Fifty-seven years ago, when America first faced its responsibilities as the world's dominant power, Winston Churchill came to our shores to deliver a warning, and to call us to a higher purpose. Churchill told us that an Iron Curtain had fallen across the heart of Europe. He urged us to meet this common threat of a burgeoning Cold War, not by withdrawing from the world, relying only on our own defenses, but by rallying with the world. He said: "if the Western Democracies become divided . . . catastrophe may overwhelm us all." Fortunately, in those fateful days, America listened to Winston Churchill. Together we built NATO and we led the world to security and peace.

Earlier this year, another British Prime Minister came to the United States. Before a joint session of Congress, Tony Blair told us: "There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary." But like Churchill, he also delivered a warning. He said that we must work with our allies to defeat terror, and that "what America must do is to show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command." This time, however, our leaders did not listen. They did not heed the warning.

And now a new curtain has descended - not between America and its enemies, but between America and its friends.

Simply put, this Administration is wrecking NATO - and thereby doing incalculable damage to our security and well being. They have alienated our friends, dismissed their concerns, rejected their advice, and left America an isolated nation. I served in NATO twice, last as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I know its value, see its promise, and if elected, I won't let it be destroyed.

General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do." When America led the world for the last half century, others followed -- not because we compelled them, but because we convinced them. America needs a President who can lead.

As President, that's what I will do. I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of US policy - and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

A strategy of preventive engagement will not be easy. It will demand new institutions at home and new approaches to existing alliances abroad.

We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. At home, we must adapt our military not just for fighting war, but for waging operations other than war - including peacekeeping and post-conflict operations. Only then can we prevent threats from emerging, and deal with failed states before their chaos spawns terrorism, misery or mass murder.

In Asia, we will need a regional strategy to deal with North Korea as it threatens to become a full-fledged nuclear power. We must work to ensure a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.

And we face common challenges in Africa, too -- where the AIDS pandemic and the struggle for democratic development continues -- and in Latin America, where the rise of democracy is still at risk.

And we must take up Secretary General Kofi Annan's call to reform the United Nations here in New York.

During the course of this campaign, I intend to address each of these elements of a new American strategy. But with President Bush now in London meeting with Prime Minister Blair, I want to focus today on proposals designed to repair our deteriorating relations with Europe.

As President, I will launch a new Atlantic Charter with our European allies to meet the new threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction as well as to strengthen our response to the old threats that are still with us. The Charter will enable us together with our allies to reach beyond the periphery of the European continent to affect a security equation that is increasingly global.

I. State of Our Alliances

For the last two days, President Bush has been visiting the United Kingdom, America's closest ally in the world. For decades, American presidents have been welcomed in London as friends of the British people and as guardians of a common set of values and interests.

But today in London, our president is seen as a danger and greeted with dismay. His very presence is actually undermining a brave and decent British Prime Minister who has been an extraordinary friend to America for the last six years.

What went wrong? How could the Bush administration have squandered in two years the moral authority America spent generations building?

It started when President Bush said to the world, you're either with us or against us. As a result, even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.

Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what does this administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all US military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the International Criminal Court. We even took away money for night vision goggles for Baltic troops serving in Iraq alongside ours.

One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping the poor and the sick, in promoting international law. That foundation has been splintered in a few short years. This administration has been all bully and no pulpit.

The bottom line is this: The Bush administration is not interested in permanent alliances. It treats them, even NATO, as obstacles - a limitation on America's freedom of action. Instead of enduring partnerships, it prefers to build temporary coalitions of the willing, consisting of nations, however weak, that are willing to do exactly what we say. That is the reason why America is in Iraq facing a growing insurgency, with so many of its longtime allies standing on the sidelines.

We are providing some 85% of the troops, with no help in sight. On reconstruction costs, America has had to contribute 20 billion, while the European Union has offered $2 billion. Had the Europeans contributed that little to an American-led endeavor of this importance in the Clinton years, it would have been seen as an insult and an outrage. Now, it just seems normal.

I know from experience that working through alliances can be hard. Eight years ago this week, I was in Dayton, Ohio, with Richard Holbrooke, where America used a careful mix of diplomacy, alliances, and force to end the war in Bosnia. Three years later, I was the NATO commander when we put the contributions of 19 NATO allies together to wage the war in Kosovo. Was it more cumbersome to fight that way? Sure. Did it require more persuasion and argument to get things done? You bet. But we were far stronger together. We won the war, in no small measure because Milosevic could not break the will of 19 democracies united in common cause. And today, the Balkans are at peace and stable. With our allies are providing the vast majority of peacekeeping troops and the bulk of funds for reconstruction. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

I believe that, even in this age, we can fight and win wars through collective action. I believe alliances are indispensable, not inconvenient. And I prefer coalitions of the committed rather than coalitions of convenience. I would rather have capable European forces in Iraq with a say in making decisions, than to have Tonga and the Marshall Islands with no strings attached. But even more importantly, I believe that if we work with our allies, we can engage in diplomacy, developmental assistance, and a full array of legal actions to deal with crises before they erupt into war, and to ameliorate the conditions which might lead to those crises in the first place.

