美國總統(tǒng)奧巴馬5月28日面對西點(diǎn)軍校畢業(yè)生演講。他認(rèn)為，美國的國力比任何時(shí)候都更加強(qiáng)盛，“全世界都期待美國出手相助”，“美國是一個(gè)不可或缺的國家，而且至今仍然如此。這是上一個(gè)世紀(jì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)，也將是下一個(gè)世紀(jì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)。”奧巴馬將美國“在世界舞臺(tái)上發(fā)揮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用”視為自己的底線，并表示“我們?nèi)绻活I(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界，誰來領(lǐng)導(dǎo)？”當(dāng)面對國際輿論時(shí)他說，“為了保護(hù)我國人民、我們的國土、我們的生活方式，美國永遠(yuǎn)不需要征求別人的許可”，“我對美國例外論深信不疑。”奧巴馬認(rèn)為，“美國對民主和人權(quán)的支持超出了理想主義的范疇”，“民主政權(quán)”這個(gè)最親密的朋友能成為美國產(chǎn)品的市場。在中國南海問題上，他表示“我們正在這個(gè)過程中向東南亞國家提供支持”。最后，他勉勵(lì)西點(diǎn)軍校的畢業(yè)生們：“為了讓美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界，你們要竭盡所能。”

以下為奧巴馬演講全文

謝謝，非常感謝。感謝卡斯倫將軍的介紹。特雷納將軍（General Trainor）、克拉克將軍（General Clarke）、全體西點(diǎn)軍校的教職員們，你們是這個(gè)光榮學(xué)府的杰出管理者，也是美軍新晉軍官的杰出導(dǎo)師。

5月28日，奧巴馬在西點(diǎn)軍校演講

我要向陸軍部長麥格修將軍（General McHugh）和奧迪耶諾將軍（General Odierno）表示感謝，同樣要感謝的還有參議員杰克•里德（Senator Jack Reed），他今天也在這，他也是一名自豪的西點(diǎn)人。2014屆畢業(yè)生們，祝你們再續(xù)西點(diǎn)軍魂的傳奇。

你們當(dāng)中出了首屆女指揮官小組：艾琳•莫爾?。‥rin Mauldin）和奧斯汀•波洛夫（Austen Boroff）。加拉•格拉文（Calla Glavin），你獲得了羅德獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金，而喬希•荷貝克（Josh Herbeck）則證明西點(diǎn)軍校的命中率在三分線上也不差（喬希•荷貝克是一名籃球球員-譯者注）。（笑聲）

這是你們在西點(diǎn)最后的幾個(gè)小時(shí)，我想對整個(gè)年級(jí)說，身為總司令，我在此赦免那些因?yàn)樾″e(cuò)被關(guān)禁閉的學(xué)員們。（笑聲，掌聲）

我只想說，我上學(xué)的時(shí)候可沒人對我這么好。

我知道你們要跟我一道向家人說聲謝謝。喬•德莫斯（Joe DeMoss）的兒子詹姆斯畢業(yè)在即，喬在寫給我的一封信中，說出了很多家長的心里話。“內(nèi)心深處，”他寫道，“我想自豪地宣稱他們?yōu)榱俗鎳幌Ц皽富稹?rdquo;好幾名畢業(yè)生都跟詹姆斯一樣是退伍老兵，在這里我想請各位起立，不僅是向我們當(dāng)中的老兵致敬，更是向250多萬曾在伊拉克或阿富汗等地服役的人和他們的家人致敬。（掌聲）

陣亡將士紀(jì)念日剛過去不久，今天紀(jì)念那些為我們的自由作出巨大犧牲的人很有必要。你們是9•11以來首屆不用被送上伊拉克或阿富汗戰(zhàn)場的畢業(yè)生。（歡呼，掌聲）

當(dāng)我2009年第一次在西點(diǎn)演講時(shí)，我們在伊拉克還有10萬駐軍。我們還在準(zhǔn)備大幅增加阿富汗駐軍。我們的反恐工作重點(diǎn)是基地組織的核心領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層——他們實(shí)施了9•11襲擊。而我們的國家剛開始走出那場大蕭條（1929）以來最大的金融危機(jī)。

四年半之后，在你們畢業(yè)之際，情況已大不相同。我們從伊拉克撤軍、縮小阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭的規(guī)模。巴基斯坦和阿富汗邊境區(qū)域基地組織的首惡遭到滅頂之災(zāi)，奧薩馬•本拉登不復(fù)存在。（歡呼、鼓掌）。在此期間，我們重新將投資重點(diǎn)放在美國的實(shí)力增長之源，即能為所有愿意努力工作、承擔(dān)責(zé)任的人提供機(jī)會(huì)的增長型經(jīng)濟(jì)體。

實(shí)際上，從大多數(shù)指標(biāo)來看，美國的國力比任何時(shí)候都更加強(qiáng)盛。有人對此表示不同意，他們認(rèn)為美國正在衰落，已經(jīng)從主導(dǎo)全球事務(wù)的地位下滑。這些人不是對歷史作出了錯(cuò)誤的解讀，就是陷入了黨派政治的漩渦。想想吧。我國軍隊(duì)無可匹敵。任何國家對我們造成直接威脅的可能性很小，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于我們冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期面臨的危險(xiǎn)。

與此同時(shí)，我國經(jīng)濟(jì)活力充沛，在全球仍然首屈一指；我國企業(yè)最具創(chuàng)新精神。每年，我們都自主生產(chǎn)更多的能源。從歐洲到亞洲，我們是世界有史以來最強(qiáng)大聯(lián)盟的核心。

