 Now, before we turn to our keynote speaker, we thought that it might be helpful to add a few additional remarks on the background and flavor of the conference. So I therefore asked Deputy Director and Chief Economist Tony Addison and Research Fellow Rachel Gizekwitz to help inspire us. So Rachel, what is this conference in your perspective all about? The welcome provides a great introduction. And I think that we're asking a number of questions in this conference. So what crises are we facing? What crises do we see on the horizon? What are the options in terms of response? How can past experience inform future responses? What has been tried? What has worked? What has not worked? What has worked better and worse and why? Who are the key actors? How should responses differ across crises? And so these are big questions. It's a big topic. And we propose that it's helpful to frame our discussions in terms of three broad types of crises. So the first are continuing or ongoing crises like poverty, hunger and the diseases of poverty, which are part of our daily reality and certainly part of the daily reality of many of the world's poorest people. The second are unexpected crises such as war, natural disaster and economic shocks, which can sometimes be predicted but not without certainty. And where the timing and scale often come as a surprise or often have come as a surprise. And then the third are crises of the future. So in thinking about future crises, we want to consider triggers and warning signs. So how best to anticipate them and to plan for likely events. But we also want to recognize that crises may arise that we don't predict and to think about how to prepare for these unexpected crises of the future. So we have a full plate. Sure. Thanks, Rachel. And Tony, could you please walk us through some examples in the program? So we have, as Rachel said, a very rich program and a very detailed program. Examples of the continuing crisis, obviously the hunger and food security situation for many people in the world. We've made progress but we need to make much more. The education crises, again we've made progress but we need to make much more including on the quality of education. And gender violence. These are all examples of crises that go on hourly, daily, weekly, yearly. A second example in the conference of unexpected crises. Obviously health is a continuing crisis, chronic diseases and so on. But the world is faced down through successive decades, crises of influenza. The Ebola crisis is still very much in our minds. We never quite know how these pandemics are going to evolve, what the degree of severity for the country affected is going to be or indeed their degree of spread, considerable uncertainty around those. Weather shocks, hurricanes, floods, probably increasing with climate change now underway. Climate change itself is a continuing crisis. To a degree it's an unexpected crisis in the sense that we don't quite know what the impacts will be. And of course when we turn to the third theme of the conference and the conference sessions, crises of the future that we will try to anticipate, preparing and doing something about climate change is obviously uppermost in our minds, particularly after the Paris meetings and agreements. But many of us talk about a jobs crisis, particularly for younger people. What exactly does that mean, what can we do about it? Many people talk about a demographic crisis of aging in richer societies, of a youth bulge of people without hope, of younger people without hope in developing societies. What do these mean for the future? And can we say perhaps what is ahead of us and start preparation? So these are the kinds of examples of the topics that we will discuss over the next two days. By the end of the meeting no doubt you will come up with many ideas, many perhaps more suggestions and identify many more crises that aren't actually covered in the program. But that's what we're trying to do with the meeting. Okay, Tony, it sounds like we have a pretty full program ahead of us, but it does sound to me as if we are trying to respond to at least some of the topics that Minister Gordon alluded to. Now Rachel, are there any other sort of issues that we should as participants try to keep in mind? Well, I mean, we could have entire conferences on each of the topics covered in the parallel sessions. And I'm sure many of you have been following, for instance, the UN Summit on Refugees and Migrants earlier this week. And this sort of focused discussion on particular areas of crisis, on particular crises is incredibly important. But the thinking behind this conference is that there's also value in a broader discussion, in broader reflection, that cross-cuts particular areas of crisis. And we hope that the conference provides this sort of opportunity to think beyond the silos in which many of us often work and to take a more cross-cutting view. I think that this sort of broader reflection can be particularly important in thinking about crises of the future and particularly in the element of the unexpected in crises of the future. So when we face crises in the future that we haven't necessarily foreseen, what type of systems, organizations, leaders, institutions do we see as the best hope in dealing with the unexpected? And what can we learn from past experience in terms of the types of systems that can most effectively and efficiently respond? These are the sort of broader questions and broader challenges that are on our agenda, and they'll be particularly under discussion, I think, in the plenary sessions. Okay, so a silo point to keep in mind is a very important and critical one. I guess that's what I took from this. And now, Tony, any final thoughts? In my mind, a big issue of who acts. We often say, leave it to governments. But there are many other actors in society. There's obviously the international community itself, the United Nations system, a meeting in New York for the start of the General Assembly, of course. But we have a range of development and humanitarian organizations, but also critically what's built up over the last 20 years, civil society organizations, NGOs, international NGOs, corporations concerned about their own social responsibility. And last but not least, private citizens. Private citizens who have a responsibility to act and can often act very effectively. And some of those non-state actors are often, sometimes, much better in responding than state actors or the international community. And so, as the minister said, we have an interaction