Distinguished Addresses, Oct.13

Hans van den Broek
President Havel, Madam Clinton, Ministers, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
I am very honoured and very grateful for this opportunity to say a few words about the challenges facing Europe as we approach the next century. And it is very well possible that because I was not able to attend the interesting session yesterday, here and there I may duplicate somewhat. But let me thank you for your cordial invitation to speak here today.
Mr President, I understand that our theme today is globalisation. It is a truism that we now live in a global village in terms of finance, trade, the media and human rights. Globalisation is, in our view, irreversible – technically and financially. Liberalisation of trade, goods and capital cannot be prevented without gravely imperilling world prosperity. Yet there are voices questioning this process.
It is interesting to look, I feel, at the history of the European Union in terms of the current debate on globalisation. Fifty years ago, Europe was devastated after a second ruinous European war and the founding fathers of the European Union, Schumann, De Gasperi and Adenauer, were determined to create a new political system that would make it impossible to even contemplate using force to resolve disputes between states. Their vision of a united Europe, politically and economically interdependent, with governments operating on an increasing number of issues, with citizens able to travel freely without cumbersome border controls, has largely become a reality. And if I may say so, the European Union is, in that respect, a remarkable success story in developing a unique system of integration among states based on the principles of democracy, tolerance and solidarity. But we should not forget that the founding fathers had to fight against narrow nationalist and protectionist voices in seeking to get their ambitious project off the ground. There was considerable scepticism about the wisdom of pooling economic resources and opening markets, of dismantling trade barriers and developing common policies. But, happily, the visionaries won and the results speak for themselves.
Today, the Union is a zone of peace, stability, freedom, prosperity and social justice. We have the largest single market in the world, we are a strong force for free trade, and we are the largest provider of development and humanitarian assistance in the world. Yes, we can say that the European Union is an anchor of stability in the current global financial crisis as well. The imminent prospect of the introduction of the single currency, the euro, has helped the EU weather the storm that has hit financial markets. But, having said all that, there is certainly no room for complacency. We must remain very vigilant and maintain our efforts to ensure that sound economic and fiscal policies are followed, for these are both prerequisites for ensuring that social and cohesion policies can be maintained. As a logical next step, after the completion of the internal market, the euro will mark a significant deepening of the integration process. The benefits, in terms of sound public finances – low inflation, increased investment, economic growth and employment in Europe – will be felt throughout the global economy.
There is another major challenge before us: the challenge facing the Union is enlargement. And, as a Commissioner responsible for enlargement in the European Commission, it would seem appropriate, here in Prague, to say a few words about the state of play.
I am particularly pleased that last week the foreign ministers of the Union agreed to begin substantive negotiations in a number of policy areas with several countries, including the Czech Republic. I believe that this will send a positive signal to the people in the candidate countries of our determination to move ahead concretely with enlargement. The major decisions of our enlargement strategy were taken last December at the European Council meeting in Luxembourg. Now we are engaged in the hard work to ensure that this strategy is successful. On the side of the candidate countries, they will have to continue with their generally impressive political and economic reform efforts and match the rhetoric with the reality. For its part, the EU has to move ahead on internal reforms to prepare itself for that enlarged Union. And in that context, I welcome the statements by Chancellor-elect Gerhard Schröder that enlargement and tackling the issues in our Agenda 2000 will be central themes in the German presidency in the first half of next year.
Agenda 2000, by the way, is the basis for the Union’s own policy and institutional reform beyond the turn of the century: tackling development of the Union policies aimed, for example, at economic and social cohesion, creating the conditions for sustainable growth and employment, making the Union’s external relations and foreign policy more effective and setting the Union’s future financial framework, all of this in the context of the imminent enlargement. And that enlarged Union will bring a new dynamism. It is an investment in peace, stability and prosperity for the people of the whole of the European continent and beyond. And through consolidating democracy and stability in Central and Eastern Europe, enlargement should increase the security of the Union’s eastern neighbours as well.