美國繼續(xù)吸引勤奮努力的移民。我們的建國理念激勵(lì)了全球各地的議會(huì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人和公共廣場上新發(fā)起的各類運(yùn)動(dòng)。當(dāng)臺(tái)風(fēng)襲擊菲律賓的時(shí)候，當(dāng)尼日利亞女學(xué)生被綁架的時(shí)候，當(dāng)蒙面人占領(lǐng)烏克蘭建筑物的時(shí)候，全世界都期待美國出手相助。（掌聲）所以，美國是一個(gè)不可或缺的國家，而且至今仍然如此。這是上一個(gè)世紀(jì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)，也將是下一個(gè)世紀(jì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)。

但是，這個(gè)世界正加速發(fā)生變化。這種情況提供了機(jī)會(huì)，也構(gòu)成了新的危險(xiǎn)。眾所周知，由于9•11以來的技術(shù)狀況和全球化，原來一些由國家掌握的權(quán)力已經(jīng)掌握在個(gè)人手中，這增強(qiáng)了恐怖主義分子造成危害的能力。

俄羅斯入侵前蘇聯(lián)共和國的行為震撼了歐洲各國首都的神經(jīng)，與此同時(shí)中國的經(jīng)濟(jì)崛起和軍力擴(kuò)張引起了鄰國的不安。

從巴西到印度，不斷上升的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)與我們展開競爭，各國政府要求在全球事務(wù)中獲得更大的發(fā)言權(quán)。但即使在發(fā)展中國家迎接民主和市場經(jīng)濟(jì)之際， 24小時(shí)不間斷的新聞和社交媒體提醒我們，不要對持續(xù)不斷的宗派沖突、國家衰敗和民眾起義等視而不見，這些可能是上一代人沒有遇到的問題。

你們這一代人的任務(wù)將是應(yīng)對這個(gè)新的世界。我們面臨的問題、你們每一個(gè)人將面臨的問題，不是美國是否能領(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界，而是我們?nèi)绾晤I(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界——不僅僅是保障我們的和平與繁榮，還要讓和平與繁榮擴(kuò)展到全球各地。

 

但這不是一個(gè)新問題。至少從喬治?華盛頓擔(dān)任總司令開始，就有人發(fā)出警告，反對卷入不直接影響到我國安全和經(jīng)濟(jì)福祉的外部糾紛。

今天，從保守的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義角度來說，我們不該介入敘利亞、烏克蘭或中非的沖突。毫無疑問，經(jīng)過代價(jià)高昂的戰(zhàn)爭和國內(nèi)不斷的反戰(zhàn)宣傳，這種觀點(diǎn)已經(jīng)被很多美國人接受。

來自左翼和右翼的干涉主義者提出了另外一種觀點(diǎn)，他們認(rèn)為我們不能對這些沖突視而不見，否則我們自身會(huì)走向?yàn)?zāi)難。在他們看來，美國在世界各地使用武力，是世界免于戰(zhàn)亂的最后保障。面對敘利亞的暴政和俄羅斯的挑釁，美國如果不采取行動(dòng)，不僅違背了我們的良知，而且會(huì)招致未來日益升級(jí)的侵略行動(dòng)。

這兩派都可以引用歷史資料支持自己的觀點(diǎn)。但是我認(rèn)為，不論哪一種觀點(diǎn)都無法準(zhǔn)確表達(dá)時(shí)代的需求。21世紀(jì)的美國孤立主義并不是可取的方案，這毫無疑問。對于我國邊界以外的事態(tài)，我們不能選擇置之不理。比如核材料如果得不到安全處理，就會(huì)威脅美國人民。

目前敘利亞內(nèi)戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)跨出國界，富于侵略性的極端主義團(tuán)伙襲擊我們的能力正在加強(qiáng)。地區(qū)性侵略行為如果不得到制止——不論在南烏克蘭、南中國海（South China Sea），還是全世界任何地方——最終都將影響到我國的盟國，屆時(shí)我國軍隊(duì)可能被卷入其中。我們不能無視我國邊界以外的事態(tài)。

除了這些狹隘的解釋之外，我認(rèn)為，我們還面臨一個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)的道德選擇，這同樣是我們無法切割的利益。我們必須保證我們子孫生活的世界不再有女學(xué)生被綁架（指近日尼日利亞伊斯蘭極端組織的襲擊），不再有人因自己的民族、信仰和政治觀點(diǎn)被殺害。

我認(rèn)為世界獲得更大的自由和更多的寬容，不僅是道義之必需，而且有助于保障我們的安全。

但是，我談到我們在海外爭取和平與自由，以保障我們自身利益的問題，這并不意味著對每一個(gè)問題都需要采取軍事手段。自第二次世界大戰(zhàn)以來，我們所犯的一些代價(jià)最高昂的錯(cuò)誤都不是因?yàn)槲覀儾扇】酥茟B(tài)度，而是因?yàn)槲覀儧]有認(rèn)真考慮后果就匆忙進(jìn)行軍事冒險(xiǎn)——沒有事先爭取國際支持和確立行動(dòng)的合法性；沒有坦白地將必需的犧牲告訴美國人民。豪言壯語容易成為頭條新聞，但戰(zhàn)爭并不因口號(hào)而分勝負(fù)。艾森豪威爾將軍對這個(gè)問題有刻骨銘心的體會(huì)。1947年，他在這里的畢業(yè)典禮上發(fā)表講話說：“戰(zhàn)爭是人類最悲慘和最愚蠢的鬧劇；蓄意或鼓動(dòng)挑起戰(zhàn)爭是反對全人類的邪惡骯臟罪行。”

