Obama and Rouhani at the UN

Obama in his address to the United Nations, Sept. 24, treated the world to a display of “democratic” rhetorical flights which uncovered at the deepest levels America’s commitment to continued world hegemony and, related, the arrogance inhering in the ideology of exceptionalism. Intervention has become a God-ordained historical mission, for if it were not for the US, vacuums would open wide, especially in the Middle East, from which chaos and extremism would emerge and boil over.

America is selfless in all things, striving only for global peace and harmony. Chalk up another free pass for Obama in a speech riddled with self-righteousness (his own and the nation’s) and glaring omissions of American practice, whether on intervention per se (in violation of the UN Charter), the use of chemical warfare (Agent Orange and napalm alone can be counted in the metric tons), deprivation of civil liberties, or paramilitary operations, directed to regime change.

What makes his UN appearance both significant and interesting is that Rouhani, the newly-elected president of Iran, was wise to his smoke and mirrors, and outright dishonesty, calling Obama’s bluff, e.g., on the human consequences of the embargo on Iran in which it is the people—a clear concept of legitimated violence—who suffer the most.

[pullquote]America is selfless in all things, striving only for global peace and harmony. Chalk up another free pass for Obama in a speech riddled with self-righteousness (his own and the nation’s) and glaring omissions of American practice…[/pullquote]

Since the press, as earlier with respect to Putin’s op. ed. in The Times, reported little of substance of Rouhani’s speech, also the 25^th, several hours later than Obama’s, let me begin there first, because I believe it sets a standard—as did Putin, in his defense of international law—by which to analyze and judge that of Obama’s position hailed as a new approach to America’s role in the world. At times, it is difficult to distinguish the White House propaganda mill—the legacy of Axelrod—from that of the media for which it generates material.

Rouhani begins by differentiating the politics of fear and that of hope. Implicitly, although he does not say this, I sense here a wider meaning to which this differentiation can be assigned: the US, in the fear corner, much the remainder of the world, the hope corner, or more specifically, America as a declining power, while the hitherto regarded Third World an ascending force in world history. In sum, American unilateralism, and its refusal to base its conduct, restrain its military, or moderate its ideology, on behalf of mutual trust and common interests (both of which Rouhani singles out for praise as necessary goals for world peace), is leading to its isolation in the global community and hastening its decline as a global superpower.

Rouhani’s introductory remarks deserve quotation in full, with the above-differentiation perhaps in mind:

Our world today is replete with fear and hope; fear of war and hostile regional and global relations; fear of deadly confrontation of religious, ethnic and national identities; fear of institutionalization of violence and extremism; fear of poverty and destructive discrimination; fear of decay and destruction of life-sustaining resources; fear of disregard for human dignity and rights; and fear of neglect of morality. Alongside these fears, however, there are new hopes; the hope of universal acceptance by the people and the elites all across the globe of “yes” to peace and no to “war”; and the hope of preference of dialogue over conflict, and moderation over extremism.

I cannot pretend to be a sitting judge on the words of the speaker, their intent and veracity, except that with long experience on listening to and weighing the value of each word, I tend to form opinions as to their authenticity and the integrity of the speaker. I guess the phrase “institutionalization of violence and extremism” jumped out at me to anchor the passage, because marked by thoughtful observation. When we compare this with all of Obama’s speech, his own words are hollow and define the kind of formulaic appeals best suited to campaigns or the rationalization of policies pointing to the opposite.

Also to be noted in the passage, Rouhani has a conception of religion—the sensitive point, presumably to be avoided, in these discussions—in which he sees its importance as the conveyer of moral law, not as the source of “deadly confrontation,” but ideally, as compatible with, and wholly integrated into, a democratic society. Thus, he continues: “The realization of democracy consistent with religion and the peaceful transfer of executive power manifested that Iran is the anchor of stability in an otherwise ocean of regional instabilities.” This of course, as he later points out, is meant as the antithesis of, and answer to, Muslim-bashing, itself, he implies now and subsequently argues, being responsible for war and pervasive fear in the contemporary world. Hence: “The firm belief of our people and government in enduring peace, stability, tranquility, peaceful resolution of disputes and reliance on the ballot box as the basis of power, public acceptance and legitimacy, has indeed played a key role in creating such a safe environment.” (The phrase “public acceptance,” to me, takes the statement outside a context of political cant—but that is just a personal impression.)

