Mr. Rector,
Mrs. Nagai,
Mrs. Rose,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. Rector, for inviting me to give this inaugural lecture. It is a great honour, a privilege, and I hope I will be able to share my thoughts with you and that maybe my view will be important for the UNU.

Let us go back to nineteen eighty-five! For the first time, I came to Japan, and for the first time I came to the UNU. I was the new President of the International Association of Universities and, in this capacity, I was invited to attend a Council Meeting. It was a very special Council meeting. Indeed something like today. It was the 10th Anniversary of the United Nations University.

On this occasion, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Michio Nagai for the first time. Dr. Michio Nagai realised during our first and very informal discussions that I was very enthusiastic about history, very enthusiastic about cultural problems, and especially very enthusiastic about Japan - Japan, its culture, Japan, its incredible history.

Dr. Nagai talked to me about a book he was finalizing with a colleague, "Meiji Ishin". This book is about a revolution or evolution, or restoration, if you prefer, in Japan in the mid-19th century.

We talked a lot about history and culture, and I remember that he arranged for me at that time to discover Kabuki, because Dr. Nagai was very fond of Kabuki. I have to say very humbly that I did not know anything about Kabuki before he introduced it to me. Thanks to his culture and his open-mindedness, Dr Nagai was able to introduce people from outside of Japan, from outside of Asia to this form of art, which is so Japanese, so important and so profound.

In 1986, just a year later, the Secretary -General of the United Nations and the Director-General of UNESCO, appointed me as a member of the Council. During my term, I had the opportunity to come to Japan every year at least once, but sometimes two or three times a year, since I was also the Chairman of the Council for two years, so I could meet Dr Nagai quite frequently.

We were discussing a lot of things together. And so, I got to know Dr. Nagai better, and our friendship, if I dare say, developed. I realized what was so important for him regarding the UNU. It was really Japan's place in the world. Japan is an "island" in Asia, outside the continent. The isolation of Japan, culturally and geographically, made Japan a closed world for a very long time.

Twenty-five years had passed since World War II and Dr. Nagai was thinking that something has to be done in order to once again make Japan a true part and a great part of the world. Japan was once again a great economic power and has to find its due place in the international community, to make its necessary opening to the world.

Then all in all, we really find the true personality of Dr. Nagai, for him if Japan has to be largely open to the world it must do it while keeping and maintaining its own culture because he was a man of the world, and altogether a real, and authentic Japanese. It is why Meiji Ishin, this period of the 19th century, is crucial in Japanese history. It was the first opening of Japan to the Western world, but also an opening even to Asia. As all Japanese know during the preceding period, Japan was closed under the Tokugawa Shogunate. And so suddenly it was open to the foreign world and we may already remark that we arrive to a problem that is most important, the problem of language or more exactly of communication between peoples.

What is Meiji Ishin? Almost everybody in Japan knows more or less what it is. However even some people in Japan and with few exception people outside of Japan do not understand this expression or at least the word "Ishin." In the introduction of the book, which was published in 1985 after an important colloquium in this very United Nations University, Dr. Nagai tried to find a translation. And it was not an easy task. "Ishin"? Is it a restoration? Because it was a restoration of the power of the Emperor? Is it a revolution against the Tokugawa Shogunate? A renewal of Japan? An evolution? An adaptation? We find all that during the Meiji period, and what is interesting for us we find again the same problematic at the end of the second World War; and once again even today with globalization because there is always a conflict, a kind of conflict of civilizations. There is once again this question, how to find a balance between Japanization and Westernization. Dr. Nagai, in this book that he published with Dr. Urrutia wrote and I quote:

"Confrontation, compromise, and fusion between Westernization and Japanization have been a major concern in Japan's educational and scholarly world since the Meiji period. The issue will continue to be a major problem in the future."

