Speech

We meet this evening in beautiful surroundings but at a sombre time. Never has it been more important for experienced and influential people to come together to discuss the serious issues of the day. I am grateful to both the IIS and the Aspen Institute for arranging this conference - and for not yielding to the temptation to cancel or postpone. If we stop meeting, talking and debating, the terrorists will have won.

This conference is particularly timely, because it offers an early opportunity to think about impact of September 11 th on the transatlantic relationship. We all now know that September 11 th has changed the international strategic landscape.

For the man and woman in the street, the world is suddenly full of mysterious new threats. Instead of last night's match or the weather, people discuss terrorist cells, hijacking, and where to get the best protection against anthrax.

Let us be very clear. These threats -- terrorism, chemical and biological attack -- are not new. What is new is that callous criminals with selfish secular aims have shown that there are no limits to what they will do to achieve these objections. The threshold of terror has been lowered. By how far, we do not yet know. But we must respond.

That response does not have a single aim. Of course, we must bring Ben Laden, his associates and backers to justice. More widely, however, it must also ensure that the threshold against terrorism is once again raised so that tourists are confined to the margins of our global society. So it must punish terrorists for their acts, immediately and directly. Choke off their money. Leave them no safe refuge. Exact a price from any state that harbours them. And defeat terrorism in the same way that it overcame slavery in the 19 th century and fascism in the 20 th.

For this effort to succeed, it requires support from the entire civilized world. President Bush, with whom I met last week in Washington, has done a masterful job of building just such a coalition. In a calm, inclusive and measured way, the United States has brought together countries from every continent, from North and South, East and West, rich and poor, Muslim and secular. All working together, in different ways, towards a common purpose.

Indeed, the US reaction to the authorities on its soil has confounded all of the caricatures. That US policy was unilateralist. That President Bush wasn't up to the job. That the US would vent its rage through knee-jerk military action without restraint or purpose.

All of those myths have been exposed. This should be no surprise. In times of crisis, illusions are ripped away. Revisionist theories are revised. In this case, it is not only our view of the United States that need to be reassessed. What about the transatlantic community?

Only a few months ago, respected experts - some of them probably here tonight - were claiming that Europe and North America were drifting inexorably apart. Even the most cursory scan of the press of the past few years reveals how deeply that illusion had taken hold. Genetically modified foods and Kyoto were irreconcilable differences. Differing views on the death penalty were grounds for separation. And the list goes on and on, from bananas to Hollywood to accusations of US "hegemony".

Because of this bickering, it was certainly possible to argue that the transatlantic relationship was coming to an end. According to that view, the transatlantic link was simply a marriage of convenience -- or more accurately, a shotgun wedding imposed by the Soviet Union. As the 20th century ended, Europe and North America were ready to file for divorce.

September 11th has shattered that theory. Indeed, one of the clearest messages from these tragic events has been the re-affirmation that Europe and North America remain what they have been for over five decades: a solid community of shared values.

The day after the attacks, the French newspaper Le Monde ran a headline that read: "We are all Americans now". Coming from Le Monde, that was a powerful message indeed. And it was not simply rhetoric. Europe's solidarity with the United States was solid, it was total, and it was felt from the highest levels of government to the smallest village: America has been there for us through two world wars, and one long cold war. Now we are there for America. We may bicker, as siblings do. But in times of crisis, these siblings are brothers in arms.

A key manifestation of that solidarity has been NATO's decision, on September 12th, to invoke Article V of the Washington Treaty, and declare that this attack was an attack against all 19 members. This decision demonstrates that the mutual trust and commitments on which the Alliance has been based for 52 years remain tangible, real and reciprocal. The fundamental link between two continents and among 19 nations is as strong as ever.

Important though the political symbolism undoubtedly was, invocation of Article V was much more than a statement of solidarity. It is also a commitment by Allies to offer practical support. No-one expects NATO to lead the campaign against Bin Laden. That requires a wider coalition than even NATO and our Partners. But NATO allies are playing a central role, and NATO itself is providing essential support.

Four NATO countries - Britain, Canada, France and Germany - are already contributing forces alongside those of the United States. Others have stated their willingness to do the same. They will all benefit from the unique cooperation among NATO's armed forces that underpinned coalition success against Iraq and NATO success in the Balkans.

Two weeks ago, the United States asked all of the NATO Allies for a range of specific measures, such as enhanced intelligence support; blanket overflight rights for US and other Allied aircraft; and access to ports and airfields. The request was granted within a day.

As part of the same package, elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces are being deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean, and some US assets in the Balkans will be replaced by European capabilities. Most significant is the move of five NATO AWACS airborne early warning aircraft from their base in Europe across the Atlantic to replace US aircraft now being transferred to Asia. This is NATO's first operational deployment in the United States. The old world coming to support the new, to reverse Winston Churchill's famous phrase.

NATO is the world's largest and most effective permanent coalition. But it is also the core of a wider family of nations which has rallied to the international fight against terrorism.

