What a speech from President
Obama! I thought he covered a lot of important concerns and Peace as #1. Please see his speech
below.
I hope and pray Peace
will prevail. Only time
will tell.
Leaders across
the world and people at the UN please help keep hope alive and help save
innocent lives, because we all know when the fighting starts it is the innocent
people that end up with the broken hearts, the loss of homes, kids out of
school, creating a world of mad people being fooled and susceptible to join
any militant group. MoPoDC4Peace
Какие речи от президента Обамы! Я думал, он охватывает много важных проблем и мира, № 1. См. его речь ниже.
Я надеюсь и молюсь мира будет преобладать. Только время покажет.
Лидеры во всем мире, и люди в ООН пожалуйста, помогите сохранить надежду и помочь спасти жизни невинных людей, потому что мы все знаем, когда борьба начинается именно невинных людей, что в конечном итоге с разбитыми сердцами, потеря дома, детей из школы , создавая мир безумных людей обманули и восприимчивы к вступлению в какое-либо группировка. MoPoDC4Peace
Ce un discurs de la președintele Obama! Am crezut că a acoperit o mulțime de preocupări importante și pace, ca # 1. Vă rugăm să consultați discursul său de mai jos.
Sper și mă rog pentru Pace va prevala. Numai timpul va spune.
Liderii din întreaga lume și oamenii de la ONU, vă rugăm să ajuta la menținerea în viață speranța și ajuta la salvarea de vieți nevinovate, pentru că știm cu toții, atunci când lupta începe, este de oameni nevinovați, care ajung cu inimile rupte, pierderea de case, copiii de școală , creând o lume de nebuni fi păcălit și susceptibile să se alăture unui grup militant. MoPoDC4Peace
從美國總統奧巴馬的講話！我想，他涵蓋了很多重要的問題和和平為第1。請見下文講話。
我希望並祈禱和平將佔上風。只有時間會告訴我們。
請世界各地的領導人和人民在聯合國幫助保持希望活著並幫助拯救無辜的生命，因為我們都知道，當戰鬥開始是無辜的人，結束了破碎的心，失去家園，孩子們出校門創造一個世界，氣死人被愚弄和易受加入任何激進組織。 MoPoDC4Peace
Wat 'n toespraak van president Obama! Ek het gedink hy onder 'n baie belangrike kommer en vrede # 1. Besoek sy toespraak hieronder.
Ek hoop en bid vir vrede sal seëvier. Net die tyd sal leer.
Leiers regoor die wêreld en die mense by die VN kan help om hoop in die lewe en help om onskuldige lewens, want ons almal weet wanneer die geveg begin is dit die onskuldige mense wat eindig met die gebroke harte, die verlies van huise, kinders uit die skool , die skep van 'n wêreld van mal mense word mislei en vatbaar enige militante groep aan te sluit. MoPoDC4Peace
ما خطابا من الرئيس أوباما! اعتقدت أنه غطى الكثير من الشواغل الهامة والسلام كما # 1. الرجاء مراجعة خطابه أدناه.
آمل وأصلي سيسود السلام. المرة الوحيدة التي سوف اقول.
القادة في جميع أنحاء العالم والناس في الامم المتحدة الرجاء المساعدة إبقاء الأمل حيا وتساعد في إنقاذ الأرواح البريئة، لأننا نعلم جميعا عندما يبدأ القتال فإن الشعب هو البريء الذي ينتهي مع قلوب مكسورة، وفقدان المنازل، والأطفال خارج المدرسة ، وخلق عالم من جنون الناس يجري ينخدع وعرضة للانضمام إلى أي جماعة متشددة. MoPoDC4Peace
Quel discours du Président Obama! Je pensais qu'il couvrait un grand nombre de préoccupations et de la paix comme n ° 1 importantes. S'il vous plaît voir son discours ci-dessous.
J'espère et je prie pour la paix prévaudra. Seul le temps nous le dira.
Les dirigeants à travers le monde et les gens à l'ONU s'il vous plaît aider à garder vivant l'espoir et aider à sauver des vies innocentes, parce que nous savons tous que lorsque les combats commence ce sont les innocents qui finissent avec des cœurs brisés, la perte de leur logement, enfants de l'école , la création d'un monde de fous dupés et susceptibles d'adhérer à un groupe militant. MoPoDC4Peace
Quid oratione Praeses Obama! Ego multa texit et pace # I maximarum. Videbis elóquium suum inferius.
Pacem optare poteris. Tantum tempus narrabo.