And a bit later, I quote again:

"Yet the issue of Westernization versus Japanization remains of serious importance"

Dr Nagai tried several times to underline the characters of the Japanese culture, and in the same book he wrote:

"First of all, Japanese culture has been confined to the Japanese people alone for so long that the gap between it and other cultures is often hard to bridge. The culture itself presents an obstacle to understanding between Japanese and peoples of other countries and is one of the factors responsible for the tendency among Japanese to be inwardly directed and closed to the outside. Second, the culture of Japan is profoundly affected by attitudes shaped in a communal atmosphere, and this is little conductive to real freedom of thoughts, expression, speech, and association or to people's awareness of their essential humanity above and beyond their identity as Japanese".

From the beginning Dr Nagai's goal and ambition was to establish a place in Japan where Japanese scholars could meet scholars from other parts of the world. This idea was the motive of his action, as he explained in his speech during the commemorative ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the UNU.

"I would hope particularly that this might stimulate Japanese universities to become a place where Japanese can interact with people. Why can't we all, throughout the globe, learn to share our wisdom? Thus far, however, we have had very few facilities in the sphere of education to realize such a desire."

And now I come to the real history of the UNU. You remember the famous words of Dr. U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his speech in September 1969, and I quote:

"In recent months, I have given much thought to the establishment of an international university."

It was in some way the beginning of everything, but, however, not the very "first" beginning. Thanks to Mrs. Rose, it was not the beginning, but a follow-up. The follow-up of an idea that she launched many years earlier, as Dr. Kida has just told us.

After this famous speech of Dr U Thant, there was a formal decision of the General Assembly to go on, to accept the idea. What is incredible, exceptional, I have no other words, it was the echo of these words in Michio Nagai. And also the echo in Japan to Michio Nagai's own words. Because Michio Nagai, at that time, had just left his position as Professor of Tokyo Institute of Technology. He had been hired by a very influential newspaper, Asahi Simbun, to write editorials. It was an extraordinary conjunction of circumstances. The first editorial written by Michio Nagai in Asahi Shimbun was about the question of an international university in Japan. He was so conscious of the absolute necessity of internationalization of Japan, but simultaneously preserving its identity. Thus, he wrote his very first editorial on this question, first of all about establishing an international or United Nations University, but secondly about the need for an international university in Japan.

Immediately, we see the two essential elements, which still today are the main characteristics of the UNU. It is inside the UN system and it is inside Japan for its centre.

What is remarkable is that Dr. Nagai's article had immediately had a considerable impact and drew the attention of the Government and of the Japanese society. We see on this occasion how much impact one man or one woman may have, a weight, and an influence when you think of the importance of speaking with talent and conviction exercised at the right moment. And so, Dr. Nagai was able, thanks to his editorial and his personal influence, to raise the interest of Prime Minister Sato and Secretary-General Ken Kimura. Both these gentlemen asked him to come to discuss the question and everything started at this moment from the Japanese side. Japan made the proposal by a formal official communication to the UN Secretary-General on the 28th of March 1972, giving the assurance and demand of Japan. We see, from this moment, these two parallel characters I was talking about just a minute ago, in the UN system and in Japan.

The meeting point of the two elements was the creation of the UNU in Tokyo. In the '70s, it was the feasibility study by the UN system, always in conjunction with Japan; on the 11 of December 1972, the formal decision to create the UNU; on 22 February 1973, the Founding Committee was appointed. On 6 December 1973, the Charter was adopted establishing the UNU seat in Tokyo, Japan. In 1973 and 1974, everything started, and the formal inauguration took place in January 1975.

The key role of Michio Nagai was crucial at that time, because he launched the idea, giving life to the idea of Mrs. Rose and many other people. He was able to give a form to the idea, to launch it in the reality, to put it in practice. This because, besides being a newspaperman, he became Minister of Education during the crucial years, 1974-1975. I would also like to give credit to Dr. Kida, who was so important in the creation of the United Nations University. Dr. Nagai and his colleagues were really instrumental from the very beginning, from the conception through the installation, and later, to the development of the institution.