跟艾森豪威爾一樣，這一代的軍人非常清楚戰(zhàn)爭的代價(jià)，它包括你們西點(diǎn)人的性命。當(dāng)我宣布阿富汗增兵后，4名聽眾（指上次在西點(diǎn)軍校演講的軍校生聽眾）為此犧牲，很多人都負(fù)了傷。

我相信為了保障美國安全，我們需要這些軍事行動(dòng)。但我對死難者無法釋懷，我對傷者無法釋懷。如果我置你們于危險(xiǎn)之中僅僅為了解決世界某地的問題，或者擔(dān)心批評(píng)者壓力，用軍事介入來避免美國顯得軟弱，那么我就背叛了我對你們的責(zé)任，背叛了我們熱愛的國家。

我的底線是：美國必須一如既往在世界舞臺(tái)上發(fā)揮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用。我們?nèi)绻活I(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界，誰來領(lǐng)導(dǎo)？你們的軍隊(duì)是這種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用的中流砥柱，現(xiàn)在如此，一貫如此，今后也將如此。但是，美國的軍事行動(dòng)不能成為我們在每個(gè)場合發(fā)揮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用的唯一因素——甚至不是最基本的因素。不能因?yàn)槲覀冇凶顑?yōu)質(zhì)的榔頭，就把每個(gè)問題都當(dāng)成釘子。

由于軍事行動(dòng)承擔(dān)的代價(jià)如此高昂，你們應(yīng)該知道，你們的每一位文職領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人——特別是你們的總司令——很清楚如何發(fā)揮這種無比強(qiáng)大的威力。余下的時(shí)間，請?jiān)试S我談?wù)勎医窈竺绹兔绹婈?duì)如何發(fā)揮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用。因?yàn)槟銈儗⑴c這種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用。

首先，請讓我重復(fù)我擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)之初提出的一項(xiàng)原則：在我國核心利益需要的時(shí)候——當(dāng)我國人民受到威脅，當(dāng)我們的生存處于緊急關(guān)頭，當(dāng)盟邦面臨危險(xiǎn)，美國將在必要的情況下單方面出兵。

在上述情況下，我們?nèi)匀恍枰岢鲆恍┘怃J的問題，考慮我們的行動(dòng)是否適當(dāng)，是否有效，是否正當(dāng)。國際輿論需要受到重視，但為了保護(hù)我國人民、我們的國土、我們的生活方式，美國永遠(yuǎn)不需要征求別人的許可。（掌聲）

另一方面，如果全球性問題對美國并未構(gòu)成直接的威脅，當(dāng)某些危機(jī)激發(fā)了我們的道德責(zé)任，或者使全世界滑向更危險(xiǎn)的方向——但并不直接威脅到我們的時(shí)候，出兵的門檻必須提高。在這類情況下，我們不應(yīng)該單獨(dú)行動(dòng)。相反，我們必須動(dòng)員盟邦和伙伴采取集體行動(dòng)。我們必須擴(kuò)展我們的干預(yù)方式，比如深度外交、制裁、國際法；同時(shí)在正當(dāng)、必要和有效的情況下，采取多邊軍事行動(dòng)。在這類情況下，我們必須與其他力量合作，因?yàn)樵谶@類情況下采取集體行動(dòng)才更有可能成功，更有可能持久，同時(shí)比較不容易犯代價(jià)高昂的錯(cuò)誤。

由此引出我的第二個(gè)觀點(diǎn)：在可預(yù)見的未來，在美國國內(nèi)與海外，最直接的威脅仍然是恐怖主義。但是，對每一個(gè)包庇恐怖主義網(wǎng)絡(luò)的國家都發(fā)動(dòng)攻擊，這個(gè)戰(zhàn)略未免過于天真，也不可能持續(xù)。我認(rèn)為，我們必須調(diào)整我國打擊恐怖主義的戰(zhàn)略——吸取我們在伊拉克和阿富汗的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)和失敗教訓(xùn)——轉(zhuǎn)而與國內(nèi)有恐怖主義基地的某些國家進(jìn)行有效的伙伴合作。

新戰(zhàn)略的必要性展示一個(gè)事實(shí)，即今天的主要威脅不再是中央集權(quán)的“基地”組織領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層，而是分散的“基地”組織外圍團(tuán)伙和極端主義分子，他們經(jīng)常挑戰(zhàn)所在國家的秩序。這種局面降低了本土遭受大規(guī)模9•11式襲擊的可能性，但增加了美國海外人員受到襲擊的危險(xiǎn)。正如我們在班加西看到的情況（大使被殺）。這種情況令防備薄弱的目標(biāo)身處險(xiǎn)境，例如我們在內(nèi)羅畢購物商場看到的情況。為此，我們必須制定適于應(yīng)對這類彌漫式威脅的戰(zhàn)略——擴(kuò)大我們的影響，但不派遣軍隊(duì)，避免軍隊(duì)的戰(zhàn)線過長，也可以避免引發(fā)當(dāng)?shù)氐牟粷M情緒。

我們需要合作伙伴與我們一起打擊恐怖主義分子。在我們已經(jīng)進(jìn)行的工作和我們目前在阿富汗所做的工作中，很大一部份是提高伙伴的自主反恐能力。美國與我們的盟邦一起對“基地”組織核心給予沉重的打擊，挫敗了他們試圖顛覆國家的反叛活動(dòng)。

