奧巴馬在西點軍校年畢業典禮上的演講

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. General Trainor, General Clarke, faculty and staff at West Point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.

I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed who is here and a proud graduate of West Point himself. To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.

Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. (Laughter.)

To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point, as commander in chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Laughter, applause.)

Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.

I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made. “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.” Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran, and I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families. (Applause.)

It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who’ve sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Cheers, applause.)

When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al-Qaida’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. (Cheers, applause.) And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.

In fact, by most measures America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise -- who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.

Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War. Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent. From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.

America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. (Applause.) So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century past, and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.

Russia’s aggression towards former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.

From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as commander in chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being.

Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view, from interventionists from the left and right, says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.

And each side can point to history to support its claims, but I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.

美國總統奧巴馬：謝謝！非常感謝！謝謝！謝謝卡斯蘭將軍的介紹！特雷納將軍、克拉克將軍、西點軍校的教職工們，你們一直以來都是這所令人自豪的學府的優秀管理者，也是美國陸軍新晉軍官的傑出導師。

我要向陸軍領導層表示感謝，包括陸軍部長麥克休將軍以及參謀長奧迪耶諾將軍，同時也要感謝到場的傑克•裏德參議員，他是西點軍校引以爲榮的畢業生之一。2014級的畢業生們，祝賀你們承接了西點軍魂的使命。

在你們當中，有美國首支女子指揮團隊，包括艾琳•墨登和奧斯丁•波洛夫。卡拉•格萊文展現了一位羅茲學者的風采，而喬希•赫貝克則證明了西點的精準度遠在三分線之外。（笑聲）

全體學員們，請安心度過你們在西點的最後時光，我以最高統帥的名義在此赦免所有因犯輕罪而關禁閉的學員。（笑聲、掌聲）

容我說一句，我當學生的時候，可從未有人這麼做過。

我知道，你們和我一樣都要向自己的家人表示感謝。喬•狄摩斯是本屆畢業生詹姆斯的父親，他給我來信講訴你們所作出的犧牲，也道出了許多父母的心聲。他寫道：“在我們的內心深處，我們爲他們立志報效國家而感到無比自豪。”和多位畢業生一樣，詹姆斯也是位戰場老兵。我請今天在座的各位起立，向我們當中的老兵，也向250多萬曾在伊拉克和阿富汗服役的美國人及其家屬致敬。（掌聲）

這是繼數天前陣亡將士紀念日後的又一個極有意義的時刻，讓美國人民得以回想那些爲我們的自由作出巨大犧牲的英雄。你們將是自911恐怖襲擊以來，第一屆不會被派到伊拉克或阿富汗參戰的畢業生。（歡呼聲、掌聲）

2009年，我首次在西點發表演講時，我們仍有10萬多名士兵駐紮在伊拉克，也正準備增兵阿富汗。而我們的反恐重心則是基地組織的核心頭目——正是他們發動了911恐怖襲擊。此外，我們的國家正開始一段擺脫大蕭條以來最嚴重經濟危機的漫長曆程。

四年半以後，就在你們畢業之際，情況已發生了轉變。我們已從伊拉克撤軍，正逐步結束阿富汗的戰爭。潛伏在巴基斯坦和阿富汗邊境地區的基地組織頭目已被斬草除根，而奧薩馬•本•拉登也早已命喪黃泉。（歡呼聲、掌聲）在經歷了這一切之後，我們又將關注重心調整到美國實力的重要源頭上來，這個源頭就是不斷髮展的經濟，爲每一個願意努力工作並願意承擔起家國責任的人提供機會。

事實上，與世界上其他國家相比，美國在很多方面都處於強勢地位。有些人持不同觀點，他們認爲美國正在衰弱或正失去世界的領導地位，這些人不是對歷史存在誤讀，就是陷入了黨派政治的泥潭。

你們想一想，我們的軍隊天下無敵，任何國家對我們構成直接威脅的機率極小，而且與我們在冷戰時期所面臨的危險相差甚遠。同時，我們的經濟活力仍居世界第一，企業的創新性也名列前茅。我們的能源獨立性都在逐年增強。從歐洲到亞洲，我們是各國有史以來無人能敵的聯盟軸心。

