 C'est pour moi un grand honneur de vous accueillir aujourd'hui au Parlement européen et de vous souhaiter la bienvenue au nom des représentants directement élus de 10 nations démocratiques d'Europe. En choisissant notre assemblée pour vous adresser aux peuples européens, vous marquez votre confiance dans le succès de la construction communautaire ou nos efforts, témoigne de la volonté de surmonter les rivalités du passé et en lui donnant les moyens de tenir sa place dans le monde. Le président de la grande démocratie américaine qui a contribué de façon décisive, qui a contribué contre les nations. 40 ans auparavant aujourd'hui, les armes étaient restées et la paix a commencé, une paix qui a devenu la plus longue de ce siècle. En ce jour, 40 ans auparavant, ils se sont emmenés dans les boulevards de Paris, ralentés dans les arctes de Triomphe et les sangues des Marseillais. Ils se sont emmenés dans l'air ouvert et libre. Et maintenant, ce jour, 40 ans auparavant, Winston Churchill a emmené dans une baleconnaie en Whitehall et a dit aux peuples du Britain, « C'est votre victoire. » Et la paix a emmené dans un moment unforgettable de l'amour et de l'ingratitude. Non, c'est votre. Les Londoners ont tourné les cartons de la Blackout de leurs windows, ont mis les lignes sur les belles symboles de l'histoire anglais et pour la première fois en près de six ans, Big Ben, Buckingham Palace et St. Paul's Cathedral étaient illuminés contre le ciel. Across the ocean, a half a million New Yorkers flooded Times Square and laughed and posed for the cameras. In Washington, our new president, Harry Truman, called reporters into his office and said, « The flags of freedom fly all over Europe. » On that day 40 years ago, I was at my post at an Army Air Corps installation in Culver City, California. Passing a radio, I heard the words, « Ladies and gentlemen, the war in Europe is over. » I felt a chill as if a gust of cold wind had just swept past and even though for America there was still a war on the Pacific front, I realized I would never forget that moment. Ce jour n'a pas l'air d'être émotionnel. Pour cela, nous ressentons la longue bouche d'alimentation. Nous sommes rappelés d'une paix de joie et d'une paix de paix. Il y a quelques semaines, en Californie, un ancien soldat, avec des oeuvres dans ses yeux, a dit qu'il était un monde différent. C'est presque impossible de le décrire à quelqu'un qui n'est pas là. Mais quand ils finissent les lignes sur les villes, c'était comme être réborné. Si c'est difficile de communiquer le bonheur de ces jours-là, c'est même plus difficile de communiquer à ceux qui n'auraient pas regardé le depth de l'agony de l'Europe. Il y a tellement de lignes et de ruines. Les villes ont été détruites, les enfants ont joué dans le ruban et ont été portés pour la nourriture. Et par ce jour, 40 ans plus tard, il y a eu 40 millions de lignes et les survivants ont composé des victimes continentales. Et à ce jour-là, nous nous inquièterons comment ça s'est passé, comment la civilisation a-t-elle fait un tour terrible? Après toutes les livres et les documentaires, après toutes les histoires et les études, nous nous inquièterons encore. Comment? Hannah Arendt a parlé de la banalité de l'église. La banalité des petits hommes qui ont fait les erreurs terrible. Nous savons qu'ils étaient totalitariens qui ont utilisé le pays qui s'est élevé au niveau de Dieu pour confier la guerre sur les nations et la genocide sur les peuples innocents. Nous savons l'existence de l'église dans l'esprit humain. Et nous savons que dans la Germany cette église a été institutionnalisée par la puissance et la direction pour le pays et ceux qui ont fait leur bide. Nous savons aussi que les taux d'église qui ont utilisé les totalitariens n'ont pas été élevé par la guerre. En fait, ils n'ont pas été élevé par la guerre. En fait, ils l'ont garantie. La guerre. Il y a des lessons pour être appréciées et ne pas être oubliées. Mais il y a des lessons, d'une autre chose que nous avons vu c'est peut-être que nous pouvons le dire le communisme de la vie le commun des hommes et des femmes qui n'ont pas été élevé par les taux d'église les personnes qui ont été élevé par les taux d'église qui ont été élevé par la résistance et qui n'ont pas été élevé par les taux d'église les personnes qui ont eu l'héritage qui ont eu l'héritage et qui ont sauvé les Jews un homme The people who became for a moment the repositories of all the courage of the west from a child named Anne Frank to a hero named Raoul Wallenberg these names shine they give a heart forever the glow of their memories lit Europe in her darkest days qui peut oublier les difficultés après la guerre ? On ne peut pas l'aider et penser, la vie était tellement vive. Il y avait le sens de cause, la joie de l'effort de partage, et après, l'impossible joie de notre triomphe. Ce sont les jours où l'ouest s'est arrêté à ses couches et a réparé les défis qui ont été faits, les jours où l'Europe s'est arrêtée en glorie des ruines. Les anciens ennemis étaient reconcilés avec la famille européenne, ensemble, l'Amérique et