但是，這個(gè)進(jìn)程能否持續(xù)進(jìn)行取決于阿富汗人從事這項(xiàng)工作的能力。正是因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因，我們?yōu)槌汕先f阿富汗士兵和警察提供訓(xùn)練。今年早春，這些部隊(duì)，這些阿富汗部隊(duì)保障了選舉的進(jìn)行，阿富汗人為該國有史以來第一次政權(quán)的民主轉(zhuǎn)移進(jìn)行投票。今年年底，新的阿富汗總統(tǒng)將就任，美國作戰(zhàn)部隊(duì)的使命也將完成。（掌聲）

這是以美國軍隊(duì)為后盾取得的巨大成就。但是隨著我們在阿富汗的作戰(zhàn)行動(dòng)轉(zhuǎn)向訓(xùn)練和顧問活動(dòng)，我們減少阿富汗駐軍后可以更有效地應(yīng)對中東和北非新出現(xiàn)的威脅。為此，今年早些時(shí)候，我要求我的國家安全事務(wù)團(tuán)隊(duì)就南亞和薩赫勒（撒哈拉沙漠南部的半干旱地區(qū)）等地的伙伴關(guān)系網(wǎng)絡(luò)制定一個(gè)計(jì)劃。

今天，作為這項(xiàng)努力的內(nèi)容之一，我要求國會(huì)批準(zhǔn)新的打擊恐怖主義伙伴關(guān)系基金，籌款50億美元用于我們?yōu)榈谝痪€的反恐伙伴國提供訓(xùn)練，建立軍隊(duì)并激勵(lì)他們攻擊。這些資源將使我們具備完成不同使命的靈活性，包括訓(xùn)練已經(jīng)對“基地”組織發(fā)動(dòng)攻勢的也門安全部隊(duì)；支援一支多國部隊(duì)維持索馬里的和平；與歐洲盟國合作為利比亞安全部隊(duì)和邊境巡邏部隊(duì)發(fā)揮功能提供訓(xùn)練；并支持法國在馬里的行動(dòng)。

這項(xiàng)工作的一個(gè)很關(guān)鍵的方面將是應(yīng)對敘利亞持續(xù)存在的危機(jī)。由于局勢十分嚴(yán)重，不可能有簡單的解決辦法，任何軍事方案都無法很快解除人們面臨的深重苦難。我作為總統(tǒng)作出決定，我們不應(yīng)該派美國軍隊(duì)卷入這場日益激烈的宗派戰(zhàn)爭。我認(rèn)為，這是正確的戰(zhàn)略。但是這并不意味著我們不應(yīng)該幫助敘利亞人民反抗，不意味著我們無視用炸彈和饑餓殘害本國人民的獨(dú)裁者。我們幫助那些為敘利亞人民自決權(quán)而奮斗的人們，同時(shí)也對人數(shù)日益增長的極端主義分子給予狠狠的打擊，這些極端主義分子正乘混亂之機(jī)尋求安全的庇護(hù)所（指加入敘利亞反政府武裝的基地組織成員）。

所以，我今天宣布提供更多的資源后，我們將對敘利亞鄰國加強(qiáng)支持——例如約旦和黎巴嫩；土耳其和伊拉克——這些國家需要應(yīng)付難民問題，并抗擊跨越敘利亞邊境的恐怖主義分子。我將與國會(huì)一起加強(qiáng)對敘利亞反對派人士的支持。這些反對派是取代恐怖分子和殘暴獨(dú)裁者的最佳選擇。我們將繼續(xù)與我們在歐洲及阿拉伯世界的朋友和盟邦相互協(xié)調(diào)，推動(dòng)為化解這場危機(jī)采取政治解決方案，同時(shí)確保這些國家，不僅僅是美國，都為支持?jǐn)⒗麃喨嗣褡鞒鲎约簯?yīng)該作出的一份貢獻(xiàn)。

 

請讓我就反恐行動(dòng)談最后一點(diǎn)。我所說的伙伴關(guān)系并沒有排除在必要時(shí)直接采取行動(dòng)保護(hù)我們自己。我們在掌握可行性情報(bào)時(shí)會(huì)這樣做——比如將一名策劃1998年我國大使館被炸案的恐怖主義分子繩之以法；或是我們在也門和索馬里執(zhí)行過的那種無人機(jī)空襲。

有時(shí)采取這樣的行動(dòng)是必要的，為了保護(hù)我們的人民，我們不能猶豫不決。當(dāng)正如我去年所指出的，我們在采取直接行動(dòng)時(shí)必須秉持體現(xiàn)我們價(jià)值觀的各項(xiàng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這意味著只有在我們面臨一種持續(xù)不斷、迫在眉睫的威脅時(shí)，只有在基本上能夠肯定不會(huì)造成平民傷亡時(shí)，才會(huì)發(fā)起攻擊。因?yàn)槲覀兊男袆?dòng)應(yīng)當(dāng)經(jīng)得起一個(gè)簡單的考驗(yàn)：我們絕不能在戰(zhàn)場上消滅敵人的同時(shí)制造更多的敵人。

