Skip to main content

tv   Consider This  Al Jazeera  May 28, 2014 10:00am-11:01am EDT

10:00 am
hello. i'm del walters in new york. you're watching al jazeera america. we're awaiting the president right now. the president about to deliver the commencement address at west point. he's expected to announce a major foreign policy shift for the u.s., all of this one day after the president announced a major drawdown of u.s. forces in afghanistan on tuesday announcing plans to end the presence there by the end of his term in office. three years ago there were more than 100,000 troops stationed in afghanistan. the president saying he will lower that number to 32,000 this month, and below 10,000 by the
10:01 am
end of next year. our white house correspondent mike viqueira is in washington. what else can we expect to hear from the president today? >> reporter: we can look at today as the third in the three-act play. the president had the surprise visit in the heart of afghanistan over the memorial day weekend on sunday there addressing the troops. some of the 32,000 left there now after a peak of 100,000 at the time of president obama's surge way back in 2011. then we saw the president yesterday, another surprise appearance frankly in the rose garden where he put some flesh on the bones of something he announced long ago, and that was his goal to remove all american combat troops out of afghanistan by the end of the year. what was new? the number that will be left in that residual force you just described by the end of the year, 9800, by the end of next year half that pament and by the end of 2016 a normal embassy force with security personnel of course around him.
10:02 am
but then today what's being billed as a major foreign policy speech, the president said yesterday he wants to turn the page from iraq and afghanistan, and we expect him to focus on new counterterror threats in other areas of the world. the goal here for the president is to open a new era in american foreign policy. it was the first year of his administration when president obama went to west point to announce a surge in american forces in afghanistan. >> as commander in chief, i have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 u.s. troops to afghanistan. >> reporter: four and a half years later the president returns to west point, this time after announcing how the american role in afghanistan will end. >> it's time to turn the page over a decade when so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> reporter: having declared al qaeda decimated in afghanistan, mr. obama will focus on fighting
10:03 am
affiliates and extremists in other unstable parts of the world, including africa. much of the speech is expected to be a rebuttal to critics who point to syria, to ukraine, to iran, and to the middle east, all conflicts where they view the president as misguided and weak. >> this is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in america's strength anymore. >> reporter: asked to respond, the president grew agitated. >> why is everything so eager to use military force after we just went through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished? >> reporter: mr. obama again called for diplomacy and the use of force only as a last resort. >> you hit singles and doubles.
10:04 am
every once in a while we may hit a home run. >> reporter: there's another obstacle in the president's way. a war wary public and it's reluctance to engage overseas. >> americans may say they want to do less, but they don't want their security threatened or broader leadership jeopardized because we pulled back too far or too fast. >> reporter: the president is expected to strike that last theme, touch on it partially in the speech today, del, saying american is committed to lead walking that fine line between isolationist tendencies in this country and the need to engage in the new world. now, a cynic might say we heard this before. at the outset we saw the reset with russia and didn't work out so well. the pivot towards asia, and a lot of people have concerns there. there are not long-time allies that are angry with president obama over the course of the last several months. we can point to saudi arabia and
10:05 am
the president's failure to follow-through when syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people. one bit of news that comes out of the speech today from john kerry in a series of interviews this morning, and it's on syria. we expect the president to make some sort of announcement about a coordinated effort on the part of allies to further arm the opposition there or further assist, i should say, the opposition in syria. secretary kerry declaring that the divisions that existed between moderates and extremists in the syrian opposition are no longer there. a lot of people might be surprised to hear about that. he also says the vision among gulf nations and the approach towards syria have been diminished somewhat as well. he's also going to announce, president obama, a $5 billion fund to help other nations train in anti-terror efforts, del. >> mike viqueira live at the white house. please stand by. p.j. crowley is now a professor
10:06 am
