ALWAYS HOPE FOR A BETTER FUTURE!
Follow the News with an open mind.
Never stop asking to find out the truth!
Criticisms / Disagreements lead to a better future.
Participation of all is the key.
This page is also a way to improve your English.
Be critical of the current president
Hi, everybody. This Tuesday is an important day for families, businesses, and our economy.
It’s the day a big part of the Affordable Care Act kicks
in, and tens of millions of Americans will finally have the same chance
to buy quality, affordable health care as everyone else.
It’s also the day that a group of far-right Republicans in
Congress might choose to shut down the government and potentially
damage the economy just because they don’t like this law.
I’ll get to that in a second. But first – here’s what the Affordable Care Act means for you.
If you’re one of the vast majority of Americans who
already have health care, you already have new benefits you didn’t
before, like free mammograms and contraceptive care with no copay, and
discounts on prescription medicine for seniors. You’ve already got new
protections in place too, like no more lifetime limits on your care, no
more discriminating against children with preexisting conditions like
asthma, or being able to stay on your parents’ plan until you turn 26.
That’s all in place and available to Americans with health insurance right now.
If you don’t have health insurance, or if you buy it on the individual market, then starting this Tuesday, October 1st, you can visit HealthCare.gov to find what’s called the health insurance marketplace in your state.
This is a website where you can compare insurance plans,
side-by-side, the same way you’d shop for a TV or a plane ticket.
You’ll see new choices and new competition. Many of you will see
cheaper prices, and many of you will be eligible for tax credits that
bring down your costs even more. Nearly 6 in 10 uninsured Americans
will be able to get coverage for $100 or less.
If you’re one of the up to half of Americans with a
preexisting condition, these new plans mean your insurer can no longer
charge you more than anyone else. They can’t charge women more than men
for the same coverage. And they take effect January 1st.
So get covered at HealthCare.gov. And spread the word.
These marketplaces will be open for business on Tuesday, no matter
what. The Affordable Care Act is one of the most important things we’ve
done as a country in decades to strengthen economic security for the
middle class and all who strive to join the middle class. And it is
going to work.
That’s also one of the reasons it’s so disturbing that
Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut down the government – or
worse – if I don’t agree to gut this law.
Congress has two responsibilities right now: pass a budget on time, and pay our bills on time.
If Congress doesn’t pass a budget by Monday – the end of
the fiscal year – the government shuts down, along with many vital
services the American people depend on. On Friday, the Senate passed a
bill to keep the government open. But Republicans in the House have
been more concerned with appeasing an extreme faction of their party
than working to pass a budget that creates new jobs or strengthens the
middle class. And in the next couple days, these Republicans will have
to decide whether to join the Senate and keep the government open, or
create a crisis that will hurt people for the sole purpose of advancing
their ideological agenda.
Past government shutdowns have disrupted the economy.
This shutdown would, too. At a moment when our economy has steadily
gained traction, and our deficits have been falling faster than at any
time in 60 years, a shutdown would be a purely self-inflicted wound.
And that’s why many Republican Senators and Republican governors have
urged Republicans in the House of Representatives to knock it off, pass a
budget, and move on.
This brings me to the second responsibility Congress has.
Once they vote to keep the government open, they must also vote within
the next couple weeks to allow the Treasury to pay the bills for the
money that Congress has already spent. Failure to meet this
responsibility would be far more dangerous than a government shutdown –
it would be an economic shutdown, with impacts not just here, but around
the world.
Unfortunately some Republicans have suggested that unless I
agree to an even longer list of demands – not just gutting the health
care law, but things like cutting taxes for millionaires or rolling back
rules on big banks and polluters– they’ll push the button, throwing
America into default for the first time in history and risk throwing us
back into recession.
I will work with anyone who wants to have a serious
conservation about our economic future. But I will not negotiate over
Congress’ responsibility to pay the bills it has already racked up. I
don’t know how to be more clear about this: no one gets to threaten the
full faith and credit of the United States of America just to extract
ideological concessions. No one gets to hurt our economy and millions
of innocent people just because there are a couple laws you don’t like.
It hasn’t been done in the past, and we’re not going to start doing it
now.
