First of all, let me thank you, Mr. President, for your presence here. I am touched by this gesture and I appreciate it deeply. I also thank the Estonian NATO Association for this opportunity to address you today. I begin by expressing my deep satisfaction with the signing by Estonia, earlier this year, of the protocols of accession to NATO and the European Union. I congratulate you on this historic achievement, for which you fought with great determination against difficult odds. As future partners and allies, we look forward to a much higher level of cooperation between our two countries. This is the reason for my visit to your country.

***

We are living through a privileged moment in European security. Seldom, if ever, has Europe enjoyed such a long period of continued peace and a feeling of greater security from large-scale threats.

Looking back on the Cold War period, the contrast could not be greater. Then, Europe was divided. Now, to a large extent, it is on the verge of being united. Two standing alliances, armed with fearsome weapons, faced each other then. Now only one survives. Many countries in Europe were under Soviet occupation and national independence was denied to the Baltic states. Now they are about to join the ranks of the European Union and NATO. The Soviet Union and the United States competed for power and influence throughout the whole world. Now, Russia and the Ukraine have stable institutional arrangements for cooperation with NATO. Washington and Moscow cooperate closely in many fields. Democracy encompasses almost the whole of Europe. These achievements are breathtaking. Who could imagine, fifteen years ago, that we would come so far so fast?

More and more, the issues of European security are dealt with on a cooperative basis. The widening of NATO and the European Union create a powerful framework of peace, security and prosperity which exerts a formidable power of attraction to those still outside. This institutional framework of cooperation is underpinned by a large body of international agreements regulating relations in the security field.

Since the end of the Cold War the concept of security has been redefined to encompass a wider nature of issues. In itself, this shows that the classic meaning of threat — the threat of military action against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State — is increasingly remote from our day to day concerns. To be sure, there are still many problems now usually included in a broad definition of security which require our attention. Issues such as illegal immigration, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, are still a cause for concern, but they cannot compare in seriousness with the threat of nuclear holocaust, accompanied by the denial of basic human rights and freedoms for whole nations and peoples.

There is, then, much reason to be satisfied and hopeful about the state of European security. The question now before us is how to consolidate this tremendous, historic progress.

***

Everyone knows that, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States of America became the predominant world power. What is less often recognized is that the role and the power of the European Union also expanded greatly after the end of the division of Europe. Previously hemmed in between the two superpowers, the European Union acquired a much greater potential capacity for strategic action once the bipolar world ended.

This question now before the European Union is how to realize this potential and how to use it.

My short answer to this huge question would be twofold. First the European Union needs to find a better balance between the instruments of what is now called hard and soft power. Second it must find a better balance in the division of responsibilities between Europe and North America regarding, first of all, the security of our continent.

Although separate, these two issues are interrelated. Over the last decade or so, a kind of specialization has emerged between the United States and Europe. In military terms — the so called hard power — the gap in capabilities between the US and Europe has widened. On the other hand, in areas like economic clout, development assistance, post conflict reconstruction, the role of the European Union has grown immeasurably.

If the European Union is to assume, as we think it should, greater responsibility for security matters, particularly in Europe, progress must be made in the area of hard power. This requires more substantive advances in creating a Common European Security and Defense Policy, including added efforts to address well known gaps in our capabilities.

The increasing geographic overlap between the European Union and NATO, as well as the growing interdependence in economic terms between Europe and North America, shows that these two organizations, and what they represent, are joined at the hip. To try to set them up as rivals would wreak havoc with security arrangements built over many decades which have served us extraordinarily well.

Reinforcing the capacity of the European Union for independent action in foreign and security policy, therefore, does not imply any attempt to exclude the United States from Europe. However, as the United States assumes increasing global responsibilities, the European Union, as a first step, should take on more a burden in maintaining peace and security in our continent. Important progress has been made, which should not be underestimated. After years of negotiations, agreement was reached between the European Union and NATO regarding the use of NATO assets and capabilities by the European Union in operations under its responsibility. Unnecessary duplications between these two organizations ought to be avoided. After all, we must remind ourselves that NATO capabilities are also our capabilities, even if, in many areas, the United States contribution is matchless.

The takeover by the European Union of the operation in Macedonia will be a first test of the mechanisms of cooperation established with NATO. I also hope that, by next year, the European Union can take full responsibility for Bosnia. Other steps will probably follow.