The accession to the Union of over 100 million people from rapidly growing economies will boost investment and trade, and these economic benefits will also be felt by neighbouring countries, including Russia and the Ukraine. Enlargement can thus be seen as an extension of the EU’s zone of stability to the East. This deepening and widening of the European Union, symbolised very much by the euro and by the planned enlargement, will also increase the role and the responsibility of the Union in dealing with global issues. In that respect, I very much welcome this conference as an illustration of the unique contribution the Czech Republic can make. As a long-time visitor to the Davos World Economic Forum, where one often gets involved in detailed discussions on issues of politics and economics, I am glad to be here in the heart of Europe, in Prague and, thanks to the personal efforts and reputation of one of Europe’s most eminent statesmen, President Havel, we are able to gather a group of such distinguished people to debate issues that affect our whole world. This reinforces my conviction that enlargement of the European Union is more than simply a political or economic process. It is another milestone in the development of our common civilisation.
Mr President, it seems to me that, beyond the current international financial crisis, there are two kinds of problems we have to tackle – the crisis of complexity and the global governance crisis. Increased complexity has to do with two huge forces that will guarantee decades of massive worldwide change, of which we have only seen, I think, the beginnings.
The first force is that of demography. The world’s population will increase from today’s 5.5 billion to some 8-9 billion during the first half of the new century. These extra billions will need to be fed, will need to be housed, cared for and educated, and they are entitled to hope for a decent life. Social stresses will multiply, particularly if the world fails to increase the fight against poverty in a major way. And it is evident that this will require increasing joint efforts on environmental problems throughout the planet on all fronts and at all levels, against global climate change, problems of pollution and resource depletion and regional problems such as deforestation and water deficit.
The second force is the radically different world economy that is taking shape. At the heart of it, low-cost telecommunications and computer technologies are re-shaping production and logistics across the globe, making services tradeable over long distances and unleashing the full force of global finance. According to current trends, a one-hour telephone conversation between Prague and New York should cost less than one dollar by the year 2010. This new world economy will bring unprecedented opportunities, new products, new markets and new ways of empowering people to take their own initiatives. For the developing world, it offers the best opportunity to achieve the kind of catch-up growth needed to correct the untenable imbalance of today’s planet, where 20 per cent of people consume 80 per cent of all goods and services.
However, the demographic crisis and the new global economy are putting intense pressure on all types of institutions. Politicians and civil servants find it more and more difficult to keep up with the pace of change. Traditional public institutions are, by and large, locked into the hierarchical structures that are not made for the new world that we have entered. Nation-states are facing increasing constraints as territorial units. The soul-searching around the current international financial crisis is very likely just one aspect of a broader crisis in governance in an age of increasing complexity. There have been calls for some regulatory control of international financial markets, and there would seem to be widespread support for IMF funding to be increased. But in this environment, what is needed is perhaps a more profound re-thinking of global governance, which involves new ways of working together across the globe, and will need departures from old trusted concepts. It is essential also that we remember that it is citizens themselves who are at the heart of the globalising world, and it is crucial that they are involved in decisions and that there are comprehensible structures which enable them to participate fully.
The further development of the European Union can only proceed with the consent of its citizens who need to be informed of, and involved in, these activities. On 24th October, heads of state and governments from EU member states will meet informally to discuss how to bring the European Union closer to its citizens and make sure it pays more attention to communicating its policies to them. The new information centre I had the pleasure to open about an hour ago in Prague is a small step in the right direction for the people in this city to become more acquainted with the European Union. I should also emphasise that the European Union and the United States will have key roles to play working together to reform existing institutions and to devise new relevant structures for the 21st century. President Clinton has done much to improve transatlantic relations and he has reminded us that when the US and EU work closely together, we do achieve results; and the opposite is true as well – when we do not, we are much less effective and successful.
Mr President, I understand that the many themes I have just briefly touched on will be the subjects of discussions later today, so I will not go into any greater depth. Instead, I would like to make a few remarks concerning an area which I think typifies the problem of globalisation and which happens to have been occupying a lot of our time recently. We are all concerned about the gravity of the situation in Russia and its impact on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This impact has been limited so far to the fact that in most countries the macro-economic situation is generally healthy and trade flows have been re-directed very much to the Western European markets, so countries are less dependent on the Russia market. Last Friday, the President of the European Commission, Mr Santer, met Prime Minister Primakov in Moscow and he reiterated the Union’s commitment to developing a strategic partnership with Russia. We will support Russia in the aim of pursuing its social, economic and market reforms. However, in the short term, it is necessary to restore confidence in Russia through taking a number of significant measures to restructure the banking system, for instance, and stabilise the rouble. From our side, we have offered to re-focus EU assistance to address Russia’s current needs. We hope to finalise a package before the summit meeting, which is planned with President Yeltsin on 27th October. The Union’s aim is to help Russia pursue credible change, which will lead to real and sustainable transformation. Russia needs our continued support and encouragement to pursue the path of reform, both in developing stable democratic structures and towards becoming a social market economy. The task of rebuilding in Russia has been much harder than was the case in the Czech Republic or, for instance, in Poland, partly as there is perhaps less living memory in Russia to guide the process, and partly because of the sheer size of the country. Transition to stability and prosperity will take time if it is to develop in a way that is lasting and that is genuine. I understand that the First Lady, Mrs Clinton, will refer to civil society and democracy in her remarks. On that score, allow me to make only some brief remarks on the Czech Republic’s closest neighbour, Slovakia.
