THE UN: The following is an edited and abridged version of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's address to the General Assembly.
The last 12 months have been painful for those of us who believe in collective answers to our common problems and challenges.
In many countries, terrorism has once again brought death and suffering to innocent people.
In the Middle East, and parts of Africa, violence has continued to escalate. In the Korean peninsula, and elsewhere, the threat of nuclear proliferation casts an ominous shadow across the landscape.
And barely one month ago, in Baghdad, the United Nations itself suffered a brutal and deliberate assault, in which the international community lost some of its most talented servants. Yesterday it was attacked again. Another major disaster was averted only by the prompt action of the Iraqi police, one of whom paid with his life.
Terrorism is not a problem only for rich countries. Ask the people of Bali, or Bombay, or Nairobi, or Casablanca.
Weapons of mass destruction do not threaten only the Western or northern world. Ask the people of Iran, or of Halabja in Iraq. Where we disagree, it seems, is on how we respond to these threats.
Since this organisation was founded, states have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter.
Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all states, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an armed attack with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, states have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other states, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.
According to this argument, states are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.
This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.
My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.
But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, and thus drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.
Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded.
Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed then, or whether radical changes are needed.
Among those instruments, none is more important than the Security Council itself.
The council needs to consider how it will deal with the possibility that individual states may use force "pre-emptively" against perceived threats.
Its members may need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorisation of coercive measures to address certain types of threats - for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction.
And they still need to engage in serious discussion of the best way to respond to threats of genocide or other comparable massive violations of human rights - an issue which I raised from this podium in 1999.
Once again this year, our collective response to events of this type - in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Liberia - has been hesitant and tardy. As for the composition of the council, that has been on the agenda of this Assembly for over a decade. Virtually all states agree that the council should be enlarged, but there is no agreement on the details.
If you want the council's decisions to command greater respect, particularly in the developing world, you need to address the issue of its composition with greater urgency. For my part, I intend to establish a high-level panel of eminent personalities, to which I will assign four tasks:
First, to examine current challenges to peace and security;
Second, to consider the contribution which collective action can make in addressing these challenges;
Third, to review the functioning of the major organs of the United Nations and the relationship between them; and
Fourth, to recommend ways of strengthening the United Nations, through reform of its institutions and processes.
The panel will focus primarily on threats to peace and security.