• Discussions today should give an appreciation of the fullness and depth of our security relationship with our European partners. As several of our speakers discussed yesterday at NATO, we live in a world quite different from that of the days when NATO and the European Communities were established.

• But first, I would like to thank Dr. Solana for his remarks and our EU hosts for ensuring the participation of so many EU senior officials. I would also like to express our special appreciation to Margarita Comamala (EU Transatlantic Directorate), Christiane Hoehn (EU Transatlantic Directorate), Jose Santacana (USNATO), and Holly Schwendler (USEU) for their work in organizing the workshop

• Two themes have been guiding the changes that we have seen in our respective approaches to the security roles of NATO and the EU. The first has been the process of globalization in all its forms: economic, financial, the internet, trade and so forth. The second theme has been the ambitions of our European partners to build a Europe different from that which has existed in the past: not only to avoid future wars on the continent, but to create greater prosperity and improved social conditions for their people. These two trends, globalization and European ambitions, have been breaking down of the walls that fenced off traditional security issues as they were dealt with during the Cold War. We now define security more broadly in terms of economics, energy, immigration, counterterrorism, anti-narcotics, climate change, and strengthening the rule of law, for instance.

• Obviously, we have a seat at the table at NATO where many of these issues are discussed, and where we act together with our European friends and allies on military matters. But the EU is becoming more and more frequently the Europeans’ venue for their own strategic discussions of these issues. The competencies of the European Union, now expanding across economic, foreign policy and security issues, and justice and home affairs provide the bases for these European discussions. Formally, these bases were established by a series of treaties, which beyond the 1957 Rome Treaty creating the European Economic Community have included the Maaastrict, Amsterdam, and Nice Treaties. We’ll see more of this later this year, as Director General Robert Cooper told us yesterday.

• In sum, we are witnessing a paradigm shift. The very areas where Europe has been coming together are the same areas where our security concerns are changing. We are seeing an historic confluence between changes in security and changes in European integration. What Europeans are doing among themselves affects how the EU engages the rest of the world.

• We need, therefore, to engage on all fronts. We must address our common challenges and goals through the U.S. - EU bilateral relationship as well as the NATO military alliance; it’s all interrelated. As the EU continues to expand its role as a security actor, we will find ourselves side-by-side with deployed EU missions – military and civilian -- in many theatres such as Africa, the Caucasus, and the Middle East.

• In many of these places, there is a limited NATO role, or no alliance presence at all. We will need to explore new and more flexible ways for America to work with our European friends and allies to address security issues in a more comprehensive way.

• Take the example of Afghanistan. NATO ISAF forces, the EU’s police mission there, the financial support we and the EU provide, and our own civilian and military efforts have implications for addressing the challenges of international terrorism as well as our domestic battle against drugs on U.S. city streets, for instance.

• Another example would be how decisions on travel and immigration intersect with criminal justice matters, intelligence sharing, immigration, and the roots of terrorism. We debate issues such as the Clash of Civilizations, or the End of History, but we must be firm, clear, and resolute in promoting the values that we think will serve our interests in a globalized world.

• Clearly there is more than enough work for the U.S., NATO, and the EU to do.

• Pragmatism dictates that we will address some challenges through NATO and some with the EU, but the key is to make sure that these are components of a seamless and comprehensive approach to security, without artificial divides. We should ensure that these efforts reinforce and don’t impinge on one another and that the right organization brings the appropriate tools to bear on a particular crisis. Failed states are a challenge to us all. Economic development, good governance, civil order, and global shifts in capital are interrelated. So are defense sales, joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and border controls.

• This sounds great, but as always, the devil is in the details. As diplomatic and military practitioners, we must use the opportunities presented by participation in this workshop, and contact with European leaders, to enhance our understanding of all the tools on offer. And even more importantly, we must think about how we can bring these capabilities to bear on our common interests.