Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates,
ladies and gentlemen: Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations,
it is worth reflecting on what, together, the members of this body have helped
to achieve.
Out of the ashes of the Second World War, having witnessed
the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the United States has worked with many
nations in this Assembly to prevent a third world war -- by forging alliances
with old adversaries; by supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies
accountable to their people instead of any foreign power; and by building an
international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over
cooperation, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all
people.
That is the work of seven decades. That is the ideal that
this body, at its best, has pursued. Of course, there have been too many times
when, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. Over seven decades,
terrible conflicts have claimed untold victims. But we have pressed forward,
slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are
better and stronger and more consistent.
It is this international order that has underwritten
unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity. It is this collective
endeavor that’s brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world’s major
powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion
people from poverty. It is these international principles that helped constrain
bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones, and advanced the
emergence of democracy and development and individual liberty on every
continent.
This progress is real. It can be documented in lives saved,
and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed. And yet, we
come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a
straight line, that our work is far from complete; that dangerous currents risk
pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.
Today, we see the collapse of strongmen and fragile states
breeding conflict, and driving innocent men, women and children across borders
on an *epoch epic scale. Brutal networks of terror have stepped into the vacuum.
Technologies that empower individuals are now also exploited by those who
spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or radicalize our youth. Global
capital flows have powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of
contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and accelerated
inequality.
How should we respond to these trends? There are those who
argue that the ideals enshrined in the U.N. charter are unachievable or out of
date -- a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own. Effectively, they
argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that
pre-date this institution: the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might
makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the
rights of individuals don’t matter; and that in a time of rapid change, order
must be imposed by force.
On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in
ways that contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic
principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution’s mission;
information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted.
We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it’s
the only way to stamp out terrorism,
or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic,
we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to
massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.
The increasing skepticism of our international order can
also be found in the most advanced democracies. We see greater polarization,
more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left,
that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations,
calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. Most ominously, we
see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to
sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, or anti-Semitism; appeals to a glorious
past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or
worship God differently; a politics of us versus them.
The United States is not immune from this. Even as our
economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from Iraq and
Afghanistan, we see in our debates about America’s role in the world a notion
of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived
adversaries, a rising China, or a resurgent Russia; a revolutionary Iran, or an
Islam that is incompatible with peace. We see an argument made that the only
strength that matters for the United States is bellicose words and shows of
military force; that cooperation and diplomacy will not work.
As President of the United States, I am mindful of the
dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest
military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my
country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.
But I stand before you today believing in my core that we,
the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and
coercion. We cannot look backwards. We live in an integrated world -- one in
which we all have a stake in each other’s success. We cannot turn those forces
of integration. No nation in this Assembly can insulate itself from the threat
of terrorism, or the risk of financial contagion; the flow of migrants, or the
danger of a warming planet. The disorder we see is not driven solely by
competition between nations or any single ideology. And if we cannot work
together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences. That is true
for the United States, as well.
No matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy,
we understand the United States cannot solve the world’s problems alone. In
Iraq, the United States learned the hard lesson that even hundreds of thousands
of brave, effective troops, trillions of dollars from our Treasury, cannot by
itself impose stability on a foreign land. Unless we work with other nations
under the mantle of international norms and principles and law that offer
legitimacy to our efforts, we will not succeed. And unless we work together to
defeat the ideas that drive different communities in a country like Iraq into
conflict, any order that our militaries can impose will be temporary.
Just as force alone cannot impose order internationally, I
believe in my core that repression cannot forge the social cohesion for nations
to succeed. The history of the last two decades proves that in today’s world,
dictatorships are unstable. The strongmen of today become the spark of
revolution tomorrow. You can jail your opponents, but you can’t imprison ideas.
You can try to control access to information, but you cannot turn a lie into
truth. It is not a conspiracy of U.S.-backed NGOs that expose corruption and
raise the expectations of people around the globe; it’s technology, social
media, and the irreducible desire of people everywhere to make their own choices
about how they are governed.
Indeed, I believe that in today’s world, the measure of
strength is no longer defined by the control of territory. Lasting prosperity
does not come solely from the ability to access and extract raw materials. The
strength of nations depends on the success of their people -- their knowledge,
their innovation, their imagination, their creativity, their drive, their
opportunity -- and that, in turn, depends upon individual rights and good
governance and personal security. Internal repression and foreign aggression
are both symptoms of the failure to provide this foundation.
A politics and solidarity that depend on demonizing others, that
draws on religious sectarianism or narrow tribalism or jingoism may at times
look like strength in the moment, but over time its weakness will be exposed.
And history tells us that the dark forces unleashed by this type of politics
surely makes all of us less secure. Our world has been there before. We gain
nothing from going back.
