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.)
