The threshold of the new millennium is also the cusp of a new era in world affairs. The business of the world has changed almost beyond recognition over the course of the last 100 years.

There are many more actors today, and their patterns of interaction are far more complex. The locus of power and influence is shifting. The demands and expectations made on Governments and international organizations by the people of the world can no longer be satisfied through isolated and self-contained efforts. The international policy-making stage is increasingly congested as private and public non-State actors jostle alongside national governments in setting and implementing the agenda of the new century. The multitude of new actors adds depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry of international civil society.

In today's seamless world, political frontiers have become less salient both for international organizations, whose rights and duties can extend beyond borders, and for Member States, whose responsibilities within borders can be held to international scrutiny. This is a world characterized more by its major cities and agglomerations, with nodes of financial and economic power and their globally wired transport and communications networks. Cumulatively, they span an increasingly interconnected and interactive world characterized more by technology-driven exchange and communication than by territorial borders and political separation.

In this period of transition, the United Nations is the focus of the hopes and aspirations for a future where men and women live at peace with themselves and in harmony with nature. Over a billion people living in abject poverty will have had neither the spirit nor the means to cheer the arrival of the new millennium. The reality of human insecurity cannot simply be wished away. Yet, the idea of a universal organization dedicated to protecting peace and promoting welfare -- of achieving a better life in a safer world, for all -- survived the death, destruction and disillusionment of armed conflicts, genocide, persistent poverty, environmental degradation and the many assaults on human dignity of the twentieth century.

The comparative advantages of the United Nations are its universal membership, political legitimacy, administrative impartiality, technical expertise, convening and mobilizing power, and the dedication of its staff. Its comparative disadvantages are excessive politicization, ponderous pace of decision-making, impossible mandate, high cost structure, insufficient resources, bureaucratic rigidity and institutional timidity. Many of the disadvantages are the product of demands and intrusions by 188 Member States who own and control the Organization, but some key members disown responsibility for giving it the requisite support and resources.

Universities are the market-place of ideas. The United Nations University (UNU) lies at the interface of the interaction between ideas, international organizations and international public policy. In an information society and world, the comparative advantage of UNU lies in its identity as the custodian and manager of knowledge-based networks and coalitions that give it a global mandate and reach.

The United Nations has the responsibility to protect international peace and promote human development. The UN Charter codifies best-practice State behaviour. Scientists have a duty to make their knowledge available for the betterment of humanity. UNU has the mandate to link the two normally isolated worlds of scholarship and policy-making. The January 2000 Millennium Conference held at the UNU in Tokyo was one item in the ongoing effort to fulfil that mandate. The Conference was organized to showcase new ideas and fresh thinking of relevance to the United Nations and, in a wider sense, to the challenges faced by humanity. The goal was to put all important issues on the table in order to set the scene for discussions and decisions in the millennium year and to offer solutions that were creative, integrative and good examples of lateral thinking.

One recurring refrain in the Conference was the tension between the twin processes of globalization and localization; a second common theme was the need for partnerships between different actors, including individuals, at all levels of social organization; and a third was the comprehensive and interconnected nature of many of today's major problems that require urgent policy measures. Solutions must be individual-centred, within the framework of human security which puts people first; they must be integrated and coordinated, and they must be holistic, tackling the roots of the problems even while ameliorating the symptoms of stress and distress.

Globalization refers both to process and outcome. National frontiers are becoming less relevant to the flow of ideas, information, goods, services, capital, labour and technology. The speed of modern communications makes borders increasingly permeable, while the volume of cross-border flows threatens to overwhelm the capacity of States to manage them. Globalization releases many productive forces that, if properly harnessed, can help to uplift millions from poverty, deprivation and degradation. But it can also unleash destructive forces -- "uncivil society" -- such as flows of arms, terrorism, disease, prostitution, drug or people smuggling that are neither controllable nor solvable by individual Governments. At the same time, and indeed partly in reaction to globalization, communities are beginning to re-identify with local levels of group identity.

Solutions to the dilemma include decentralization and subsidiarity, on the principle that the locus of action and solution should be where the loci of the problems lie. There must be active participation of the local government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private actors in all phases of planning and implementation. International democracy promotion should be directed at building local capacity.

The combined effect of globalization, both the process and the outcome, and localization is to erode the legitimacy and effectiveness of national Governments and intergovernmental organizations. There has been a corresponding decline in levels of resources and support for international organizations, including the United Nations. In the meantime, a host of new actors from civil society -- NGOs, labour unions, churches -- have become progressively more assertive in demanding a voice at all top decision-making tables. Sometimes developing countries attach their concerns to NGOs, while at other times NGOs attack the state of affairs in developing countries-slave labour, child labour, environmental laxness.

The solution to these challenges, in the fields of security, development and environment, lies in global governance. The goal of global governance is not the creation of world government, but of an additional layer of international decision-making between Governments and international organizations which is comprehensive and not merely piecemeal social engineering, multi-sectoral, democratically accountable and inclusive of civil society actors. There is the need to widen and strengthen international legal jurisdiction, in terms of compliance and actors, by building structured systems of incentives and disincentives.

We must also confront the problem of unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative NGOs. They can be as undemocratic as the Governments and organizations they criticize, and represent single-issue, vested interests. Most industrialized country Governments are multi-purpose organizations trying to represent the public interest by the choice of voters. In many developing countries, societies are busy building sound national governments as the prerequisite to effective governance: good governance is not possible without effective government.

Partnerships are called for between Governments, international organizations, NGOs, other civil society organizations and individuals. Some countries are beginning to involve citizens more substantially in the political decision-making process through well-designed public choice mechanisms like referenda. We are likely to witness increasing issue-specific networks and coalitions. The UN has the moral legitimacy, political credibility and administrative impartiality to mediate, moderate and reconcile the competing tensions associated with the process and outcomes of globalization. Human security can provide the conceptual umbrella that brings together the four themes of the UNU Millennium Conference -- security, development, environment and governance -- within one coherent framework. This would help to give practical content to the opening words of the UN Charter, "We the peoples."