Contrary to the World Cup, we hope this time there won't be, any distribution of red cards or penalty finishing, and that we will enjoy, all together, our scientific discussions, taking place in a useful fiesta, and brotherly atmosphere.

It would have been easier for me, and more appropriate from a protocol point of view, to open this conference in French, rather than in "European Language" which is the "English as best as you can". This symbolic choice underlines the fact that we are proud to show that Europe, as a scientific and technical entity, is keeping pace with Europe as an economic power-scheduled tomorrow to become a reality.

By coincidence, this 1998 meeting is symbolic in more than one respect. I would not insist on the notion, already overworked by the media, of the end of the century, and the millennium, but rather, on earthquake engineering technical aspects, specially on what has already be done before, and what is expected to be done after our conference.

We would agree on the fact that modern earthquake engineering was born with this century. But a full century of groping in the dark and hard work was needed to build up real know-how in this field. We can be proud because almost all structures designed according to our new regulations withstood perfectly recent major earthquakes.

But such know-how did not come about suddenly in one package. Each event brought its surprises and we had to reappraise very often, with modesty, our own understanding and go back on what we had already said and written. The case of bridges in California is a significant example of how we had to question our fundamental beliefs: while the UBC code was considered as covering all types of structures, Niigata, Japan, Sylmar, California, and other major events, pushed Caltrans to elaborate modern regulations for bridges in 73. This was the beginning of a new period.

It would be even more significant to have a look at the permanent review of the Californian Retrofitting Policy. After Sylmar 71 with serious damage to the San Fernando interchange during its construction, independent multi-span bridges were considered as very vulnerable structures. Many bridges were «retrofitted» by linkage of independent spans either by cables or by bolts. The 89 Loma Prieta earthquake showed the inefficiency of such systems. With the 87 - Whittier earthquake, a large retrofit program on single-pier-supported bridges was undertaken by using steel jackets. The examples of vulnerability of such bridges were witnessed in L. A. 94 and Kobe 95.

But with the 89-Loma Prieta Earthquake, double-column-pier-supported bridges were proved to be sensitive too, and 5 years later, the Northridge Earthquake confirmed this view. A large retrofitting program was undertaken in California 18 years after Sylmar. The right policy was finally found under the pressure of dramatic events, and Northridge proved the efficiency of this policy: none of about a 100 retrofitted bridges were damaged; On Freeway 10, 2 Bridges collapsed, while the similar Cadillac Bridge, retrofitted just before, withstood perfectly the earthquake. Northridge was a useful full-scale laboratory for Earthquake Engineering. It showed also 3 more sources of failure for reinforced concrete structures: spiral hoops might be dangerous yet the use of such confining reinforcement has been recommended in all codes including EC 8, and a missed detail can bring failure even if the overall seismic design is correctly conducted; and finally Northridge rather than other earthquakes proved the vulnerability of short-stiff piers

Finally, in 95, Kobe also brought its own surprises such as the failure of welds and other connections in steel structures.

After each of these recent events, we all did our best to learn from the experience, but without being able to predict all major effects of the next event. Our existing know-how needs to be improved by model tests and numerical simulations permanently. The fees will be insignificant if all European countries collaborate closely, together, and with the European Commission. But such programs also need a very close collaboration between decision takers, researchers, insurance companies and professionals such as Designers, Architects and Contractors. Some programs already exist but, what moral authority, better than us, the Earthquake Engineering Associations of different countries, to list the priorities in research in order to be sure of the usefulness of the final results and to help to prevent rather than cure.

With recent earthquakes a new kind of vulnerability, socio-economic vulnerability of MEGACITIES have been dramatically demonstrated. In 89 in San Francisco, only a few bridges were damaged. It was the same in Los Angeles in 94 where only 9 bridges out of 3000 collapsed. The overall behaviour of bridges was excellent during both events. But in San Francisco one of the damaged bridges was the Bay Bridge with its 260 000 car/day traffic and another was the Cypress Bridge, an important element of Motorway Network through Oakland and Berkeley. In Los Angeles all 9 damaged bridges were located on Freeways with their 350 000 car/day traffic for each. In Kobe all connections with the country were cut because of collapsed bridges. Even for the emergency services, Kobe was accessible only by sea.

One can easily imagine what would happen in Nice if a major earthquake occurs. For the moment nothing in our codes addresses such cases. There is a real need for scenario analysis, at least for specifying priorities for the upgrading of strategic structures.