l'Europe européenne ont créé, et ont mis en place le plan margeant pour rébuilder les rubriques. Et ensemble, nous avons créé une alliance de l'Atlantique qui a procédé, pas par l'intérêt de l'Etat, mais par les ideals qui ont été réparés. Nous avons créé l'Atlantique du Nord, l'organisation du traité, un partenariat qui a pu voir que la sorte d'attirance de l'Europe européenne n'aurait jamais été tournée à nouveau. NATO était un triomphe d'organisation et d'effort, mais c'était aussi quelque chose de très nouveau, très différent. Mais NATO a dérivé sa force directement de la valeur morale des gens que l'on représente, de leurs propres ideals, de leur âme de liberté et de leur commitment à la paix. Mais peut-être que le grand triomphe de tout n'est pas dans le règle d'une défense d'un son ou d'un achievement matériel. Mais le grand triomphe après la guerre est que, en spite de tout le chaos, la pauvreté, la malheur et la misfortune qui a plongé à ce continent, les gens de l'Europe européenne résistent de l'inquiétude et de la lourde de leurs idéologies séductives. Les nations n'ont pas été les sondages pour de nouvelles philosophies extrêmes. Vous résistez à la tentation totalitaire. Les gens vous ont embrassé la démocratie, le rêve que les fascistes ne pourraient pas tuer. Ils ont choisi la liberté. Et aujourd'hui, nous déceivons les leaders qui l'ont fait, les churches et les monnaies, Ednauer et Schumann, Degasbury et Spock, Trumann et Marshall. Et nous déceivons aussi les partis politiques qui ont contribué à leur part de la grandeur, les libéraux et les démocrates chrétiens, les démocrates sociaux, les libéraux et les conservatifs. En ensemble, ils ont étudier la même or et la grande et la moitié de l'Europe. Si il n'y a aucun doute de leur succès, laissez-les regarder à vous. Dans cet endroit, ce sont ceux qui l'ont fait sur les autres côtés 40 ans auparavant et leurs enfants et filles. Maintenant, vous travaillez ensemble pour l'aide d'Europe démocratiquement. Vous avez arrêté l'animosity et l'hatrede dans le ruban. Il n'y a pas de plus grand testament à la réconciliation et à l'unité paixante de l'Europe que les hommes et les femmes dans cette chambre. Dans les décennies après la guerre, l'Europe connaissait la grande grossesse et la puissance, l'aménage et la vitalité de toute l'arrière de la vie, d'une fin de l'art, de la fashion, d'une manufacturing, de la science, de l'art de l'idée, l'Europe était robuste et élive et n'importe ce n'était pas un accident. C'était le résultat naturel de la liberté, le fruit naturel de l'idea démocratique. Nous, en Amérique, nous avons regardé l'Europe et nous avons appelé à elle ce qu'elle était, un miracle économique. Et nous pouvons quasiment être surpris. Quand nous Américains pensent sur notre héritage européen, nous tendons à penser de vos influences culturelles et de la riche héritage ethnique que nous avons donné. Mais la révolution industrielle qui a transformé l'économie américaine est venu de l'Europe. Les lignes intellectuelles de notre système démocratique, Locque, Montesquieu, et Adam Smith sont venus de l'Europe. Et les geniuses qui s'assurent dans l'âge technologique moderne de l'industrie sont venus de, je pense que vous le savez, mais deux exemples seront suffisants. Alexander Graham Bell, qui a des grandes inventions, ou une invention qui mérite chaque parent américain qui est un enfant qui s'insiste sur son téléphone européen plutôt que l'économie. Et il était un Scotsman. Et Guglielmo Marconi, qui a inventé le radio. Il s'agit d'apporter une vie pour un jeune homme de Dixon, Illinois, qui a ensuite went into politics. Je pense que je dois expliquer que c'est moi qui mérite Marconi. Et Marconi, comme vous le savez, était born in Italy. tomorrow, we'll mark the 35th anniversary of the Schumann plan which led to the European coal and steel community, the first block in the creation of a united Europe. The purpose was to tie French and German and European industrial productions so tightly together that war between them becomes not merely unthinkable but materially impossible. Those are the words of Robert Schumann. The coal and steel community was the child of his genius. And if we here today were today, I believe he would see if he were here today, I believe that he would say we have only just begun. I am here to, I'm here to tell you that America remains as she was 40 years ago dedicated to the unity of Europe. We continue to see a strong and unified Europe not as a rival but as an even stronger partner. Indeed, John F. Kennedy in his ringing declaration of interdependence in the freedom bell city of Philadelphia 23 years ago explicitly made this objective a key tenet of post-war American policy. That policy saw the new world and the old as twin pillars of a larger democratic community. We Americans we Americans still see European unity as a vital force in that historic process. We favor the expansion of the European community. We welcome the entrance of Spain and Portugal into that community for their presence makes for a stronger Europe and a stronger Europe is a stronger