The American people have worked too hard to recover from
crisis to see extremists in their Congress cause another one. And every
day this goes on is another day that we can’t continue the work of
rebuilding the great American middle class. Congress needs to pass a
budget in time, pay its bills on time, and refocus on the everyday
concerns of the people who sent them there.
That’s what I’m focused on. That’s what I’ll keep fighting for.
Thank you.
Wednesday
United Nations
New York, New York
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.)
Hi, everybody. It was five years ago this week that a financial
crisis on Wall Street spread to Main Street, and very nearly turned a
recession into a depression.
In a matter of months, millions of Americans were robbed of their
jobs, their homes, their savings – after a decade in which they’d
already been working harder and harder to just get by.
It was a crisis from which we’re still trying to recover. But thanks
to the grit and determination of the American people, we are steadily
recovering.
Over the past three and a half years, our businesses have created
seven and a half million new jobs. Our housing market is healing. We’ve
become less dependent on foreign oil. Health care costs are growing at
the slowest rate in 50 years. And in just over a week, millions of
Americans without health care will be able to get covered for less than
$100 a month.
So our economy is gaining traction. And we’re finally tackling
threats to middle-class prosperity that Washington neglected for far too
long. But as any middle-class family listening right now knows, we’ve
got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. And after five
years spent digging out of crisis, the last thing we need is for
Washington to manufacture another.
But that’s what will happen in the next few weeks if Congress doesn’t meet two deadlines.
First: the most basic Constitutional duty Congress has is passing a budget. But if it doesn’t pass one before September 30th
– a week from Monday – the government will shut down. And so will many
services the American people expect. Military personnel, including
those deployed overseas, won’t get their paychecks on time. Federal
loans for rural communities, small business owners, and new home buyers
will be frozen. Critical research into life-saving discoveries and
renewable energy will be immediately halted. All of this will be
prevented if Congress just passes a budget.
Second: Congress must authorize the Treasury to pay America’s bills.
This is done with a simple, usually routine vote to raise what’s called
the debt ceiling. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and
every President has signed it – Democrats and Republicans, including
President Reagan. And if this Congress doesn’t do it within the next
few weeks, the United States will default on its obligations and put our
entire economy at risk.
This is important: raising the debt ceiling is not the
same as approving more spending. It lets us pay for what Congress
already spent. It doesn’t cost a dime, or add a penny to our deficit.
In fact, right now, our deficits are already falling at the fastest rate
since the end of World War II. And by the end of this year, we’ll have
cut our deficits by more than half since I took office.
But reducing our deficits and debt isn’t even what the current standoff in Congress is about.
Now, Democrats and some reasonable Republicans are willing to raise
the debt ceiling and pass a sensible budget – one that cuts spending on
what we don’t need so we can invest in what we do. And I want to work
with those Democrats and Republicans on a better bargain for the middle
class.
But there’s also a faction on the far right of the Republican party
who’ve convinced their leadership to threaten a government shutdown if
they can’t shut off the Affordable Care Act. Some are actually willing
to plunge America into default if they can’t defund the Affordable Care
Act.
Think about that. They’d actually plunge this country back into
recession – all to deny the basic security of health care to millions of
Americans.
Well, that’s not happening. And they know it’s not happening.
The United States of America is not a deadbeat nation. We are a
compassionate nation. We are the world’s bedrock investment. And doing
anything to threaten that is the height of irresponsibility. That’s
why I will not negotiate over the full faith and credit of the United
States. I will not allow anyone to harm this country’s reputation, or
threaten to inflict economic pain on millions of our own people, just to
make an ideological point.
So, we are running out of time to fix this. But we could fix it
tomorrow. Both houses of Congress can take a simple vote to pay our
bills on time, then work together to pass a budget on time.
Then we can declare an end to governing by crisis and govern
responsibly, by putting our focus back where it should always be – on
creating new jobs, growing our economy, and expanding opportunity not
just for ourselves, but for future generations.
Thank you.
This week, when I addressed the nation on Syria, I said that – in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military force – there is the possibility of a diplomatic solution. Russia has indicated a new willingness to join with the international community in pushing Syria to give up its chemical weapons, which the Assad regime used in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people on August 21. I also asked Congress to postpone a vote on the use of military force while we pursue this diplomatic path. And that’s what we’re doing.