We warmly welcome the demonstration by the Slovak people of their firm commitment to democracy and their willingness to use that as the opportunity to bring about change to political life in their country. We commend the high participation in the elections and the civil and peaceful behaviour, but we hope very much now that Slovakia will make full use of the opportunity this has created for an improvement in the democratic climate as soon as possible. That will lead Slovakia very much closer to the European Union, for it is democracy and civil society that are at the heart of the European Union.
In conclusion, let me reiterate my plea for new thinking to tackle the new global issues that confront us all. There is no need for pessimism, provided that we demonstrate the political will to tackle the challenges posed by the increasingly complex world and the problems of global governance. As far as the European Union is concerned, the principles on which the Union is built – democracy, tolerance, integration, solidarity – have stood the test of time and I am confident that the Union can adapt to the new global challenges and continue to act as the anchor of stability for the European continent. Together with its partners, it is now time for Europe to make itself the co-architect of a just international economic order, so that globalisation may turn out to promote progress and collective security for the whole of humanity. Thank you very much.

Jiří Musil
Thank you very much, Mr Hans van den Broek, for your address and mainly for your words on the crisis of complexity and what you said about the world governments. It’s very important for this Forum. Now I should like to invite you, Mrs Clinton, to deliver your address. We are very happy that your planned visit to Prague has taken place and we are looking forward to your address.

Hillary Clinton
Thank you very much. I am honoured to be here, and I want to thank President Havel for convening another extraordinary gathering of Forum 2000. I am told that during the Velvet Revolution, there were posters all over Prague with the message: “Havel to the Castle”. Well, here we are, at the Castle, with President Havel, thinking about the future that awaits all of us.
With poetry and prose, no one has done more to spread the message of freedom and democracy throughout the world than President Havel. No one has worked harder to nurture civil society and keep us focused on the real questions confronting us as we end this century. He has reminded us that we live our lives not just as consumers but as citizens, as diverse and spiritual beings. And no one has done more to make this Castle a place for gatherings such as this, where ideas can be discussed and where all of us can do more to ask ourselves the hard questions about what kind of societies and world we expect to help build.
If we are gathered here today to talk about globalisation, then I know there are many different reactions to that rather long word. It is hard sometimes even to define what one means by it. Certainly, the increases in technology, the changes in the economy help us to define what we think we mean by globalisation. We see the effects of rapid transportation and communication on our everyday lives. We are more interconnected and I would argue more interdependent than perhaps we have ever been. And, as with any great sweeping change at any point in history, there are those who are the great proponents of globalisation, whether they can define it or not, and those who are its great opponents, whether they can define it or not. So conversations such as the ones that are provoked by this Forum are extraordinarily important. We have to do more talking with one another across the lines that too often divide us, so that not only can we define what is occurring in our world today, but also can summon up the will to take the forces that are at work and try to move them in a direction that will better our common humanity. It is particularly appropriate that we would do this on the brink of the millennium and again I commend President Havel, and the organisers of Forum 2000, for choosing this theme, this year. My husband and I have also done a lot of thinking about the millennium. We know it will come whether we think about it or not, whether we do anything about it or not. We know that it will be accompanied by great parties on New Year’s Eve, either 1999 or 2000 depending upon how it is defined. We know that there will be entrepreneurs who will produce products like “millennium toothpaste” or “millennium candy”, so we understand that this event in history, which none of us will ever experience again, has a significance in and of itself. But then, what we give to that event and how we further define it can perhaps help us tackle some of the issues that you are dealing with at the Forum.
