As the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 1999 states, the present era of globalization is characterized by the following distinctive features: shrinking time and space, and disappearing borders. The globalization process is linking people's lives more deeply, more intensely and more immediately than ever before. It is not only about integrating economy, but also culture, technology and governance.

Globalization, in its current form, presents a universal challenge-a challenge not only for each country, but for the institutions for global governance as well. Globalization is here, and no country or institution can escape it. However, in my opinion, the essential question lies in how to manage the process. Therefore, we need to question different forms of regulation at the national as well as global levels.

At the national level, there is a need to question various political, economic and socio-cultural forms of regulation. We need to question the political systems of governance. Is democracy fully compatible to the challenges posed by globalization? For instance, the power of free flowing financial flows brings into question emerging aspects of self-regulating capital markets that do not involve States.

Regarding the economic forms of regulation, we need to question the role of the State and "appropriate" trade policies. The role of the State has been shifting from one of productive actor towards a facilitator, and the regulatory aspect of Governments has become more and more important. However, in some cases, this shift has led to fear of losing control. Economical power is no longer associated so strongly with political power. New players emerge from the private sector in societies that were not used to this phenomenon. In addition, the fiscal squeeze, so often associated with globalization, is constraining the aspect of care in societies.

Regarding trade policies, countries need to find a balance between protectionism and trade liberalization. However, the forms of protectionism have become more sophisticated than before. The failure in Seattle has illustrated the complexity of the current World Trade Organization (WTO) agenda. The success of an individual country in this highly specialized game will depend on how skillfully a State can utilize its available options.

On the socio-cultural forms of regulation, we need to question, for instance, the cultural profiles of certain commodities and our way of dealing with the new communication technology.

At the global level, there is need to question the current governance structures, i.e. the United Nations agencies, the Bretton Woods Institutions and WTO. The old structures, including the United Nations, were and often still are seen as large, reactive, rigid and slow. They have played their role well in the past, but at present seem to be left behind with the pace of the change. New players, such as the World Economic Forum, the G-8, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media, have emerged to the field and shifted power away from the old structures. Newcomers seem to be faster, more proactive, leaner and more flexible.

This shift does not mean that the United Nations and the old structures have lost their purpose of existence-far from it. However, the United Nations needs to revisit and revive some aspects of its mandate, functions and responsibilities. Firstly, at present the governance debate is still too narrow, concentrating mainly on concerns regarding economic growth and financial stability-the new financial architecture. In addition, the debate is still very unbalanced with the G-7 dominating the discussion. There is need to include the developing world into the debate. The United Nations has a clear role in advocating for broadening of the debate, both in terms of issues as well as of contributions. However, in order to do that, the United Nations requires the capacity to address core issues of economic and political governance. The first step is to reclaim its role in development thinking.

Secondly, the broadening of the debate needs to involve the views of the civil society. Presently, Governments of its Member States form the United Nations own constituency. However, the Organization is intensifying its efforts to include the voices of the civil society in various development debates. The recent riots in Seattle and Washington were a stark reminder for all of us of the complexity of the issues involved and a clear call for more transparent decision-making processes in the institutions for global governance. However, in my view, contrary to some of the protesters' calls in Washington, the challenge is not to "break the bank" or "defund the fund". Instead, we need to find rules and strengthen the institutions for global governance to preserve the advantages of global markets and competition, and to ensure that they work for people, not just for corporate profits.

And thirdly, the United Nations must take advantage of the opportunities created by new technology. The pace that the new communication technology is spreading is astonishing; every hour, 70,000 new Web sites are created; Internet traffic doubles every three months. Information is power in a globalized world. Unfortunately, at present, the access for it is marginalizing the majority of world population. The new technology is creating not only haves and have-nots but also knows and know-nots. However, the trend can be reversed, and the United Nations can play a pivotal role in making it happen. With the NGOs, we have already seen how the Internet can empower small players. Group accesses can create enormous opportunities in the developing countries. In this regard, the United Nations has to open up to new partnership with the private sector.

A recent example of this is the way UNDP collaborated with CISCO Systems and the entertainment industry to create NetAid. NetAid uses the power of the Internet in the fight against poverty by giving individuals on the Internet the opportunity to take direct action against it, giving organizations engaged in the fight new tools and new connections to millions of potential online supporters, and providing communities struggling with the realities of poverty access to new resources and opportunities to share in the benefits of the Internet revolution. And it works-during its launch in 9 October 1999, NetAid Web site registered over 40 million hits from people in 160 countries. By the end of January 2000, Netaid.org Foundation had received donations of $12 million to support the needs of communities living in extreme poverty.

As I have argued above, the reasons for UN existence have not disappeared with globalization and the entry of new players. On the contrary, the need for global governance is probably stronger than ever. However, in the new situation, the United Nations and each of its agencies need to go flat out to become "leaner and meaner" organizations. We need to become more flexible, more efficient and more proactive in our operations at every level and stage. In addition, we need to strengthen our partnerships with other players, such as Bretton Woods Institutions, WTO, civil society and private sector actors, in the global governance. For this to be possible, we need to tap into the many opportunities offered by the new technology. Then we can keep up with the shrinking time and space of a globalized world.