Then comes pure gold. In my last CP article, before the events of the 24^th, I used the phrase, “crunch-time of global politics,” sensing the significance of the national-political-military factors surrounding the events in Syria (and perhaps their repercussions for Iran, notably, if Obama had attacked Syria–still not ruled out–or Israel, Iran), a conclusion Rouhani also reached, and now states, at the UN. The passage’s sobering reality, in contrast to Obama’s and Netanyahu’s blithe assertion of power, distinguishes the heavyweights from the lightweights, intellectually and morally, and perhaps distinguishes ascendant and declining world currents and the supporters of each perspective:

The current critical period of transition in international relations is replete with dangers, albeit with unique opportunities. Any miscalculation of one’s position, and of course, of others, will bear historic damages; a mistake by one actor will have negative impact on all others. Vulnerability is now a global and indivisible phenomenon.” (Italics, mine)

Neocons will chuckle; humanitarian interventionists (of which the White House has an abundance) will stew; Obama, utterly oblivious to whatever stands in the way of American global hegemony, will look in the mirror, confident he can outsmart history, rationality, and moral decency, will march on—all while the clock continues to tick, alarm bells going off with the next intervention or so-called “surgical” strike. Rouhani sees clearly what most of us, those not blinded by the Exceptionalism-theme in the first place, still miss because our emphasis on continuities of American foreign policy inure us to the qualitative jumps in that continuity quite possibly before us: That this is a “period of transition in international relations”. Our blindness is due in no small measure to Obama’s own distinctive contribution to foreign policy, the liberalization of aggression, wherein even personally authorized targeted assassination passes muster as “humane interventionism.”

The disclosures of Manning and Snowden, revelations showing to the world America’s geostrategic ambitions and assumptions, and its underhanded relations with its “friends and allies,” from Germany to Brazil at the highest levels, and showing to Americans the extent to which domestic surveillance is now a key element in the encroachment upon civil liberties, partly to further those ambitions, partly to ensure accommodation to the militarization of capitalism as necessary to avoiding its stagnation and decline, are something of a wake-up call as to the seriousness of the state of international politics. So, Rouhani is ahead of the curve in this important regard. And he goes further—the media complimenting him on his tone (although snidely dismissive in general) because he doesn’t attack the US, when in fact his very next statement leaves no doubt about whom he has in mind: “At this sensitive juncture in the history of global relations, the age of zero-sum games is over, even though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and deeply ineffective ways and means to preserve their superiority and domination. Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances.” (Italics, mine)

The new circumstances are a gradually decentralizing world power system; US unilateralism is no longer acceptable or even workable in light of rival centers of industrial-commercial-financial development at precisely the moment of American global overextension of its military posture and forces whilst sucking out its economic resources for domestic rebuilding. Leviathan’s innards are drying up, requiring, which Rouhani notes, as integral to maintaining hegemonic claims, ever greater reliance on force and violence:

Coercive economic and military policies and practices geared to the maintenance and preservation of old superiorities and dominations have been pursued in a conceptual mindset that negates peace, security, human dignity, and exalted human ideals. Ignoring differences between human societies and globalizing Western values as universal ones represent another manifestation of this conceptual mindset. Yet another cognitive model is the persistence of Cold War mentality and bi-polar division of the world into “superior us” and “inferior others.” Fanning fear and phobia around the emergence of new actors on the world scene is another. (Italics, mine—actually the entire passage deserves italics)

This is masterful social-science analysis. By that I don’t mean employment of “conceptual mindset,” but insights which seemingly typify the character of modern industrialism, as Weber, Parsons, Merton would have it, yet possessing added specificity perhaps uniquely applying to America. Hegemonic posture and/or aspirations eats away at democracy itself, resulting not only in “coercive economic and military policies and practices” simply to stay on top (or get a shot at that dubious honor), but also the comprehensive NEGATION of what democracy is or should be all about, including—the authenticity of his expression once again—“exalted human ideals.” He doesn’t stop there. Within a searing criticism of ethnocentrism (the bipolar division of the world into us and them), he brilliantly makes three related points, related because they reveal the psychodynamics going into ethnocentrism—and yielding what the Adorno study revealed a half-century ago, its core of authoritarianism.