我還相信，我們必須讓我們的反恐怖主義行動(dòng)更站得住腳，提高我們行動(dòng)的透明度。我們必須能夠公開說明有關(guān)行動(dòng)，不論是無人機(jī)空襲還是訓(xùn)練合作伙伴。我將越來越依賴于我國軍方發(fā)揮世界領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用，并向公眾提供有關(guān)我們的各項(xiàng)行動(dòng)的信息。我們的情報(bào)部門工作出色，我們必須繼續(xù)保護(hù)其情報(bào)來源和工作方式。不過，如果我們不能清楚地、公開地說明我們的努力，我們就將面對恐怖主義宣傳和國際社會(huì)的質(zhì)疑，我們將在我們的合作伙伴和我們的人民面前喪失合法性，而且我們還將削弱對我們本國政府的監(jiān)督。

這個(gè)透明度問題直接關(guān)系到美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的第三個(gè)方面，即我們嚴(yán)格維護(hù)國際秩序的努力。

在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之后，美國深思遠(yuǎn)慮，要締造維護(hù)和平及支持人類進(jìn)步的機(jī)構(gòu)——從北約組織到聯(lián)合國，從世界銀行到國際貨幣基金組織。這些機(jī)構(gòu)并不完美，但它們一直發(fā)揮著使力量倍增的作用。它們減少了美國單方面采取行動(dòng)的需要，增加了其他國家之間的約束力。

然而，世界已經(jīng)變了，這種架構(gòu)也必須改變。在冷戰(zhàn)最緊張的時(shí)候，肯尼迪總統(tǒng)指出和平應(yīng)當(dāng)基于“人類機(jī)制的逐漸演進(jìn)”。讓這些國際機(jī)構(gòu)不斷演進(jìn)以滿足今日的種種需求，這必須成為美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵部分。

不過，有很多人，有很多持懷疑態(tài)度的人，往往貶低多邊行動(dòng)的效力。對他們而言，通過聯(lián)合國這樣的國際機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行努力或是尊重國際法，都是軟弱的表現(xiàn)。我認(rèn)為他們是錯(cuò)誤的。請讓我僅以兩個(gè)實(shí)例說明理由。

在烏克蘭，俄羅斯最近的所作所為讓人們回想起蘇聯(lián)坦克開進(jìn)東歐地區(qū)的日子。但現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)不是冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代了。我們影響世界輿論的能力立即把俄羅斯推進(jìn)了孤立處境。由于美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，全世界立即開始譴責(zé)俄羅斯；歐洲和7國集團(tuán)同我們一道實(shí)施制裁；北約組織增強(qiáng)了我們對東歐盟友的承諾；國際貨幣基金組織正在幫助穩(wěn)定烏克蘭的經(jīng)濟(jì)；歐安組織的監(jiān)察員將烏克蘭動(dòng)亂地區(qū)置于全世界的關(guān)注之下。

世界輿論和國際機(jī)構(gòu)動(dòng)員起來！就能夠與俄羅斯的宣傳抗衡，和部署在邊境的俄軍抗衡，和帶著蒙面武裝人員抗衡（指易裝的俄軍）。

本周末，千百萬烏克蘭人參加了投票。昨天，我同他們的候任總統(tǒng)通了話。我們不知道局勢將如何發(fā)展，而且前面依然會(huì)有嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)，但我同我們的盟友站在一起，代表國際秩序同國際機(jī)構(gòu)共同努力，從而不放一槍一炮就為烏克蘭人民提供了一個(gè)決定自己的未來的機(jī)會(huì)。

同樣地，盡管美國、以色列和其他方面不斷發(fā)出警告，但伊朗多年來一直在一步步發(fā)展核項(xiàng)目。而在我就任總統(tǒng)伊始，我們結(jié)成了一個(gè)聯(lián)盟，一方面對伊朗經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)施制裁，一方面向伊朗政府伸出外交之手?，F(xiàn)在，我們有機(jī)會(huì)以和平方式解決我們之間的分歧。

成功的可能性仍然不大，而且我們保留所有制止伊朗獲取核武器的選擇。但10年來第一次，我們有了一個(gè)達(dá)成突破性協(xié)議的真切的機(jī)會(huì)——這可能比我們通過使用武力獲得的協(xié)議更有效力、更加持久。在整個(gè)談判過程中，我們始終愿意通過多邊渠道進(jìn)行努力，讓國際社會(huì)一直站在我們一邊。

重要的是，這就是美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力。這就是美國的實(shí)力。

在上述每個(gè)實(shí)例中，我們都結(jié)成聯(lián)盟來應(yīng)對具體的挑戰(zhàn)?，F(xiàn)在，我們需要作出更大的努力來強(qiáng)化這些機(jī)構(gòu)，它們能夠預(yù)見問題并防止問題擴(kuò)散。

例如，北約組織是全世界有史以來最強(qiáng)大的聯(lián)盟。但我們現(xiàn)在正在同北約盟國共同執(zhí)行新的使命，不僅在在東歐盟國關(guān)心的歐洲之內(nèi)（指東歐邊界），而且在歐洲以外。我們的北約盟國必須在歐洲之外盡力抗擊恐怖主義，避免“失敗國家”徹底失控并為一個(gè)合作伙伴網(wǎng)絡(luò)提供訓(xùn)練。

同樣地，聯(lián)合國提供了一個(gè)在被沖突蹂躪的國家中維持和平的平臺(tái)?，F(xiàn)在，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)確保那些提供維和人員的國家得到切實(shí)維護(hù)和平所需的訓(xùn)練和裝備，以使我們能夠制止我們在剛果和蘇丹所目睹的屠殺行徑。我們將深化我們對支持這些維和使命的國家的投入，因?yàn)樽屍渌麌亦徑貐^(qū)維護(hù)秩序，能減少我們被迫將自己的軍隊(duì)派往危險(xiǎn)之地的情況。這是一種明智的投入。這是正確的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方式。（掌聲）