Ducibus trans orbis terrarum populo et in spem vivam et custodiam IR placet auxilium auxilium nisi innocentes, quia omnes scire incipit proelium cum illo qui innocens est terminus sursum contritos corde, detrimentum domos, haedos de scholis partum universitas insanum susceptibilem et populo illusus aliquis coniungere group militantis. MoPoDC4Peace
Lo que un discurso del presidente Obama! Pensé que cubre una gran cantidad de preocupaciones y la Paz como # 1 importantes. Consulte su discurso a continuación.
Espero y rezo para la paz prevalecerá. Sólo el tiempo lo dirá.
Líderes de todo el mundo y la gente en la ONU por favor ayudar a mantener viva la esperanza y ayudar a salvar vidas inocentes, porque todos sabemos que cuando la lucha se inicia, es la gente inocente que acaban con los corazones rotos, la pérdida de hogares, los niños van a la escuela , creando un mundo de locos siendo engañados y susceptibles de unirse a cualquier grupo militante. MoPoDC4Peace
オバマ大統領のスピーチから何！私は彼が重要な関心事と＃1と平和の多くをカバーしたと思った。以下彼のスピーチを参照してください。
私は希望と平和が勝つでしょう祈る。時間だけが教えてくれます。
戦闘は、それが学校の壊れた心、住宅の損失、子供外で終わる無実の人々である起動したときに、我々はすべて知っているので、国連では、世界と人々を越え指導者は、生きている希望と無邪気な命を救う保つ助けてください、狂った人々がだまされ、いかなる過激派グループに参加するために影響を受けやすいことの世界を創造。 MoPoDC4Peace
Was für eine Rede von Präsident Obama! Ich dachte, er bedeckt eine Menge von wichtigen Anliegen und Frieden als Nr. 1. Bitte sehen seiner Rede unter.
Ich hoffe und bete Frieden durchsetzen wird. Nur die Zeit wird es zeigen.
Mitarbeiter auf der ganzen Welt und die Menschen auf der UN-bitte helfen Hoffnung lebendig und helfen Sie unschuldige Leben, weil wir alle wissen, wenn die Kämpfe beginnt es die unschuldigen Menschen, die mit den gebrochenen Herzen, den Verlust von Häusern, Kinder aus der Schule zu beenden , die Schaffung einer Welt der verrückten Leute getäuscht und anfällig für jede militante Gruppe mitmachen. MoPoDC4Peace
מה דיבור מהנשיא אובמה! חשבתי שהוא כיסה הרבה חששות ושלום ל# 1 חשובים. אנא ראה את נאומו בהמשך.
אני מקווה ומתפלל לשלום ינצח. רק זמן יגיד.
מנהיגים ברחבי העולם והאנשים באו"ם בבקשה לעזור לשמור על גחלת התקווה ולעזור להציל חיי חפים מפשע, משום שכולנו יודעים מתי מתחיל הקרבות זה האנשים החפים מפשע שסופו של דבר עם לבבות שבורים, אובדן של בתים, ילדים מבית הספר , יצירת עולם של אנשים מטורפים שירמו ורגישים להצטרף לכל קבוצה מיליטנטית. MoPoDC4Peace
อะไรพูดจากประธานาธิบดีโอบามา! ผมคิดว่าเขาปกคลุมไปด้วยจำนวนมากของความกังวลที่สำคัญและสันติภาพเป็น # 1 โปรดดูคำพูดของเขาด้านล่าง
ผมหวังและอธิษฐานสันติภาพจะเหนือกว่า เวลาเท่านั้นที่จะบอก
ผู้นำทั่วโลกและคนที่อยู่ในสหประชาชาติโปรดช่วยให้มีชีวิตอยู่และหวังว่าช่วยรักษาชีวิตผู้บริสุทธิ์เพราะเราทุกคนรู้ว่าเมื่อการต่อสู้เริ่มต้นมันเป็นประชาชนผู้บริสุทธิ์ที่จบลงด้วยหัวใจที่แตกสลายการสูญเสียของบ้านเด็กออกจากโรงเรียน การสร้างโลกของคนบ้าถูกหลอกและอ่อนไหวที่จะเข้าร่วมใด ๆ แข็งข้อกลุ่ม MoPoDC4Peace
Які мови від президента Обами! Я думав, він охоплює багато важливих проблем та світу, № 1. Див його мова нижче.
Я сподіваюся і молюся світу переважатиме. Тільки час покаже.