First, the universalization of Western values, itself really the whole ball game with respect to America’s relations to much of the rest of the world (and even to be imposed on somewhat recalcitrant “friends and allies”) as the American Way, e.g., the equation of democracy with capitalism, the supremacy of property and the property right as the basis of legitimate social organization, and the acceptance—here Rouhani nails a point he develops later–of the two-tiered world, an amalgam, economically, of the trickle-down framework (based on extraction of wealth from the bottom) and market fundamentalism.

Second, the Cold War mentality, which goes beyond a bipolar global division (although it is also that) to signify the precise regurgitation of such tensions, now, China primarily in the cross-hairs, with Russia a secondary concern or target, and, arguably, counterterrorism the surrogate for anticommunism, i.e., the same mental patterns, also beyond mere ethnocentrism, to include demonization of the “enemy” and a geostrategic acceptance of the falling-domino theory. Rouhani does not say the foregoing, except for the generalized Cold War mentality, yet the traits he describes fits perfectly.

Third, separately stated, but interdependent, “ignoring differences between human societies” and “fanning fear and phobia around the emergence of new actors on the world scene” apply equally to the US confrontation with Islam as a whole (somehow, given American parochialism, “new actors”) and the treatment of Third World nations, to be blessed with our guidance and put down should the natives resist. This third feature of the conceptual mindset feeds nicely into humanitarian interventionism as a cloak for unmitigated exploitation, the exploiter preordained as both superior and ostensibly moral.

Rouhani’s presentation is airtight, for he sees in “such an environment” the increase of every sort of conflict, “governmental and non-governmental, religious, ethnic, and even racial violence,” all capable of embroiling the Great Powers, to which he adds: “The catastrophic impact of violent and extremist narratives should not—in fact, must not—be underestimated.” Then he comes to the immediate point, that of nonintervention, implicitly, a global proposition, but intended specifically for the Middle East: “In this context, the strategic violence, which is manifested in the efforts to deprive regional players from their natural domain of action, containment policies, regime change from outside, and the efforts towards redrawing of political borders and frontiers, is extremely dangerous and provocative.” He is describing the US record (without naming it) to a tee, referring to Israel as well.

There is much more, but I should like to bear down on his very next statement, where ethnocentrism is fleshed out in geopolitical terms which affect Iran equally with other nations similarly situated, as being defined either in the US sphere of influence or, by rights, subject to American guidance (both cases giving license for regime change and/or eliminating suspected terrorists). Here ethnocentrism breaks down into its harsher side, xenophobia, and also what Washington takes as its self-image, realpolitik, in this case, ideological rigidity—on behalf of capitalism—under a different name.

“The prevalent international political discourse,” he states, “depicts a civilized center surrounded by un-civilized peripheries.” (His auditors, I suspect, and much of the non-Western world outside, knew which nations went where.) Neither Marx nor Paul Baran could have said it better: “In this picture, the relation between the center of world power and the peripheries is hegemonic.” I’m sorry, but when I think of Obama’s stupefaction when it comes to the moral delineation of public policy, instead in a dither about such concerns as credibility and sending a message or simply occupied with hit lists and assassination, I weep for joy at one who penetrates the veils of doubletalk to illumine, as now, basic relations of power:

The discourse assigning the North the center stage and relegating the South to the periphery has led to the establishment of a monologue at the level of international relations. The creation of illusory identity distinctions and the current prevalent violent forms of xenophobia are the inevitable outcome of such a discourse. Propagandistic and unfounded faith-phobic, Islamo-phobic, Shia-phobic, and Iran-phobic discourses do indeed represent serious threats against world peace and human dignity.

