是的，当需要起草解决当前问题的方案时，美国和欧洲都有着不可推卸的责任。让我们在共同寻找众人所期待的答案的同时，从两个民族所结成的友谊中汲取力量。让我们利用这份跨越大西洋的关系为一个全新的、全员参与的世界秩序服务，让我们一起作为建设者走向更伟大的和平与正义。
谢谢。
演讲人简介：
KofiA.Annan（科菲·安南）联合国第七任秘书长，是公认的联合国历史上最富有改革精神的秘书长通晓英语、法语及非洲多种语言2001年，安南被授予诺贝尔和平奖
第九章Three Crises， and the Need for American Leadership 三重危机以及美国领导的必要性
President Summers， dear friends：
My wife Nane and I are both extremely happy to be here with you today. I feel truly proud to belong to this extraordinary Class of 2004， and I am pleased that so many parents and family members here. This day belongs to them， too. Without their constant support， understanding and sacrifice， none of us could have achieved what we have achieved.
For me， to receive a degree from Harvard University is a very great honor indeed. There are few countries in the world whose leaders in public life， business， science and humanities have not had some association with Harvard University-and no country that has not benefited from Harvard’s outstanding contributions to human knowledge. Indeed， I am told that Harvard evenproduces， from time to time， a very successful secretary of the U S. Treasury.
You have invited me， I know， not as an individual， but as secretary- general of the United Nations. You are saying that the United Nations matters， and that you want to hear what we have to say.
Are you right in believing that the UN matters？ I think you are， because the UN offers the best hope of a stable world and a broadly equitable world order， based on generally accepted rules. That statement has been much questioned in the past year. But recent events have reaffirmed， and even strengthened， its validity.
A rule-based system is in the interest of all countries-especially today. Globalization has shrunk the world. The very openness， which is such an important feature of today‘s successful societies， makes deadly weapons relatively easy to obtain， and terrorists relatively difficult to restrain. Today， the strong feel almost as vulnerable to the weak as the weak feel vulnerable to the strong.
So it is in the interest of every country to have international rules and abide by them. And such a system can only work if， in devising and applying the rules， the legitimate interests of all countries are accommodated， and decisions are reached collectively. That is the essence of multilateralism， and the founding principle of the United Nations．All great American leaders have understood this. That is one of the things that make this country such a unique world power. America feels the need to frame its policies， and exercise its leadership， not just in light of its own particular interests， but also with an eye to international interests， and universal principles.
American power is an essential ingredient in the mix. But what makes that power effective， as an instrument of progressive change， is the legitimacy it gains from being deployed within a framework of international law andmultilateral institutions and in pursuit of the common interest. Once again， in recent weeks， the United States found that it needed the unique legitimacy of the United Nations to bring into being a credible interim government in Iraq． American leaders have generally recognized that other states， big and small， prefer to cooperate on the great issues of peace and security through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations， which give legitimacy tosuch cooperation.
They have accepted that others with different views on a specific issue may， on occasion， be right.
They have understood that true leadership is ultimately based on common values and a shared view of the future.
Over 60 years， whenever this approach has been applied consistently， it has proved a winning formula.
But today it is threatened by a triple crisis， which challenges both the United Nations as a system， and the United States as a global leader. It challenges us both to live up to the best in ideals and our best traditions.
What does this crisis consist of？ First， a crisis of collective security. Second， a crisis of global solidarity.
And third， a crisis of cultural division and distrust．From here in North America， the security crisis looks the most obvious. We have seen international terrorism emerge as a major threat. We worry about the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And we fear that existing rules governing the use of force might not give us adequate protection， especially if terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were to be combined.
Indeed， the combination of global terrorism and possible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the existence of rogue and dysfunctional states does face us with a new challenge. The United Nations was nevermeant to be a suicide pact. But what kind of world would it be， and who would want to live in it， if every country was allowed to use force， without collective agreement， simply because it thought there might be a threat？
I believe the way forward is clear， though far from easy. We cannot abandon our system of rules， but we do need to adapt it to new realities， and to find answers to some difficult questions： When is use of force by the international community， acting collectively to deal with these new threats， justified？ Who decides？ And how should the decision be taken， in time for it to be effective？
The issues go beyond terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We also need better criteria for identifying， and clearer rules for dealing with， genocide and crimes against humanity， where the problem often is that the international community reacts too weakly， and too late.
Now I come to the second crisis-the crisis of solidarity.