of economics, we have an interaction of politics, including geopolitics, national politics, populism that sometimes takes a very unfortunate turn, and an interaction of cultures across the world and sometimes a great deep lack of understanding between cultures. And I think the final point I'd like to leave you with is it's very easy to get discouraged. And there's a sort of political rhetoric around that says, let's be discouraged, let's give up, right? We've failed, things haven't worked. But actually, when we look at progress, we have seen progress. We've seen a lower incidence of poverty. We've seen more children in school. We've seen reductions in maternal mortality. We've seen reductions in child mortality. Not everywhere, not at all times, but we have made progress. The MDGs and now the SDGs are part of that scenario, but so is the actions of all of the people, all of the actors from organizations to private citizens that I mentioned earlier. So humanity has faced enormous crises in its past. It's come through. We need to learn the lessons of that history. I think the spirit of this conference is that cynicism is too easy an attitude to take. We must try. Sometimes we will do very well. Sometimes we will fail. But we have to try better and keep trying. And that's what the global community demands of us, and particularly the citizens of all of our countries, demand of us. So that's my final thought, Finn. OK, thank you very much, Rachel and Tony. And now to today's key point, the keynote by Elizabeth Rehn. Elizabeth Rehn, it is an honor and very great pleasure to welcome you as our distinguished wider keynote speaker at this event. I know no one who can speak as authoritatively about this topic responding to crisis as you. A member of the Finnish parliament for more than 15 years, minister of defense from 1990 to 1995, minister of equality from 1991 to 1995, a candidate to the presidency of Finland, and an international experience which includes such important tasks as, for example, being UN Special Rapporteur from 95 to 98 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Croatia, et cetera, UN Undersecretary General and Special Representative of the Secretary General in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 98 to 99. Unifem independent expert on the impact of war on women. And in 2011, member of the UN HCHR high-level reporting panel on sexual violence committed by armed troops in the DRC. Elizabeth Rehn, may I invite you to take the floor. We look forward to your keynote. Thank you. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the kind words. I've sometimes been joking about that. When you are listening to those presentations, you have a feeling of just being present at your own funeral because normally all the beautiful words are told when you are already away from all of this and can't disturb anyone anymore. I think it was very good to listen to the one kind of keynote from our African minister because I think that what he told and what I'm going to say are complimenting each other quite well, different views on the different matters. He was very much talking about the enormously important finances economy. And I'm not talking so much about that. Apparently, I will again stick quite a lot to the conflicts crisis as wars, the wars and conflicts. I have got some kind of burden in my career from always being involved with wars from my very childhood. And also, I will touch the role of women again quite a lot because I never forget to enhance this very important question. The word history is very much some kind of narrative of wars and conflicts, of victors and losers. And mostly, the history is written by the victors. And that means that they perhaps are not always totally impartial. I think it's very important that this new organization was just established a few years ago, historians without borders. We know that there are so many without borders. There are, of course, medicines on frontier. We have the teachers without. We have a lot. But this is important when internationally you are looking at the history to take the right conclusions of what has happened before. Our former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Erke Tuomio, is one of those who took the initiative to this organization. And I think that will give a lot of backbones to us. Of course, we haven't learned much from the history. Still, agreements, prevention, democracy, don't play a role for greedy leaders who wish to reach political and economic power. The ordinary citizens have a very little say when they are drawn into conflicts that end in most brutal wars. And now I again have also to make some kind of announcement. When I'm talking, I'm definitely not talking with the voice of my government or United Nations or any institutions, it's just my voice and my opinions for whatever they are worth. The ongoing conflicts seem to be even more complex than before. New violent groups, new terror, new targets like young girls who are kidnapped from education, like specifically seen by the deeds of Boko Haram in Nigeria. But of course, all of them, ISIL, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, everybody has something in their agenda that is not very favorable for women and girls. The religions have been drawn into the conflicts too, really, or just imagined to be some of the driving forces. Even, of course, the nature is playing against us and against peace efforts through the climate change that already has been there so strongly and will be playing really against the peace efforts, making people to leave their homes because they have no other possibilities. The media today allows us to be, so to say, on prime time to follow what is happening. But it's not sure that we get the real backgrounds to the proceedings, to what's happening. So we can draw very own opinions from what is happening. We often get a very negative picture of everything because it's easier to be negative than to be positive. Unfortunately, it seems to be so. So we can just build up some kind of hate against some groups of people, even knowing anything, not anything about them. The ignorance, lack or knowledge is one of the reasons that racism and nationalism in such a dangerous way have met the asylum seekers, those who now are escaping from war threatening their lives. Unfortunately, only a few leaders have taken the risk of defending the rights of the refugees, taking the responsibility to protect them according to the humanitarian law. I have listened with pleasure just, was it yesterday, the