美國將繼續吸納奮發圖強的外國移民。我們的建國理念激勵着各國議會的領導人，也激勵着世界各地在公共廣場上發起的新運動。當颱風襲擊菲律賓的時候，當尼日利亞女學生遭到綁架的時候，當蒙面歹徒攻佔烏克蘭政府大樓的時候，全世界都翹首以待美國的援助之手。（掌聲）因此，美國始終是一個無可取代的國家，上個世紀如此，下個世紀亦是如此。

但是，如今的世界瞬息萬變。這爲我們帶來了機遇，也帶來了新的危險。911恐怖襲擊事件讓我們清楚地認識到，科技和全球化發展是如何讓原本由國家掌控的權力落入個人之手，令恐怖分子爲非作歹的。

不久前，俄羅斯派兵入侵前蘇聯加盟共和國——烏克蘭，這一軍事動作牽動歐洲各國神經，與此同時，中國經濟崛起及其軍事走向則引發鄰國擔憂。

從巴西到印度，新興中產階級在與我們展開競爭，此外，各國謀求在國際事務中爭取更多話語權。儘管發展中國家擁護民主、認同市場經濟，但全天候新聞以及社交媒體報道使得人們無法對接連發生在這些國家的派系衝突、國家衰敗與民衆暴動等事件視而不見。然而，這些對於上一代人而言，只能引來他們的“側目”罷了。

如何能在新形勢下有所作爲的重擔就要落在你們這一代的肩上了。擺在我們面前的問題，不是美國是否處在領導地位，而是她將如何引領各國；不只是美國能否實現繁榮發展，而是她如何能在全球範圍內“播撒”和平與繁榮的“種子”，而這也是你們將來要面對的問題。

這個問題並非新鮮。至少，自喬治•華盛頓就任總司令——即美國爆發獨立戰爭以來，就存在一些警告的聲音，表示反對美國捲入與本國國家安全或經濟福祉無直接關聯的外部紛爭之中。

現在，那些自詡爲現實主義者的人認爲，美國無需理會發生在敘利亞、烏克蘭，以及中非共和國的衝突。的確，在經受了戰爭以及來自國內的多重挑戰之後，這種觀點爲許多美國人所認同，這並不意外。

然而，干涉主義者對此持不同觀點。他們認爲，無視這些衝突最終會危及我們自身，美國在全球充當“世界警察”角色的意願能夠最徹底地保衛世界安全，使其免於陷入混亂。而若美國對敘利亞的暴亂或俄羅斯的挑釁撒手不管、無所作爲的話，那麼這不僅違揹我們的良心，也會使得這些行徑在未來愈演愈烈。

儘管雙方的觀點從歷史角度看都成立，但我認爲他們並沒有充分反映當前形勢下的需求。顯然，對21世紀的美國而言，孤立主義行不通。我們無法對發生在世界其他地區的事情漠然視之。例如，如果核燃料不安全，那麼它就會威及美國人民的生命。As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.

And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake -- abiding self-interest -- in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.

I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe.

But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”

Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point. Four of the service members who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort. A lot more were wounded.

I believe America’s security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted by those deaths. I am haunted by those wounds. And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.

Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.

And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your commander in chief -- to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.

First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.

In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life. (Applause.)

On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation, appeals to international law, and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.

This leads to my second point. For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.

And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al-Qaida leadership. Instead it comes from decentralized al-Qaida affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate. And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi. It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.

We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us. And empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. Together with our allies, America struck huge blows against al-Qaida core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country.

But sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job. And that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police. Earlier this spring, those forces -- those Afghan forces -- secured an election in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history. And at the end of this year, a new Afghan president will be in office, and America’s combat mission will be over.
隨着敘利亞內戰戰火跨越邊境，受戰爭洗禮的極端組織攻擊美國的能力也在增強。地區衝突接踵而至，無論是在烏克蘭南部地區、南海亦或是世界其他地方，如果我們對此坐視不管，最終這將危及美國盟友的利益，美軍也會捲入其中。因此，我們必須時刻關注外界事態。
此外，跳出這些狹隘的理論框架來看，我認爲大家還存在着一個真正的共同關切——持久的個人利益，那就是要始終確保我們的子孫後代成長在這樣一個世界當中，在那裏，人們不會因爲種族、信仰或政治理念的迥異而劫持女學生或濫殺無辜。