Лідери у всьому світі, і люди в ООН ласка, допоможіть зберегти надію і допомогти врятувати життя безневинних людей, тому що ми всі знаємо, коли боротьба починається саме невинних людей, що в кінцевому підсумку з розбитими серцями, втрата дому, дітей зі школи , створюючи світ божевільних людей обдурили і сприйнятливі до вступу до якесь угруповання. MoPoDC4Peace
Nini hotuba kutoka kwa Rais Obama! Nilidhani yeye mifuniko mengi ya wasiwasi muhimu na Amani kama # 1. Tafadhali angalia hotuba yake hapa chini.
Natumaini na kuomba Amani atashinda. Muda tu atakuambia.
Viongozi duniani kote na watu katika Umoja wa Mataifa tafadhali kusaidia kuweka matumaini hai na kusaidia kuokoa maisha na hatia, kwa sababu sisi wote tunajua wakati mapigano kuanza ni watu wasio na hatia kwamba kuishia na kuvunjwa mioyo, upungufu wa nyumba, watoto nje ya shule , na kujenga dunia ya watu wazimu kuwa fooled na wanahusika na kujiunga na kundi la wapiganaji. MoPoDC4Peace
ຈະເປັນແນວໃດຫມາຍຈາກປະທານໂອບາມາໄດ້? ຂ້າພະເຈົ້າຄິດວ່າລາວກວມເອົາຫຼາຍຄວາມກັງວົນທີ່ສໍາຄັນແລະສັນຕິພາບເປັນ # 1. ກະລຸນາເບິ່ງຄວາມຫມາຍຂ້າງລຸ່ມລາວ.
ຂ້າພະເຈົ້າຫວັງແລະອະທິຖານສັນຕິພາບຈະຊະ. ໃຊ້ເວລາພຽງແຕ່ຈະບອກ.
ຜູ້ນໍາໃນທົ່ວໂລກແລະປະຊາຊົນຢູ່ໃນສປຊກະລຸນາຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ຄວາມຫວັງແລະມີຊີວິດຢູ່ຊ່ວຍກອບກູ້ຊີວິດຄືຊິ, ເພາະວ່າພວກເຮົາທຸກຄົນຮູ້ວ່າເວລາຕໍ່ສູ້ກັບການເລີ່ມຕົ້ນແມ່ນປະຊາຊົນຄືຊິວ່າໃນທີ່ສຸດມີຫົວໃຈທີ່ແຕກຫັກໄດ້, ການສູນເສຍຂອງເຮືອນ, ເດັກນ້ອຍອອກຈາກໂຮງຮຽນ , ການສ້າງໂລກຂອງປະຊາຊົນແມດຈະຖືກ fooled ແລະຄວາມອ່ອນໄຫວຕໍ່ໃຫ້ເຂົ້າຮ່ວມກຸ່ມໃດ militants ເປັນ. MoPoDC4Peace
오바마 대통령은 무엇 연설! 나는 그가 중요한 우려 # 1과 평화의 많은 덮여 생각했다. 아래의 연설을 참조하십시오.
희망과 평화가 우선합니다기도합니다. 단지 시간이 말해 줄 것이다.
싸움이 학교의 깨진 마음, 가정의 손실, 아이 밖으로 결국 무고한 사람들입니다 시작할 때 우리 모두가 알고 있기 때문에 UN의 세계와 사람을 통해 지도자, 살아있는 희망 무고한 생명을 구할 유지하는 데 도움 주시기 바랍니다 , 미친 사람들이 속지 및 무장 단체에 가입하는 것이 감염되는 세상을 만드는. MoPoDC4Peace
New York, New York
10:10 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary
General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Each year we come together to
reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most of recorded history,
individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires.
Divisions of race and religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the
clash of armies. The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace
to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed
unimaginable.
It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking. The
leaders who built the United Nations were not naïve; they did not think this
body could eradicate all wars. But in the wake of millions dead and continents
in rubble, and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a
planet, they understood that humanity could not survive the course it was on.
And so they gave us this institution, believing that it could allow us to
resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation
that would grow stronger over time.
For decades, the United Nations has in fact made a difference -- from helping
to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace. But like every
generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body
continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the
courage, as nation-states and members of an international community, to squarely
meet those challenges; whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our
time.
For much of my tenure as President, some of our most urgent challenges have
revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy, and our efforts to
recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. Now, five years after
the global economy collapsed, and thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries
here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized,
and people are once again being lifted out of poverty. But this progress is
fragile and unequal, and we still have work to do together to assure that our
citizens can access the opportunities that they need to thrive in the 21st
century.