But, of course, as all the people who know about the UNU understand perfectly there was a very important change in the initial concept. The idea of Secretary-General U Thant was largely modified. Something was completely changed. Completely, and however, not completely, but something important, however, was modified. It was decided at the end that it would not be a university in the usual meaning of the word, as we usually understand it today. It would be a university, but a university without a traditional faculty, without traditional students and without pure research.

It is interesting to note that the modification or updating of the idea was the result of the work by the experts and the founding committee. These people were looking for something, which would be very specific, a really international body. And not a university like any other. Not a university like the Tokyo University or Geneva University or Oxford or Harvard, but something essentially international.

It is worth at this point to underline that among the experts and also among the members of the founding committee, as Dr. Hester reminded us a moment ago, were many people from the International Association of Universities (IAU): Dr. Gaudry, the first Chairman of the Council, was the President of the IAU at the time, and many others. For example, Dr. Kwapong, future Vice-Rector and Dr. Hester, the future first Rector, were also members of the IAU Board. Still today, there are very strong relations, even stronger maybe, thanks to the present Rector, between the IAU and the UNU. I am sure it is for the best.

The fact that the UN asked experts to give opinions about what the United Nations University has to be, finds a prestigious precedent. As you know the University of Berlin was founded in 1808 by the King of Prussia. It was during the Napoleonic War and Prussia had lost against Napoleon at that time and a part of the country, in which the best university of the kingdom was located, was given to another State.

The king decided to found a new one to replace it. He decided (sometimes Prussia was right, if sometimes it was not right, but this time it was very right) to ask the best philosophers in the country to give their opinions. It was the start or the beginning of the University of Berlin. As you may know, the University of Berlin had an incredible influence all over the world. For instance, it was the first model of the great research universities in the United States. The reason is that this new model required especially that a modern university needs to unite teaching and research and to look for unity of science.

The reason why I take this prestigious precedent in speaking of the UNU, it is because UNU is also something new in the university system.

We may remark also on this occasion that when you launch an idea, think of Mrs. Rose or Mr. U Thant. The launching idea takes its own life and becomes independent. The idea is still there, but with modification.

What was finally decided was to have a network. A network with headquarters in Tokyo - future research and training centres or programmes around the world and association with existing universities all over the globe. It was also decided that this new institution had to have a specific purpose. A general, but precise purpose enshrined in the Charter - to work to find solutions to "pressing problems of human survival, development and welfare."

You will immediately see the difference from a classic university as the concept is generally understood today. The purpose of the UNU is not pure research, not development of the scientific disciplines for themselves but to search for solutions to global problems.

Again I wish to return to the role of Japan in these 25 years of existence of the UNU. Japan has been very generous with the UNU. We may even say extraordinarily generous. Indeed Japan has given a big part, which was the first and most important part of the Endowment Fund. Japan has offered the premises, first rented and now this wonderful building. However I dare say, I hope it will be even more generous in the future for different reasons. On doing so, Japan realized something exceptional for the world, but also for itself. I think nobody told as clearly, and in so few words, the importance of the UNU for Japan and for the world as Governor Suzuki of Tokyo - when answering about the place where this University has to be built, where to find a very prime place or prime land inside Tokyo. There were a lot of discussions and people were discussing at the moment about this piece of land on which this building is constructed and many people were telling - it was too expensive, too much money. Governor Suzuki, as quoted by Dr. Nagai, replied "you cannot really put a price on something like this, because in his mind being the United Nations University it was most important for Japan, for Tokyo and the world."

On the other hand, we also have to underline in this commemorative occasion that the other great industrialized countries have not done enough, not only the United States, but even the other industrialized countries which have done something have not done enough for the UNU. This institution, which represents one of the greatest ideas of our time.

This question of funding is still a very important problem today. I remember our weary when I was a member of the Council, but I know that for the present Rector as it was for his predecessors, it is still an important problem. Because there will not be an autonomy and no important development of this institution if there is not enough funding.