我認爲，建設一個更加自由及包容的世界不僅在道德上勢在必行，而且有助於維護我們自身安全。

儘管我們有意向在全球倡導和平與自由，但這並不意味着我們要藉助軍事手段來解決每個問題。二戰結束以來，我們所犯的那些嚴重的錯誤，皆源自我們傾向於以訴諸武力的方式來解決問題，而對後果考慮不周、缺乏國際支持及法律支持，也沒有向美國人民交代他們需要作出的犧牲，以使他們心中有數。雖然強硬的表態時常佔據報紙頭條，但戰爭卻很少與口號“步調一致”。正如對這個問題深有體會的艾森豪威爾將軍（General Eisenhower），於1947年在西點軍校畢業典禮上所說的那樣：“戰爭是人類最悲慘、最愚笨的蠢行，無論是蓄意挑起戰爭，還是爲其獻計獻策，這都是對全人類犯下的滔天罪行。”

與他一樣，這一代的軍人——無論男女，都對戰爭理解深刻。這其中也包括了你們西點畢業生。在我宣佈增兵阿富汗時，聽衆當中的4名服役人員後來就在那裏壯烈犧牲。此外，還有許多西點士兵受傷。

我認爲，出於維護美國國家安全的考慮，這些軍事部署是很有必要的。但是，這些傷亡者的英魂和傷痛一直縈繞在我的腦海、令我難安。如果我將你們派上戰場，僅僅是因爲世界某地出現問題需要處理，或是擔心批評家會將軍事不作爲視作是美國軟弱的表現，那麼，我就違背了自己對你們、對這個我們所愛國家的職責了。

我的底線是：美國必須在世界範圍保持領導力。如果我們不能，沒人能。你們所加入的美軍，永遠都是美國領導世界的中堅力量。但是美國的軍事行動不是我們展現領導力的唯一方式，更不是主要部分。因爲雖然我們有最好的錘子(美軍)，但並不意味着每個問題都是釘子。

因爲軍事行動代價極大，所以你們應該期望每個平民領袖——尤其是你們的總司令——清楚如何使用這一令人生畏的力量。所以，讓我用剩下的時間來描述一下我的想法：關於美國和美軍在未來幾年應怎樣領導世界，而你們將會成爲領導世界力量的一部分。

首先，讓我重申一下我在就任總統時提出的原則：當我們的核心利益需要的時候——我們的人民受到威脅、生計受到威脅、盟友的安全處於危險之中——如果有必要，美國將單方面使用軍事力量。

當然在這些情況下，我們仍然需要捫心自問，我們的行動是否合適有效公正。雖然國際輿論很重要，但是在保護我們的人民、祖國和生活方式這些問題上，美國不需要得到別人的許可。(掌聲)

另一方面，當引起世界關注但沒有直接威脅到美國利益的危機產生時，當這些問題亟待解決時，當能觸動我們的良心或推動世界向更危險的方向發展但不對美國構成直接威脅的危機出現時，我們更不能輕易採取軍事行動。在這種情況下，我們不應該單打獨鬥。相反，我們必須動員盟友和合作夥伴採取集體行動。我們應該廣泛使用各種手段，包括外交和發展、制裁和孤立、訴諸於國際法，甚至在必要情況下采取多邊軍事行動。在這些情況下，我們必須與其他國家合作，因爲集體行動更容易成功，持續性強，還可以減少代價慘痛的錯誤。”

這引出了我的第二個觀點。在可預見的未來，不管國內還是國外，對美國最直接的威脅仍是恐怖主義。但是，那種對每個包庇恐怖主義組織的國家都採取進攻手段的戰略未免過於天真，也不可能長期進行。我認爲，我們必須從伊拉克和阿富汗問題上汲取經驗和教訓，將美國打擊恐怖主義的戰略轉變爲與那些國內有恐怖組織基地的國家進行有效的夥伴合作。

並且，對新戰略的需求反映出一個事實：今天我們主要的威脅不再是來自於基地組織的集中領導，而是來自分散的“基地”組織分支機構和極端分子，其中很多都在他們從事活動的國家內進行活動。雖然這種情況降低了美國本土遭受大規模9•11式襲擊的可能性，但是就像我們在班加西（Benghazi）看到的那樣，這會增加美國海外人員遇險的可能性。就像我們在內羅畢（Nairobi）購物商場看到的那樣，這還會增加防備薄弱目標遇險的可能性。因此，我們需要制定戰略應對這種傳播式的威脅，這一戰略必須能夠在不派遣軍隊、避免戰線過長、避免引發當地不滿情緒的前提下擴大我們的影響力。