Greater attention to hard power does not mean a lesser usefulness for soft power. In fact, soft power is absolutely key to the challenges in front of us. Challenges like nation building, promoting democracy and economic development, stopping environmental degradation, fighting organized crime and illegal traffics of all kinds can only be met by soft power.

***

The perception of a relatively low level of threat which became current after the end of the Cold War was jolted by the tragic events of September 11, which alerted us, in a powerful way, to the potential impact of international terrorism. Although not exactly a new threat, few had anticipated that it could materialize with such force and catastrophic results. More ominously still, there are increasing worries that weapons of mass destruction may become available to terrorist organizations, and that they may be used against our societies, with devastating effect.

There is no doubt that we must not spare any effort to combat international terrorism. This calls for intense cooperation among countries. As a rule, however, military force is too blunt an instrument to fight the terrorist threat. What is called for, above all, is a very intense cooperation among police forces and intelligence agencies, together with a strong political effort to deny any kind of legitimacy to international terrorism, so that the entire international community feels compelled to participate in this struggle. This cooperation is happening and has yielded results. A recent report to the US Congress by the State Department, quoted in the International Herald Tribune, states that the 199 recorded terrorist incidents last year represented a 44% drop from the previous year and was the lowest total since 1969. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to relax our efforts. However, we must also make a greater effort to address problems which can become breeding grounds for terrorism. To recognize that terrorism has political causes is not the same thing as justifying or excusing it.

The European Union can play a very important role in this fight, without compromising its core values. Of particular importance for the European Union is to bridge the gap in perceptions of a cultural divide between Islam and the West. In this respect, I underline the importance of the European Union’s Mediterranean policy and the urgency of a renewed effort to settle the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Now that the road map has been published, we cannot accept any more delays and prevarication in putting its provisions into effect.

***

Although Europe was not a direct target of the September 11 attacks, these attacks were a powerful reminder that Europe may not remain immune from rising tensions close to its borders.

As the situation in Europe stabilizes, our countries are therefore called upon to play a broader role in regions farther and farther away from our borders. For example, NATO has now agreed to take responsibility for the ISAF force in Kabul. This would be unthinkable a few years ago. The broadening of responsibilities of the alliance, which begun in the former Yugoslavia, shows that victory in the Cold War has not exhausted its purpose. However, if we are to act collectively, under institutional umbrellas, the conditions in which we play this role must meet with general agreement among the Member States of these institutions. Even though NATO can serve many useful purposes beyond its core defensive functions, care must be taken not to compromise its unity by seeking to use it as an organization for all purposes.

***

All the member states of the European Union and NATO are liberal democracies. In fact, adherence to democratic values, the rule of law and respect for human rights are necessary conditions to belong to these organizations. It is not unnatural, therefore, that different perceptions may occur within them. These disagreements, even when they are about important issues, do not call into question the fundamental partnership between both sides of the Atlantic.

Iraq is a case in point. This is not the moment to revisit all the arguments that were made prior to the war and are still being made in its aftermath about its legitimacy and justification. What I want to say is that the Iraq issue, important as it is, does not and will not call into question or pose a danger to the cooperation between the United States and Europe in the field of European security. This cooperation is deep rooted and in the interest of both parties and will, I am sure, continue in the future.

The most important asset at the disposal of the European Union and NATO is the example they set, and the prospects they open for countries not yet able to become members. The motivation to become a member of these organizations, and to share in the benefits they provide, has been a powerful incentive to the democratization of Europe. This is why we cannot set artificial limits to membership, even if growing numbers increase complexity and pose increasing challenges to efficiency. Just as we could not deny to the countries previously in the Soviet sphere the right to join, so we can not close our doors to other candidacies now looming on the horizon. I am not referring only to those countries whose candidacies have been accepted — Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey — but, in the more distant future, to others as well.

The spread of democracy, which gained such an important impulse from the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, has yet to be fully consolidated in all the countries of our continent. Spreading democracy, I would note, is in itself an element of security as there is no record in history of democracies going to war against each other.

In the end, the best guarantee of security and prosperity lies in the peaceful spread of democracy to the whole European continent and beyond. We cannot impose on others, through the use of hard power, uniform patterns of political organization. By the power of our example, however, and by the intelligent and peaceful use of our vast political and economic resources, we can help others to achieve a number of core aspirations which I believe are shared by all mankind: to satisfy the basic requirements of a dignified life, while assuring respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. This, I am convinced, is the proper path that we must follow in order to build a more secure and peaceful world.