West. Yet despite Europe's economic miracle which brought so much prosperity to so many despite the visionary ideas of the European leaders despite the enlargement of democracy's frontiers within the European community itself I'm told that a more doubting mood is upon Europe today. I hear words like Euro pessimism and Euro paralysis. I'm told that Europe seems to have lost that sense of confidence that dominated that post-war era. Well, if there is something of a lost quality these days is it connected to the fact that some in the past few years have begun to question the ideals and philosophies that have guided the West for centuries that some have even come to question the moral and intellectual worth of the West. I wish to speak in part to that questioning today and there is no better place to do it than Strasbourg where Goethe has studied where Pasteur taught where Hugo knew inspiration. This has been a lucky city for questioning and finding valid answers. It is also a city for which some of us feel a very sweet affection. You know that our Statue of Liberty was a gift from France and its sculptor, Auguste Batholdi was a son of France. I don't know if you've ever studied the face of the statue but immigrants entering New York Harbor used to strain to see it as if it would tell them something about their new world. It's a strong kind face. It is the face of Batholdi's mother, a woman of Alsace and so among the many things we Americans thank you for we thank you for her. The Statue of Liberty made in Europe, erected in America helps remind us not only of past ties but present realities. It is to those realities we must look in order to dispel whatever doubts may exist about the course of history and the place of free men and women within it. We live in a complexe dangerous divided world yet a world which can provide all of the good things we require spiritual and material. If we but have the confidence and courage to face history's challenge. We in the West have much to be thankful for. Peace, prosperity and freedom. If we're to preserve these for our children and for theirs, today's leaders must demonstrate the same resolve and sense of vision which inspired Churchill, Adonauer, DeGasbury and Schumann. Their challenge was to rebuild a democratic Europe under the shadow of Soviet power. Our task, in some ways even more daunting, is to keep the peace with an ever more powerful Soviet Union. To introduce greater stability in our relationship with it and to live together in a world in which our values can prosper. The leaders and people of post-war Europe had learned the lessons of their history from the failures of their predecessors. The leaders and people of post-war Europe had learned from predecessors. They learned that aggression feeds on appeasement and that weakness itself can be provocative. We, for our part, can learn from the success of our predecessors. We know that both conflict and aggression can be deterred. The democratic nations are capable of the resolve, the sacrifices and the consistency of policy needed to sustain such deterrence. De la création de NATO en 1949, au début de l'année 1970, l'agression soviétaire était effectivement détournée. La puissance de l'économie et la vitalité de nos sociétés, la compétition de notre diplôme ont tous contribué à la puissance soviétaire. Mais certainement, le facteur décisif doit être la puissance contrevêlante. Finalement, la puissance militaire et, avant tout, la puissance nucléaire dont le monde était capable d'attendre dans la défense de ses intérêts. C'était dans les années 1970 que les États-Unis ont perdu cette superiority sur la Union soviétaire dans les armes nucléaires stratégiques qui ont caractérisé l'État post-war. Dans l'Europe, l'effet de cette loss n'était pas rapidement perceptible. Mais globalement, le conduct soviétaire a changé marquant et dangereux. En Angola, en 1975, puis, quand les États-Unis ont disparu dans l'Éthiopie, dans le Sainte-Yemine, dans la Campochille, et finalement, dans l'Afghanistan, la Union soviétaire a commencé d'attendre plus de risques et d'expander l'influence, d'expander l'influence dans l'indirect et direct application de la puissance militaire. Aujourd'hui, nous voyons des efforts soviétaires pour profiter et stimuler les conflits régionales dans l'Amérique centrale. Ils n'ont pas été là. Je l'ai. La l'impactuelle responsable de l'aventurisme soviétaire de l'année 1970 a eu beaucoup de risques. Ce n'est pas la crise de la confiance de la politique américaine qui a été frappée par l'expérience vietnamienne. Mais juste comme la décision de la décision soviétaire dans l'époque post-war a pris place contre un background de l'expérience américaine de l'Amérique soviétaire de la décision de l'année 1970 a été pris en Mosco comme en Washington et throughout Europe contre un background de l'expérience soviétaire et de l'expérience supérieure de l'expérience supérieure de l'Amérique soviétaire de l'Amérique One might draw the conclusion from these events that the West should reassert that nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union