the banner of the United Nations to lead a multinational force.
However, in today's open world, this is even more true: in this world, deadly weapons can be obtained not only by rogue countries, but also by extremist organizations; In this world, Sars or bird flu can cross the ocean in a few hours, not to mention national borders; In this world, failed countries in the center of Asia or Africa may become shelters for terrorists; A world where even the climate is changing in a way that affects everyone's life on earth.
Faced with such a threat, no country can ensure its own security by seeking superiority over all other countries. We are all responsible for each other's security. Only by making efforts to make each other safe can we hope to achieve our own lasting security.
I would like to add that this responsibility is not just a matter of countries being prepared to help each other when attacked-although it is important.
It also includes our common responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, which was solemnly accepted by all countries at last year's UN Summit.
This means that respect for national sovereignty can no longer be used as a shield by governments that intend to slaughter their own people or as an excuse for the rest of us to do nothing when committing such heinous crimes.
However, as Truman said, "If we only talk about inspiring ideals and then take violent actions against simple justice, we will incur the pain and anger of unborn children."
When I see the murder, rape and hunger that people in Darfur are suffering, I am afraid that we have not gone beyond "verbal promises".
The lesson here is that grandiose theories such as the "responsibility to protect" will remain mere empty talk, unless and until those who have the power to intervene effectively-through the use of political, economic or military force as a last resort-are prepared to take the lead.
I believe that we have a responsibility not only to the present generation, but also to future generations-to protect the resources that belong to them and us, without which we can't survive.
This means that we must do more and more urgently to prevent or slow down climate change. If we do nothing or do too little every day, it will bring higher costs to our children and their children.
Global solidarity
My second lesson is that we are not only responsible for each other's safety. To some extent, we are also responsible for each other's well-being.
Global solidarity is both necessary and possible. This is necessary, because without a certain degree of unity, no society can be truly stable and no one's prosperity can be truly safe.
This applies to national society-as all great industrial democracies learned in the 20th century-but also to the increasingly integrated global market economy we live in today.
It is unrealistic to think that some people can continue to benefit greatly from globalization, while their billions of compatriots are trapped in abject poverty or even thrown into it.
We must let our compatriots, not only compatriots in every country, but also compatriots in the global community, at least have the opportunity to share our prosperity.
This is why five years ago, the Millennium Summit of the United Nations adopted a series of goals, that is, the Millennium Development Goals, which will be achieved by 2065: for example, halving the proportion of people without clean drinking water in the world; Ensure that all girls and boys receive at least primary education; Reduce infant and maternal mortality; And stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Many things can only be done by the governments and people of poor countries themselves. But richer countries also play an important role.
At this point, Harry Truman also proved himself to be a pioneer. In his inaugural speech 1949, he put forward a plan that was later called development assistance. We have successfully mobilized donor countries to support the Millennium Development Goals through debt relief and increased foreign aid, which makes me believe that global solidarity is not only necessary, but also possible.
Of course, foreign aid itself is not enough. Today, we realize that market access, fair terms of trade and a non-discriminatory financial system are equally crucial to the opportunities of poor countries.
Even in the next few weeks or months, if you are prepared to save the Doha round of trade negotiations, you Americans can have a vital impact on millions of poor people.
To do this, you can put your broader national interests above some powerful departmental lobbying groups, and ask Europe and large developing countries to do the same.
rule of law
My third experience is that security and development ultimately depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Despite increasing interdependence, our world continues to be divided-not only because of economic differences, but also because of religion and culture.
This is not a problem in itself. Throughout history, human life is rich and colorful because of diversity, and different communities learn from each other.
However, if our different communities want to coexist peacefully, we must also emphasize what unites us: our common humanity and our common belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law.
This is also crucial for development. When the basic rights of foreign investors and citizens of a country are protected and they can believe that they will be treated fairly under the law, they are more likely to engage in production activities.
If the people who need development most can make their voices heard, policies that are really beneficial to economic development are more likely to be adopted.
In short, human rights and the rule of law are essential to global security and prosperity. As Truman said, "We must prove once and for all that justice is powerful."
This is why this country has always been a pioneer in the global human rights movement in history. However, this leading position can only be maintained if the United States adheres to its own principles, including in the fight against terrorism.
When it seems to give up its ideals and goals, its overseas friends will naturally feel troubled and confused.
Countries need to abide by the rules in their interactions with each other and their citizens. This is sometimes inconvenient, but in the end it is not convenience that matters. It's doing the right thing.
No country can make its actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military power, is used, the world will only consider it legitimate if it is convinced that it is used for the right purpose, that is, the widely shared goal, according to widely accepted norms.
No community anywhere has too much rule of law; Many people suffer too little, and the international community is no exception. This is what we must change.