We have adopted in the United States a theme for our discussions about the millennium: honour the past, imagine the future. And if one thinks about those two aspects of this theme it is clear that by honouring the past, one cannot shut ones eyes to it. There were many references yesterday night in the cathedral to the century that is just closing. We do ourselves no honour if we are not realistic enough to acknowledge all of the great violence and disappointment that came with this century as well as the great progress. So, honouring the past requires us to be honest about our past. To take a hard look at where we have been and who we are in order better to live in the present and imagine a better future. It gives us this opportunity now to think through what we would do if given the chance to imagine a future where we could summon the political will, create the institutions, and provide an opportunity for all individuals, in whatever society, to feel that they were participating, and not only imagining, but creating their own futures.
Now, there are pessimists among us as we end this century and the millennium, and there always have been at any point in history, but particularly at ends of points of time. I went back and read a little bit about the first millennium’s end and about the myth of panic and terror where people supposedly gave away their possessions and hid in churches here in Europe waiting for the end of the world. There was a rather controversial monk named Raoul Glauger who lived in the tenth century. He consistently warned his local citizenry of impending doom. He had quite a chequered past – he was expelled from a number of monasteries, but he always had an audience. There were always people who were ready to believe the worst about themselves and about their futures. The earth did not implode as he had predicted, but there were great pockets of fear as there always are during times of transition.
So it is today, where the media is filled with doom and gloom and those who are more concerned about painting a pessimistic future than determining how together we can be realistic and optimistic. Even in that time so long ago, there were changes occurring that, coming out of the so-called Dark Ages, set the tone for what was to come later. There was a spread of literacy, there was the emergence of craftsmen’s guilds, and new universities were begun and new religious orders started. Not only in Europe, but in other parts of the world, there was the beginning of ferment about what would be the future and how it would be created.
Today, as we stand at the end of a very different time, we face some of the same issues that go to the root of who we are as human beings and how we define ourselves, our relations with one another and whether or not we do summon the will required to create a better future. There is much to be optimistic about around the world and there is much to be pessimistic about. But clearly, whether one is able to define globalisation or not, it is here to stay. There is no going back. There is no turning back the clock, doing away with computers, cutting off the Internet, stopping jet travel, preventing the mass media from bringing messages of different cultural ideas to remote parts of the world where they have never been heard of or seen before.
So our challenge, given the reality of what we face, is to ask ourselves some hard questions about how we will harness these forces of globalisation, to deal with the important issues that have always confronted humanity. Will the global economy lead to growth and stability for nations? Will it lift up the lives and opportunities for all citizens in the world or only those of us lucky enough to be in this fabulous hall, who have the skills to deal with information and the ability to navigate our way through this new world? Will it help us to humanise ourselves and each other, to learn from one another? Or will it drive us further apart into our own particular self-proclaimed identity as a way of protecting ourselves from the challenges of the outside? Will it inspire a race to the bottom of the economic ladder? Will we deplete our resources? Will we see our unique cultures uprooted by a one-dimensional consumer culture? Will we see our spirituality replaced by an obsessive materialism? Will we retreat inward? Will the fear of the unknown, which is always there when we think about the future, be transformed into a plague of racism, nativism, and xenophobia?
If you stop for a minute and think about how popular culture imagines the future, it is not a pretty sight. Most of the recent movies demonstrate our innate fear about what is to come: apocalyptic visions with only a few people left; whole cities that can survive only under domes because we have depleted our natural resources. We don’t even yet have a popular image of this new world that we hope we can create.
So what vision of the future do we dare to imagine today? I hope that out of conversations like this here and others that are going on throughout the world, we will begin to realistically parse through globalisation. In and of itself, it is neither a good nor an evil. In and of itself, we are offered tremendous opportunities if only we take the responsibility to address our problems. As with every age, we have to take the world as we’ve been given it, not as we wish it were, either with a vision that is too optimistic or one that is too pessimistic. And we have to create conditions in which democratic governments become even more the norm so that all citizens are given a stake in their future, in which free markets benefit all people and not just a privileged few, and in which a vibrant civil society fosters free and active citizens who will, after all, ultimately determine our common human fate in the next millennium.