II. Restoring and Adapting the Atlantic Alliance.

To restore the alliance that has served us so well over the past five decades. We must begin with a common understanding of the world in which we live and the threats and challenges we face.

We must recognize:

The need to be tough on the terrorists of al-qaeda and just as tough on the reasons why terrorism draws so much support from the Arab and Islamic world.

That globalization brings us the benefits of the free flow of communication, information, ideas and capital. But that it also has a dark side which allows the spread of terror, weapons of mass destruction, crime and drugs to grow with or without state sponsors.

That the deficit of democracy in the Middle East has not only deprived hundreds of millions of people their universal rights, but it also helps create the humiliation, resentment, and rage on which al-Qaeda and others have fed.

That the ongoing violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories has not only made Israelis insecure and increased the suffering of Palestinians, but is also a source of anti-Americanism in the region and beyond;

And finally, that the threat of environmental catastrophe is real and must be addressed.

With a common threat perception along these lines, I believe we can restore the basis for collective action and American leadership that the world wants and our people deserve.

Atlantic Charter

Sixty two years ago, Churchill and Roosevelt launched the first Atlantic charter from the deck of the USS Augusta off the Canadian coast. As President, one of my first orders of business will be to sit down with our European allies to agree upon a new Atlantic Charter.

This Charter will begin by America declaring its commitment to work with its democratic allies as a first, not last, resort in addressing the security issues we face. European nations would make the same commitment to give primacy to NATO. Such a pledge will renew the sense of solidarity without which the NATO alliance cannot exist. President Bush said yesterday that his policy is to go multinational as his first choice - but his record shows NATO is an afterthought.

That is why the Charter should also establish missions for NATO that address pressing international problems, including ethnic cleansing, failed states, and of course promote the peaceful resolution of international disputes. Most important of all, the Charter will call on NATO to confront the fundamental security challenge of the 21st century: the possibility that terrorists or rogues states will acquire and use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

Together with our allies we must review and strengthen treaties and norms and recommit ourselves to enforce the norms we have. Instead of opting out or spurning the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention, we will join and improve them.

When it comes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we will ask our allies to confront the reality that states can comply with the Treaty, and when ready, break-out of it to build a nuclear weapon. Together we must be prepared to impose sanctions on countries that seek nuclear weapons under the cover of this treaty regime.

We will need to agree to do more, far more, to control weapons of mass destruction. Not only the demand for such weapons, but also their supply. We must remove nuclear material entirely from the world's most vulnerable sites, to destroy remaining stocks of chemical weapons, and to upgrade public health systems worldwide to deal with the threat of biological weapons.

Collective Response

But sanctions and new controls are not enough. If we are to maintain the cohesion and solidarity necessary for NATO to thrive in this new century, we have to be able to answer the most difficult question of all: when is it necessary to act preemptively?

Everyone from the Secretary General of the United Nations to the President of France recognizes that a possible nexus between WMDs, rogue states and global terrorists presents the newest and most acute danger to international security.

The West won the Cold War with a strategy based upon the doctrine of collective security and deterrence. The Bush Administration is right to suggest this doctrine needs updating, but wrong to insist that the alternative must be unilateral preemption. Instead, we must embody in the Atlantic Charter agreement on collective responses - diplomatic, economic and legal -- to this threat, just as we did to the threat of Soviet aggression. And then only as a matter of last resort in the case of imminent danger NATO should prepare for collective preemption. Of course the United States always has the right to unilateral action when other options are unavailable.

Collective preemption means that we must set conditions and create the capabilities to enable NATO to respond rapidly and decisively, as a last resort, to interdict shipments of crucial WMD materials and if necessary to destroy WMD capabilities that have or are about to become operational.

Transforming the Middle East

But NATO can be used first for prevention not just preemption. We need to work with our NATO allies on a political strategy to promote reform, human rights, and the rule of law in the greater Middle East. So long as people there have no peaceful outlets for expressing dissent, they will seek violent outlets. So long as children in many parts of this region are educated in schools that preach hate, they will continue to grow into adults who practice hate.

We will not succeed in transforming the Middle East by threatening to change regimes by military action. A better model is offered by the joint approach Europe and America took after the Cold War to transform Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Together, we successfully promoted stability, security, economic reform and democratic progress throughout that region. We offered these states the opportunity to work with and participate in Atlantic and European institutions. They were encouraged to settle historic disputes, integrate their economies and adopt open political systems. Our emphasis was upon carrots not sticks, inclusion not exclusion, assistance and encouragement not sanctions and coercion. As a NATO commander, I worked with the countries in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. I saw the salutary effects of these programs on the evolution of these countries first-hand.