At my direction, Secretary of State Kerry is in discussions with his Russian counterpart. But we’re making it clear that this can’t be a stalling tactic. Any agreement needs to verify that the Assad regime and Russia are keeping their commitments: that means working to turn Syria’s chemical weapons over to international control and ultimately destroying them. This would allow us to achieve our goal – deterring the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons, degrading their ability to use them, and making it clear to the world that we won’t tolerate their use.
We’ve seen indications of progress. As recently as a week ago, the Assad regime would not admit that it possessed chemical weapons. Today, it does. Syria has signaled a willingness to join with 189 other nations, representing 98 percent of humanity, in abiding by an international agreement that prohibits the use of chemical weapons. And Russia has staked its own credibility on supporting this outcome.
These are all positive developments. We’ll keep working with the international community to see that Assad gives up his chemical weapons so that they can be destroyed. We will continue rallying support from allies around the world who agree on the need for action to deter the use of chemical weapons in Syria. And if current discussions produce a serious plan, I’m prepared to move forward with it.
But we are not just going to take Russia and Assad’s word for it. We need to see concrete actions to demonstrate that Assad is serious about giving up his chemical weapons. And since this plan emerged only with a credible threat of U.S. military action, we will maintain our military posture in the region to keep the pressure on the Assad regime. And if diplomacy fails, the United States and the international community must remain prepared to act.
The use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world is an affront to human dignity and a threat to the security of people everywhere. As I have said for weeks, the international community must respond to this outrage. A dictator must not be allowed to gas children in their beds with impunity. And we cannot risk poison gas becoming the new weapon of choice for tyrants and terrorists the world over.
We have a duty to preserve a world free from the fear of chemical weapons for our children. But if there is any chance of achieving that goal without resorting to force, then I believe we have a responsibility to pursue that path. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of
peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has
turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed.
Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with
allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition,
and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for
military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war
through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st,
when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,
including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are
sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas.
Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his
dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible
night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical
weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them
off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of
war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American
GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches
of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of
the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no
distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a
century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate
overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use
of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98
percent of humanity.
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along
with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical
weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell
phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and
humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people
who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In
the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical
weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix
sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired
rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the
regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly
after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with
the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military
machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased
their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.
We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site
that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the
world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from
memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The
question now is what the United States of America, and the international
community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those
people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international
law, it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime
will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against
these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice
about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would
again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it
could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons,
and to use them to attack civilians.
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons
could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to
stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions
against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally,
Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by
building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at
stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that
it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond
to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted
military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad
from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use
them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their
use.
That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also
the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even
though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it
was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our
security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is
stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I
believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand
together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and
more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more
burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s
representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and
Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is
not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years
working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq.
Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want
all of us in Washington
-- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building
our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our
kids, growing our middle class.
It’s no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions.
So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard
from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent
to me.
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a
slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still
recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more
bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the
ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or
Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or
Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective:
deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s
capabilities.
Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don’t
take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point
in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military
doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to
Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove
another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes
us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make
Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We
don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the
ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they
might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither
Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to
his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming
force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of
America.
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we
get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where -- as
one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of
human rights?”
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.
But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people
there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from
being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the
Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with
dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would
redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens
those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to
other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people
wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful
solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried
diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical
weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some
encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S.
military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President
Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with
the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical
weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons,
and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which
prohibits their use.
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed,
and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its
commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat
of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because
Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to
postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this
diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his
Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions
with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest
allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in
consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the
U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons,
and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also
give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what
happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from
allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East --
who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their
current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position
to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our
military and their families for their incredible strength and
sacrifices.
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United
States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing
more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing
them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a
better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile
your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a
cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to
reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those
images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital
floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are
simply not enough.
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you
watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then
ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America
sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and
we choose to look the other way?
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination
to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us
from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have
cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our
national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a
world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be
used.