I often think of society with a very simple metaphor: as a three-legged stool. One leg is the government, another is the economy and the third is civil society. Obviously, we cannot sit on that stool if there is only one leg or two, and we cannot sit on it if one leg is longer or shorter than the other two. Rather, we need three strong legs and a balance among them. They have to support each other. And so, if we think about the challenges that confront us, it is simple for me to think about what needs to be done to make sure each of those three institutions and structures are strong enough to support society in the years to come.
We just a heard a very eloquent description of some of the global governance issues confronting us, so we are not only talking about government in terms of national governments, but how we will take global governance to the next level, how we will create the institutions that will enable us to have strong governmental effects on runaway economies, on global capitalism and other challenges, and how we will re-make international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank to create new financial architectures to replace what was established more than 50 years ago at Bretton Woods. We know that government is an essential part of strong societies that will enable people to live up to their God-given potential and yet, in many parts of the world, particularly in my own country in the past decade or so, we have had a continued assault on government, as though the abolition or weakening of government would create conditions that would better foster human enterprise and individual freedom. That is, I believe, a mistaken notion that hopefully we will put to rest as we end this century. We need strong and active governments, neither oppressive nor weak, but able to deal with the problems of their citizens and able to create public goods for their citizens to enjoy.
Similarly, with the economy, there are those who are great critics of the free market and those who are great advocates. Either position probably overstates both the capacity of the market and also the defects of it. We are working our way toward trying to create in the global marketplace some of the rules and regulations that will enable us to enjoy the benefits without suffering from its excesses. There is a lot of work to do on that front. So there are many tough questions posed by how we best structure and create governmental and economic institutions that will prepare the way for a better future.
But I wish to concentrate for a few minutes on the third leg of the stool. That of civil society, of citizenship, the space that is filled between, on the one hand, the government, and the economy on the other. It is really in that space that life is lived. The economy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: to create enough wealth so that people can enjoy what is best about life. Government is not an end in itself but a means to an end: to help us order ourselves so that we have the freedom and individual space to pursue our own interests. In that space of civil society exist families and religion, voluntary associations, arts and culture and learning and, most importantly, the training ground of what creates citizens from people. Economic opportunity can provide jobs and income, but economic activity alone cannot create the work ethic that capitalism requires. It can create consumers and producers of goods, but not citizens.
Governments alone cannot create citizens either. Only civil society can do that important job. As I have travelled throughout the world, I have seen how critical this component is for us to imagine a kind of future that all of us hope for. I have seen what happens to people whose spirits have been crushed, whose economies have been driven into the ground, whose governments have oppressed their spirits. And yet I have seen how their determination and support for one another can lift them up to rebuild their lives and families.
If one thinks about the challenges that confront us, we have to believe that nurturing civil society, creating opportunities for people to become citizens in today’s world, is essential. There cannot be strong, sustainable, global economy without a strong global society. And there are some simple rules about how one creates citizens – simple to describe and very difficult to execute. We have to invest in people: that means education and health care. It means creating structures that value all people, no matter whether they come from minority groups defined by religion, race or ethnicity. It means that when we look at civil society in any of our countries, as I look at mine, we can see clearly where we are not investing sufficiently and where we must do more.
Whenever I see, as I saw just a few days ago in Bulgaria and as I have seen in so many parts of the world, great effort being made to make the transition to full democratic, functioning government and strong economies, I see also how there is also a great understanding growing up on the part of individuals and non-governmental organisations that they have to play their role as well. Much of the work that was done successfully in the recent elections in Slovakia owes its roots to the recognition by so many people there that non-governmental organisations and citizens’ activity were a necessary pre-condition for true democratic values.
If we think about how we need to invest better in people, then clearly we have to re-allocate the resources that are being produced by this global economy. We cannot be satisfied unless we are doing more to better educate all children and better prepare them to be citizens, to take their rightful places in their societies. And it goes without saying, I hope in this room, that that means educating both boys and girls to the fullest of their potential. It also means investing in people’s dreams and hopes by giving them access to credit, making it possible for them to create their own jobs and businesses – not leaving them out by the great sweep of the global economy that pays little attention to what happens on the micro-level, but instead creating conditions in which local markets can grow and flourish, and more people can participate in them.
I have met literally thousands of people now around the world whose lives have been transformed by something as simple as a loan of $15.00 or $50.00 or $100.00. When my husband and I were in Uganda, we went with President and Mrs Museveni out to a small village where we met women who – because they were given access to credit – had transformed their lives and in the process understood that they were worth something, that they had dignity and value and because of that they understood better their citizenship responsibilities in a democracy. So, within the civil society, the creation of small enterprises that then can grow into viable economic ones is a way of giving people a stake in their own futures.
