Because our destinies are linked， our friendship is profound. Our histories are intertwined， from Yorktown to Omaha Beach， from Rochambeau and Lafayette defending American independence to the Marshall plan enabling a liberated Europe to regain prosperity and democracy. Today we again stand united to defend our values and our way of life， particularly as we confront the threat of terrorism.
Europe is the United States’only global ally.
This is true on the political level. The things that draw us together are stronger than the ones that divide us. We share fundamental values：
democracy， human rights， the same concept of the role of the individual in society.
It‘s true on the economic level. Europe is the leading destination of American investments and the leading investor in the United States.
And it’s true with respect to security： our cooperation in the field of intelligence is exemplary.
It is up to us to build a partnership of equals. It is in Europe‘s interest for the United States to be powerful yet open. It is in the US’s interest to have a Europe that isn‘t submissive but strong and responsible. Europe is America’s partner， not America‘s rival. It’s when we act together that we are most effective. This can be seen in the case of Lebanon： from the adoption of resolution 1559 to the resolution of last summer‘s crisis， it was our joint action that was key to the solution of the situation.
To achieve this， we both have to make an effort.
Europe is not assuming all of its political responsibility. I see today two crucial needs for Europe：
The first is to re-establish a true common project and to adopt a new founding text.
The second is for Europe to assume its role as a military power. As disastrous as force is when used alone， it is equally disastrous to have a policy with no force behind it. A European Defense is no substitute for NATO. By strengthening it， we are strengthening Europe’s abilities to contribute to the world‘s security and to bear its share of the burden. We saw this last year in the Democratic Republic of Congo when Europe guaranteed the security of elections and thus contributed to the stability of a country that’s so key to the continent. Inversely， the adjustment of NATO‘s role， essential since the collapse of the Soviet Union， must leave room for the affirmation of European Defense.
America， for its part， must better take into account the world’s realities. We‘ve seen this in the latest major crises： in a world of asymmetrical conflicts， a military campaign of a few months may be followed by endless years of crisis. The military should more than ever be part of a peace strategy that is essentially political. We don’t believe that democracy can be imposed by force.
The United States‘true strength isn’t its army. It is its ability to embody progress and modernity； it is its mastery of cutting-edge technologies； it is the attractiveness of its land and its culture to the rest of the world. On the diplomatic level， it should be its ability to exert renewed influence， to share its demands for democracy with more and more countries. It is by building a consensus through dialogue that the greatest possible number of states will come to accept our political choices and that they will have the best chance of success. Yes， the modern form of power is both influence and the ability to act together. Let‘s bring others along in our wake. Let’s show that we have strong proposals and strong convictions. There is no power in standing alone. There is only organized， shared power.
In order to be effective， our cooperation must serve a system of world governance that has room for everyone.
We are two nations that share humanist values and the same aspiration to the universal. We must set an example. Let us be the pioneers of a new international ethic； let us defend strong principles：
The respect for rights， including in the fight against terrorism， because security， in the long run， is inseparable from justice. Frustrations and inequalities nurture conflicts. The best response democracies can make to terrorism is remaining true to their values.
The second principle is the respect for different identities. They lie at the heart of all tensions. More effectively taking them into account is a moralcondition， but our security hinges on it as well.
The third principle is the use of force in a legal framework and the primacy of collective security. It is this condition alone that guarantees the legitimacy of an action and a lasting solution to crises. We‘ve just seen this in Lebanon： It was by backing a UN resolution， with the agreement of the parties and the support of all the members of the Security Council， that a bolstered UNIFIL was able to have an effective presence in Lebanon.
On the strength of these principles， we will be able to reestablish a more effective international governance， through renewed multilateralism. This is true in the political sphere.
It implies more representative decision-making bodies. I remain convinced， in particular， that the enlargement of the Security Council is essential to the strengthening of its legitimacy. Better taking into account the weight of Japan， Germany， the major emerging countries and Africa is a guarantee that our collective decisions will be better accepted by all.
That also implies decision-making bodies that are more mobilized in crisis management. I think it would be useful to have a monthly meeting of Security Council members， at the ministerial level， to bring responses to current crises.
More broadly， we need instruments that are on a par with the stakes：
The UN needs the true clout of an armed peacekeeping force. Today nearly 100，000 blue-helmeted soldiers are deployed throughout the world. The UN Secretariat， like all the world’s armies， needs a permanent military staff. In the long run， a real UN army must be our objective.