America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things
happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every
wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from
being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the
long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America
different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with
resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
It is described as a basic right and a foundation for life-long learning,
but the United Nations says millions of people around the world are
still unable to read and write.
Security is challenging all the development processes in Afghanistan,
that includes the development process of education .... Still we have
hundreds of schools which are closed because of security concerns. And
we still have two million children which are out of the schools. They
can't go to school because of these problems .... 50 percent of the
schools have no buildings ....
Kabir Haqmal, the spokesman for Afghanistan's minister of education
A statement released by the UN's education arm, UNESCO, to mark
International Literacy Day said: "Literacy is much more than an
educational priority - it is the ultimate investment in the future. We
wish to see a century where every child is able to read and to use this
skill to gain autonomy."
According to UNESCO, almost 774 million
people in the world lack basic reading and writing skills, and of those,
almost two-thirds are women and girls.
Some 123 million young people, aged 15 to 24, are unable to read and write, and again the female share is more than 60 percent.
The
lowest literacy rates are in south and west Asia, which is home to half
of the global illiterate population, and sub-Saharan Africa, which has
some of the lowest rates - below 50 percent in 10 countries, and
dropping to 25 percent in Guinea.
Providing universal primary education is among the UN's eight Millennium Development Goals, and there has been progress.
By
the target year of 2015, two-thirds of adults and three-quarters of
youth in sub-Saharan Africa are expected to be able to read and write,
and in south and west Asia about nine out of 10 young adults are
projected to be literate.
But obstacles remain as the world strives to provide education for all.
So what are the challenges facing UNESCO? Why are so many people
still unable to read and write? And what can be done to educate girls
and women across the world?
Inside Story, with presenter
Shiulie Ghosh, is joined by guests: Jordan Naidoo, a senior adviser on
education for the UN children's charity UNICEF, and Kabir Haqmal, the
director of Information and spokesman for Afghanistan's minister of
education.
"There has been immense progress over the last 10 to 15 years ... but
it still needs a lot more attention to providing access [to education]
for girls that [is] closer to the communities, where girls don't have to
travel too far, because parents and community members see the issue of
threats along the way. But [we also need] ... to encourage parents and
community members to see the value of education for all children, not
just boys.
While literacy rates in general have increased, women
still make up over 60 percent of those that are illiterate. There's a
number of reasons and one of the main reasons is that even when girls
are enrolled often they are forced to drop out for various reasons .... I
think one of the main reasons remains social attitudes, but it's also a
question of providing infrastructure, schools closer to communities ...
we also have to change teaching practices .... The issue is not only
about access but also improving the quality of learning .... Often, even
when girls are enrolled, they face many other problems - acute
discrimination, [a] curriculum [that] is not accurately matched to the
needs of all children .... We have to work on access, quality and other
measures to ensure that girls not only get into school but actually do
learn."
Jordan Naidoo, a senior adviser on education for the UN children's charity UNICEF.
Emerging markets are having a tough time the world
over, but who is to blame? Is it the rich world's monetary policies or
have more deep-seated problems merely been masked for years by stellar
economic growth?
A few months ago, the headline was simple: The
blame for slumping currencies from Brazil to Indonesia was to be put
firmly at the door of the United States Federal Reserve.
Guido
Mantenga, Brazil's finance minister, made it clear when he declared: "We
are now facing new turbulence in the financial markets caused by the
Fed, which has caused serious problems not only in Brazil but around the
world."
But there are those who say all is not as it seems.
In
India, for example, Raghuram Rajan, the new governor of the Central
Bank, faces an uphill challenge. That country's appetite for gold and
oil means that it is running a current account deficit, while subsidies
and welfare programmes have increased its budget deficit. And rampant
inflation and corruption are only making the situation worse.
Then there is another aspect to this problem. According to Bloomberg,
emerging markets, with the exception of China, have more than $2.8tn of
currency reserves. But it seems that they are saving that money and
using interest rates to stop the outflow of money, which is failing to
have the desired impact of slowing a rout in currencies.
At the G20 in St Petersburg, BRICS nations pledged to create a $100bn
pool of currency reserves to protect themselves from any shocks.
Despite that pledge, China and Russia stressed the need for nations to
look within to rebalance their economies, thus ruling out bailouts.