Instead, I believe that we must go forward in pursuit of our
ideals, not abandon them at this critical time. We must give expression to our
best hopes, not our deepest fears. This institution was founded because men and
women who came before us had the foresight to know that our nations are more
secure when we uphold basic laws and basic norms, and pursue a path of
cooperation over conflict. And strong nations, above all, have a responsibility
to uphold this international order.
Let me give you a concrete example. After I took office, I
made clear that one of the principal achievements of this body -- the nuclear
non-proliferation regime -- was endangered by Iran’s violation of the NPT. On
that basis, the Security Council tightened sanctions on the Iranian government,
and many nations joined us to enforce them. Together, we showed that laws and
agreements mean something.
But we also understood that the goal of sanctions was not
simply to punish Iran. Our objective was to test whether Iran could change
course, accept constraints, and allow the world to verify that its nuclear
program will be peaceful. For two years, the United States and our partners --
including Russia, including China -- stuck together in complex negotiations.
The result is a lasting, comprehensive deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon, while allowing it to access peaceful energy. And if this deal
is fully implemented, the prohibition on nuclear weapons is strengthened, a
potential war is averted, our world is safer. That is the strength of the
international system when it works the way it should.
That same fidelity to international order guides our
responses to other challenges around the world. Consider Russia’s annexation of
Crimea and further aggression in eastern Ukraine. America has few economic
interests in Ukraine. We recognize the deep and complex history between Russia
and Ukraine. But we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without
consequence in Ukraine, it could happen to any nation gathered here today.
That’s the basis of the sanctions that the United States and our partners
impose on Russia. It's not a desire to return to a Cold War.
Now, within Russia, state-controlled media may describe
these events as an example of a resurgent Russia -- a view shared, by the way,
by a number of U.S. politicians and commentators who have always been deeply
skeptical of Russia, and seem to be convinced a new Cold War is, in fact, upon
us. And yet, look at the results. The Ukrainian people are more interested than
ever in aligning with Europe instead of Russia. Sanctions have led to capital
flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more
educated Russians.
Imagine if, instead, Russia had engaged in true diplomacy,
and worked with Ukraine and the international community to ensure its interests
were protected. That would be better for Ukraine, but also better for Russia,
and better for the world -- which is why we continue to press for this crisis
to be resolved in a way that allows a sovereign and democratic Ukraine to
determine its future and control its territory. Not because we want to isolate
Russia -- we don't -- but because we want a strong Russia that’s invested in
working with us to strengthen the international system as a whole.
Similarly, in the South China Sea, the United States makes
no claim on territory there. We don't adjudicate claims. But like every nation
gathered here, we have an interest in upholding the basic principles of freedom
of navigation and the free flow of commerce, and in resolving disputes through
international law, not the law of force. So we will defend these principles,
while encouraging China and other claimants to resolve their differences
peacefully.
I say this, recognizing that diplomacy is hard; that the
outcomes are sometimes unsatisfying; that it's rarely politically popular. But
I believe that leaders of large nations, in particular, have an obligation to
take these risks -- precisely because we are strong enough to protect our
interests if, and when, diplomacy fails.
I also believe that to move forward in this new era, we have
to be strong enough to acknowledge when what you’re doing is not working. For
50 years, the United States pursued a Cuba policy that failed to improve the
lives of the Cuban people. We changed that. We continue to have differences
with the Cuban government. We will continue to stand up for human rights. But
we address these issues through diplomatic relations, and increased commerce,
and people-to-people ties. As these contacts yield progress, I’m confident that
our Congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place
anymore. (Applause.) Change won’t come overnight to Cuba, but I’m confident
that openness, not coercion, will support the reforms and better the life the
Cuban people deserve, just as I believe that Cuba will find its success if it
pursues cooperation with other nations.
Now, if it’s in the interest of major powers to uphold
international standards, it is even more true for the rest of the community of
nations. Look around the world. From Singapore to Colombia to Senegal, the
facts shows that nations succeed when they pursue an inclusive peace and
prosperity within their borders, and work cooperatively with countries beyond
their borders.
That path is now available to a nation like Iran, which, as
of this moment, continues to deploy violent proxies to advance its interests.
These efforts may appear to give Iran leverage in disputes with neighbors, but
they fuel sectarian conflict that endangers the entire region, and isolates
Iran from the promise of trade and commerce. The Iranian people have a proud
history, and are filled with extraordinary potential. But chanting “Death to
America” does not create jobs, or make Iran more secure. If Iran chose a
different path, that would be good for the security of the region, good for the
Iranian people, and good for the world.
Of course, around the globe, we will continue to be
confronted with nations who reject these lessons of history, places where civil
strife, border disputes, and sectarian wars bring about terrorist enclaves and
humanitarian disasters. Where order has completely broken down, we must act,
but we will be stronger when we act together.
