In the emerging era of globalization, it is becoming increasingly evident that no country can ensure its security on its own. This indivisibility of global human security requires a genuine display of solidarity and collective responsibility on the part of every country of the international community so that it can effectively address the formidable challenges at the turn of the new millennium.

The new balance of forces on the political map of the world clearly indicates the need to create a global security system which would be based on entirely new principles. We understand that the complicated processes of international security and peace are intertwined and cannot permit gaps and vacuum to exist in this or that part of the world, especially on the European Continent.

Human and societal security should be seen as complementary to state security, and security must be thought of in multi-sum and multi-dimensional terms (human, national, transnational, environmental and transcivilisational).

Presently, what is of special importance is for countries to abandon the mentality that seeks security advantages with military might. Instead, they should embrace a new security concept with mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation at the core. When interests of all countries become increasingly intertwined, it is difficult for any country to attain its security goals single-handedly. We need the rule of law in global affairs and more democracy in international relations. Greater multilateral cooperation and the leading role of the UN in safeguarding world peace and security help us to cope effectively with security threats and maintain common interests.

Security, stability and prosperity will depend on the application of the multi-sum security principle that captures the multi-dimensional aspects of security and insists on the centrality of global justice for lasting security.

The greatest focus should be on fighting international terrorism, which in short time became the largest threat to global security. The situation is compounded by the numerous local conflicts in the world and the failure of the West to overcome differences and to ensure the creation of a United front against this evil.

We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security — and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use. Similarly, we must abandon the traditional approach of defining security in terms of boundaries — city walls, border patrols, racial and religious groupings. The global community has become irreversibly interdependent, with the constant movement of people, ideas, goods and resources. In such a world, we must combat terrorism with an infectious security culture that crosses borders — an inclusive approach to security based on solidarity and the value of human life. In such a world, weapons of mass destruction have no place.

No country can have security while others are in turmoil and no one can be immune from global challenges. When one country pursues development and security at home, it must work for the common development of all and give consideration to the security of others. Only by doing so can we find a path towards common security that is built and shared by all.

It is generally acknowledged that the future of the European security architecture as an important element of global security should be based on principles of comprehensiveness, indivisibility and partnership, and, in the long run, on collective rather than unilateral action.

Since the inception of the new century, international situations have undergone complex and profound changes. Against the background of the in-depth development of economic globalization, interdependence among countries is continuously deepening. To peruse peace, promote cooperation and seek development has become the theme of the current era. However, our world is far from peaceful, and destabilizing and unpredictable factors are obviously growing. Blood-shed and clashes resulting from ethnic, religious, territorial issues and other traditional security factors have not become fewer and non-traditional threats to security represented by transnational crimes, epidemic diseases, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are increasing day by day. Mankind is facing an unprecedented severe challenge.

On the future, the European and world security, as well as each state security should adapt to the postmodern society. The states will probably remain for a long time from now on not only the security subjects, but also its guarantees. Meanwhile we are also forced to take into account the fact that the postmodern world created solidarities of racial, ethical, sexual groups that transcend the states. Thus, we should not see the state security only as a goal, but also as a way to assure the security for different groups and for citizens seen as persons with own interests and options.

A recent United Nations High-Level Panel identified five categories of threats that we face:
1. Poverty, Infectious Disease, and Environmental Degradation;
2. Armed Conflict — both within and among states;
3. Organized Crime;
4. Terrorism; and
5. Weapons of Mass Destruction.
These are all 'threats without borders' — where traditional notions of national security have become obsolete. We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons, or dispatching more troops. Quite to the contrary. By their very nature, these security threats require primarily multinational cooperation.

Our efforts to ensure our shared security must be matched by a commitment to improve governance. Those things are connected. Good governance is one of the best weapons against terrorism and instability. Our fight against terrorist groups, for example, will never be won if we fail to address legitimate grievances that terrorists may try to exploit, if we don’t build trust with all communities, if we don’t uphold the rule of law. There’s a saying, and I believe it is true -- if we sacrifice liberty in the name of security, we risk losing both.

We are not only all responsible for each other’s security. We are also, in some measure, responsible for each other’s welfare. Global solidarity is both necessary and possible. — It is necessary because without a measure of solidarity no society can be truly stable, and no one’s prosperity truly secure. That applies to national societies — as all the great industrial democracies learned in the twentieth century — but, it also applies to the increasingly integrated global market economy that we live in today. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of their fellow human beings are left in abject poverty, or even thrown into it. We have to give our fellow citizens, not only within each nation but in the global community, at least a chance to share in our prosperity.