Indonesia
is a key example of the troubles afflicting emerging markets. Until a
year ago, its economy was doing well. But now its currency has plunged,
growth is slowing and inflation is increasing rapidly. The government
has announced new economic measures, including the easing of regulations
and tax deductions, in a bid to restore investor confidence, but will
this be enough to fix one of the most important economies in Asia?
On this edition of Counting the Cost, we revisit the world's
falling currencies. But this time we turn the spotlight on emerging
economies and ask if they need to share some of the blame for their
malaise.
Water wars
Will the wars of the future be fought over water?
Many of us
can simply turn on a tap and have near unlimited access to water. But
what happens when this isn't the case? And are many of us oblivious to
just what a source of conflict water can be?
Take the River Nile,
for example. That flows through 11 African countries and has prompted
all sorts of battles for its control. Then there is the River Jordan.
Jordan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories depend on it.
And the diversion of the river was one of the causes of the 1967
Arab-Israeli war. The Euphrates River has been at the heart of conflict
between Turkey and Syria in the past, while India and Pakistan are in
disagreement over the water that flows from Indian-administered Kashmir
into Pakistan's Indus River basin.
Will these types of conflicts become more widespread and serious? It is World Water Week, so Counting the Cost decided to take a closer look at a potential source of conflict.
Africa's aviation hub?
If you think of an aviation hub, what comes to mind? London's
Heathrow for Europe, Changi Airport in Singapore, or Dubai in the Middle
East, perhaps?
But could Nigeria fulfil this role for Africa?
More than 10 million people travel through its 22 airports each year
and that number is set to increase to 50 million over the next decade.
China has invested $500m to build more international terminals in the
country and to assist with training and investment in virtually every
area of the aviation sector.
"Essentially what we want to accomplish, at the end of the day, is to
have Nigeria become the natural hub for the region, and then extend it
for the continent, because we want to leverage on the population that we
have," Princess Stella Adaeze Oduah, Nigeria's minister of aviation,
declared.
However, some travellers passing through Nigeria's 22 airports say
they are yet to feel the changes and improvements being made in the
sector.
"Its been chaotic. I think if there had been a little bit more
organisation, in terms of where departures are, arrivals, in terms of
customs checks and so forth, it would be a better experience," a
passenger named Prithvi told Al Jazeera.
Analysts say previous governments have not been committed to
improving the aviation sector, but that this administration is investing
heavily in infrastructure and training to get its ambitious ideas off
the ground.
So, will the Nigerian government achieve its goal? And if it does, how could this impact the Nigerian economy?
Almost three weeks ago in Syria, more than 1,000 innocent
people – including hundreds of children – were murdered in the worst
chemical weapons attack of the 21st
century. And the United States has presented a powerful case to the
world that the Syrian government was responsible for this horrific
attack on its own people.
This was not only a direct attack on human dignity; it is a
serious threat to our national security. There’s a reason governments
representing 98 percent of the world’s people have agreed to ban the use
of chemical weapons. Not only because they cause death and destruction
in the most indiscriminate and inhumane way possible – but because they
can also fall into the hands of terrorist groups who wish to do us
harm.
That’s why, last weekend, I announced that, as Commander
in Chief, I decided that the United States should take military action
against the Syrian regime. This is not a decision I made lightly.
Deciding to use military force is the most solemn decision we can make
as a nation.
As the leader of the world’s oldest Constitutional
democracy, I also know that our country will be stronger if we act
together, and our actions will be more effective. That’s why I asked
Members of Congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use
of force.
What we’re talking about is not an open-ended
intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There
would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be
limited, both in time and scope – designed to deter the Syrian
government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to
do so.
I know that the American people are weary after a decade
of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is
winding down. That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of
somebody else’s war.
But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a
blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria. Failing to
respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical
weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of
terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible
signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their
use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our
national security.
That’s why we can’t ignore chemical weapons attacks like
this one – even if they happen halfway around the world. And that’s why
I call on Members of Congress, from both parties, to come together and
stand up for the kind of world we want to live in; the kind of world we
want to leave our children and future generations.
