The rise of China and its integration into the system is arguably the mostimportant trend in global politics. How this unfolds will shape the world of our children. We understand the importance of your bilateral relationship with China. Most international issues require America and China to pull in the same direction. But there can be no simple G2 running the world. That would betray the key principle of inclusiveness. The European Union has to be there. It deserves to be there.
The transatlantic relationship has been changing. The days that it was primarily about security in Europe are， thankfully， long gone. It is now a partnership for action around the world. This in turn requires two things： First， a shared strategy， which means a US willing to listen； and second， resources， which means a Europe able to act.
We welcome the US commitment to working with the European Union. But in a way， it is up to us to prove the added value of working with Europe. Both because of what we can offer， collectively.
And because of who we are and what we stand for. There are many issues that require a close EUUS partnership and clear results in the months ahead. Together we have the will and resources to do so.
The Middle East is an obvious example. George Mitchell is in the region. I was there a couple of weeks ago. We will meet over the weekend We are working together to create a new dynamic for peace. Allow me to repeat my thinking： A basic ingredient for success is a real mediation. The parameters for peace are defined and well known. The mediator has to set the timetable too. If the parties are not able to stick to it， then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table.
After a fixed deadline， a UN Security Council Resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution. This should include all the basic parameters： borders， around those of 1967， refugees， Jerusalem and security arrangements. It would accept the Palestinian State as a full member of theUN， and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimise the end of claims. The Arab countries， through the“Arab Peace Initiative”， have to get actively engaged.
Along with the Middle East， let me focus on three other issues： Afghanistan； Russia； Climate change. And， of course， I will be happy to answer questions on any subject.
We all have to know why we are in Afghanistan. Our security needs a functioning Afghan state. The obstacles to that are also clear： a growing insurgency； the corrosive effect of drugs； and high levels of corruption. We need a new“Compact”， or“Contract”， with whoever leads the new Afghan government. This“Compact”should clarify the commitments of both sides， and should make greater Afghan ownership and accountability clear.
The US is more deeply engaged than we are. But as the EU we are making a useful contribution： with aid， people and a willingness， under the right conditions， to do more. Security is a precondition for development and building a state. Europeans have deployed 30，000 troops-more than they ever did in Bosnia. Everybody agrees we need enough competent Afghan security forces， both army and police， to control the territory. So we need to train them.
Our European Police mission （EUPOL） mission focuses on civilian policing. Its aim is to train the trainers. It has made good progress， as recognised by Afghan and US partners. We will continue this and where possible expand. But above all， we must realise that there really can only be a political solution. This means more emphasis on reconciliation. This will be a big task for the next Afghan government. It has to find jobs for the foot soldiers of the Taliban and make political deals with the middle ranks. I believe that if we send the right people， who know the culture and history， to the right places， we could make a real difference.
Let me turn to Russia. The starting point must be that no real security is possible in Europe without US engagement and without Russia finding its proper place in the overall European order.
Since the end of the Cold War we in the West certainly made mistakes and missed opportunities. But Russians also have to ask what they have contributed to the prevailing mood of distrust， especially among their neighbours. Shared security requires a shared mindset. An agreement on principles and a willingness to abide by them in practice.
George Kennan wrote in his Long Telegram， explaining why the Soviet Union was not supportive of the new global institutions， that“Soviet power is impervious to the logic of reason…but highly sensitive to the logic of force”. Today， Russia is very different from the Soviet Union in the wake of World War II. So too is Europe. That is why we want to believe that it is the logic of reason that drives the Russian leadership. And that is why we want to explorePresident Medvedev‘s idea of a new European security architecture and the enviroment created by the US“reset”.
We welcome the“reset”including the new direction on non- proliferation and disarmament. By year’s end there should be a follow-on to START， with reduced levels of strategic nuclear arsenals. The world will be better for it.
As the EU we work well with Russia on many global issues， like the US does： on the Middle East， Iran， Somalia. But， unlike the US， we also share a continent with Russia. Hence the EU‘s relationship to Russia is every-day business： from energy security to migration to the environment.
Dealing with Russia has sometimes been difficult for us. This is logical given the different histories of EU countries. But what matters is not how a discussion begins but how it ends. And the EU has ended up with a united position on the“Medvedev proposals”and on Georgia. President Medvedevhimself recently commented on the reasons for Russia’s failure to modernise： the endemic levels of corruption and the need to have a more open， democratic system with the rule of law.