other day before, through internet, to the speech by Justan Trudeau at the General Assembly in New York. And I admire Angela Merkel for her brave protection of those who seek refuge in her country. I will definitely not be in any way interfering in the German politics. But I must say that her strong leadership, if she has now is going to risk it because of being human, then it's really a loss for Europe as a whole. We are quite short of good leaders. In my own country, I have sadly to admit that the voice of the government was too silent, even missing when the nationalistic, racist movements already a year ago started to campaign against the asylum seekers coming to Finland. It hurts to find that the killing of a young man, by the killing of a young man who was a bypasser at the demonstration, finally led to the condemnation of the violent nationalism. Now all are just talking against racism, again against the nazistic movements. But they could have done it a little bit earlier. There is a big demonstration tomorrow where the ministers will be and hopefully thousands of people will stand up for a better way of meeting the suffering of those who are fleeing from war and conflict. It's very disastrous to allow the hate speeches, the racism, the nationalism. We have all seen what it can lead to. And I, of course, especially have my memories from the Balkans when good neighbors, Kratz, Bosniaks, Serbs, who had every, all the time, lived together, mixed married. And now through the hate speeches, they just fell apart and started to fight against each other. It is very easy to make a list about what's going wrong. It's much more difficult to find the steps for solutions. But though I still have to mention some of the most alarming facts on the ongoing conflict, we have been used to respect international conventions, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all humanitarian laws, the Geneva Conventions, agreements between parties to a conflict. Therefore, it is especially shocking to follow how schools, hospitals, humanitarian convoys by Red Cross United Nations, whoever humanitarian organization is trying to work with them are the special targets nowadays very often. And the humanitarian workers, they are killed much more than before. There is apparently no respect anymore for the flag of the Red Cross or the UN. Instead, it can be the special target. Oh, this is easy. There we just bombed this. As said, has it been to learn about the use of barrel bombs filled with chlorine gas in eastern Aleppo? Should be and is agreed not to be allowed. And during now, the last ceasefire, both parties failed. I mentioned the bombing of humanitarian convoy, but also United States killed Syrian soldiers. By mistake, it was meant for ISIL. Sorry, it is not enough. The Syrian people are not anymore the actors of the conflict, purely the victims. The war seems to be more of a war game by the big powers with different interests and financed by powers around. And this is leaving EU in some kind of panic when we have to face the stream of refugees. I'm very sad when we learn about how new walls are built up when we should live in a time where all old walls are taken down instead of building new ones. But let us try to look into the responses, not counting the facts that we all know too well of what has gone wrong. So often it has been stated that prevention is the cheapest way of solving conflicts. My memory goes to the Balkans again, to the successful prevention, the unprecedented mission in Firo-Macedonia, which saved the country when Yugoslavia fell apart in the early 90s. I was then the special reporter on human rights in the whole territory of former Yugoslavia, including Macedonia, Firo-Macedonia, which they didn't like at all that I should report on any human rights. But there were some still between the majority and the Albanian population. But it was sold. We got together with the Umpredep mission. Macedonia could make it. Excuse me if I don't remember to say Firo-M all the times. I have said it once at least. So that was something that saved a lot of lives and also put the country in order much quicker than the others. As the UN special representative, I had all the possibilities to follow the situation and how things just developed. And it went, though, forward. Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Kosovo still included in Serbia, Montenegro, and Croatia. All of them had a little bit of different kind of problems. But most of them today are doing well. But still I have a lot of worries about Bosnia and Herzegovina, about Kosovo. In spite of all the money that has been put to make it work, it still doesn't work. The Dayton Agreement for Bosnia, for the peace of Bosnia, ended and stopped the direct fighting. Not all of it, but, though. But it was not the ground, the base, to build up a nation on. Because all the split with two entities, then cantons in the federation and to get all these together to be one state, one government, it seems to be very, very difficult. The problem with prevention is also how to inform about the need for preventive measures. How to create an early warning system that really works. In Kosovo, the Albanian women that I met, a special reporter, were so worried about the fact that they men were now carrying more and more weapons home. Something will definitely happen, something bad. But then they said, but we have no instance to whom report nobody who is listening to us. I included this in my reports to UN. It was noted, but no measures. I think that in the reports coming out from my reports, there was a wording that Madame Rien is very right, something should be done. And that was that. What was done was then the bombing of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo's fleeing from their homes in Taussensen, and a lot of misery. You should listen to the women. And as I'm now coming to the women, I have to take it in a broader context. It is absolutely a mistake to exclude women from the participation in peacemaking. That still is happening. The update of the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 that we all certainly know about the women in peace and security. It was an update named Global Study, preventing conflict, transforming justice, securing the peace that was published in 2015, in some way 15 years after the resolution was adopted and to look into what really has happened, has anything gone forward. And it stated very clearly that, and that was based on research, that the participation of women at all levels is