我們需要合作伙伴一起打擊恐怖分子。我們在阿富汗已經完成和正在進行的工作，很大一部份是爲了增進夥伴的自治能力。在與盟友的共同努力下，美國給基地組織核心造成了沉重的打擊，挫敗了其試圖顛覆國家的叛亂活動。

但是，決定這個進程能否持續下去的是阿富汗人民在處理這一問題上的能力。這就是我們訓練成千上萬的阿富汗士兵和警察的原因。今年春天早些時候，這些部隊，這些阿富汗部隊保障了選舉的進行，阿富汗人爲該國史上第一次政權的民主移交進行了投票。今年年底，阿富汗新總統將上任，屆時美國作戰部隊的使命也將完成。（掌聲）Now -- (applause) -- that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces. But as we move to a train and advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence there allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. So earlier this year I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel.

Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.

A critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria. As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers there, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. As president, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision. But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people. And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.

So with the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share of support to the Syrian people.

Let me make one final point about our efforts against terrorism. The partnerships I’ve described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do, through capture operations, like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice, or drone strikes, like those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.

There are times when those actions are necessary and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. But as I said last year, in taking direct action, we must uphold standards that reflect our values. That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties, for our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.

I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners. I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts. Our intelligence community has done outstanding work and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.

And this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership, and that is our effort to strengthen and enforce international order.

After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF. These institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier. They reduce the need for unilateral American action and increase restraint among other nations.

Now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well. At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon a gradual evolution in human institutions. And evolving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership.

Now, there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, like the U.N. or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong. Let me offer just two examples why.

In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions, Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions, NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies, the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy, OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.

And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.

This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions. Yesterday, I spoke to their next president. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order, working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future -- without us firing a shot.

Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years. But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force. And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.

The point is, this is American leadership. This is American strength.
現在——(掌聲)——這就是美軍取得的巨大成就。但是當我們在阿富汗的使命轉向訓練和顧問時，我們減少駐軍以後可以更有效地應對中東和北非新出現的威脅。因此在今年早些時候，我讓國家安全事務部門就南亞和薩赫勒地區的合作伙伴關係網制定了一個計劃。

今天，作爲我們行動的一部分，我呼籲國會支持通過數額爲50億美元的新反恐合作基金，以幫助我們的同盟夥伴訓練軍隊、提升能力、支援他們的前線。這些資金也讓我們又更大的自由度完成各項任務。這些任務包括：爲打擊基地組織的也門政府訓練安全部隊以支持多國部隊維護索馬里地區和平，同歐洲盟友一起在利比亞訓練出合格的安全部隊和邊防軍，以及協助法國在馬裏的行動。

我們努力的重中之重是敘利亞危機。令人沮喪的是，解決這一危機沒有捷徑。軍事行動不能立馬消除當地人民的深重災難。作爲總統，我決定不派遣軍隊捲入這場愈演愈烈的宗派內戰。我相信這是一個正確的決定。但是這並不意味着我們不去幫助敘利亞人民奮起反抗，反對殺害自己人民、讓人民捱餓的獨裁者。我們協助那些爲了敘利亞人民能選擇自己未來而奮鬥的人，同時也積極打擊在越來越多混亂之中找到避風港的極端分子。

有了今天我所宣佈的資金，我們將會加大力度，支持約旦、黎巴嫩、土耳其、伊拉克這些敘利亞的鄰國。因爲他們得處理敘利亞邊境的難民、並打擊敘邊境的恐怖活動。我將與國會一起，加大對敘利亞反對派的支持。他們是替代恐怖分子和殘忍的獨裁者管理敘利亞最好的選擇。我們會繼續與我們的朋友、歐洲盟友和阿拉伯世界一起合作，推進敘利亞危機的政治解決途徑，以保證在支持敘利亞人民的努力中，並非僅有美國在做出努力，其他這些國家也都參與其中。

讓我就我們在反恐上的努力最後說一點。我所描述的夥伴關係並不排除爲了保護美國而採取直接行動的可能。只要我們有可靠的情報，我們就會採取行動，比如1998年在我們大使館抓捕策劃安放炸彈的恐怖分子的行動，又如我們在也門和索馬里採取的無人機襲擊。