But what about existing buildings? The equality of all citizens pushes the public authorities to upgrade existing buildings in seismic regions in order to give them the same resisting capacity as new construction. The cost of such an ambition is likely to be so high that it is already considered to be economically unfeasible, at least when compared to other strong priorities such as health, education, etc. But the opposite solution of doing nothing, or full protection for some, is no more acceptable. The public authorities and legislators need our advice in order to choose a feasible policy consisting on an equal partial reasonable protection for all. The investment for such an operation might be covered easily: in France, for instance, an insurance tax of 9% for natural disasters is applied since 87 to all construction. Rather than taking the tax now and waiting for the disaster, it would be more appropriate to invest this tax immediately in prevention. This policy also has the advantage of bringing some activity to our profession that is needed all around Europe

This item left for the next century will be indeed a very hard challenge for us. But before going too far in this subject, we will have to answer to the disturbing question: while alluvial basins are already recognised as being more vulnerable to earthquake than expected from most standards, why, despite this underestimation, do structures, none of which would survive in our analyses, withstand, better than expected, actual earthquakes? In other words, what is surprising is not the structures that collapse during an earthquake, but rather those that don't.

All this might be the priority for Europe during the early years of the next century. But from a human point of view, developing countries, subject to a greater threat, constitute the actual emergency. Optimal solutions for such countries are not necessarily the same as in Europe and have to be devised with respect to local practices and in collaboration with their specialists. But this will not be the most difficult step of the road.

The worst problem will surely be the protection of millions of threatened people living in dangerous accommodations.

It is out of question for developed countries to take in hand such reconstruction programs directly, and none of the developing countries even ask for it. For a long time these countries had their eyes turned towards our technology, and their ears heard our slogans about freedom, human rights, equality, and brotherhood. Disappointed, they turned to communism and its mirages. Our answer to this double disillusion cannot only come from Wall Street, the City, la Bourse de Paris and so on.

We must build a partnership with them. What about the idea of building a modest seismic designed European Culture and Science House in some of these regions. The aim would be to transmit seismic construction practice to them respecting their local materials and habits, and to build a cultural bridge between our countries and emerging ones.

But to achieve such an ambition we need to better value our own technical background. The stocks and share markets are using the discoveries and inventions of our Intellectual Models.

Information Highways are the result of the theories of Maxwell, Thomson, Chadwick, Dirac, Einstein, Heisenberg, Mach, Bohr, de Broglie, Feynman,etc, exploited by some industrial geniuses. We exploit this technology now, but must leave something to the new generation, to exploit during the next century.

The current type of investor would encourage our ideas on the condition of knowing where we are going before starting. But Thomson had no exact idea about the electron before discovering it, neither Einstein about relativity, nor Heisenberg about the consequences of his Uncertainty Principle on quantum physics. Both Heisenberg and Einstein reached their scientific theories only by aesthetic and philosophical feelings. No investor, with short-term goals, would have backed such «mad» considerations at their beginning. Scientists can «feel» the right way for the future thanks to their long-term perspective, but they need more effective power.

We have to assign talent with its proper value in our society again. Yesterday Europe was famous thanks to its technology and Prestigious Universities. Today she is prouder of its financing centres: The City in London, la Bourse de Paris, Frankfurt, etc. Liberals would defend this system as the only credible one that brings back social justice and prosperity. That's surely right in the so-called «Silicone Valley model» in which the financing partner brings power for innovation and development, the share markets act as «referees» and stock options bring prosperity, but not in the case of pure speculating paper market.

The only way to take part in the future development of the world is to care about creation and innovation, and not only services and utilities, in our Universities and Firms. It is not just a matter of scientific innovation. Let's take as another model what two men of genius, the stylist Yves Saint Laurent and the business-man Pierre Berger, built together: a modern dynamic successful business around Y. Saint Laurent's talent and genius.

3 centuries of science and culture following the 7th century brought the Arab Civilisation peace, justice and prosperity. 3 centuries of easy going with just market prosperity, using stone and paper money, shifted the centre of the world from them to the emerging western countries.

The road is still very long but it is a great pleasure to continue the journey all together. I would like to end my address with a dream: A dream of a successful technical conference, during a week of full understanding, friendship and brotherhood between all delegations: from the Balkans; from United States and Israel and from Iran; from Armenia and from Turkey; etc, as a modest but a symbolic step of peace. None of us is Einstein, but there is a bit of Einstein, Man of Science, but also Man of Peace, in each one of us.

Thank you for your attention. Enjoy your conference.