I see a similar role for NATO, the European Union and the United States, operating once again in unison, encouraging a similar evolution within the Greater Middle East. Certainly this will be a labor of a decade or more. And certainly, we won't achieve our goals if the world sees our plan as one of coercion and military occupation. Instead, we should look for inspiration from programs like NATO's Partnership for Peace. Middle East countries, under the right conditions, should be encouraged to join. Likewise, inclusive arrangements like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe could also be adapted for and extended to the Greater Middle East. A commitment by Europe and America to work in partnership along these lines should be another key component of a new Atlantic Charter.

The Bush Administration has made some effort to convince our European allies that defeating these new threats and transforming the Middle East is our new transatlantic challenge. But many of our allies remain uneasy. They agree with our aims, but mistrust our means. They fear that the only part of the strategy we are serious about is the use of force, that we care more about pre-emption than prevention. They are dismayed that the transatlantic relationship has become a one-way street where our priorities are demands and their priorities are denied.

A new Atlantic Charter is more than simply revitalizing NATO. It's a new appreciation for the perspectives and responsibilities of partners and peoples on both sides of the Atlantic.

No institution is more capable or more suited for this enlarged role than NATO itself, if only we have the vision to lead it there. But we've got to be candid and rebuild the set of common interests that will bring the United States and our European allies together.

That is why the Atlantic Charter must have a second chapter that reflects the new perspectives and concerns of Europeans, too. Just as Franklin Roosevelt offered a New Deal with the American people, we need to offer a "New Compact" with our European allies and the international community - a new partnership that challenges us to cooperate more, while challenging them to do more.

This effort must begin in Iraq. Two weeks ago, I outlined my success strategy for the war in Iraq. As I said then, I believe it is possible to secure more international help in Iraq if we are willing to share political control with others and turn the country over faster to legitimate Iraqi authorities. Since I laid out that plan, President Bush has started to scrap his. But he's still asking the American people to spend $87 billion while others spend virtually nothing. He won't share decisions, so others won't share the sacrifice.

Our allies, especially those like Prime Minister Blair who are dedicated to promoting change in the Arab world, will rightly expect us to make a greater effort to deal with their primary concern in the region. That is why we must promise to show leadership, to return America to its historic role of peacemaker in the Middle East - by meeting, not abdicating, our responsibility to seek an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In recent weeks, past leaders of Israel's security services and the current Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces have spoken out. They have concluded that military measures alone will not provide security for Israel. I agree.

America must not stand by any longer. I would commit America to real Middle East diplomacy again - starting in the White House but including at all levels of our government to breathe life into the road map for peace that has veered tragically off course. We must play a leadership role again to encourage both sides to meet their commitments. The Palestinians must start by taking decisive steps to combat terrorists and the infrastructure of terrorists. But the Israelis have responsibilities, too.

The United States must also respond to the very real concerns of our allies about the environment. The Bush Administration has thrown aside the Kyoto protocol but offered nothing concrete in its place. I would offer our allies real commitments to deal with their justified concerns about environmental threats. America should be willing to meet the Europeans half way and negotiate binding reductions on emissions along the lines of the Kyoto agreement.

The United States must also rejoin efforts to establish an International Criminal Court. I would insist on changes in that agreement to allow America to participate. But by working with our allies to improve the court rather than punishing our friends for supporting it, we would be meeting them halfway.

Each of these steps is wise policy for the United States. But because they reflect the profound concerns of our European allies, they will help breathe life into the Trans-Atlantic relationship. America's unilateralism has given our allies an excuse to withdraw from many global responsibilities. Why should they contribute troops and money if the United States does not give them a say? Just as our allies in Europe expect better from America, I would expect more from them.

An America committed to international law would be better able to ask our allies to help enforce its norms when they are violated. An America committed to diplomatic peace-making would have an easier time winning European contributions to military peace-keeping. An America committed to using NATO when it decides to wage war would have greater authority to ask our allies to spend more to build their military capabilities.

Many people fear that it is too late to repair frayed bonds with our allies. I disagree. I believe there is a powerful yearning around the world for an America that returns to its principled traditions. An America that listens, and leads again, not just by the force of arms but by the force of argument and example. An America that is respected, not resented. Not for its military might or material wealth, but for its values and vision; for the greatness of its goals, and for the generosity of its spirit. An America governed by people with ideals, not radical ideologies. An America that projects its hopes again, not just its fears. An America willing to give of itself what it demands of others.

Our friends want this long international nightmare to be over. And America will see an outpouring of support from around the world when it is.

In 1997, while in Haiti, I traveled to the small city of Capsular, with only a guide and a translator. While there, I met a man who came from a small village in Haiti. He was larger than life - not just his hands, which were some of the largest I'd ever shaken, but his personality. His voice was filled with great conviction and hope: hope for a better life, for better education, for more opportunity for his family, and, most importantly, for freedom. He hoped for the chance to go to America and find that freedom. And he wouldn't let go of my hand, as though I could personally take him with me.

America should always be a beacon of hope and freedom. But it's going to take a change in style, a change of course, and a change in leadership. That is what America needs. That is what the world needs. And that is why I am running for President.

Thank you.