Together, we’ve also worked to end a decade of war. Five years ago, nearly
180,000 Americans were serving in harm’s way, and the war in Iraq was the
dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. Today, all of
our troops have left Iraq. Next year, an international coalition will end its
war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al
Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.
For the United States, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away
from a perpetual war footing. Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited
the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent
threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near
certainty of no civilian casualties. We’re transferring detainees to other
countries and trying terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to
close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And just as we reviewed how we deploy our
extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we’ve
begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so that we properly balance
the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy
concerns that all people share.
As a result of this work, and cooperation with allies and partners, the world
is more stable than it was five years ago. But even a glance at today’s
headlines indicates that dangers remain. In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target
innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall, and our hearts go out to the
families of those who have been affected. In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were
recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. In Iraq, killings and car
bombs continue to be a terrible part of life. And meanwhile, al Qaeda has
splintered into regional networks and militias, which doesn't give them the
capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11, but does pose serious
threats to governments and diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the
globe.
Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa
have laid bare deep divisions within societies, as an old order is upended and
people grapple with what comes next. Peaceful movements have too often been
answered by violence -- from those resisting change and from extremists trying
to hijack change. Sectarian conflict has reemerged. And the potential spread
of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast a shadow over the pursuit of
peace.
Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria.
There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with
repression and slaughter. In the face of such carnage, many retreated to their
sectarian identity -- Alawite and Sunni; Christian and Kurd -- and the situation
spiraled into civil war.
The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response
has not matched the scale of the challenge. Aid cannot keep pace with the
suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is stillborn. America
and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups
have still taken root to exploit the crisis. Assad’s traditional allies have
propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime. And on
August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than
1,000 people, including hundreds of children.
Now, the crisis in Syria, and the destabilization of the region, goes to the
heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront.
How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa --
conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them? How do we address
the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas,
or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war? What is the role of force
in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine
all basic standards of civilized conduct? What is the role of the United
Nations and international law in meeting cries for justice?
Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these
issues. With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point, the
international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons. When I stated
my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to
the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I
believe it is in the security interest of the United States and in the interest
of the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than
the United Nations itself. The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in
war, has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity. It is strengthened by the
searing memories of soldiers suffocating in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in
gas chambers; Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on
August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets
fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from
a regime-controlled neighborhood, and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It’s
an insult to human reason -- and to the legitimacy of this institution -- to
suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.
Now, I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack there were those
who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear
mandate from the Security Council. But without a credible military threat, the
Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. However, as
I’ve discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in St.
Petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this
issue. And in the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies
have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international
control, and then to destroy them.
The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its
stockpiles. Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify
that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences
if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that
the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international
laws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that
the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body
means what it says.
Agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to
reach a political settlement within Syria. I do not believe that military
action -- by those within Syria, or by external powers -- can achieve a lasting
peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will
lead Syria; that is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a leader who
slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the
legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can somehow
return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy.
It’s time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting on Assad’s rule will
lead directly to the outcome that they fear: an increasingly violent space for
extremists to operate. In turn, those of us who continue to support the
moderate opposition must persuade them that the Syrian people cannot afford a
collapse of state institutions, and that a political settlement cannot be
reached without addressing the legitimate fears and concerns of Alawites and
other minorities.
We are committed to working this political track. And as we pursue a
settlement, let’s remember this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We’re no longer in
a Cold War. There’s no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest
in Syria beyond the wellbeing of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the
elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring that it does not become a safe
haven for terrorists.
I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful
resolution of Syria’s civil war. And as we move the Geneva process forward, I
urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and
surrounding countries. America has committed over a billion dollars to this
effort, and today I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340
million. No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the
Syrian people the chance to rebuild their country, but it can help desperate
people to survive.
What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy toward Syria? I
know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our
military might to depose Assad, and believe that a failure to do so indicates a
weakening of American resolve in the region. Others have suggested that my
willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of
chemical weapons shows we’ve learned nothing from Iraq, and that America
continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purposes. In this
way, the situation in Syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the
region for decades: the United States is chastised for meddling in the region,
accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the
United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s problems
and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslim populations.
I realize some of this is inevitable, given America’s role in the world. But
these contradictory attitudes have a practical impact on the American people’s
support for our involvement in the region, and allow leaders in the region -- as
well as the international community sometimes -- to avoid addressing difficult
problems themselves.