upon which our security and our strategy rested through the post-war era. That is not my view. We cannot and should not seek to build our peace and freedom perpetually upon the basis of expanding nuclear arsenals. In the short run we have no alternative but to compete with the Soviet Union in this field not in the pursuit of superiority but merely of balance. It is thus essential that the United States maintain a modern and survivable nuclear capability in each leg of the strategic triad sea, land et air base. It is similarly important that France and Britain maintain and modernize their independent strategic capabilities. Now the Soviet Union however does not share our view of what constitutes a stable nuclear balance. It has chosen instead to build nuclear forces clearly designed to strike first and thus disarm their adversary. The Soviet Union is now moving toward deployment of new mobile mirved missiles which have these capabilities plus the potential to avoid detection, monitoring or arms control verification. In doing this the Soviet Union is undermining stability and the basis for mutual deterrence. One can imagine several possible responses to the continued Soviet buildup of nuclear forces. On the one hand we can ask the Soviet Union to reduce its offensive systems through equitable, verifiable arms control measures. We are pressing that case in Geneva. Thus far however we've heard nothing new from the other side. A second possibility would be for the west to step up our current modernization effort to keep up with constantly accelerating Soviet deployments not to regain superiority but merely to keep up with Soviet deployments. But is this really an acceptable alternative? Even if this course could be sustained by the west it would produce a less stable strategic balance than the one we have today. Must we accept an endless process of nuclear arms competition? I don't think so. We need a better guarantee of peace than that. And fortunately there is a third possibility. It is to offset the continued Soviet offensive buildup in destabilizing weapons by developing defenses against these weapons. In 1983 I launched a new research program, the Strategic Defense Initiative. The state of modern technology may soon make possible for the first time the ability to use non nuclear systems to defeat ballistic missiles. The Soviets themselves a long recognized the value of defensive systems and have invested heavily in them. Indeed they have spent as much on defensive systems as they have on offensive systems for more than 20 years. Now this research program will take time. As we proceed with it we will remain within existing treaty constraints. We will also consult in the closest possible fashion with our allies. And when the time for decisions on the possible production and deployment of such systems comes we must and will discuss and negotiate these issues with the Soviet Union. Both for the short and the long term I'm confident the West can maintain effective military deterrence but surely we can aspire to more than maintaining a state of highly armed truce in international politics. During the 1970s we went to great lengths to restrain unilaterally our strategic weapons programs out of the conviction that the Soviet Union would adhere to certain rules in its conduct rules such as neither side seeking to gain unilateral advantage at the expense of the other. Those efforts of the early 1970s resulted in some improvements in Europe the Berlin Quadripartite Agreement being the best example but the hopes for a broader and lasting moderation of the east-west competition founded in Angola Ethiopia Afghanistan and Nicaragua. The question before us today is whether we have learned Soviet Union based upon effective deterrence and the reduction of tensions. I believe we can. I believe we've learned that fruitful cooperation with the Soviet Union must be accompanied by successful competition in areas particularly third world areas where the Soviets are not yet prepared to act with restraint. You know, I've learned something useful. Maybe if I talk long enough in my own Congress some of those will walk out but let me talk about the reflections which have molded our policy toward the Soviet Union. That policy embodies the following basic elements. While we maintain deterrence to preserve the peace the United States will make steady sustained effort to reduce tensions and solve problems in its relations with the Soviet Union. The United States is prepared to conclude fair, equitable, verifiable agreements for arms reduction above all with regard to offensive nuclear weapons. The United States will insist upon compliance with past agreements both for their own sake and to strengthen confidence in the possibility of future accords. The United States seeks no unilateral advantages and, of course, can accept none on the Soviet side. The United States will proceed in full consultation with its allies recognizing that our fates are intertwined and we must act in unity. The United States does not seek to undermine or change the Soviet system