The Charter gives something very special but very necessary to the UNU. Incredible, when you realize that the UNU is a body of the United Nations system but enjoys academic freedom and university autonomy. If the UNU is a body of the UN system, it is not a governmental institution. It is a UN body of first importance, but not a governmental institution. The members of the Council are not delegates of their country. They are appointed in their personal capacity. The Charter gives to this institution, this quality that is not in the other bodies of the UN - academic freedom and university autonomy. But, of course, university autonomy requires sufficient funding, sufficient funding without strings attached. And that is the problem. I know that when the present Rector and his predecessors discussed with the Secretary- General and Governments, it is a fundamental question, even a vital one.

I also see a second problem in the UNU. I know I am almost alone in my opinion on this second question. But, however, I am sure I am right thus, I will use my academic freedom to say what I think. This second question is the absence of continuity, the absence of permanence in the UNU. Of course, it is natural that the members of the Council change. It is even more natural, because there are only 20 appointed members, practically 15 because five mandates are practically always reserved for the permanent members of the Security Council.

The problem is that after six years, all the members of the Council are gone. It is a good thing, of course, to have changes because there are many countries in the world and this kind of institutions need new blood. But I still think that something is wrong. I do not know the immediate acceptable solution. But you have to imagine a university, any university in the world, where after six years non of the people that were present six years before are there any more, with the possible exception of the Rector. And maybe not even the Rector because he is usually appointed for five years and if he may be reappointed once, as in the case for Prof. Gurgulino de Souza, it is an exception. So, there is a real problem. Of course, there are some senior advisers or senior people with a longer term. But I think it is a real difficulty, and I think that on this 25th Anniversary I have to raise this question.

I come back to Dr. Nagai, Dr. Nagai was always present and helpful from the inception of the UNU. He was always keeping his will and his full commitment to this institution, as well as his full commitment that Japan had to meet the world, not only the far-away world, but also the other countries of Asia. His idea and endeavor concerning this necessity was always present with his strong open-mindedness, his openness to the world with the deep generosity of his heart. For him, it was essential that the headquarters really would be an intellectual, scientific center and not only an administrative one. And I think this is one of the problems I know that past and present Rectors have been struggling for and doing a lot in order for the headquarters in Tokyo to be a real first class scientific place.

This is why I am so happy to see that the Institute of Advanced Studies has been located just next door to the UNU and that the Institute has really become a place where the Japanese scholars meet together with scholars from other countries, other cultures and other civilizations. For the UNU to play its real unique role, it needs to be an international community of scholars. And for this, it is an absolute necessity for Japanese university professors and scholars to feel at home at the UNU. It is necessary for them to have an informal and frequent exchange with colleagues of the other parts of the world. It was always the idea of Michio Nagai. He thought that it was indispensable for the UNU to be a success. And he helped a lot - being really instrumental after the inception, after the installation and in the development, he was simply being himself. I know that Dr. Nagai was hoping that someday there would be real students in the UNU. Thus, the idea of U Thant was coming back today.

That is why I am so pleased to see that the Institute of Advanced Studies and the UNU building now have students coming for 10 months scholarships to study in this very place and to have contact with all the Japanese universities, essentially in Tokyo, of course, but also with universities all over Japan. Dr. Nagai, I would like to remind you, made the same suggestion in his speech, the first time I met him at the 10th anniversary of UNU "Japan and the UNU, the UNU and Japan." The incredible generosity of Japan for the UNU, the continual and very substantial financial support of the country and the government, but thanks to this, Japan has the unique UNU because there is only one. The unique United Nations University, one of the established think tanks of the world. And with this new development, with more money, and with the endeavour of the Rector, his colleagues and the Council, there may be a day when the UNU is what it has to be, - not only one of the think tanks of the UN system, but the think tank of the UN system. There must be a day when the Secretary-General, the Security Council, the General Assembly would ask the UNU directly for advice when there are questions, because it is their university, the university of the UN like in England, they ask Cambridge, Oxford or London Universities in Switzerland, Geneva or Zurich University or in Japan, Tokyo or Kyoto University for advice. This University is the university of the world - the unique international university in this sense.