The United States has set an example of democracy for the world. In this country, everyone, including the most powerful people, is bound by law. Its current hegemony in the world gives it a precious opportunity to consolidate the same principles at the global level.
As Harry Truman said, "We must all realize that no matter how powerful we are, we must deny that we can do whatever we want."
Mutual accountability
My fourth lesson is closely related to the last one, that is, the government must be responsible for its actions in the international and domestic arena.
Today, the actions of a country often have a decisive impact on the lives of people in other countries.
Then, shouldn't it be accountable to other countries, their citizens and their own country? I believe so.
As far as the current situation is concerned, the responsibilities between countries are seriously unbalanced. Poor and weak countries are easy to be held accountable because they need foreign assistance. But the actions of big countries and powerful countries have the greatest influence on other countries, and they can only be bound by their own people through domestic institutions.
This gives the people and institutions of these powerful countries a special responsibility, considering not only the national views and interests, but also the global views and interests.
Today, they also need to consider what we call "non-state actors" in UN terminology. I mean business companies, charities and pressure groups, trade unions, charitable foundations, universities and think tanks-all these people come together voluntarily to think or try to change the world in various forms.
None of these can replace the country or the democratic process in which citizens choose their government and decide their policies. But they all have the ability to influence the international and domestic political process.
Countries that try to ignore this point are escaping from reality.
The fact is that countries can no longer-if ever-deal with global challenges alone. Increasingly, we need to enlist the help of these other actors, whether in formulating global strategies or in putting these strategies into action after agreement.
As Secretary-General, one of my guiding principles is to let them help realize the goals of the United Nations-for example, through the global compact with international enterprises initiated by me at 1999, or in the worldwide fight against polio, which I hope has now entered the final stage, thanks to the good partnership between the United Nations family, the US Centers for Disease Control and the vital Rotary International.
multilateralism
These are the four classes. Let me remind you briefly: First, we are all responsible for each other's safety. Secondly, we can and must give everyone a chance to benefit from global prosperity. Third, security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law. Fourth, countries must be responsible for each other and a wide range of non-state actors in their international behavior.
My fifth and final lesson inevitably comes from the other four. Only by working together through the multilateral system and making the best possible use of the unique tool left by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations, can we do all these things.
In fact, only through multilateral institutions can countries hold each other accountable. This makes it very important to organize these institutions in a fair and democratic way, so that the poor and the weak can exert some influence on the behavior of the rich and the strong.
This applies especially to international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Developing countries should have a greater say in these institutions, whose decisions can almost have a vital impact on their destiny.
This also applies to the United Nations Security Council, whose members still reflect the reality of 1945, rather than the reality of today's world.
That is why I continue to call for Security Council reform. But the reform involves two different issues.
One is that permanent or long-term new members should be added to give greater representation to the part of the world with limited voice today.
Another, perhaps more important, is that all members of the Security Council, especially the big countries with permanent members, must accept the special responsibilities that come with their privileges.
The Security Council is not just another arena for expressing national interests. If you like, it is the management committee of our fledgling collective security system.
As President Truman said, "The responsibility of a big country is to serve the people of the world, not to dominate the people of the world."
He showed what the United States can achieve when it assumes this responsibility. To this day, when the United States remains indifferent, none of our global institutions can make a difference. But when it is fully engaged, the sky is the limit.
These five experiences can be summarized into five principles, which I think are crucial for future international relations: collective responsibility, global solidarity, rule of law, mutual accountability and multilateralism.
In three weeks, I will hand over the power to the new Secretary-General. Please allow me to give them to you as a solemn trust.
Dear friends, since the founding of the United Nations, we have made great achievements.
However, there is still much work to be done to put these five principles into practice.
Standing here, I think of Winston Churchill's last visit to the White House, just before Truman left office 1953. Churchill recalled their only meeting, which was at the Potsdam meeting in 1945.
"I must admit, sir," he said boldly, "I looked down on you very much at that time. I hate it when you replace franklin roosevelt. " Then he paused for a moment and continued, "I have seriously misjudged you." Since then, you have saved western civilization more than anyone else. "
My friends, our challenge today is not to save western civilization, nor to save eastern civilization. All civilizations are at stake, and only when all people unite can we save it.
In the last century, you Americans did a lot of work to build an effective multilateral system with the United Nations at the core.
Compared with 60 years ago, do you need it less today, and does it need you less? Definitely not.
Like other human beings, Americans need a functioning global system today more than ever before, through which people all over the world can face global challenges together.
In order to operate, the system still needs far-sighted American leadership, which is Truman's tradition.
I hope and pray that American leaders today and tomorrow can provide this. Thank you very much.
BBC News Report:
http://news . BBC . co . uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/Americas/6 170089 . STM