at georgetown university. p.j., i know you know the drill. we are awaiting the president, so if and when he makes his way to the podium, in this case when he makes his way to the podium, we will cut you off politely, we hope. >> i understand that. >> i want to ask you, is there anything the president can say in this speech today that is going to satisfy those on the left and right when it comes to international diplomacy? >> well, i think the president is going to reiterate that the united states is not withdrawing from the world, but it's going to use its tools of power and influence in a different way. most people are used to the last decade or more where military force was the primary tool used. now as the president has focused on in a challenge like ukraine, you know, using pressure but more on the economic realm and the political realm rather than military realm. so he is going to turn a page. he's reinforcing his instinct, which is to pull away from
10:07 am
military power as the first resort using it only as a last resort. >> if there is a so-called obama doctrine, have we seen it playing out in the sense that he recognizes that the nation does not have the stomach for the wars of old and, in fact, the wars of old don't seem to be working anymore, and diplomacy has to be given a little bit wider stance? >> i think in the obama doctrine, it's more like a reaffirmation we've seen in the past, the powell doctrine. many elements that colin powell enunciated in the 1990s ring true in the challenges. define the interest. can military force in combination with diplomacy and other tools, you know, produce a desired outcome? what is the cost of that outcome, and what is the exit
10:08 am
strategy? those are questions that the president has challenged here over the course of his five years in office, and i think that's undoubtedly going to be the manner in which he proceeds through the remainder of his second term. >> this is a question that i posed to a guest this morning, which is that as you look at the landscape of wars past and iraq now following the u.s. occupation there, if you look at the landscape of afghanistan, you look at syria now at three years of bloody civil war, the infrastructure of those countries are obliterated. is it time for the united states to lead in the effort to get people to try and solve their differences with dialogue as opposed to guns? >> i think what president obama has tried to do is say, look, the united states will help, you know, support a solution that emanates from inside these conflict areas, is not going to try to impose a solution from outside. or if it's going to impose a
10:09 am
solution from outside or solve a problem with the outside, it's done with a wide range of partners based on shared interests, not necessarily, you know, the united states acting alone. >> p.j. crowley, former state department spokesman. please stand by. mike viqueira, one thought from you before we take a short commercial break, and that is it is a mixed signal that is begin to the parents of graduates of west point. you have parents who don't want their loved ones going into any type of conflict. in the other sense, these are people that trained at the nation's premier military institute for battle. >> reporter: there's an interesting symmetry, if not an irony involved in the president's appearance here today. remember back in 2009 in december, del, when the president somewhat reluctantly went to west point, the same venue, though not at the graduation ceremony, and denounced the -- announced the afghan troop surge. troops on the ground to counter
10:10 am
the progress made by the taliban and al qaeda affiliates in afghanistan. ever since then and during the 2012 campaign, the president promised to end the war. he's essentially fulfilling the promise now. look, there's no guarantee, notwithstanding the fact that the president said al qaeda is on the run in afghanistan and he wants to focus counterterrorism efforts elsewhere, there's no guarantee with any president that the taliban and other terrorist elements within afghanistan could be resurgent after u.s. troops are gone. i want to point out one or thing as we point out the larger is e issues of obama doctrine. i was with the white house press corps with the recent trip to asia, and i'm struck at every stop the president was compelled to say that the united states military would come to the defense of countries it is duty-bound to defend.
10:11 am
the senkaku islands and he said they would fight. the philippines, a similar already treaty, the spratley islands. next week he goes to poland formally under the thumb of the iron curtain of the soeviets dominated by russians at the at the time. they want reassurance the articles in nato with backed up by force. they look at ukraine and are very nervous. >> mike viqueira. maya angelou has died. she was 88. she died at home in north carolina where she spent her final days. she's best known for her book "i know why the caged bird sings." she was america's poet laureate.
10:12 am
there's no cause of death, but she was known to have a history of heart problems. we talked to her after the death of nelson mandela. again angelou is dead today at the age of 86. we're going to take a break. we'll be right back. nationwide, it means 25% >>. >> james, we are losing you on the skype connection. that was james from the minister institute in ukraine. thank you for being with us in europe there's another
10:13 am
10:14 am
good afternoon to you. this is al jazeera america live from new york city. welcome back to the continuing coverage of the graduation at west point. as you can see, the president is making his way to the stage. this is the president of the united states about to deliver what is being billed as a major foreign policy address. [ music ] [ star-spangl"star-spangled ban]
10:15 am
[ music ] [ cheers and applause ] >> order, arms. on, covered.
