If the world makes the right choices now - at this time of destiny - we will get there. And Britain will be at Americas side in doing it.
First， the world works better when the US and the EU stand together. There will be issues that divide - issues of trade， most recently over steel， for example. But on the big security issues， the common interests dwarf the divide. Forget the talk of anti Americanism in Europe. Yes， if you call a demonstration， you will get the slogans and the insults. But people know Europe needs America and I believe America needs Europe too. We have so many shared values. We are strong democracies. If we stand together， no one else feels they can play us off against each other. Complaining about each other is fashionable in some circles. But the only people really rejoicing at a falling out， are the bad guys.
Together， we can forge a new relationship with President Putin's Russia. He is in my view a bold and immensely capable leader， moving his country into a new and co-operative partnership with us. NATO is the cornerstone of the transatlantic US/EU relationship. Now we envisage a new Russia/NATO relationship where certain questions are determined at 20， by the 19 NATO members and Russia. In Afghanistan we worked with Russia in a way that would have had the old hands of the Cold War days frozen in disbelief. But the truth is Russia today has as much interest in defeating terrorism as we have.
In our different ways， but compatibly， we can develop relations with China and India， two nations about whom the only question is not whether they will be huge powers in the world， but how huge， and how that power will be used.
And we both already have strong ties with Japan. We need to use those ties both to encourage Japan towards vital economic and structural reforms and also to bind the EU， the US and Asia closer together.
It is fascinating too， to see both the US and the EU strengthening enormously their political as well as economic links with South America.
The point I am making is simply this. There are no Cold War battles to play to. 'Spheres of influence' is an outdated concept. A series of interlocking alliances with a common agenda on issues of security， trade and stability should replace old rivalries. The international coalition matters. Where it operates， the unintended consequences of action are limited， the diplomatic parameters better fixed. The US and EU together is a precondition of such alliances. But it needs hard work， dialogue and some mutual understanding. As long as I am British Prime Minister I will work to secure it.
Secondly， we must be prepared to act where terrorism or Weapons of Mass Destruction threaten us. The fight against international terrorism is right. We should pursue it vigorously. Not just in Afghanistan but elsewhere. Not just by military means but by disrupting the finances of terrorism， getting at the middle men， the bankrollers of the trade in terror and WMD. Since September 11 the action has been considerable， in many countries. But there should be no let up.
If necessary the action should be military and again， if necessary and justified， it should involve regime change. I have been involved as British Prime Minister in three conflicts involving regime change. Milosevic. The Taliban. And Sierra Leone， where a country of six million people was saved from a murderous group of gangsters who had hijacked the democratically elected government.
Britain is immensely proud of the part our forces have played and with the results but I can honestly say the people most pleased have been the people living under the regime in question. Never forget： they are the true victims. I'll always remember driving through the villages near Freetown in Sierra Leone seeing the people rejoicing - many of them amputees through the brutality from which they had been liberated - and their joy at being free to debate， argue and vote as they wished.
We cannot， of course， intervene in all cases but where countries are engaged in the terror or WMD business， we should not shirk from confronting them. Some can be offered a way out， a route to respectability. I hope in time that Syria， Iran and even North Korea can accept the need to change their relations dramatically with the outside world. A new relationship is on offer. But they must know that sponsoring terrorism or WMD is not acceptable.
As for Iraq， I know some fear precipitate action. They needn't. We will proceed， as we did after September 11， in a calm， measured， sensible but firm way. But leaving Iraq to develop WMD， in flagrant breach of no less than nine separate UNSCRs， refusing still to allow weapons inspectors back to do their work properly， is not an option. The regime of Saddam is detestable. Brutal， repressive， political opponents routinely tortured and executed： it is a regime without a qualm in sacrificing the lives of its citizens to preserve itself， or starting wars with neighbouring states and it has used chemical weapons against its own people.
