United States, 2013

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, and divisions of

race, 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 naive.

They did not think that 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. They

gave us this institution, believing that it could allow

us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behaviour 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 and 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. Can the

United Nations meet the test of our time?

And 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 in

order to thrive in the twenty-first century.

Together, we have 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 Qaida that attacked us on 9/11.

For the United States, those 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 that they target only those

who pose a continuing imminent threat to the United

States, when capture is not feasible and when there

is a near certainty of no civilian casualties. We are

transferring detainees to other countries and trying

terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to

close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Just as we have

reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military

capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have

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 such 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 have

seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded

shopping mall. 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.

Meanwhile, Al-Qaida has splintered into regional

networks and militias, which does not 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 is coming next. Peaceful movements have too

often been answered by violence from those resisting

change and from extremists trying to hijack change.

Sectarian conflict has re-emerged, and the potential

spread of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast

a shadow over the pursuit of peace.

Nowhere have we seen those 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 identities — Alawite

and Sunni, Christian and Kurd — and the situation

spiralled 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.

Al-Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up,

citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime.

On 21 August, the regime used chemical weapons in

an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including

hundreds of children. Today, 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 between standing callously by while

children are subjected to nerve gas and embroiling

ourselves in someone else’s civil war? What is the role of

force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of

a region and undermine all basic standards of civilized

conduct? And 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 those 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 Al-Assad regime in

response to its brazen use of chemical weapons, I did

not do so lightly. I did so because I believe that it is

in the national security interests 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 suffocated in the trenches, Jews slaughtered

in gas chambers, Iranians poisoned in the many tens of

thousands.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Al-Assad

regime used such weapons on 21 August. United

Nations inspectors gave a clear accounting of their

findings that advanced rockets had fired large

quantities of sarin gas at civilians. Those rockets were

fired from a regime-controlled neighbourhood and

landed in opposition neighbourhoods. It is an insult to

human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution

to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out

this attack.

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 have discussed

with President Putin for over a year, most recently in

St. Petersburg, my preference has always been to work

for 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 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

Al-Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there

must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot

agree even on that, then that 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 twenty-first century and

that this Organization means what it says.

Our 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 has slaughtered his own citizens and gassed

children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead

a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can

return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy.

It is time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting

on Al-Assad’s rule will lead directly to the outcome that

they fear — an increasingly violent space for extremists

to operate in. 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 us remember that

this is not a zero-sum endeavour. We are no longer in

a cold war. There is no great game to be won, nor does

America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-

being of its people, the stability of its neighbours, 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.

As we move the Geneva process forward, I

urge all nations represented here to step up to meet

the humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding

countries. America has committed over a billion dollars

to that 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 begin rebuilding their country, but

it can help desperate people survive.

What broader conclusions can be drawn from

America’s policy towards Syria? I know that there are

those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness

to use our military might to depose Al-Assad and

believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of

America’s 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 that we have learned nothing from Iraq, and that

America continues to seek control over the Middle East

for our own purposes. 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 and accused of having a hand in all manner

of conspiracies. 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 that some of that is inevitable, given

America’s role in the world, but such contradictory

attitudes have a practical impact on the American

people’s support for our involvement in the region

and allow leaders in the region, and the international

community sometimes, to avoid addressing difficult

problems themselves. So let me take this opportunity

to outline what has been United States 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 these 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 its own

dependence on imported oil, the world still depends

upon 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 is

necessary to defend the United States against terrorist

attack, we will take direct action. 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 non-proliferation regime.

Now, to say that those are America’s core interests

is not to say that they are our only interests. We deeply

believe that it is in our interest to see a Middle East and

North Africa that are peaceful and prosperous, and we

will continue to promote democracy, human rights and

open markets, because we believe that those practices

help achieve peace and prosperity. But I also believe

that we can rarely achieve those objectives through

unilateral American action, particularly military

action. Iraq has shown us that democracy cannot

simply be imposed by force. Rather, such objectives are

best achieved when we partner with the international

community and with the countries and peoples of the

region.

So what does that 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 those issues are

not the cause of all of 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.

That mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long

complained of a history of United States 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 has taken Americans hostage, killed

United States troops and civilians and threatened our

ally Israel with destruction.

I do not believe such a difficult history can be

overcome overnight. The suspicion runs too deep. But

I do believe that, if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s

nuclear programme, 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 have made it clear, in letters

to the Supreme Leader in Iran and, more recently, to

President Rouhani, that America prefers to resolve its

concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme 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 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons and 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.

Those 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 programme

is peaceful. But to succeed, conciliatory words will

have to be matched by actions that are transparent and

verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian Government’s

choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions

that are currently in place. That 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 future.

But I want to be clear. We are encouraged by the

fact that President Rouhani received from the Iranian

people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.

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 that 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: the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

I have 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 that there is 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

in 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 only by the pain they feel in

having no firm place in the community of nations. They

are understandably cynical as to whether real progress

will ever be made, and they are 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.

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 have supported the Palestinians,

must recognize that stability will be served only 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. 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 us emerge from the

familiar corners of blame and prejudice. Let us support

Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk

the difficult road to peace.

Real breakthroughs on these two issues — Iran’s

nuclear programme 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 is 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. 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 have seen just how hard this transition will be.

Mohammed 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, 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

its removal from 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,

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 counter-

terrorism. We will continue support in areas such as

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.

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 those principles

are simply Western exports, incompatible with Islam or

the Arab world. We believe that 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.

That includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that

continue to surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and

Syria.

We understand that such long-standing issues

cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed

by Muslim communities themselves. But we have 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 that 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 is not borne

out by America’s current policy or public opinion.

Indeed, as recent debates within the United States over

Syria clearly showed, 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 and 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 that such disengagement would be a

mistake. I believe that America must remain engaged

for our own security, but I also believe that the world

is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that

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-

interest, but for the interests of all. I must be honest,

though; we are far more likely to invest our energy

in those countries that want to work with us, that

invest in their people instead of in a corrupt few, and

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.

That leads me to a final point. There will be

times when the breakdown of societies is so great and

the violence against civilians so substantial, that the

international community will be called upon to act.

That 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 those 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-Qaida

and the African forces who are keeping the peace. In

East 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 these critics argue that any

intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look

at Libya. No one is more mindful of those problems

than I am, for they resulted in the death of four

outstanding United States 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 Al-Qadhafi had

been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people

into submission? It is 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 centre

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, and 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 a Srebrenica? If

that is the world that people want to live in, they should

say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

I believe that we can embrace a different future. If

we do not 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 and not merely its aftermath,

and through development assistance that brings hope

to the marginalized. And yes sometimes, all this will

not be enough and there will be moments when 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, that 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 kind 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 that

60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass

of humankind. I saw this in Africa, where nations

moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off.

America is with them: partnering to feed the hungry

and to 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, combating climate change,

starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving

behind the old ideological battles of the past. That is

what is happening in Asia and Africa, it is happening

in Europe and the Americas. That is the future that the

people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve as

well, one where they can focus on opportunity, instead

of on whether they will be killed or repressed because

of who they are or what they believe.

Time and again, nations and people have shown

a capacity to change, to live up to humanity’s highest

ideals, to choose a 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

for 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 to those who seek to liberate it?

I know what side of history I want the United States

of America to be on. We are 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. That is why we remain

convinced that this community of nations can deliver

a more peaceful, prosperous, and just world to the next

generation.