nor to impinge upon the security of the Soviet Union. At the same time we will resist attempts by the Soviet Union to use or threaten force against others or to impose its system on others by force. Ultimately, I hope the leaders of the Soviet Union will come to understand that they have nothing to gain from attempts to achieve military superiority or to spread their dominance by force but have much to gain from joining the west in mutual arms reduction and expanding cooperation. I have directed the Secretary of State to engage with the Soviet Union on an extended agenda of problem solving. Yet, even as we embark upon new efforts to sustain a productive dialogue with the Soviet Union, we are reminded of the obstacles posed by our so fundamentally different concepts of humanity, of human rights, of the value of human life. The murder of Major Nicholson by a Soviet soldier in East Germany and the Soviet Union's refusal to accept responsibility for this act is only the latest reminder. If we are to succeed in reducing east-west tensions, we must find means to ensure against the arbitrary use of lethal force in the future, whether against individuals like Major Nicholson or against groups such as the passengers on a jumbo jet. It is for that reason that I would like to outline for you today what I believe would be a useful way to proceed. I propose that the United States and the Soviet Union take four practical steps. First, that our two countries make a regular practice of exchanging military observers at military exercises and locations. We now follow this practice with many other nations to the equal benefit of all parties. Second, as I believe it is desirable for the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union to meet and tackle problems, I am also convinced that the military leaders of our nations could benefit from more contact. I therefore propose that we institute regular, high-level contacts between Soviet and American military leaders to develop better understanding and to prevent potential tragedies from occurring. Third, I urge that the conference on disarmament in Europe act promptly and agree on the concrete confidence-building measures proposed by the NATO countries. The United States is prepared to discuss the Soviet proposal on non-use of force in the context of Soviet agreement to concrete confidence-building measures. Fourth, I believe a permanent military-to-military communications link could serve a useful purpose in this important area of our relationship. It could be the channel for exchanging notifications and other information regarding routine military activities, thereby reducing the chances of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. And over time, it might evolve into a risk-reduction mechanism for rapid communication and exchange of data in times of crisis. These proposals are not cure-alls for our current problems. They will not compensate for the deaths which have occurred. But as terrible as past events have been, it would be more tragic if we were to make no attempt to prevent even larger tragedies from occurring through lack of contact and communication. We in the West have much to do and we must do it together. We must remain unified in the face of attempts to divide us and strong in spite of attempts to weaken us. And we must remember that our unity and strength are not a mere impulse like-minded allies, but the natural result of our shared love for liberty. Surely we have no illusions that convergence of the communist system and the free societies of the West is likely. We're in for an extended period of competition of ideas. It is up to us in the West to answer whether or not we will make available the resources, ideas and assistance necessary to compete with the Soviet Union in the third world. We have much in our favor, not least the experience of those states which have tried Marxism and are looking for an alternative. We do not aspire to impose our system on anyone, nor do we have pat answers for all the world's ills, but our ideals of freedom and democracy is there an echo in here? Our ideals of freedom and democracy and our economic systems have proven their ability to meet the needs of our people. Our adversaries can offer their people only economic stagnation and the corrupt hand of a state and party bureaucracy which ultimately satisfy neither material nor spiritual needs. I want to reaffirm to the people of Europe the constancy of the American purpose. We were at your side through two great wars. We have been at your side through 40 years of a sometimes painful peace. We are at your side today because like you, we have not veered from the ideals of the West, the ideals of freedom, liberty and peace. Let no one, no one doubt our purpose. The United States has committed not only to the security of Europe, we are committed to the recreation of a larger and more genuinely European Europe. The United States has committed not only to a partnership with Europe. The United States has committed to an end to the artificial division of Europe. We do not deny any nation's