By far the great majority of the populations of Europe and America support closer transatlantic cooperation. They also agree on the key areas for such cooperation: action on climate change, the prevention of the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, ensuring a secure supply of energy and promoting democracy worldwide.

Thirty years ago, Henry Kissinger posed the question: "Whom do I call when I want to speak to Europe?"

Today, the United States and its European allies find themselves divided over several international legal issues. While European governments have championed many treaties, including the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines and the Kyoto accord on climate change, the United States has remained a skeptic, questioning the effectiveness of these treaties and the restrictions they might place on U.S. sovereignty. These differences predate the recent U.S.-European tensions over Iraq, and they persist despite the improvement in transatlantic relations overall. Discord over the rendition of suspected terrorists and the prison at Guantanamo has been especially sharp and public, but discord over other legal matters — from the International Criminal Court to preemption in cases of WMD — has continued to fester.

Despite the many obvious, visual, political and daily-life differences between them, the folks living in Spello and the folks living, say, around the U.S. military base of Fort Bragg in North Carolina still have an awful lot in common. Why walk away from a good thing?

On May 1, 2004, ten new countries, with a com¬bined population of 74 million, became members of the European Union, bringing the total E.U. popula¬tion to 454 million. This means that the E.U. now has a population more than 50 percent larger than that of the United States. And with Romania and Bulgaria joining on January 1, 2007, another 30 million will take that to 484 million.

We’re here today and at this time to talk about the European Union and its relationship with the United States. In the wake of the French and Dutch referenda rejecting the EU Constitution, it is certainly the right time for us to be having this discussion. Whether or not the EU is in a crisis right now is the subject of considerable debate. Those that support further integration maintain that the collapse of the constitutional process is merely temporary, that it can be resurrected in some time and form, when cooler heads have prevailed. The opposition to the Constitution in this view, was not directed at the EU per se, but against unpopular national leaders who supported the Constitution. I disagree with this contention, perhaps because I do have faith in the European people and their democratic rights to express themselves. But I believe that those voters in France and the Netherlands who had the opportunity to express their views on this subject represented millions of Europeans who did not, whose governments or parliaments made the decisions for them, about this Constitution.

Engagement and multilateralism have become mantra for European diplomats and policymakers. There is seldom a problem, they believe, that cannot be solved by dialogue. On April 26, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine and five former European foreign ministers signed a letter decrying the possibility of military force against Iran and instead arguing for direct negotiation. “Every European member of our group has met with influential Iranian officials during the past few months and found a widespread interest among them in conducting a broad discussion with the United States on security issues,” they wrote.

The governments of the United States and Western Europe collaborated successfully for many decades during the Cold War, but they now often disagree and oppose each other on important matters of policy and strategy. Beyond the government ministries, European and American economies and cultures seem to be growing apart as well. But Atlanticism nonetheless has a future--Americans and Europeans will continue to collaborate closely despite our differences and disagreements. We will do so not so much because we share a common heritage but because we face common problems today which are rooted in our heritage. These are the problems of societies that are rich and comfortable, pluralist and democratic, highly mobile, and technologically adept. Such problems exist in other places as well but they are most pronounced in Western Europe and North America, the homelands of prosperous liberal civilization. It has fallen to us to cope with these problems--successfully or unsuccessfully, with happy or unhappy consequences not only for ourselves but for the rest of the world.

Is the expanded "super NATO" America's greatest strategic ally, or is it in reality a hollow shell, multiplying American strategic commitments without providing any significant resources to deal with them?

There is something rather surreal about the transatlantic world today. There are completely separate debates about Iraq ongoing on either side of the ocean and they simply don't connect.

On June 8, NATO faces a day of global decision, when NATO defense ministers will meet to plan the further transformation of the alliance.

After decades of denial, European countries are starting to recognize their security also would be strengthened by a missile defense. West European governments have spent years denigrating America's missile defense plans as unnecessary "star wars." But now, thanks to Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and longer-range missiles, and the support of NATO's new East European members, NATO finally is stepping up to the plate.

France is an economic success story. It is the sixth largest economy in the world, the fourth biggest exporter of services and the third largest investor abroad. All the main macroeconomic indicators have improved in the past 12 months. 2005 was a year of record profits for the forty leading French corporations. Beyond well known consumer and luxury goods companies like L’Oréal and LVMH, French companies are international leaders in sectors such as nuclear technology (Areva) and communications (Alcatel). Not bad for a country of fewer than 63 million people who do not always enjoy a reputation for hard work.

Our agenda today is truly global, and it pays tribute both to this continent’s internal success and to the strength of the transatlantic partnership. America and Europe have had disagreements, strong ones, and we are likely to have more in the future. But as befits an enterprise of historic importance, we move past these differences and unite to achieve great things, locating in our common approach a force that has altered the world.

Officers of the U.S. Armed Forces have been familiar with the inner workings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)since its inception in 1949.

Since 1989, the security environment facing the United States and its European allies has changed beyond recognition. The Soviet Union has disintegrated, as has the division of Europe between East and West, and new threats have arisen. The disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s demonstrated that instability and war emerging from failing states could affect the peace and security of Europe. After 2001, global terrorism became the priority threat, especially when linked with the prospect of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Ukrainian foreign policy until 2005 could be described as ambiguous. On the one hand the ruling elite displayed a clear preference for the West, and wished to integrate the country into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. At the same time, Ukraine was prevented from fully associating with the West by its considerable dependence on Russian energy and trade.

The best way to provide Israel with that additional security is to upgrade its relationship with the collective defense arm of the West: NATO.

NATO is continuing its internal transformation as well, evolving from a territorial defense mission to an expeditionary alliance. As Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer has detailed, this means investments in new capabilities, including strategic airlift, special operations forces, and intelligence.

Last week, not for the first time since he left office, Spain's former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar had lunch with President George W. Bush at the White House. He's doing a lot better than his socialist successor Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero at staying in touch with the Bush administration.

Behind the positive talk, deep tensions still threaten trans-Atlantic relations.

We wanted to make an initial contribution to the emerging debate. So this report touches upon the true nature, the strategic vision, the missions, the structures, and the membership of NATO. We are no longer living under benign conditions. On the contrary we must accept that.

The New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) was established in 1995 with the aim of reducing transatlantic tensions. Ten years later, the number of US-European disputes has multiplied and transatlantic relations are at their worst since 1945.

America's "Europe problem" and Europe's "America problem" have been debated for years. The debate is usually framed in terms of policy differences: over prosecuting the war on terrorism; over the United Nations' role in world affairs; over the Kyoto Protocol on the global environment; over Iraq. The differences are real.

Earlier this year, Gerhard Schröder caused a stir with a speech to the Munich Security Conference. When he said that NATO was no longer the forum for top level strategic discussions between Europeans and Americans he was stating the obvious. But he missed a bigger opportunity when he suggested convening a panel of the "Great and Good" to fix NATO.

The heightened tensions between the United States and Europe since 2000 have been widely discussed in terms of competing foreign policy visions. The Bush administration’s insistence on a robust and independent response to terrorism contrasted with the frequently more cautious European policies.

Reflecting on the impact of the visit by US President Bush to Europe, EPC Founding Chairman Stanley Crossick argues that no fundamental change in US foreign policy can be expected. While Europe and the United States share a number of key political objectives, it remains unclear whether the President seeks a true, and equal, partnership with Europe.

If Europe helps China to operate faster, farther and with more firepower, Japan and Taiwan will seek to meet the threat.

...We are determined to fight terrorism, strengthen security, and build peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and beyond...