key to the operational effectiveness, success and sustainability of peace processes and peace-building efforts. We all know that women are strongly victimized in the conflicts of today. They are the direct targets. Mass rapes by order have been one of the tools of warfare, a good strategic way of war, at least very efficient. This was something I met especially in Africa in my work for the trust fund for victims at the International Criminal Court. We had projects for the victims in DRC, especially Eastern DRC, Kivu, South North Kivu, Itori, and then in the northern Uganda, in the footprints of Joseph Conny, who still is at large. And the raped and mutilated women I met in the villages, it was something that was quite unbelievable what kind of brutality they had met. They were mutilated, they were raped. And the only thing they voiced was that whatever you do, please let our children get education, because that is the only way for us to come forward as a nation. And that is important for the future of the nation. So they still are looking into that they want to be a part of building up the nation. To meet them wide and also my view on how the justice should be done, the Global Study explores both the importance of fighting impunity for crimes against women and of course men, through criminal justice proceedings while also recognizing the central role played by reparations, truth and reconciliation processes, and in ensuring that victims and their communities heal and recover together. ICC and national war crimes courts have to get perpetrators responsible, but at the same time, the nation building after justice is reached, is important as well. Everybody have heard about the Kachacha courts in Rwanda where both the victims and the perpetrators for not the biggest war crimes, but like rapes and so on, that are of course war crimes, are coming together, sitting under the tree led by the vice man of the village and talking truth, coming to the truth. And then you can even apologize, you perhaps can even take the apology, but at least you can look forward. And that must be the way of transformative justice. The guilty ones should be put to stand the court procedures, but we should build for the future. I have also mentioned of course the role of women building peace. I was so pleased to read the joint communique from Havana from 24th August one month ago, announcing the final agreement for peace in Colombia after all the years of war. What pleased me was naming the delegations. It was stated, there are male and female delegates of the national government, and then we had male and female delegates of FARC. It was important to mention explicitly that this was an agreement reached by men as well as women. Two days ago, I met women from the Parliament of South Sudan, anxious to play their part of reaching peace in the recent violence. There are many more examples. You all know how the women of Liberia forced the peace after 14, 15 years of brutal war. And I'm grateful to Staffan de Mistora, who has invited women as representatives of the many parties of the conflict in Syria, forming an advisory group for his negotiations. Hopefully, they will also be invited to the main negotiations when and if they begin. The Nordic women will also play a role for peace. Commissioned by the respective ministries for foreign affairs, a Nordic women mediators network has been formed. It is composed by women leaders experienced in peacekeeping, in mediation, from each of the five Nordic countries. Model was taken from South Africa, who has a similar group, also supported by the Foreign Ministry of South Africa. And a month ago, some of the Nordics were participating in a joint workshop and conference in Pretoria. And we believe that this working hand in hand is very important that women from different regions, North and South, but also East and West, we hope that there will be more of these groups that can cooperate building peace and being mediating for peace. I will stop with some few words about UN itself. The gap between what it aspires to do and what it actually does is growing. I quote Kevin Rudd from Australia. The UN culture must change, perhaps with a new reward structure, to give priority to operations in the field rather than the operations at headquarters, to implement the recommendations of reports rather than just writing more reports and to measure results on the ground, rather just counting the number of UN conferences held. This is a UN conference. I think this is a very good conference. Strong words, but very relevant in the situation when the leadership of UN will change. The UN has problems, but the world still needs UN. The next Secretary-General, whoever it will be, needs a strong support from the member states. It is a step forward that the election process has been more open than before. There have been several hearings with the candidates. And the list of candidates is there. A couple of the candidates have now withdrawn from the list. East Europe has never had a Secretary-General. Women have never been in this position. So there are very strong words about this must be one from East Europe. It must be a woman. There are qualified both women and men standing candidacy from the East European region. But of course, there are other candidates too. And then we have to remember that in the very end, in spite of all the openness, it is the Security Council who takes the decision, with the rights to veto for five of them. So this is the reality we have to remember. The leaders of UN have been very different personalities. I have, in fact, met at least five of them and worked very intensively with three of them. They all have been their own personalities and worked in a little bit different ways. But they have been keeping the UN flag high. And I absolutely trust that the she or he who will be the next will continue to reform UN to make it the world organization we all can trust. We must never allow that UN will be looked at just one NGO amongst others. I don't think that anybody can take that authority that UN do has with all its shortcomings, with all the problems with peacekeepers who are not behaving well with all other problems. But still, I am a devoted friend of the United Nations. Peace is the only thing that really matters. The rest is depending on peace. So still, we must give UN the role. And they must take the role to be the important peace activist. Thank you so much. I wanted to leave time for questions and perhaps answers to the excellent people at the table here. Thank you.