有時我們必須馬上採取行動，因爲我們在保護國民方面決不能有半點猶豫。但就像我去年說的，採取直接行動時，我們也要堅守我們的價值觀。這就意味着只有我們面臨持續的或是眼前的威脅纔會進行打擊。在沒有把握的時候，即便我們幾乎能避免平民傷亡，我們的行動也必須達到一個簡單的標準，那就是我們不能爲了在戰場上擊斃敵人而樹立更多的敵人。

我也相信我們必須在反恐行動的出發點和具體行動方式方面更爲公開。不管是無人機打擊或是訓練盟友的軍隊，我們必須向公衆解釋我們的行動。我將會要求美軍帶頭，向公衆提供與我們行動相關的信息。我們的情報機構工作出色，我們必須繼續保護我們的信息來源和獲取途徑。但如果我們不能清楚、公開地解釋我們的行動，我們就會面對恐怖分子的大肆宣傳和國際社會的質疑，就會在我們夥伴國和人民面前失去合法性，就會失去我們政府的信譽。

公開透明直接與美國領導地位的第三個方面相關，也就是我們強化國際秩序的努力。

二戰之後，美國高瞻遠矚，設立了從北約、聯合國到世界銀行、國際貨幣組織一系列機構來維護人類和平、支持人類進步。這些機構並不完美，但是他們將我們的力量放大了數倍。他們減少美國進行單邊行動的需要，同時也增強了其他國家之間的制約能力。

現在，世界已經歷鉅變，這一框架也需改變。冷戰時，肯尼迪總統曾談到對於以人類機構逐漸改善爲基礎的和平的需要。對這些機構進行改進以達到今天的需求，是美國領導地位的重要一環。

現在有許多人，也有許多質疑者經常貶低多邊行動的有效性。對於他們而言，通過聯合國這類的多邊機構進行合作或者是尊重多邊規則，是一種懦弱的表現。我認爲他們錯了。讓我舉兩個例子來加以說明吧。

俄羅斯最近在烏克蘭的舉動令我想起了蘇聯大批坦克開進東歐的情形。但是現在不是冷戰時期。我們製造的國際輿論讓俄羅斯在短時間內就被孤立。在美國的領導下，國際社會馬上譴責俄羅斯的舉動，歐洲和七國集團同我們一樣對其實施制裁，北大西洋公約組織恪守我們對東盟的承諾，國際貨幣基金組織正在幫助穩定烏克蘭的經濟，歐洲安全和合作組織也在關注烏克蘭不穩定地區的發展。

世界觀點和國際機構立場的轉變，可與俄羅斯的宣傳、其邊境的軍隊以及全副武裝的士兵相抗衡。

這週末，數百萬的烏克蘭公民會進行民主投票。昨天，我同他們下一屆的總統進行了會談。我們不知道情況會如何演變，前方也仍存在巨大的挑戰，但是爲了維護國際秩序，同我們的盟友一起，與國際組織進行合作，這給了烏克蘭人民一個選擇他們未來的機會一一這並不需要費一槍一彈。

類似的是，儘管美國、以色列及其他國家不斷地對伊朗發出警告，伊朗核計劃仍持續進行了好幾年。在我擔任總統職務初期，我們聯合對伊朗的經濟實行了制裁，但同時也幫助伊朗政府進行民主建設。現在我們有機會和平地解決我們的分歧。成功之路還十分漫長，我們要保留阻止伊朗獲得核武器的各種手段。十年來我們第一次真正有機會達成一項突破性的協定，這比我們用武力達成協定來得更有效，效果也更持久。通過這些磋商，我們願意通過多邊途徑讓世界各國站在我們這一邊。

重點是，這是在美國的領導下進行的。這是美國力量所在。In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge. Now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading.

For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known but we’re now working with NATO allies to meet new missions both within Europe, where our eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s borders, where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.

Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. Now, we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace so that we can prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan. We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)

Keep in mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict. We have a serious problem with cyberattacks, which is why we’re working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens. In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.

That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters, and conflicts over water and food, which is why, next year, I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet.

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership. That’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.(Applause.)

And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo, because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders. (Applause.) That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens. (Applause.) America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost; we stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere -- which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership: our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.

America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism; it is a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war. Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods. Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.

A new century has brought no end to tyranny. In capitals around the globe -- including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has been a crackdown on civil society. The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.

And watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab world, it’s easy to be cynical. But remember that because of America’s efforts -- because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our military -- more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history. Technology is empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control. New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And even the upheaval of the Arab world reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective governance.