So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards
the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the
remainder of my presidency.
The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power,
including military force, to secure our core interests in the region.
We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we
did in the Gulf War.
We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world.
Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the
world still depends on the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could
destabilize the entire global economy.
We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever
possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of
nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary
to defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct
action.
And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass
destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a
threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear
weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the
global nonproliferation regime.
Now, to say that these are America’s core interests is not to say that they
are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interests to see a
Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous, and will continue
to promote democracy and human rights and open markets, because we believe these
practices achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe that we can rarely
achieve these objectives through unilateral American action, particularly
through military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot simply be imposed
by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the
international community and with the countries and peoples of the region.
So what does this mean going forward? In the near term, America’s diplomatic
efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,
and the Arab-Israeli conflict. While these issues are not the cause of all the
region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too
long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.
The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the
Islamic Revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long
complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America’s
role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other
hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an
enemy and directly -- or through proxies -- taken American hostages, killed U.S.
troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.
I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight -- the
suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of
Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards
a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
Since I took office, I’ve made it clear in letters to the Supreme Leader in
Iran and more recently to President Rouhani that America prefers to resolve our
concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully, although we are determined to
prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We are not seeking regime change
and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear
energy. Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its
responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and U.N. Security
Council resolutions.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of
nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the
Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.
So these statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis
for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that
respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence
that the Iranian program is peaceful. But to succeed, conciliatory words will
have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all,
it's the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive
sanctions that are currently in place. And this is not simply an issue between
the United States and Iran. The world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities
in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its
obligations in the future.
But I want to be clear we are encouraged that President Rouhani received from
the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course. And given
President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John
Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government in close cooperation
with the European Union -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and
China.
The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic
path must be tested. For while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s
isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good
for the region and the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their
extraordinary potential -- in commerce and culture; in science and
education.
We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than
our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. I’ve made it clear that the United States will never compromise our
commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish
state. Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who
stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just, and possible. And I
believe there’s a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the
West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state. But the
children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled
in this body fully recognize their country, and where we unequivocally reject
those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.
Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the
Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own
sovereign state. On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young
Palestinians in Ramallah whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by
the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations. They
are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and they’re
frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But
they too recognize that two states is the only real path to peace -- because
just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is
here to stay.
So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind
the pursuit of peace. Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have
demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. President Abbas
has put aside efforts to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the
negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners
and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state. Current talks are focused
on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.
So now the rest of us must be willing to take risks as well. Friends of
Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a
Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state,
and we should say so clearly. Arab states, and those who supported the
Palestinians, must recognize that stability will only be served through a
two-state solution and a secure Israel.
All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat
extremists throughout the region, and embolden those who are prepared to build a
better future. And moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and
Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young
people in the region are languishing without work. So let’s emerge from the
familiar corners of blame and prejudice. Let’s support Israeli and Palestinian
leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.
Real breakthroughs on these two issues -- Iran’s nuclear program, and
Israeli-Palestinian peace -- would have a profound and positive impact on the
entire Middle East and North Africa. But the current convulsions arising out of
the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only
by agreements between nations. It must also be measured by our ability to
resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it’s
clear that all of us have a lot more work to do.
When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was
filled with hope. And although the United States -- like others -- was struck
by the speed of transition, and although we did not -- and in fact could not --
dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change. And we did so
based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard and take time,
societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual
will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous, and more peaceful.
Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this
transition will be. Mohamed Morsi was democratically elected, but proved
unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive. The interim
government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians
who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but it, too, has made
decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy -- through an emergency law, and
restrictions on the press and civil society and opposition parties.
Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict,
simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and engineering
their removal of power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided
choosing sides. Our overriding interest throughout these past few years has
been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the
Egyptian people, and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for
minority rights and the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a
strong civil society.
That remains our interest today. And so, going forward, the United States
will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that
promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords and counterterrorism. We’ll
continue support in areas like education that directly benefit the Egyptian
people. But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military
systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a more
democratic path.
And our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: The United States will at
times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest
international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.
Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our
ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of
suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
We will reject the notion that these principles are simply Western exports,
incompatible with Islam or the Arab World. We believe they are the birthright
of every person. And while we recognize that our influence will at times be
limited, although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through
military force, and although we will at times be accused of hypocrisy and
inconsistency, we will be engaged in the region for the long haul. For the hard
work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.