Within hours of the North Atlantic Council's historic decision, the 46 member countries of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council -- from North America, Europe and Central Asia -- issued a statement in which they agreed that these acts were an attack not only on the US, but on our common values. And they pledged to undertake all efforts needed to combat the scourge of terrorism. Indeed, the Alliance's aspirant members declared that they won't responding as if Article 5 already applied to them.

Considering that many of these non-NATO countries are crucial partners in the current campaign, theirs is an important commitment indeed. As is that made by Russia is the NATO Russia Permanent Joint Council the same day.

Here too, the impact of September 11th has been both political and practical. I am optimistic that cooperation against terrorism will revitalise the NATO-Russian relationship. There was a new business mood in my recent meeting with President Putin and a new willingness to explore how we could build a genuine working partnership based on friendship not suspicion.

Taken overall, I am greatly heartened by the reaction of NATO's members to the appalling - and continuing - tragedy in the United States. We have a new agenda, the outline of which can yet barely be defined. But it must not be deflecting from our existing priorities. During our meeting in Washington, President Bush was right to stress that nothing had changed the arguments in favour of enlargement. Work on counter proliferation and missile defence also needs to be proned ahead.

And it must, of course, continue to develop Europe's capacities. The events of the past three weeks have made it impossible to deny that a stronger Europe is in everyone's interest, on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, a stronger Europe is no longer a luxury -- it is a necessity.

Europeans are already taking the lead. The United States needs its allies to be strong and effective. This applies not only to coalition operations against terrorism. For example, if the US does deploy some of its troops out of the Balkans for other purposes, it will be up to the others to backfill. This is exactly one of the contingencies for which Europe has been preparing, and the logic of making improvements has been clearly vindicated.

The events of September 11th will also inevitably lead to a new discussion about the United States' global role. Isolationists will use the events to argue their case for a reduction of the United States' world-wide commitments. They will argue that attacks of this kind are the result of being involved abroad too much and too deeply. I am not suggesting that their arguments will carry the day. They won't. But it does not seem unreasonable to expect an even tougher US stance on burden sharing.

If that happens America's allies must be ready to give a robust answer. Political solidarity is part of the answer. The strong European military presence in the Balkans is part of the answer. Ultimately, however, the answer must be far more comprehensive. It must include a new European willingness to develop serious crisis management capabilities, with new military hardware -- and that means, with new money.

We must therefore continue to invest.

The safety and security we have taken for granted for so many years did not come about by accident. In the Cold War, we spent hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the safety of ourselves and our future generations. We must approach the new security challenges with the same vigour, the same commitment, and the same willingness to spend money on the right things.
When I took up my post as Secretary General, I said that I had three priorities: capabilities, capabilities, capabilities. At the 1999 Summit in Washington, NATO's Heads of State and Government said much the same thing. They directed that the Alliance take steps to make our forces more mobile, more effective in the field, and better able to stay in the field for extended period of time. Nothing that happened on September 11th or since has invalidated this decision. We need to do more not less. And I am determined to hold the NATO Allies to their commitment.

We must all take the steps now to maintain, enhance or develop the capacities we need to preserve our safety and security well into the future. I am referring here not only to military capabilities. There is a wide spectrum of capacities which are essential to deal with the new challenges to our societies. Better intelligence. More deployable civilian police. More effective monitoring of illegal monetary transactions, and more effective ways to stop them. Better homeland defence. The list goes on and on -- but for any of these essential capacities actually to be developed, they simply must have funding.

We all know that the global economy is in a precarious state, and that Government budgets are being squeezed everywhere. Let me be very clear: I am not suggesting that other vital programme should be emasculated in a panicked and excessive rush to fund security. That would be the wrong reaction. The terrorists would have won. But just as before September 11th, preserving the security of our societies requires the right amount of spending -- spent in the right way, as part of the normal, balanced activity of any responsible government.

And part of that expenditure must be on effective military capability -- because if we have learned anything over the past few weeks, it is that we must prepare not only for what we can predict, but also for what we cannot. Our transatlantic toolbox must have the full spectrum of tools we might need to preserve our security and safety in this new age of uncertainty.

Indeed, we cannot forget that that toolbox must address not only terrorism, but the full range of challenges we face in building peace and security in the 21st century. We must be able to handle our peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. We must continue to build stronger relations with all the countries in Europe, and help them with their evolution into modern, democratic and prosperous states. And we must continue NATO's enlargement, to ensure security is increasingly guaranteed for the new democracies.

This is a daunting agenda, on top of the immediate requirements of the fight against terrorism. But they are essential contributions to our security -- and if sufficient funds are devoted these efforts, we can continue to ensure transatlantic security with the same success we had for NATO's first five decades.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is salutary for a British audience to recall the last time European forces came to the defence of United States territory. It was, I think, in the revolutionary war. Frenchmen, Poles and Russians played a key role in the fight for independence. A low point is the "Special Relationship" but an early example of European solidarity, you might say.

Today, European forces are once again the United States. But in very different circumstances. As a symbol of the bond between Europe and North America. As a contribution to our collective security. And as a testament to the enduring strength, and continued vitality, of the Atlantic Alliance.

Thank you.