legitimate interest in security. We share the basic aspirations of all of the peoples of Europe, freedom, prosperity and peace. But when families are divided and people are not allowed to maintain normal human and cultural context this creates international tension. Only in a system in which all feel secure and sovereign can there be a lasting and secure peace. For this reason we will support and will encourage movement toward the social, humanitarian and democratic ideals shared in Europe. The issue is not one of state boundaries but of ensuring the right of all nations to conduct their affairs as their peoples desire. The problem of a divided Europe like others must be solved by peaceful means. Let us rededicate ourselves to the full implementation of the Helsinki Final Act in all its aspects. As we seek to encourage democracy we must remember that each country must struggle for democracy within its own culture. Emerging democracies have special problems and require special help. Those nations whose democratic institutions are newly emerged and whose confidence in the process is not yet deeply rooted need our help. They should have an established community of their peers. Other democratic countries to whom they can turn for support are just advice. In my address to the British parliament in 1982 I spoke of the need for democratic governments to spread the message of democracy throughout the world. I expressed my support for the Council of Europe's effort to bring together delegates from many nations for this purpose. I am encouraged by the product of that conference, the Strasbourg Initiative. We in our country have launched a major effort to strengthen and promote democratic ideals and institutions. Following a pattern first started in the Federal Republic of Germany the United States Congress approved the national endowment for democracy. This organization subsequently established institutes of labor, business and political parties et programmes of cooperation with democratic forces around the world. I hope other democracies will join in this effort and contribute their wisdom and talents to this cause. Here in Western Europe you have created a multinational democratic community in which there is a free flow of people of information, of goods and of culture. West Europeans move frequently and freely in all directions sharing and partaking of each other's ideas and culture. It is my hope that in the 21st century which is only 15 years away all Europeans from Moscow to Lisbon will be able to travel without a passport and the free flow of people and ideas will include the other half of Europe. It is my fervent wish that in the next century there will be one free Europe. I do not believe those who say the people of Europe today are paralyzed and pessimistic and I would say to those who think this Europe, beloved Europe you are greater than you know you are the treasury of centuries of western thought and western culture you are the father of western ideals and the mother of western faith Europe you have been the power and the glory of the west you are a moral success in the horrors after world war 2 you rejected totalitarianism you rejected the lure of the new superman and a new communist man you proved that you were and are a moral triumph you in the west are a Europe without illusions a Europe firmly grounded in the ideals and traditions that made her greatness a Europe unbound and unfettered by a bankrupt ideology you are today a new Europe on the brink of a new century a democratic community with much to be proud of we have much to do the work ahead is not unlike the building of a great cathedral the work is slow, complicated and painstaking it's passed on with pride from generation to generation but of ordinary people the cathedral evolves as it is created with each generation adding its own vision but the initial ideal remains constant and the faith that drives the vision persists the results may be slow to see but our children and their children will trace in the air the emerging arches and spires and know the faith and dedication and love that produced them Europe is the cathedral and it is illuminated still and if you doubt your will and your spirit and your strength to stand for something think of those people 40 years ago who wept in the rutble who laughed in the streets who paraded across Europe who cheered Churchill with love and devotion who sang the Marseillais down the boulevards spirit like that does not disappear it cannot perish it will not go there is too much left unsung within it I would like to just conclude with one line if I could and say we've seen evidence here of your faith in democracy in the ability of some to speak up freely as they prefer to speak and yet I can't help but remind all of us that some who take advantage of that right of democracy seem unaware that if the government that they would advocate became reality no one would have that freedom to speak up thank you thank you all for your graciousness on this great day thank you and God bless you all présentons je vous dis merci monsieur le Président