* It is good to be in New York, and with so many friends. And it is of course a great honour for me to be awarded with this prize

I still feel very emotional when I see that humanitarian work and commitment - not just mine! - is duly praised and recognised. Because nothing like it touches deeply in your soul and feels on your skin.

It is almost unbelievable how many people, in today's "globalised" world, have nothing left but their life and their dignity: and how much work and relief is needed to preserve even that!

* This is what I have been trying to convey to ordinary people out there, who do not have access to satellite or intelligence reports, and who make up their mind about what is important to them - and what isn't - watching the evening news before dinner, at home.

If I succeeded in making people dwell, even for a few minutes, on the usefulness, and the value of humanitarian aid, I believe I have a reason to be proud of myself. I never sought visibility for myself, or for my office: but I always felt very strongly that humanitarian relief needs the wholehearted support of our taxpayers; and that humanitarian crises, especially the new "forgotten crises", ought to be placed under the spotlight of the media, to prevent both human rights violations on the spot, and donors' fatigue elsewhere.

* I am particularly grateful to those friends who have managed to be here today carving out precious time out of agendas which are no doubt over-burdened with yet other major crisis.

I regret, at this point in time, not to be able to share with them part of this burden, as I have until very recently; and I miss especially the opportunity to get there, in the field, close to the refugees and displaced in Chechnya or - why not - in Grozny itself, to bring solidarity and confort both to those suffering and to our dedicated humanitarian staff.

* But I wish to reassure everyone: I am not accepting this award as some kind of "Oscar to the career"!

Although pressing political engagements will keep me for a while focussed on national and European politics (in chronological order), my firm intention is not to forget wider international relations. Starting, perhaps, with shouldering the process of the ICC's Statute agreed in Rome last year. We live in a world which is not trouble-free, and that badly needs the ethical deterrence of the ICC's jurisdiction.

* I also wish to say a few words about the Chechen crisis and what it means for the UN. It is the price you pay for inviting an un-diplomatic person like me to New York, these days.

It is difficult to imagine another crisis that would compound so many political, humanitarian and ethical problems so closely inter-linked with the UN's own mandate and image.

Let us make no mistake about this. No State or group of States has the right to pronounce judgement on a sovereign State like Russia and prevent it from adopting the necessary measures to combat terrorism in its own territory. Nevertheless, every single government and the International Community as a whole, has the right - and the moral obligation -to demand that Russia (like any other State) fully respect international conventions. And in the case under discussion:

1. that the "response" be proportionate to the "threat": the objective of "driving out the terrorists" does not justify military operations that result in Grozny being razed and its population decimated;

2. that uninterrupted access be given to humanitarian aid for the victims of the conflict: as provided for by the Geneva Conventions, signed by Russia.

By continuing to keep quiet about what is happening in Chechnya now, the United States and the European Union, for their part, will inevitably lose in the future the right to condemn the excesses of belligerent aggressors in other parts of the world.

This unnatural silence on Chechnya is explained to us - yet again - by Western diplomacy as a choice dictated by pragmatism. Reassuming a mind-set already applied to the wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Congo, Afghanistan and other countries, they say: "Let's be realistic! What interest can our governments have in destabilising Russia, in antagonising the ruling class of a member of the G8, whose democracy is still young and fragile?"

What kind of foreign policy is it that can live with such bleak realities, for whatever reason? The answer is, of course, Realpolitik, a discipline of which I will never become an adept. I cannot accept that foreign policy has to be rife with secret deals and/or moral abstraction. I cannot accept that there are goals that justify any means. In my opinion, both goals and means should be in the public domain, openly debated in order to ensure their legitimacy among the citizens in whose name a foreign policy is drawn up.

Let us make foreign policy more open. Let us explain to citizens at large the interests at stake in international crises. Let us initiate, sponsor and support negotiations and initiatives in foreign policy that have the interests of human security at heart. In short, let us move towards a more humanitarian foreign policy, towards more Idealpolitik. It may come too late for those who died amid past massacres, but cannot come too soon for the victims of present and future crises.

In a recent speech, in which he courageously recommended that the International Community - faced with the horrors of recurring humanitarian crises - re-examine the taboo concept of "sovereignty of State" and stress the importance of such concepts as "sovereignty of rights" and "sovereignty of the individual", Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged the difficulties encountered by the United Nations in defending human rights that are crushed. Then he added: "Without respect for human rights no nation, no community, no society can be completely free".

Pope John Paul II, one of the protagonists of the twentieth century, (whom I consider such even though I have not embraced a faith or a religious doctrine) said in his New Year message: "Crimes against humanity cannot, in any instance, be considered the internal affairs of a nation (...). When unarmed civilians succumb to the blows of an aggressor and political efforts do not bring results, it is legitimate and necessary to engage in concrete initiatives to disarm the aggressor".

Well, I am as realistic as Kofi Annan and John Paul II. And, above all, I hope that Europe will embrace this kind of realism that respects both ideals and principles.