Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a special honour for me to be here today, for our conference is the first one organised by the Hungarian "sister organisation" of the initiative we launched a good decade ago in Prague, the New Atlantic Initiative. As founders, our understanding was that Trans-Atlantic cooperation remains to be a key value and a central interest for the Europeans as well as for the Americans, yet after the end of the Cold War its value may seem unclear to, and may even be questioned by, some. Our intention was to demonstrate the continued value of the Trans-Atlantic ties, and to give it new strength (hence the name, New Atlantic Initiative) as well as to make use of it, for the benefit of both sides of the Atlantic.
The fact that Hungarians managed to bring into life a Hungarian sister organisation, with the same goals and beliefs in the Trans-Atlantic ties, is most welcome. I am honoured to be here today with you.

Since the formation of the NAI, two major changes took place in the international security environment that shape our thinking of security questions. The first, a happy one, the second, a tragic one. The first was the enlargement of the Alliance, making an historic step towards re-establishing the true shape of the Atlantic community.
The second was the one that brought us all together here on this very day, the terrorist attack exactly a year ago, that showed what horrible devastation terrorism can do to our lives. We can only repeat again what we said a year ago : Our hearts go out for the families of the victims.


The question we are trying to answer today is twofold. First, what lessons do we have to draw from these developments, and the second, what future steps need be done to keep our future secure.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The terrorist attack on September 11 made it impossible to talk about any major Transatlantic, or indeed, international issue, without analysing the impact of the terrorist attack on it. It abruptly reminded us that international terrorism is a major threat to world stability and security.
Even a year after the smoke and fire of the explosions of 11 September, we cannot see clearly what the new century will look like. What we can see, however, is that these devastating explosions put an end to many illusions about our security, and they also ended some illusions about international policy.
The attacks ended the illusion that in possession of economic and military superiority, there will be no further need for national or personal sacrifice. We had to learn again that security is not a dead terminology of the Cold War. We had to learn again that economic prosperity is inseparable from our security and that whatever happens in the world shall have an impact on us all.
Clearly this attack reminds us that we cannot dismantle borders, allow the unlimited global movement of people, assets, or information without regard to our security. If we are not prepared to use force to defend western civilisation and values, then we must be prepared to accept barbarism.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the light of the above, what can we say about the future, what can we say that need to be done?
ONE: Over the last decade, we had been witnessing a great global reorientation, I might say, in which nations and international actors were re-defining their relationships to one another. This great global reorientation was altered by the events of 9.11. and it gave way for new ways of co-operation.
9.11 brought about a new global anti-terrorist alliance. So much so, that some analysts in Europe started to put out papers questioning the relevance of NATO in the new situation. Yet, a year after 9.11 we can also see that even the most sweeping historical events do not change everything. We are reminded that there is a continuation of some rivalling interests among competing nations and continents. There continue to be differing ideologies, political systems and cultural views, experiences and goals, which developed generations ago and became so deeply rooted over the centuries that shall probably remain with us for a long time.
We can see that on the basis of these differing interests, some nations shall continue to find it easier to co-operate with each other, than others. We can see that only Alliances based on common values are made for the long term. While we can co-operate with others as well, the core should remain, if it is to serve our long-term interests. We can also see that decisions concerning the shape of our Alliances also define their strength and effectiveness.
Some say that a new era has started - Perhaps. But our values are the same. Behind the smoke and debris of 9.11, we can still say, that the ruins did not hurt our Alliance. Quite the opposite. Wide international anti-terrorist cooperation was a most welcome development, but this seems to us more a single-issue cooperation, than one based on common values and political practices. NATO is relevant and shall remain relevant.