The shoe is now on the other foot—those supposedly aggressed upon are the aggressors, xenophobic as both conviction and convenience (it’s hard to tell which is worse). The word monologue jumps out of the passage indicating the one-sided power relation, which confers the ability to defame, denounce, ultimately kill, the now ubiquitous Other—and at the same time exercise social control at home. Yet a final two sentences bring the thought squarely home: “The propagandistic discourse has assumed dangerous proportions through portrayal and inculcation of presumed imaginary threats. One such imaginary threat is the so-called ‘Iranian threat’—which has been employed as an excuse to justify a long catalogue of crimes and catastrophic practices over the past three decades.” The litany of these “imaginary threats,” and the violence in putting them down, takes up much of the remainder of the speech, as when he refers to “structural violence,” such as the sanctions regime, as being “intrinsically inhumane and against peace.”

We turn now to Obama, his speech before the General Assembly earlier on the 24^th, purportedly a new approach to America’s role in the world, yet couched in such manner as to yield little of substance and, on careful reading, still willing to bypass the UN with unilateral military action on its, and his, discretion. We are all familiar by now with the speech’s presumed high points, as found in Mark Landler’s NYT article of the 25^th, “Obama Says He Will Pursue Diplomacy on Iran and Syria.” Not quite, but nice try. Several examples, before we look more closely: “The roadblocks may prove to be to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.” Or this: “Without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the U.N. 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 21^st century, and that this body means what it says.” If even the ambiguities expressed here, a nod to roadblocks, finger-pointing at the UN on its inability to act, yet—the obsession with credibility, the need to send a message—a possible breakthrough on chemical weapons (never once apologizing for America’s heavy use of the same), were a correct statement of the US position, there would be at least some prospect of change. But another quote, referring to the Middle East, puts a damper on reduction of military force as a foreign policy tenet: “The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests [Iranian nuclear policy, Syrian civil war, security of Israel, the last here being really first] in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.”

Thus far, we see a mixed bag, at best, grudging acceptance of diplomacy, but also the unquestioned right of involvement in the region, and, should things go not to America’s liking, the avowal of unilateral action which, given the setting of the speech, is a direct slap in the face of the Charter and international law. Here then is a brief examination of text, a lot easier task than with Rouhani because Obama is all surface, with little or no depth. Placate the audience—and the institution: “For most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires…. The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable.” Two world wars and nuclear weapons meant that “humanity could not survive the course it was on.” Ergo, the UN, “to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time.”

Then a shadow of doubt appears. Every generation faces “new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested.” He queries whether the international community could “squarely meet those challenges,” that is, “whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time.” Obama proceeds to take credit for surmounting the financial debacle, but sees the progress as “fragile and unequal,” with more work ahead; likewise, credit for ending a decade of war. This presumed foundation of success enables him to announce the Grand Departure, each and every detail of which is open to challenge:

For the United States, these new circumstances have 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 are 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 have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share. (Italics, mine)

If this were a mea culpa, I, and I’m sure much of the world, would be pleased, signaling a halt to targeted assassination, an end to monstrous defense appropriations and the distortions they produce in the everyday lives of countless millions, a closing of the prison that shamelessly denies habeas corpus rights to detainees (and has led, in their desperation, to hunger strikes), and not least, an ineradicable mark of authoritarianism in the program of massive surveillance. Proper balance means, not being caught, on this and on all else, wherein the spirit of government is to erect transparency into a principle of pure evil. What truly hurts, though, is the glib phrase, “in a way that lives up to our ideals,” similar to another pet phrase of his, after citing atrocities committed by others, “that’s not who we are,” the first of these coupled with “our extraordinary military capabilities,” and together, either “our ideals” sanction the foregoing practices, the vein of militarism running throughout (even as justification for surveillance), or, in fact, who we are, as a people, legitimates antidemocratic practice, in every case, drones included, as the key to national identity. Methinks he protesteth too much, selecting for commendation what the record demonstrates to be within the discomfort zone of war crimes—even when he claims there to be improvement in each. Nor, the rub, is the improvement shown to have been forthcoming. Surveillance is surveillance, from which much else flows in evaluating the policies, record, and veracity of POTUS.

