1. The new philosophy of action.
To defend against such an enemy, we have to change the philosophy of our action: first, it is us who have to find the enemy. We must not wait for the enemy to find us;second, once found, the enemy should be neutralized before they grow in strength;third, the means to achieve these ends are not tanks, but political, military, economic and financial measures, all combined;fourth, our efforts are worth nothing if done single-handed even by a great power.

2. The adaptation of transatlantic community.
The transatlantic community has to adapt itself to the new security environment, just as NATO has started the process of its deep transformation, strengthened with the decisions of the Alliance's Summit in Prague last November.
Europe has woken up and European Allies proved that they are prepared to change to face new challenges, and NATO could again become a critical vehicle for achieving objectives of both the US national security strategy and security strategies of European Allies.
The basic transatlantic challenge is how to maintain a community of security interests. It is a prerequisite for co-operation and joint endeavors, under the conditions of somewhat different threat perceptions and a clear gap between the U.S. and European military capabilities.
In that regard we have to remember that both NATO and the EU are enlarging and undergoing deep transformation in parallel.
When compared with the US, Europe is technologically and militarily backward. It has to (as it does) undertake efforts to diminish this growing gap. However, in spite of these deficiencies, Europe is still a mature political, economic and trade partner for the US.
One of the most promising US-European co-operation initiatives is the Prague NATO Summit decision to create a combined NATO Response Force, ready to be used everywhere and "whenever", would measurably strengthen the transatlantic community.
It means that all US and European efforts related to the adaptation of the transatlantic community to new challenges should be made mutually compatible.

3. The New NATO.
NATO is not an ad hoc coalition. It is an alliance based on common security interest and shared values. The best example is the Prague summit decision on the next round of enlargement.
The historic significance of this decision is that only in Prague historic justice was achieved. The division lines in Europe are deeply rooted in history – they were created by two totalitarian systems: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and now finally they are erased for good. The secret Molotov-Ribbentrop's protocols were the fourth partition for Poland in her history, and for three Baltic States - the forceful incorporation to the Soviet Union. I wish to use this opportunity to pay tribute to and to thank the people of United States for the fact that they never recognized these shameful decisions.
Are the principles of the Washington Treaty valid in the light of a new perception of the security threats and the new concept of defense, especially against terrorism?
The Polish answer is clear: YES. They are enduring, tried and true, grounded in commonly shared values of modern civilization. They are more than a means to deal with the "cold war" military threat, they have vitality enabling transformation and adaptation to new realities.

FINAL REMARKS
At the end of my address, I would like to make a few remarks of a more general nature. Not all of them are related directly with the main topic of our meeting, but I find them important enough to mention them today.

1. The need to change international security infrastructure.
Not so long ago the main task of the security policy was to prevent a possible attack from strong, aggressive states. Now, it is the weak and failed states that constitute a serious challenge for our common security. It is their territory that harbors different criminal structures. It is there that terrorist groups are trained.
The point is that the contemporary international legal regulations as well as the whole modus operandi of the international community is oriented at states, which retain full control and are responsible for activities undertaken at their territory. The weak states do not often meet this criterion. Thus they are a new challenge, risk and source of threats and there is no ready-made answer how to deal with this problem.
To fight traditional challenges we have international law, armies and international security structures. Our societies are mentally prepared to meet this threat.
Contemporary threats find their source in different conspiracies, terrorist organizations and other non-state actors operating at the territories of weak states.
The question that we face now is how to adapt the existing legal norms to new requirements? How to change the mentality of people? How to modify the functioning of international organizations so that they are able to efficiently fight new threats at the time and place of their origin. How to prevent the evil before it kills.
I do not have all the answers to these questions. But two things I do know are:
One cannot fight alone effectively, and international law must be observed. It is true even in the case of powerful states.

2. The legal bases for the war against terrorism.
Successful international defense against terrorism should be based on clear international legal procedures. It should creatively make use of multilateral mechanisms such as that of the UN. Our idea is to read the UN Charter as the Bible. The Bible gives us Ten Commandments, fundamental principles of human relations. Just as the UN Charter gives us the principles of relations between the states. However, the reality I am describing makes us adopt a new act – the act that will meet the challenges and outline political philosophy of today and tomorrow. Poland, during the last session of the UN General Assembly proposed to start work on the elaboration of such a political act.
Thus, this document may have to guarantee also what I think is obvious - the security of people if they are threatened by their own authorities. National sovereignty must not shield the violations of the principles of international law. In such cases the international community must be able to intervene. Those who break the law must not go unpunished.

3. The US Leadership.
The US leadership in the defense against terrorism must be comprehensive. It cannot be reduced to operational leadership in successive military campaigns.
The leading role of America is unquestionable and the way in which it is exercised should not raise questions as well.
I am saying this in the capital of the state that for many people in the world is a role model of democracy and respect for human rights. Today's leadership of the US in the world is not questioned and it should be exercised. But it should be clearly said that in order to be effective it has to be cooperative and based upon the rules acceptable by all of the parties. If these rules are not applied then leadership can be perceived as hegemony or domination.
To avoid this one should talk with others, listen to them, and learn other's arguments.