別忘了，并非所有國際準(zhǔn)則都與武裝沖突直接相關(guān)。我們面臨著一個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)攻擊的嚴(yán)重問題，因此，我們正在努力制定并嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行行為規(guī)則，以保護(hù)我國網(wǎng)絡(luò)和我國公民的安全。在亞太地區(qū)，東南亞國家與中國就南中國海出現(xiàn)了海事爭端，我們正在這個(gè)過程中向東南亞國家提供支持，希望達(dá)成一項(xiàng)協(xié)議。而且我們正在通過國際法努力解決這些爭端。

這種合作精神應(yīng)被用于鼓舞抗擊氣候變化的全球性努力——這一日益嚴(yán)峻的全球安全危機(jī)將影響到你們身著軍裝期間的使命，因?yàn)槲覀円苊鼞?yīng)對難民潮、自然災(zāi)害以及爭奪水和糧食的沖突，因此，我計(jì)劃明年一定要讓美國積極主導(dǎo)制定一個(gè)保護(hù)整個(gè)地球的全球性框架。

你們看，每當(dāng)我們以身作則地發(fā)揮領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用，美國的影響力便會(huì)增強(qiáng)。我們不能讓自己免于遵守適用于其他所有人的規(guī)則。如果我國有那么多的政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人都不承認(rèn)氣候變化正在發(fā)生，我們就無法敦促其他人作出抗擊氣候變化的承諾。如果《海洋法公約》得不到美國參議院的批準(zhǔn)，我們就無法爭取解決南中國海問題。而且我們的最高層軍事領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人都說該公約能增進(jìn)我們的國家安全。

這（回避國際準(zhǔn)則）不是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用，這是退縮回避；這不是強(qiáng)大，而是軟弱。恐怕像羅斯福和杜魯門以及艾森豪威爾和肯尼迪這樣的領(lǐng)袖對此（拒絕國際條約-譯者注）會(huì)感到無比陌生。

我對美國例外論深信不疑。但令我們與眾不同的不是我們能夠無視國際準(zhǔn)則和法治，而是我們愿意通過我們的行動(dòng)維護(hù)它們。（掌聲）

正因?yàn)槿绱?，我將繼續(xù)推動(dòng)關(guān)閉關(guān)塔納摩監(jiān)獄——因?yàn)槊绹膬r(jià)值觀和法律傳統(tǒng)不允許無限期地在我們境外關(guān)押人員。（掌聲）正因?yàn)槿绱?，我們正在針對美國收集和使用情?bào)的行動(dòng)實(shí)施新的限制措施——因?yàn)槿绻覀兂姓J(rèn)監(jiān)控普通公民是正常的事，我們的合作伙伴就將越來越少而且我們的行動(dòng)效果將會(huì)減弱。（掌聲）美國不會(huì)簡單地主張穩(wěn)定或消除沖突，不會(huì)不惜代價(jià)去落實(shí)這些想法。我們主張更加持久的和平，這必須在各國人民都享有機(jī)遇和自由的前提下才能實(shí)現(xiàn)。由此我要闡明美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用的第四個(gè)、也是最后一個(gè)要素：我們愿意出于人類尊嚴(yán)而采取行動(dòng)。

美國對民主和人權(quán)的支持超出了理想主義的范疇——這關(guān)系到國家安全。民主政權(quán)是我們最親密的朋友，而且它們卷入戰(zhàn)爭的可能性要小得多。基于自由和開放的市場的經(jīng)濟(jì)體增長更快，并能成為我國產(chǎn)品的市場。尊重人權(quán)能夠平息不穩(wěn)定局面，能壓制不滿，消滅暴力和恐怖。

新的世紀(jì)并沒有鏟除暴政。在全球各國——令人遺憾的是，其中還包括一些美國的合作伙伴——公民社會(huì)遭到壓制。腐敗的毒瘤喂肥了太多的統(tǒng)治者以及權(quán)貴，從窮鄉(xiāng)僻壤中到首都廣場上，人民為此而憤怒?？吹竭@樣的發(fā)展趨勢，看到阿拉伯世界部分地區(qū)的暴力動(dòng)亂，人們不禁會(huì)對未來感到悲觀懷疑。

但請你們記住，由于美國的種種努力，由于美國的外交工作和對外援助，以及我國軍人付出的犧牲，今天民選政權(quán)管理的民眾比人類歷史上任何時(shí)期都多。技術(shù)正在增強(qiáng)公民社會(huì)的力量，這是任何鐵拳都無法管控的。新的突破性成果正在使數(shù)億人民擺脫貧困。甚至連阿拉伯世界的動(dòng)蕩局勢都說明專制制度無法長久。而且（這種動(dòng)蕩）從長期來看，提供了更好的改革可能。

在埃及這樣的國家，我們承認(rèn)我們的關(guān)系植根于安全利益——從與以色列的和平協(xié)定，到反對暴力極端主義的共同努力。因此，我們沒有切斷同埃及新政府（軍政府）的合作，但我們能夠而且一定會(huì)支持埃及人民，支持他們改革的訴求。

與此同時(shí)，看一看像緬甸這個(gè)國家，這個(gè)人口4000萬的國家在短短幾年前還是一個(gè)頑固不化的獨(dú)裁國家，而且與美國為敵。多虧了該國人民巨大的勇氣，而且由于我們采取了外交行動(dòng)并發(fā)揮了美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用，我們已經(jīng)看到政治改革使一個(gè)一度封閉的社會(huì)逐步開放；緬甸領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人脫離同北韓的伙伴關(guān)系，轉(zhuǎn)而傾向于同美國和我們的盟友接觸。