Parenthetically,, Obama’s speech got off to an inauspicious start—which he, unlike most present, may not have noticed. For Dilma Rousseff, the president of Brazil, came immediately before, and whether or not they shook hands I do not know—or care, because the symbolism here is that Rousseff, herself once imprisoned under the Colonels, canceled an official State visit to the US, something probably rarely occurring in the case of a head of state who does this, and certainly not when America is the host. Her reason for the cancellation, of course, was the NSA surveillance of her own personal communications—with no apology forthcoming. So much for “privacy concerns that all people share,” to recur to Obama’s statement, the violation of privacy matched by the violation—for surely eavesdropping on the Brazilian government was also involved—of international law.

There follows a recitation of problems in the world, from the terrorist attack on a shopping mall in Kenya to the Syrian civil war, the latter in which the “international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge.” He continues, not mentioning, however, America’s military assistance to the rebels—and here as elsewhere speaking of “the moderate opposition” as a way of rationalizing the assistance, while placing extremist elements in the coalition in a sort of limbo as though present but extraneous: “A peace process is still-born. 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.” Although he does not say, this is becoming a war, in part, of proxy armies representing larger interests. What he does say is that Assad used chemical weapons “in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including many children,” therefore setting the stage for US intervention, especially when and where the UN and other nations feared to tread.

Obama’s technique is to raise questions, but, the insinuation planted by them, he then turns elsewhere instead of answering them. He usually returns to the children, but never the children his own policies, such as signature strikes, are responsible for killing. The final question: “What is the role of the United Nations, and international law, in meeting cries for justice?” This takes gall for one who demonstrates contempt for both—and for “justice,” if by that we mean reversing the maldistribution of wealth that his own policies of deregulation and corporate favoritism have encouraged. Undeterred, Obama presses on with, first, the demand for a ban on using chemical weapons, claiming that his own willingness to launch a military attack on Syria forced the Security Council to act and, implicitly, for Putin and Russia to adopt a more cooperative attitude, and second, the definition of “America’s role in the world,” particularly US policy “towards the Middle East and North Africa,” which policy to hold “during the remainder of my presidency.”

The enumeration commences, the caption clause, as it were, being what we’ve already noted: “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.” Even if the core interests were entirely selfless, which they are not, the power-orientation and correlative military force are, by international law, out of bounds, in this case, doubly so, because “secur[ing] these core interests in the region” is to arrogate to itself a presence there, as though mentally verging on a divine right since it is stated without self- doubt or compunction. Hence, “the free flow of energy”; dismantling “terrorist networks”; and, “not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.” A decent enough list, but one that is hardly complete, and on “the free flow of energy,” it cries out for details, just as, on dismantling “terrorist networks,” he claims the right to “take direct action,” and on eliminating “weapons of mass destruction” in the region, the complete silence with respect to Israel. But it is when Obama slips in coded language that I must take exception: [I]t is to our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous; and will continue to promote democracy, human rights, and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.” (Italics, mine)

It may seem like nit-picking, but an earlier generation of historians of foreign policy would have picked out immediately the phrase “open markets” as part-and-parcel of hegemony, capitalist expansion in the form of the “imperialism of free trade,” and a compelling reason for the geopolitical penetration of the region. For Obama, the complete phrase rolls innocently from the tongue, democracy, human rights, and open markets being interchangeable if not indeed identical, as stand-ins for capitalism. As for the rest, he has on his agenda the advancement of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (stacked by a two-state solution which leaves the status quo largely intact, therefore favoring Netanyahu’s conception of preconditions), engagement with Egypt (he does not condemn military atrocities and the suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood), and the potential for negotiations with Iran over the nuclear issue. All in all, disengagement from the region would be harmful for the region, by “creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill. Bless us, for our selfless humanitarianism.