And this includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to
surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and Syria. We understand such longstanding
issues cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed by Muslim
communities themselves. But we’ve seen grinding conflicts come to an end before
-- most recently in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants finally
recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to
fall behind a fast-moving world. And so we believe those same sectarian
conflicts can be overcome in the Middle East and North Africa.
To summarize, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to
our ability to determine events inside other countries. The notion of American
empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current
policy or by public opinion. Indeed, as recent debates within the United States
over Syria clearly show, the danger for the world is not an America that is too
eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries or to take on every
problem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is that the United
States, after a decade of war -- rightly concerned about issues back home, aware
of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the
Muslim world -- may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other
nation is ready to fill.
I believe such disengagement would be a mistake. I believe America must
remain engaged for our own security. But I also believe the world is better for
it. Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional -- in part because
we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand
up not only for our own narrow self-interests, but for the interests of
all.
I must be honest, though. We're far more likely to invest our energy in
those countries that want to work with us, that invest in their people instead
of a corrupt few; that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute
-- men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew. Because from Europe
to Asia, from Africa to the Americas, nations that have persevered on a
democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful, and more invested
in upholding our common security and our common humanity. And I believe that
the same will hold true for the Arab world.
This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of
societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial that the
international community will be called upon to act. This will require new
thinking and some very tough choices. While the United Nations was designed to
prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing
slaughter within states. And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we
are confronted with states that are fragile or failing -- places where
horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk, with no
hope of protection from their national institutions.
I have made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly
threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect
basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone. In
Mali, we supported both the French intervention that successfully pushed back al
Qaeda, and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In Eastern Africa, we
are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end. And in
Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians,
America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there,
countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to
power.
I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson. They
point to the problems that the country now confronts -- a democratically elected
government struggling to provide security; armed groups, in some places
extremists, ruling parts of a fractured land. And so these critics argue that
any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail -- look at Libya. No
one is more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death
of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people,
including Ambassador Chris Stevens -- a man whose courageous efforts helped save
the city of Benghazi. But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya
would be better if Qaddafi had been allowed to kill, imprison, or brutalize his
people into submission? It’s far more likely that without international action,
Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.
We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on
the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at
the center of our international order. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for
tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to
turn a blind eye. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy
every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended
consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in
the face of a Rwanda or Srebrenica? If that’s the world that people want to
live in, they should say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.
But I believe we can embrace a different future. And if we don’t want to
choose between inaction and war, we must get better -- all of us -- at the
policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order. Through respect for the
responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals. Through meaningful
sanctions for those who break the rules. Through dogged diplomacy that resolves
the root causes of conflict, not merely its aftermath. Through development
assistance that brings hope to the marginalized. And yes, sometimes -- although
this will not be enough -- there are going to be moments where the international
community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force
may be required to prevent the very worst from occurring.
Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks -- one
where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in
which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution and where we all
take responsibility. A world in which the rules established out of the horrors
of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully, and prevent the kinds of wars
that our forefathers fought. A world where human beings can live with dignity
and meet their basic needs, whether they live in New York or Nairobi; in
Peshawar or Damascus.
These are extraordinary times, with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to
human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth today can do things today that 60
years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity. I saw this in
Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off. And
America is with them, partnering to feed the hungry and care for the sick, and
to bring power to places off the grid.
I see it across the Pacific region, where hundreds of millions have been
lifted out of poverty in a single generation. I see it in the faces of young
people everywhere who can access the entire world with the click of a button,
and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty, and
combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving
behind the old ideological battles of the past. That’s what’s happening in Asia
and Africa. It’s happening in Europe and across the Americas. That’s the
future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve as well --
one where they can focus on opportunity, instead of whether they’ll be killed or
repressed because of who they are or what they believe.
Time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change -- to
live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history. Last month,
I stood where 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream,
at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for President.
Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured
decades cut off from his own people and the world. Who are we to believe that
today’s challenges cannot be overcome, when we have seen what changes the human
spirit can bring? Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those
who seek to repress that spirit, rather than those who seek to liberate it?
I know what side of history I want to the United States of America to be on.
We're ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you -- firm in the belief that
all men and women are in fact created equal, each individual possessed with a
dignity and inalienable rights that cannot be denied. That is why we look to
the future not with fear, but with hope. And that’s why we remain convinced
that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous and just
world to the next generation.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
10:52 A.M. EDT