我們正在通過援助和投資，通過說服勸告，甚至有時(shí)公開地予以批評(píng)，來支持改革以及迫切需要的全國和解。那里取得的進(jìn)步有可能出現(xiàn)倒退，但如果緬甸取得成功，我們就不放一槍一炮地贏得了一個(gè)新的合作伙伴。這就是美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力！

在上述各個(gè)實(shí)例中，我們都不應(yīng)當(dāng)期待一夜之間完成變革。因此，我們不僅要同各國政府，還要同普通民眾結(jié)成聯(lián)盟。因?yàn)榕c其他一些國家不同的是，美國不害怕增強(qiáng)個(gè)人的自主權(quán)，反而因此而更加強(qiáng)大。公民社會(huì)使我們更加強(qiáng)大，自由媒體使我們更加強(qiáng)大，努力奮斗的企業(yè)家和小企業(yè)使我們更加強(qiáng)大，教育交流以及性別平等使我們更加強(qiáng)大。這是我們的核心力量。這就是我們所代表的一切！（掌聲）

我在去年訪問非洲的旅途中看到，美國的援助使消滅艾滋病成為可能，同時(shí)幫助非洲人民照護(hù)病患。我們正在幫助農(nóng)民將他們的產(chǎn)品送到市場，為一度受到饑荒威脅的人口提供糧食。我們致力于將非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南地區(qū)的電力供應(yīng)擴(kuò)大一倍，以使那里的人民與全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的前景互聯(lián)互通。所有這一切都帶來了新的合作伙伴，并壓縮了恐怖主義和沖突的空間。

然而，令人痛心的是，美國的安全行動(dòng)無法根除像“博科圣地”（Boko Haram）這類極端主義組織所構(gòu)成的威脅，該組織綁架了那些女孩。

因此，我們不僅應(yīng)當(dāng)集中力量馬上營救出那些女孩，而且應(yīng)當(dāng)支持尼日利亞讓青少年接受教育的努力。這應(yīng)當(dāng)是在伊拉克和阿富汗艱苦得來的教訓(xùn)之一，我們的軍隊(duì)已成為在那里提倡外交與發(fā)展的最堅(jiān)定的倡導(dǎo)者。他們懂得，對外援助不是錦上添花，不是與我們的國家防御和我們的國家安全脫節(jié)的善舉。這是使我們強(qiáng)大的因素之一。

歸根結(jié)底，全球領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力要求我們必須認(rèn)清世界的真相，認(rèn)清其中的種種威脅和不確定性。我們必須做好最壞的準(zhǔn)備，必須做好一切應(yīng)急準(zhǔn)備。但保持美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)也要求我們必須看到這個(gè)世界應(yīng)有的未來——在這里，每個(gè)人的理想抱負(fù)都至關(guān)重要；在這里，主宰一切的是希望而不是恐懼；在這里，銘刻在我們建國文獻(xiàn)中的真理能夠讓歷史的潮流向正義的方向奔涌。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)這些目標(biāo)，我們離不開你們的努力。

2014級(jí)畢業(yè)生們，此時(shí)時(shí)刻，你們即將離開哈德遜河寧靜的河岸。你們即將延續(xù)一個(gè)傳奇，在人類歷史上空前的傳奇。你們將作為團(tuán)隊(duì)的一員執(zhí)行任務(wù)——團(tuán)隊(duì)不僅意味著你所在的部隊(duì)，甚至不僅僅意味著美國三軍。在你們服役的過程中，你們將同外交家和發(fā)展專家團(tuán)隊(duì)協(xié)作。

你們將認(rèn)識(shí)盟友、訓(xùn)練戰(zhàn)友。為了讓美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)世界，你們要竭盡所能。

下周我將去諾曼底緬懷曾經(jīng)沖向沙灘的將士。也許很多美國人無法理解那些跳上登陸艇的將士的勇氣和責(zé)任感，但你們理解。在西點(diǎn)，你們定義什么才算是愛國。

三年前卡文•懷特（Gavin White）從這所學(xué)院畢業(yè)。他去了阿富汗服役。跟比他先到的軍人一樣，他踏上了異國的土地，幫助那些從未謀面的人。他以身犯險(xiǎn)只為保護(hù)他的社區(qū)、家人和親友。在一次襲擊中卡文失去了一條腿。我去年在瓦爾特•里德（Walter Reed）陸軍醫(yī)療中心見過他。雖然身負(fù)重傷，但他跟剛來西點(diǎn)時(shí)一樣意志堅(jiān)定。他有一個(gè)簡單的愿望。今天他的妹妹摩根即將畢業(yè)，卡文也兌現(xiàn)了他的諾言，他將在這里和她的妹妹互敬軍禮。（歡呼，掌聲）

我們經(jīng)歷了很長一段時(shí)間的戰(zhàn)爭。我們經(jīng)歷了無法預(yù)知的考驗(yàn)，也曾對未來規(guī)劃產(chǎn)生分歧。但是卡文有一種精神，美國有一種精神，它總能讓我們?nèi)〉脛倮?/p>

你們將帶著同胞們的敬意離開這里。你們代表一個(gè)國家的歷史和希望。你們的責(zé)任不僅是保護(hù)我們的國家，還要伸張世界的正義。作為你們的總司令，我知道你們會(huì)不負(fù)所托。愿上帝保佑你們。愿上帝保佑我們的軍人，愿上帝保佑美利堅(jiān)合眾國。（歡呼，掌聲）

（愛英語吧、觀察者網(wǎng) 王楊/譯 觀察者網(wǎng)/校）

（翻頁看奧巴馬演講英文原文）

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. General Trainor, General Clarke, faculty and staff at West Point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.