For Japan, it is an exceptional chance. Japan, thanks to people like Dr. Kida, Dr. Nagai, all the colleagues we were talking about today, was able to see and to seize this chance, the chance to have (accommodate) the seat of this University. This opportunity was unique. It is quite remarkable to think about the fact that the only United Nations University of the world is located here, with its centre in Tokyo, Japan.

Japan was very generous. Japan was even and still is incredibly generous. But Japan may be able thanks to this generosity to get a lot of influence, a lot of intellectual influence, because this University is here. For instance, it seems to me when we think, (but may be I am not very cautious today and I apologize in advance), indeed how much money Japan is giving for developing countries. I would say, the United Nations University is an intelligent way of helping the developing countries. When you see the Charter, when you see the people who may come here, the postgraduate students of developing countries, thanks to the money coming from Japan or from the Endowment Fund. It is a unique place and a unique mean to help the world. Japan helps the developing countries but not only in the developing countries themselves - they also help them here in this international university.

As it was the case under the Rectorships of Prof. Hester, Mr. Soedjatmoko, Prof. Gurgulino de Souza and now under the guidance of Prof. van Ginkel, with the help of the successive Councils and the chairpersons of the Council, I am sure the UNU will go on and will be a success.

I am coming to another topic. In an original way, the UNU is a new development of the idea of the great schools and universities, which have existed throughout civilizations, centuries and even millennia. I am referring to the great Confucian and Buddhist schools of India , and to the Great School of the Hans, 2000 years ago, in China. I am thinking about the schools in China and in Japan. In Japan, for instance, (I am sure my pronunciation is not good, but it is not important) the Daigaku Ryo in the 7th Century, but I am also referring to the Great school and Museum of Alexandria 2000 years ago, and to the great Islamic schools which still exist today - and existed before Bologna, before Oxford, before Paris, Al-Azhar in Cairo, Zaitouna in Tunis, Quaraouiyine in Fes. But, of course, I am thinking about and particularly about the modern form of universities that were born in Europe around the 11th or 12th century.

The feature that is different and essential for the UNU in this long chain of great schools is this specific character that was born in Europe - the autonomy. The autonomy of the school vis-à-vis the Government. And also the fact that these schools in the beginning - the great schools in Asia, Alexandria, etc. were international, and sometimes absolutely, essentially international. It was the case of the first universities in Europe, Bologna, Paris, and Oxford was really universal in the meaning of the western Christiandom.

But this international character became rapidly endangered with the creation or the development of the modern State. And Dr. Nagai was very attentive to this question. When the States are developing, they want to have the upper hand and the final authority over their universities.

For instance, when the States in Europe developed, the Holy Roman Empire lost its concept of universality and the "international" power it shared with the Pope over the universities - power which was taken over by the States. However the Pope was still there until the Reformation . From this time the universities were no longer truly and chiefly international, of course, it is also important for a university to be active vis-à-vis national problems, but they must never forget that one of their essential basis is the universality of all human beings and the universality of science.

We may note that many universities, which were founded (not like Bologna, Paris, Oxford, which were never founded) were created for a special purpose. Practically all the universities which were created in Europe or elsewhere were created for a specific purpose. But, however, we know that even Bologna which was not created, was protected by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire at the beginning because of the Roman Law, because of the struggle forthe Empire against the Pope, the Roman Law was in favour of the Empire. If you take Berlin, it was in order to develop research by teaching and teaching by research and to be able to have a renewal for the State. If you take the Morril Act in 1862, which Dr. Nagai was very enthusiastic about, in the United States, it was to develop practical fields, mechanics, agriculture, besides the traditional and more cultural ones. It was the same during the Meiji period for Tokyo University. When Tokyo University was founded in 1886, it was to develop practical fields besides the great, traditional, more cultural ones.