In such efforts, the United States will always do our part.
We will do so mindful of the lessons of the past -- not just the lessons of
Iraq, but also the example of Libya, where we joined an international coalition
under a U.N. mandate to prevent a slaughter. Even as we helped the Libyan
people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and
should have done more to fill a vacuum left behind. We’re grateful to the
United Nations for its efforts to forge a unity government. We will help any
legitimate Libyan government as it works to bring the country together. But we
also have to recognize that we must work more effectively in the future, as an
international community, to build capacity for states that are in distress,
before they collapse.
And that’s why we should celebrate the fact that later today
the United States will join with more than 50 countries to enlist new
capabilities -- infantry, intelligence, helicopters, hospitals, and tens of
thousands of troops -- to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping. (Applause.)
These new capabilities can prevent mass killing, and ensure that peace
agreements are more than words on paper. But we have to do it together.
Together, we must strengthen our collective capacity to establish security
where order has broken down, and to support those who seek a just and lasting
peace.
Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested
than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people,
that is not just a matter of one nation’s internal affairs -- it breeds human
suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a
terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent and enslaves women,
that’s not a single nation’s national security problem -- that is an assault on
all humanity.
I’ve said before and I will repeat: There is no room for
accommodating an apocalyptic cult like ISIL, and the United States makes no
apologies for using our military, as part of a broad coalition, to go after
them. We do so with a determination to ensure that there will never be a safe
haven for terrorists who carry out these crimes. And we have demonstrated over
more than a decade of relentless pursuit of al Qaeda, we will not be outlasted
by extremists.
But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient
to resolve the situation in Syria. Lasting stability can only take hold when
the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United
States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to
resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much
bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo.
Let’s remember how this started. Assad reacted to peaceful
protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the
environment for the current strife. And so Assad and his allies cannot simply
pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical
weapons and indiscriminate bombing. Yes, realism dictates that compromise will
be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also
requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an
inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that
the Syrian people can begin to rebuild.
We know that ISIL -- which emerged out of the chaos of Iraq
and Syria -- depends on perpetual war to survive. But we also know that they
gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together,
is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people.
Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who
distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a
rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.
(Applause.)
This work will take time. There are no easy answers to
Syria. And there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in
much of the Middle East and North Africa. But so many families need help right
now; they don’t have time. And that’s why the United States is increasing the
number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. That’s why we will
continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. And
today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses,
our universities and our NGOs can help as well -- because in the faces of
suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves.
Of course, in the old ways of thinking, the plight of the
powerless, the plight of refugees, the plight of the marginalized did not
matter. They were on the periphery of the world’s concerns. Today, our concern
for them is driven not just by conscience, but should also be drive by
self-interest. For helping people who have been pushed to the margins of our
world is not mere charity, it is a matter of collective security. And the
purpose of this institution is not merely to avoid conflict, it is to galvanize
the collective action that makes life better on this planet.
The commitments we’ve made to the Sustainable Development
Goals speak to this truth. I believe that capitalism has been the greatest
creator of wealth and opportunity that the world has ever known. But from big
cities to rural villages around the world, we also know that prosperity is
still cruelly out of reach for too many. As His Holiness Pope Francis reminds
us, we are stronger when we value the least among these, and see them as equal
in dignity to ourselves and our sons and our daughters.
We can roll back preventable disease and end the scourge of
HIV/AIDS. We can stamp out pandemics that recognize no borders. That work may
not be on television right now, but as we demonstrated in reversing the spread
of Ebola, it can save more lives than anything else we can do.
Together, we can eradicate extreme poverty and erase
barriers to opportunity. But this requires a sustained commitment to our people
-- so farmers can feed more people; so entrepreneurs can start a business
without paying a bribe; so young people have the skills they need to succeed in
this modern, knowledge-based economy.
We can promote growth through trade that meets a higher
standard. And that’s what we’re doing through the Trans-Pacific Partnership --
a trade agreement that encompasses nearly 40 percent of the global economy; an
agreement that will open markets, while protecting the rights of workers and
protecting the environment that enables development to be sustained.
We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies, and
help economies lift people out of poverty without condemning our children to
the ravages of an ever-warming climate. The same ingenuity that produced the
Industrial Age and the Computer Age allows us to harness the potential of clean
energy. No country can escape the ravages of climate change. And there is no
stronger sign of leadership than putting future generations first. The United
States will work with every nation that is willing to do its part so that we
can come together in Paris to decisively confront this challenge.
And finally, our vision for the future of this Assembly, my
belief in moving forward rather than backwards, requires us to defend the
democratic principles that allow societies to succeed. Let me start from a
simple premise: Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place
in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal
values this institution is supposed to defend. (Applause.)