We also have to do more to ensure that people learn about their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and are then encouraged to exercise them. There is good work going on around the world to help people understand how democracies operate, but there is not yet enough of that. I commend the European Union for its work in trying to create conditions in which people begin to learn, after so many years of being shut out of their political systems, what it takes to be a participant.
I have seen the effects of that in a very personal way. In Senegal, for example, several years ago I visited a village where they were learning about democracy by performing skits for one another, where people would stand up and make speeches, and others in the village would listen and then make a critique of their speeches and they would act out going to vote. Now that may sound very basic, but it gave those people their first understanding of what it meant to be citizens of a democracy. We have to take the abstract discussion of democracy, take the resolutions that are passed to promote democracy, take our applause that we give when people make the transition to democracy, and distil it into practical everyday advice and lessons about what that actually means in the everyday lives of people.
We also have to make it possible for us to learn how to treat our diversity as a source of strength. We have seen in too many places around the world that even with people elected as leaders in a democracy, old attitudes die hard – and old hatreds in the guise of democratically elected leaders are no better for the citizens of a country and their neighbours than before democracy occurred. If people don’t feel that they have a stake in their own futures and that the economy is working for them, if they don’t have the space that civil society provides to give them meaning, then they often turn (as you know so well) against one another. They often begin to blame the other for whatever it is that they find lacking in their own lives. Whether that other is a minority group, religious, racial or ethnic, we have seen the results of too much blaming of the other.
And yet when people defy history, they can begin to rewrite it. Recently I spoke at a conference for women in Belfast. We brought together both Protestant and Catholic women who were doubly burdened by the sectarian hatred that had stalked their land for so long and by their status as women. They came together to talk about how they could assume responsibility to help make the peace and reconciliation they voted for real and lasting. They put aside old hatreds because new and better leadership had encouraged them to do so, and began to learn the tools of citizenship that will permit them to make their voices heard.
We also have to ensure that we do all we can to protect our natural and cultural treasures and we require citizens to do that. It often cannot be done from a distance or again by passing a resolution in a faraway place, but citizens living in our rain forests, on the edges of our savannahs and our wetlands have to feel that they too have a stake in protecting what is best about our earth. And when it comes to cultural treasures we have to do more to be sure that we respect and preserve our religions, our languages, our heritage, which do give us our individual identity and which require us to learn to respect one another.
There is much to be done, but I am an optimist. I believe that we have great opportunities ahead of us if only we will seize them. If only we will be prepared to do what is necessary at the global level to deal with our economic and governance issues, as hard as that may be – and then to do at the local level what it takes to build civil society and citizens. Each of us in this room, and so many countless beyond this hall, have the obligation to do what we can to promote positive political and economic change and to nurture civil society wherever we are. There is much that each of us can do individually. We know today that we have global neighbours but we haven’t yet decided we want to build a global neighbourhood. When we care about a toxic spill or a terrorist attack, or an economic downturn, or a civil war in another nation, it is not just because it may affect us down the road, but because we recognise that in a very fundamental way, we are now more interdependent that any point in human history.
So, that brings me back to where I started. When we imagine the future over the next years and over the next century and millennium, what is it we will see? In one of those popular movies I referred to that swept my country and apparently made a lot of money around the world, called Independence Day – these movies always seem to start with an attack on Washington D.C., which I don’t really know how to take, the blowing up of the White House and Capitol to begin with – the ending of it required all of us to co-operate to fend off an alien attack. And certainly in the theatre in which I saw it, there were great cheers as people of all different races and backgrounds and societies around the globe came together as human beings to save ourselves.
We certainly don’t expect it to come to that, but in a real way, unless we do come together, we will not have the opportunities we deserve at the end of this very difficult and troubled century. We have done a lot in the past 50 years to create opportunity, to build democracy, to reach deep and to give more people a chance to fulfil their God-given potential. But, when it is all said and done, globalisation – however one defines it – can never be a substitute for humanisation. We have a lot of work to do if we are to make sure that the global economy does not drive us apart from one another, drive some down and lift others up, but instead is an engine that we harness to create a strong global society in which all people are given a chance to imagine a future better than their past.
Thank you very much.