TWO: This has a clear consequence regarding the future of Trans-Atlantic relations, seen from Central Europe.
When talking about Transatlantic relations, especially in Hungary, one cannot un-notice the phenomenon that the new Central European members of the alliance are the staunchest, the most ardent Atlanticists. This is not simply due to the forty years of Soviet oppression. It has deeper roots. It comes from the geopolitical dilemma of Central Europe, dating back to the birth of modern Europe. Ever since then, Central Europe suffered the fate of being a zone or sphere of influence of one or another geopolitical interest. During the Cold War, this dilemma was translated into an East-West confrontation. But it was the same dilemma between the two world wars, only that then it was translated into an Entente versus Germany confrontation.
The nations of Central Europe have fought for the last 100 years to surpass this dilemma. From our perspective, there are two means for it. One is developing strong Transatlantic ties. The other is the European integration itself. In our experience, these two processes have a mutually reinforcing impact on each other, and it is our belief and effort that it remains so.
As far as NATO enlargement is concerned, a quick analysis of the previous round of enlargement is necessary. Enlargement was feared to decrease efficiency, to have a negative impact on Russia's internal developments and to be too expensive for the current members. None of these negative expectations were proven right. On the other hand all the positive expectations were delivered. NATO's enlargement stabilised the whole of Central Europe and it increased the Alliance's capability to solve crises. Tha Balkan crisis gave a solid proof to it.

But there is one major pre-requisite for this to remain true. It is the political character of the new member countries of the Alliance. New member countries can continue to be accepted only as long as we are convinced that they increase the strength and cohesion of the Alliance. I believe it was based on this concern, that I have been asked several times over the past few weeks about the recent developments in Central Europe and about what can be expected in Hungary and in the region. It is understandable that concerns arise, especially since our Allies are accustomed already to welcoming our countries among their rank as clear democratic countries that have put their communist past off their shoulders.
Let me take this opportunity once again to underline that Hungary does remain the country it was: democratic, based one the rule of law, and a functioning market economy. We are all on our guard that it remains so, and we shall not let any of the values achieved be destroyed.

THREE : The future of Europe in the fight against terrorism.
Until so far, Hungary's decisions were made easily and were clear: Hungary did support the fight against terrorism with the means it had. We did want to join in and it was indeed impossible to remain neutral in the face of 9.11. As Dante said, the hottest place in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises, maintain their neutrality.
But now, with the coming enlargement of the EU, a new situation shall arise. There is one more component that we have to factor into our decisions, Europe.
The current division of Europe was determined by two decisions made in the early nineties. The first, in 1990, was the break-up of the Soviet empire and the result that Central European countries could start their own, sovereign path. The other decision, in 1992, was made by the EU, namely that the EU nations decided to develop its co-operation in internal and judicial matters and a Monetary Union, rather than embracing the countries of Central Europe.
What this meant was fundamentally a decision that Central Europe and the European Union would take two separate roads, with the intention of their meeting in the future, 'somewhere down the road'.
But now, our paths are about to meet. Our countries shall soon become members of the EU. This also means that questions that are seen differently in the US and in the EU shall have to be answered by us, by Hungarian diplomacy, as well. Some of these "hottest" issues are closely related to the fight against terrorism.

I was considering for some time, whether I should talk about these issues or not. We, Hungarians like to think that you should not talk unless you can improve the silence.
But I think that it is impossible to avoid them. So without wanting to analyse, let alone to answer, these questions, let me enumerate a few and then let the participants of the conference find answers to them.
Hungary, as a NATO as well as an EU country faced the question of how to react to the situation of American peacekeepers vis-a-vis the international court. In this question, Hungarian diplomacy took a position that was close to the European one.
Another one is how to handle the question of Iraq, and even more, that of the Middle East. The European states are putting their concerns to the floor more and more openly. But should there be a military action in Iraq, is it going to be a Kosovo-type of operation, or is it going to be an Afghanistan-type of operation, which was not a NATO-operation but all the allies expressed their support for the action. Shall, and should, Hungary react to these challenges primarily as a NATO-country, or as any European country interested in the fight against terrorism as well as in peace? If it is a NATO-operation, the answer is simple. But what should be the answer, if it is not a NATO operation?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
On the threshold of a new millennium, we are at a unique moment. We only have to come to grips with the lessons we have recently learnt and we can shape the future accordingly. The tasks ahead of us for the years to come are no minor: they are the common fight against terrorism, NATO's enlargement, the development of a common European security and foreign policy, as well as securing peace for the long term.
In short, our task today is to make sure that this hard-won peace is not a short intermezzo between successive waves of atrocities, but a lasting peace.
Thank you for your attention.