10:16 am
>> the president is about to give the commencement address at west point military academy. p.j. crowley, as we await the president to be introduced formally and begin speaking, i had a question based on a comment that mike viqueira made. that is, as we wind down this war in afghanistan, you being a student of history, is there ever a time in history when it's easy to end a war and everybody on both sides of the political aisle seem to be satisfied? >> well, you know, as the president mentioned yesterday, you know, wars are ending differently. they have a different nature on them. they're now limited. it's not an all-out fight like we saw in world war ii, and they tend not to end with a signing ceremony on the battleship like the uss missouri. they end inconclusively. when you think about it, del, the korean war has never ended formally. there's still a condition of hostilities but arm armistice on
10:17 am
the korean peninsula. the challenges to marry military objectives with political objectives ultimately you not only want to use military force decisively, but to achieve a durable, political end. that has been the challenge when you think through the wars that have been fought over the past 20, 25 years, they end inconclusively and in a sense the military aspect ends but the diplomatic aspect continues for decades. >> i apologize to the people at george washington where you work. i know i introduced you as a professor of georgetown. as we continue, would you describe the battle that goes on in washington between those who are interested in a diplomatic solution and also the fact that we are a major exporter of arms around the world, and that there are varying interests around the beltway that say that if there is going to be a war, there's
10:18 am
profit to be made. >> well, i mean, the united states, you know, is the major power in the world. it has the most formidable military in the world and the strongest weaponry in the world. there are many positive elements to that in terms of interoperability, because when you want to go to war, you want to go to war with partners. that means that, you know, your equipment is compatible with their equipment and your radios are compatible and your systems work with their systems. so that's a positive element in terms of building a coalition to achieve a military objective. obviously, you know, certainly in conflict zones, these conflict zones are awash with weapons. not necessarily always u.s. weapons. think about the way that libya ended, you had a surge of weapons out of libya that found their way to mali, to the central african republic and now
10:19 am
to nigeria. that's a challenge in terms of your ability to go into a conflict zone, and with the very real possibility of you're facing a formidable threat, not necessarily one that is an organized military. >> mr. crowley, stand by. mike, i know you had something to add. >> reporter: i was going to point out we've been through a period like this in recent history. remember the peace dividend after the fall of the berlin wall where many in congress said the defense budget has to be slashed? it, in fact, was reduced dramatically during the clinton years, but many fought that. again, we see the similar dynamic of capitol hill. for all the talk of austerity and conservative budgets and cutting the budgets, when you try to transform the military in terms of the kind of hardware they need, i'm thinking now of the plan, the proposal to cut the venerated and much loved a-10 warthog aircraft, the tank killer, the air-to-ground combat
10:20 am
aircraft. suddenly you have politicians of every strife, many representing their interests and parts manufactured in their districts who will dig in their heels and fight against that. we've seen a similar fight as a defense bill makes its way through congress over the size of the military and the national guard for that matter. so you'll have a similar political dynamic that always existed here. the new climate of austerity notwithstanding. >> thank you very much. p.j., i want to piggyback on something mike said. after these wars wind down, there's always the question of what to do next. he points out correctly, so you pointed out that after the berlin wall fell, there were concerns about all of the weapons that were stored in weapon stockpiles across europe. be i believe the clinton administration went to capitol hill and argued $96 billion or was it more than that in money needed to basically get those stockpiles away from all of those countries in the event that there would be hostilities?