I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed who is here and a proud graduate of West Point himself. To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.

Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. (Laughter.)

To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point, as commander in chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Laughter, applause.)

Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.

I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made. “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.” Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran, and I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families. (Applause.)

It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who’ve sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Cheers, applause.)

When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al-Qaida’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. (Cheers, applause.) And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.

In fact, by most measures America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise -- who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.

Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War. Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent. From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.

America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. (Applause.) So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century past, and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.

Russia’s aggression towards former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.

From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as commander in chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being.

Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view, from interventionists from the left and right, says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.

And each side can point to history to support its claims, but I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.

As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.

And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake -- abiding self-interest -- in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.

I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe.

But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”

Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point. Four of the service members who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort. A lot more were wounded.

I believe America’s security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted by those deaths. I am haunted by those wounds. And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.

Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.

And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your commander in chief -- to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.

First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.

In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life. (Applause.)

On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation, appeals to international law, and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.

This leads to my second point. For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.

And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al-Qaida leadership. Instead it comes from decentralized al-Qaida affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate. And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi. It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.

We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us. And empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. Together with our allies, America struck huge blows against al-Qaida core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country.

But sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job. And that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police. Earlier this spring, those forces -- those Afghan forces -- secured an election in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history. And at the end of this year, a new Afghan president will be in office, and America’s combat mission will be over.

Now -- (applause) -- that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces. But as we move to a train and advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence there allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. So earlier this year I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel.

Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.

A critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria. As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers there, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. As president, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision. But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people. And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.

So with the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share of support to the Syrian people.

Let me make one final point about our efforts against terrorism. The partnerships I’ve described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do, through capture operations, like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice, or drone strikes, like those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.

There are times when those actions are necessary and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. But as I said last year, in taking direct action, we must uphold standards that reflect our values. That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties, for our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.

I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners. I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts. Our intelligence community has done outstanding work and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.

And this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership, and that is our effort to strengthen and enforce international order.

After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF. These institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier. They reducing the need for unilateral American action and increase restraint among other nations.

Now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well. At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon a gradual evolution in human institutions. And evolving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership.

 

Now, there are lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, like the U.N. or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong. Let me offer just two examples why.

In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions, Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions, NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies, the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy, OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.

And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.

This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions. Yesterday, I spoke to their next president. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order, working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future -- without us firing a shot.

Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years. But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force. And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.

The point is, this is American leadership. This is American strength.

In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge. Now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading.

For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known but we’re now working with NATO allies to meet new missions both within Europe, where our eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s borders, where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.

Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. Now, we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace so that we can prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan. We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)

Keep in mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict. We have a serious problem with cyberattacks, which is why we’re working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens. In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.

That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters, and conflicts over water and food, which is why, next year, I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet.

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership. That’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

(Applause.)

And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo, because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders. (Applause.) That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens. (Applause.) America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost; we stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere -- which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership: our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.

America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism; it is a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war. Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods. Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.

A new century has brought no end to tyranny. In capitals around the globe -- including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has been a crackdown on civil society. The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.

And watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab world, it’s easy to be cynical. But remember that because of America’s efforts -- because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our military -- more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history. Technology is empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control. New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And even the upheaval of the Arab world reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective governance.

In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests, from peace treaties to Israel to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.

And meanwhile, look at a country like Burma, which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States. Forty million people. Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once- closed society; a movement by Burmese leadership away from partnership with North Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies.

We’re now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism. And progress there could be reversed, but if Burma succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot -- American leadership.

In each of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight. That’s why we form alliances -- not only with governments, but also with ordinary people. For unlike other nations, America is not afraid of individual empowerment. We are strengthened by it. We’re strengthened by civil society. We’re strengthened by a free press. We’re strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses. We’re strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people and women and girls. That’s who we are. That’s what we represent. (Applause.)

I saw that through a trip to Africa last year, where American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation, while helping Africans care themselves for their sick. We’re helping farmers get their products to market to feed populations once endangered by famine. We aim to double access to electricity in sub- Saharan Africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy. And all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict.

Now, tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram -- the group that kidnapped those girls.

And that’s we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth. This should be one of the hard-earned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development. They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought -- something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security. It is part of what makes us strong.

Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.

Class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson. You leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can claim. You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces, for in the course of your service, you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts.

You’ll get to know allies and train partners. And you will embody what it means for America to lead the world.

Next week I will go to Normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there. And while it’s hard for many Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you. At West Point, you define what it means to be a patriot.

Three years ago Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan. Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his community and his family and the folks back home. Gavin lost one of his legs in an attack. I met him last year at Walter Reed. He was wounded but just as determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point. And he developed a simple goal. Today his sister Morgan will graduate. And true to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her. (Cheers, applause.)

We have been through a long season of war. We have faced trials that were not foreseen and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward. But there is something in Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character, that will always triumph.

Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side. Your charge now is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just. As your commander in chief, I know you will. May God bless you. May God bless our men and women in uniform. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)