My New York Times Comment on the editorial (Sept. 25), “President Obama at the United Nations,” follows:

The question is not whether Obama “can implement a consistent, effective strategy to achieve his goals,” as the editorial states, but whether (a) the goals, as he outlines them here, are worth implementing, and (b) whether in fact he has even presented them honestly, or rather, taken emotional, well-worn diplomatic language to disguise the same old policies and programs of US global hegemony. Despite flowery language dressed as humane and democratic (the signature of Rhodes’ speechwriting for POTUS), we see no receding from the declared right of unilateral intervention, justified as in the Rice-Power addendum to Obama’s foreign policy, humanitarian interventionism–all, embarrassingly, given that he is addressing the General Assembly, through an explicit avowal of bypassing the UN when deemed necessary.

Nothing has changed–Obama’s militarism abroad and contempt for civil liberties at home have been the “consistent” record NYT neither mentions nor figures into the equation. By the latter I mean, if one took what Obama professes to oppose, say, violation of civil liberties, but practices at home, e.g., massive surveillance, use of Espionage Act, etc., there would be grounds for some other power or the international community to invade America! He dares again to use the term “exceptional,” as though, although he does not admit, it is intended to confer license to create a National-Security State concomitant with the erosion of the social safety net.

Norman Pollack is the author of “The Populist Response to Industrial America” (Harvard) and “The Just Polity” (Illinois), Guggenheim Fellow, and professor of history emeritus, Michigan State University. His new book, Eichmann on the Potomac, will be published by CounterPunch in the fall of 2013.
________________________
APPENDIX
Obama U.N. speech transcript 2013 (text, video)

By POLITICO STAFF | 9/24/13 11:41 AM EDT
President Barack Obama’s 2013 United Nations speech transcript, as prepared for delivery and provided by the White House:

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, 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. 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 U.N. has in fact made a real 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 time 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, thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized, and people are 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 opportunity they need to thrive in the 21st 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 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 are 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 have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to 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 the dangers that remain. In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall. In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church. In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a horrific part of life. Meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which has not carried out an attack like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments, diplomats, businesses and civilians 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 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 casts 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 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 still-born. 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.

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 the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the U.N. 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; and 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 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’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 U.N. 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 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 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 of Alawites and other minorities.

As we pursue a settlement, let us remember that this is not a zero-sum endeavor. We are no longer in a Cold War. There’s 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 neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring 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 begin rebuilding their country – but it can help desperate people 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 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. 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, and 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 attitudes have a practical impact on the American peoples’ support for our involvement in the region, and allow leaders in the region – and the international community – to avoid addressing difficult problems. 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 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 our 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 its necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, 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 non-proliferation regime.

Now, to say these are America’s core interests is not to say these are our only interests. We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous; and will continue to promote democracy, 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 with military action. Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community, and with the countries and people of the region.

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 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 Americans hostage, 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 suspicion runs 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 have 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, but that we are determined to prevent them 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 UN 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.

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. 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. This isn’t simply an issue between America 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.

We are encouraged 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 coordination 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: the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. I have made 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 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 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 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 frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they 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.

Now the rest of us must also be willing to take risks. 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. Arab states – and those who have supported the Palestinians – must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution with a secure Israel. All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists, 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, and 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 is clear to all of us that there is much more work to be done.

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 did not – 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’ve 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 their removal from power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides. Our over-riding 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 like education that 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 democratic path.

Our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: the United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests. But 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 – 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 will at times be accused of hypocrisy or 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.

This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain. Ultimately, 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.

In sum, 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 public opinion. Indeed, as the recent debate within the United States over Syria clearly showed, the danger for the world is not an America that is eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or 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 would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security. I believe 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 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 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, and 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 U.N. 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 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 human rights. Yet 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 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 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 argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. 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 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 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 to slaughter. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, and 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, then they should say so, and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

I believe we can embrace a different future. 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, and not merely its aftermath. Through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized.  And yes, sometimes, all this will not be enough – and in such moments, the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occuring.

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. 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 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. America is with them: partnering to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.

I see it across the Pacific, 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’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa; in Europe and the Americas. That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve – 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 fifty 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 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 that cannot be denied. That is why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope. That’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous, and just world to the next generation.

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to TGP or