10:21 am
>> well, one of the great programs of the post-cold ar era was the so-called nonlugar program. it was of invaluable importance in terms of taking nuclear weapons and nuclear material out of some of these areas and securing them so they couldn't, you know, find their way into the hans of rouge actors or extremist groups. i think we have to figure out how to rebalance this. it's not just about, you know, defense spending. i served 26 years in the military. we fight wars differently. we can deliver lethal force not with 150,000 troops but with unmanned aerial vehicles in various parts of the world. so you're doing -- you can do a lot with far fewer people than perhaps you could 50 years ago. i think if there's a worry within the national security
10:22 am
establishment, it's that we have invested so heavily in military weaponry. mike went through the politics of that, as we muay to an area where now you balance your instruments of national power, we're finding that we don't necessarily have all of the diplomatic tools, all of the economic tools, all of the development tools so that when you stop a conflict, how do you rebuild that society and prevent the conflict from re-emerging again. >> i was also struck by something else that i saw yesterday here in new york, and that is that there was a graduation taking place. if for a second p.j. you would put your professor hat on, are your students talking about these conflicts? you can answer that question on the back end because right now we are going to the president of the united states. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you, general, for that
10:23 am
introduction. to general trainor and general clark, the faculty and staff at west point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the united states army. i'd like to acknowledge the army's leadership, general mccue, secretary mccue and general as well as senator jack reed who is here as a proud graduate of west point himself. to the class of 2014, i congratulate you on taking your place on the long gray line. among you is the first all-female command team, erin mallin and austin b.a.r.t. and you have a rhodes scholar and
10:24 am
josh herbeck proves that west point accuracy extends beyond the three-point line. to the entire class, let me reassure you at these final hours at west point, as commander in chief, i hereby absolve all cadets on restriction for minor conduct offenses. [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> let me just add that nobody ever did that for me when i was in school. i know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. joe demoss, whose son, james, is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices
10:25 am
you've made. deep inside, he wrote, we want to explode with pride in what they are committing to do in the service of our country. like several graduates, james is a combat veteran, and i would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us but to the more than 2.5 million americans who have served in iraq and afghanistan as well as their families. [ applause ]
10:26 am
this particularly useful time for americans to reflect on those who sacrificed so much for our freedom. a few days after memorial day. you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in iraq or afghanistan. [ cheers and applause ] when i first spoke at west point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in iraq. we were preparing to surge in afghanistan. our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al qaeda's core leadership. those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks.
10:27 am
our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. we have removed our troops from iraq. we are winding down our war in afghanistan. al qaeda's leadership on the border region between pakistan and afghanistan has been decimated, and osama bin laden is no more. [ cheers and applause ] through it all we've refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of american strength, a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who is willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home. in fact, by most measures
10:28 am
america has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. those who argue otherwise, who suggest that america is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. think about it. our military has no fear. the odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the cold war. meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on earth, our businesses the most innovative. each year we grow more energy independent. from europe to asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivalled in
10:29 am
the history of nations. america continues to attract striving immigrants. the values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. when a typhoon hits the philippines or schoolgirls are kidnapped in nigeria or masked men occupy a building in ukraine, it is america that the world looks to for help. [ applause ] so the united states is and remains the one indispensable nation that has been true for the century past, and it will be true for the century to come. the world is changing with
10:30 am
accelerating speed. this presents opportunity but also new dangers. we know all too well after 9/11 just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. russia's aggression towards former soviet states unnerves capitals in europe, while china's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. from brazil to india rising middle classes compete with us. governments seek a greater say in global forums. even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible
10:31 am
to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago. it will be your generation's task to respond to this new world. the question we face, the question each of you will face is not whether america will lead but how we will lead not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe. now this question isn't new. at least since george washington served as commander in chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements
10:32 am
that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being. today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in syria or ukraine or the central african republic are not ours to solve. not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many americans. a different view from interventionists from the left and right says if we ignore these conflicts it's at our own peril. america's willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and america's failure to act in the face of syrian brutality or russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future. each side can point to history to support its claims.
10:33 am
i believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. it is absolutely true that in the 21st century american isolationism is not an option. we don't have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. if nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to american citizens. as the syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern ukraine or in the south china sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military. we can't ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.
10:34 am
beyond these narrow rationales, i believe we have a real stake, abiding self-interest in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief. i believe that a world of dwraeter freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative but helps to keep us safe. to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has hey military solution. since world war ii some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without
10:35 am
thinking through the consequences. without building international support and legitimacy for our action. without leveling with the american people about the sacrifices required. tough talk often draws headlines, but war really conforms to slogans. as general eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947, war is man kind's most tragic and stupid folly. to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men. like eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you
10:36 am
here at west point. four of the service members who stood in the audience when i announced the surge of our forces in afghanistan gave their lives in that effort. a lot more were wounded. i believe america's security demanded those deployments, but i am haunted by those deaths. i am haunted by those wounds. i would betray my duty to you and to the country i loved if i ever sent you into harm's way simply because i saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed. or because i was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for america to avoid looking weak. here's my bottom line.