I recognize that democracy is going to take different forms
in different parts of the world. The very idea of a people governing themselves
depends upon government giving expression to their unique culture, their unique
history, their unique experiences. But some universal truths are self-evident.
No person wants to be imprisoned for peaceful worship. No woman should ever be
abused with impunity, or a girl barred from going to school. The freedom to
peacefully petition those in power without fear of arbitrary laws -- these are
not ideas of one country or one culture. They are fundamental to human
progress. They are a cornerstone of this institution.
I realize that in many parts of the world there is a
different view -- a belief that strong leadership must tolerate no dissent. I
hear it not only from America’s adversaries, but privately at least I also hear
it from some of our friends. I disagree. I believe a government that suppresses
peaceful dissent is not showing strength; it is showing weakness and it is
showing fear. (Applause.) History shows that regimes who fear their own people
will eventually crumble, but strong institutions built on the consent of the
governed endure long after any one individual is gone.
That's why our strongest leaders -- from George Washington
to Nelson Mandela -- have elevated the importance of building strong,
democratic institutions over a thirst for perpetual power. Leaders who amend
constitutions to stay in office only acknowledge that they failed to build a
successful country for their people -- because none of us last forever. It
tells us that power is something they cling to for its own sake, rather than
for the betterment of those they purport to serve.
I understand democracy is frustrating. Democracy in the
United States is certainly imperfect. At times, it can even be dysfunctional.
But democracy -- the constant struggle to extend rights to more of our people,
to give more people a voice -- is what allowed us to become the most powerful nation
in the world. (Applause.)
It's not simply a matter of principle; it's not an
abstraction. Democracy -- inclusive democracy -- makes countries stronger. When
opposition parties can seek power peacefully through the ballot, a country
draws upon new ideas. When a free media can inform the public, corruption and
abuse are exposed and can be rooted out. When civil society thrives,
communities can solve problems that governments cannot necessarily solve alone.
When immigrants are welcomed, countries are more productive and more vibrant.
When girls can go to school, and get a job, and pursue unlimited opportunity,
that’s when a country realizes its full potential. (Applause.)
That is what I believe is America’s greatest strength. Not
everybody in America agrees with me. That's part of democracy. I believe that
the fact that you can walk the streets of this city right now and pass churches
and synagogues and temples and mosques, where people worship freely; the fact
that our nation of immigrants mirrors the diversity of the world -- you can
find everybody from everywhere here in New York City -- (applause) -- the fact
that, in this country, everybody can contribute, everybody can participate no
matter who they are, or what they look like, or who they love -- that's what
makes us strong.
And I believe that what is true for America is true for
virtually all mature democracies. And that is no accident. We can be proud of
our nations without defining ourselves in opposition to some other group. We
can be patriotic without demonizing someone else. We can cherish our own
identities -- our religion, our ethnicity, our traditions -- without putting
others down. Our systems are premised on the notion that absolute power will
corrupt, but that people -- ordinary people -- are fundamentally good; that
they value family and friendship, faith and the dignity of hard work; and that
with appropriate checks and balances, governments can reflect this goodness.
I believe that’s the future we must seek together. To
believe in the dignity of every individual, to believe we can bridge our
differences, and choose cooperation over conflict -- that is not weakness, that
is strength. (Applause.) It is a practical necessity in this interconnected
world.
And our people understand this. Think of the Liberian doctor
who went door-to-door to search for Ebola cases, and to tell families what to
do if they show symptoms. Think of the Iranian shopkeeper who said, after the
nuclear deal, “God willing, now we’ll be able to offer many more goods at
better prices.” Think of the Americans who lowered the flag over our embassy in
Havana in 1961 -- the year I was born -- and returned this summer to raise that
flag back up. (Applause.) One of these men said of the Cuban people, “We could
do things for them, and they could do things for us. We loved them.” For 50
years, we ignored that fact.
Think of the families leaving everything they’ve known
behind, risking barren deserts and stormy waters just to find shelter; just to
save their children. One Syrian refugee who was greeted in Hamburg with warm
greetings and shelter, said, “We feel there are still some people who love
other people.”
The people of our United Nations are not as different as
they are told. They can be made to fear; they can be taught to hate -- but they
can also respond to hope. History is littered with the failure of false
prophets and fallen empires who believed that might always makes right, and
that will continue to be the case. You can count on that. But we are called
upon to offer a different type of leadership -- leadership strong enough to
recognize that nations share common interests and people share a common
humanity, and, yes, there are certain ideas and principles that are universal.
That's what those who shaped the United Nations 70 years ago
understood. Let us carry forward that faith into the future -- for it is the
only way we can assure that future will be brighter for my children, and for
yours.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