I would like to underline that it is always important when studying universities to be aware of the difference between the idea of university and a specific institution. This problematic is important also when looking at the UNU. In the notion of university, there are always the two faces of the coin. On one face you have the idea of a university, and on the other face, you have the real institution. This institution, being more concrete may be very different than the idea we have of a theoretic university. And it is a great tradition. The UNU is once again the implementation of a totally international university. Because even the greatest and the most prestigious universities around the world, even if they are very international, are not international universities in the same meaning as the UNU.

Because it is located in Tokyo, of course, there is a lot of Japanese money, of Japanese help, of Japanese presence and of the UN system, but however it is really, essentially an international institution. . Once again it must be added that its purpose is not pure research, but to find solutions to major problems of the mankind.

The UNU, as I mentioned many times this afternoon, is a unique entity of the UN system. It is non-governmental, and it benefits from the academic freedom. The academic freedom is something very important, an absolute necessity for a university, maybe even more for the UNU. I think it is appropriate to read the academic freedom amendment for you, which was proposed at the House of Lords in England in 1988, the amendment which still has to be an example for everybody. It was accepted after long discussions.

"The freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions."

I think this amendment is essential. However, I would like to complete it by adding two words. I would say not only "within the law", but "within a just law". I am not sure that all governments will accept this adjunction, (unfortunately, I am almost sure of the contrary) but I think it is important for the sake of genuine academic freedom. For the UNU, it is a necessity. The UNU must be a place where people may meet in that freedom, in that total freedom. A place where there is no dominating culture, where everyone has the possibility to be free, to express himself, a place where, however without falling into what we call in French ""relativisme" - there is no hegemony, where there is a struggle against every ethnocentrism.

To think about "de facto" ethnocentrism, I speak to you in English, it is not my mother language. I know that I am not speaking very well, at least not as well as if I would be able to do in French. Indeed we have to remark that for instance even between French and English (and however it seems they are near languages, from the same continent) some words, some notions cannot easily be translated or understood. Sometimes even the concepts are different. For instance I am a lawyer and if I take as example the notion of ownership in the case of real estate - this notion is fundamentally different in countries of common law and in countries of civil law and so different between France and other continent countries in Europe on one hand and England on the other hand. It only shows that some words could not be really translated but only explained. This question of idioms is very important.

How should you translate the very concepts when you want to avoid ethnocentrism, domination of a culture? When you want to avoid, for instance, not English language, but the English or more exactly today the American ethnocentrism that dominates the world. The question to be answered is how to translate as well as possible not only the words but the meaning and the concept taking into account the culture of the language in which the translation is done.

As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Nagai's "Meiji Ishin" is almost impossible to translate into English. To take another example if you think about the word "right", which is so important, for instance to approach the idea of "human rights," why is it that there are so many problems with Asian peoples who are however in favor of protecting the human being? They do not understand the exact meaning of "human rights" as it is understood in the European tradition. It is because you cannot easily translate this notion into Japanese. Or if you translate it into Japanese, you lose many faces of the concept. During the symposium tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, this question will occur. Professor Tsutsumibayashi explained this question in his paper about this very word "right" and why it is so difficult to translate. For instance, in many Asiatic languages, some meanings of this concept are not included in this word when they are, in French and English.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time to conclude.

The UNU exists. The UNU is unique. Its center in Tokyo is intellectual and not only administrative. It is a chance for the world. It is also, I think, a great chance for Japan. The UNU, with intelligence, sufficient funding, endeavour and commitment may become a really unique and indispensable center of the intellectual world. Tokyo will be one of the most important intellectual centers of the world. If I am right, the UNU is the only major body of the UN system in Japan, and so it is important for Tokyo, important for Japan, and important for the UNU. UNU will get the visibility it deserves and needs in Japan and in the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Michio Nagai was a man of vision, but of realization too. He played a major role in creating the UNU and in locating it in Tokyo. He was able to gather the support of the national and local authorities, of the university world, and of the world community. According to the words of Bergson, the Philosopher, Michio Nagai acted as a man of thought and thought as a man of action.

Thank you very much.