10:37 am
america must always lead on the world stage. if we don't, no one else will. the military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. u.s. military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership in every instance. just because we have the best hammer, does not mean that every problem is a nail. because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader and especially your commander in chief to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. so let me spend the rest of my
10:38 am
time describing my vision for how the united states of america and our military should lead in the years to come. for you it will be part of that leadership. first, let me repeat a principle i put forward at the outset of my presidency. the united states will use military force unilaterally if necessary when our core interests demand it. when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger. in these circumstances we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are p proportional and effective and just. international opinion matters. america should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way
10:39 am
of life. [ applause ] on the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the united states, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the tlesh tresh hold for military action must be higher. in such circumstances we shouldn't go it alone. instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. we have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation. appeals to international law, and if just necessary and effective multi-lateral military
10:40 am
action. in such circumstances we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed. more likely to be sustained. less likely to lead to costly mistakes. this leads to my second point. for the foreseeable future the most direct threat to america at home and abroad remains terrorism. but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. i believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy drawing on the successes and shortcommings of our experience in iraq and afghanistan to more effectively partner with
10:41 am
countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold. the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today's principle threat no longer comes from a centralized al qaeda leadership. instead it comes from decentralized al qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in countries where they operate. this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attack against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of u.s. personnel overseas being attacked as we saw in benghazi. it heightens the danger to less defensible targets as we saw in the shopping mall in nairobi. so we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local
10:42 am
resentments. we need partners to fight terrorists alongside us. empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in afghanistan. together with our allies america struck huge blows against al qaeda core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country, but sustaining this progress depends on the ability of afghans to do the job. that's why we trained hundreds of thousands of afghan soldiers and police. earlier this spring those forces, those afghan forces secured an election in which afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history. at the end of this year a new afghan president will be in office, and america's combat mission will be over.
10:43 am
now -- [ applause ] that was an enormous achievement made because of america's armed forces. as we move to a train and advise mission in afghanistan, our reduced presence there allowses us to draet threats in the middle east and africa. earlier this year we dwped a plan for a network of partnerships. today as part of this effort i'm calling on congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions including training
10:44 am
security forces in yemen who have gone on the offensive against al qaeda, supporting a multi-national force to keep the peace in somalia, working with european allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in libya, and facilitating french operations in mali. a critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in syria. as frustrating as it is, there's no easy answer there. no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. as president i made a decision that we should not put american troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian war, and i believe that is the right decision. but that does not mean we shouldn't help the syrian people stand up against a dictator who
10:45 am
bombs and starves his own people. in helping those who fight for the right of all syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos. so with the additional resources i'm announcing today, we will step up the efforts to support syria's neighbors. jordan and lebanon, turkey and iraq as they contend are refugees and confront terrorists working across syria's borders. i will work with congress to ramp up support for those in the syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in europe and the arab world to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make sure that those countries and not just the united states are contributing their fair share of
10:46 am
the support of the syrian people. let me make one final point about our efforts against terrorism. the partnerships i've described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. whether we have actionable intelligence, that's what we do. through capture operations like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice or drone strikes like those we carried out in yemen and somalia. there are times when those actions are necessary, and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. but as i said last year, in taking direct action we must uphold standards that reflect our values.
10:47 am
that means taking strikes only when we face a continuing imminent threat and only where there is no certainty -- that there is near certainty of no civilian casualties. for our actions should meet a simple test, we must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield. i also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. we have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or trading partners. i will increasingly turn to the military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts. our intelligence community has done outstanding work, and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and
10:48 am
international suspicion. we ruin legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government. this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of american leadership, and that is our effort to strernten and enforce international order. after world war ii america had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress. from nato and the united nations to the world bank and imf. these institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier. they reduce the need for unilateral american action and increase restraint among other nations. now just as the world has
10:49 am
changed this architecture must change as well. at the height of the cold war, president kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon a gradual evolution in human institutions, and involving these international institutions to meet the nademands of today must be a critical part of american leadership. now, there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often down-play the effectiveness of multi-lateral action. for them working through international institutions like the u.n. or respecting international law is a sign of weakness. i think they're wrong. let me offer just two examples why. in ukraine russia's recent actions recalled the days when soviet tanked rolled into eastern europe, but this isn't the cold war.
10:50 am
our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate russia right away. because of american leadership, the world immediately condemned russian actions, europe and the g-7 joined us to impose sanctions, nato reinforced our commitment to eastern european allies, the imf is helping to stabilize ukraine's economy, and this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to russian propaganda and russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks. this weekend ukrainians voted by the millions. yesterday i spoke to their next preside president. we don't know how the situation will play out, and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on
10:51 am
behalf of international order working with international institutions has begin a chance for the ukrainian people to choose their future. without us firing a shot. similarly, despite frequent warnings from the united states and israel and others, the iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years, but at the beginning of my presidency we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the iranian economy while extending the hand of diplomacy to the iranian government. now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. the odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. but for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a
10:52 am
break-through agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force. and throughout these negotiations it has been our willingness to work through multi-lateral channels that kept the world on our side. the point is this is american leadership. this is american strength. in each case we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge. now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading. for example, nato is the strongest alliance but we're working with allies to meet new missions both in europe but also beyond europe's borders. our nato allies have to pull
10:53 am
their weight to counter terrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners. likewise, the u.n. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. now we need to make sure that those nations that provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace so we can prevent the type of killing we've seen in the congo and sudan. we will deepen our investment in countries that support the peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessen the needs for us to put our own troops in harm's way. it's a smart investment. it's the right way to lead. [ applause ] keep in mind not all international norms relate to armed conflict. we have a serious problem with cyber attacks, which is why
10:54 am
we're working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens. in the asia-pacific we support nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with china on maritime disputes in the south china sea, and we're working to resolve these disputes through international law. that spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help to shape your time in uniform as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disaster in conflicts over water and food. that's why next year i intend to make sure america is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet. you see, american influence is always stronger when we lead by
10:55 am
example. we can't exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else. we can't call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole of our political leaders deny it's taking place. we can't try to resolve problems in the south china sea when we have refused to make sure that the law of the sea convention is ratified by our united states senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say that the treaty advances our national security. that's not leadership. that's retreat. that's not strength. that's weakness. it would be utterly foreign to
10:56 am
leaders like roosevelt and truman, eisenhower and kennedy. i believe in american exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law. it's our willingness to affirm them through our actions. that's why i will continue to push to close gitmo, because american values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders. that's why we put in place new restrictions on how america collects and uses intelligence, because we will have fewer partners and let perceptive if an effort takes hold we conduct
10:57 am
surveillance against ordinary citizens. we stand for the more lasting peace that comes through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere. this brings me to the fourth and final element of american leadership, our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity. america's support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism. it's a matter of national security. democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war. economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods. respect for human rights is an
10:58 am
antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror. a new century has brought no end to tyranny, and capitals around the globe including unfortunately some of america's partners there's a crackdown on civil society. the cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares. in watching these trends or the violent upheavals in parts of the arab world, it's easy to be cynical. remember that because of america's efforts, because of american diplomacy and foreign assistance as well as the sacrifices of our military, more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history. it empowers civil societies in
10:59 am
ways no iron fist can control. new breakthroughs lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. even the upheaval of the arab world rejects the authoritarian order that was anything but stable and offers more responsive and effective governments. in countries like egypt we acknowledge the relationship is anchored in security interests from peace treaties in israel to shared efforts against violent extremism. we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the egyptian people have demanded. meanwhile, look at a country like burma which a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the united states. 40 million people.
11:00 am
thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country and because we took the diplomatic initiative, american leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once closed society. a movement by burmese leadership away from partnership with north korea in favor of engagement with america and our allies. we're now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment. nd investment. and progress there could be reversed but if burma succeeds we have a new partner without firing a shot. american leadership. in each of these cases don't expect change to happen overnight. that's why we form the alliances with governments and ordinary people. for unlike other