In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests, from peace treaties to Israel to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.

And meanwhile, look at a country like Myanmar, which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States. Forty million people. Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once- closed society; a movement by Myanmar leadership away from partnership with North Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies.

We’re now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism. And progress there could be reversed, but if Myanmar succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot -- American leadership.

In each of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight. That’s why we form alliances -- not only with governments, but also with ordinary people. For unlike other nations, America is not afraid of individual empowerment. We are strengthened by it. We’re strengthened by civil society. We’re strengthened by a free press. We’re strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses. We’re strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people and women and girls. That’s who we are. That’s what we represent. (Applause.)

I saw that through a trip to Africa last year, where American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation, while helping Africans care themselves for their sick. We’re helping farmers get their products to market to feed populations once endangered by famine. We aim to double access to electricity in sub- Saharan Africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy. And all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict.

Now, tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram -- the group that kidnapped those girls.

And that’s we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth. This should be one of the hard-earned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development. They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought -- something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security. It is part of what makes us strong.

Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.

Class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson. You leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can claim. You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces, for in the course of your service, you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts.

You’ll get to know allies and train partners. And you will embody what it means for America to lead the world.

Next week I will go to Normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there. And while it’s hard for many Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you. At West Point, you define what it means to be a patriot.

Three years ago Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan. Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his community and his family and the folks back home. Gavin lost one of his legs in an attack. I met him last year at Walter Reed. He was wounded but just as determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point. And he developed a simple goal. Today his sister Morgan will graduate. And true to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her. (Cheers, applause.)

We have been through a long season of war. We have faced trials that were not foreseen and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward. But there is something in Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character, that will always triumph.

Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side. Your charge now is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just. As your commander in chief, I know you will. May God bless you. May God bless our men and women in uniform. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)
對於不同的事件，我們會建立不同的聯盟以應對不同的挑戰。現在我們需要做更多來加強這些機構預測和預防問題擴散的能力。

比如，衆所周知，北大西洋公約組織是世界上最強大的聯盟之一，但是我們現在同它進行合作，以應對其在歐洲內部和其他地區的新任務。在歐洲內部，我們的東部盟國必須獲得保護。而在其他地區，我們北大西洋公約組織的盟國也必須有效地進行反恐活動，幫助失利的國家並培養我們的夥伴國。

同樣地，聯合國提供了一個平臺，以維護那些因衝突而分裂的國家的和平。現在，我們需要確保那些提供了維和人員的國家已接受了訓練，配齊了裝備，能夠真正維護和平，這樣我們就能防止我們在剛果和蘇丹看到的那種殺戮。我們會加大對這些支持維和行動國家的投資。因爲令其他國家用自己的力量維持自己地盤的秩序，可以減少我們使用武力造成傷害的必要性。這是智慧的投資。這也是我們正確的領導之路。（掌聲雷動）

但是要記住，不是所有的國際準則都與軍事衝突直接相關。我們面臨着網絡黑客攻擊問題，這也是我們致力於實施和加強在網絡中的行爲準則，以保護我們的互聯網和我們的公民的原因。在亞太地區，我們支持東南亞國家同中國協商在中國南海海事糾紛中的行爲準則，同時我們也支持通過國際法解決這些糾紛。

我們需要用合作的精神激勵全球努力應對氣候變化，這是一個日益嚴重的國家安全危機，決定你們從軍期間的整體形勢。我們要應對難民流動、自然災害，水資源和食物的問題。這也是我下一年計劃確保美國能夠帶頭建立一個保護我們星球的全球框架的原因。

大家知道，但凡美國以身說法，實現領導，美國的影響力就會加大。大家都普遍遵循的規則，我們不能不遵守；如果我們多數領導人否認氣候變化這一事實，我們也就無法號召大家齊心協力，共對氣候變化。雖然我國軍方高層領導人都認爲《海洋法公約》的通過會提高我國的國家安全，但如果我們無法確保美國參議院通過該公約，我們也就無法解決中國南海問題。這都不是領導，是退縮；不是強大，是軟弱。這與羅斯福，杜魯門，艾森豪威爾，肯尼迪等領導人的風格截然相反。

我對美國例外主義深信不疑。但讓我們例外的並不是美國通過實際行動重申國際準則與國際法，而是我們願意通過實際行動彰顯這些國際準則。（掌聲）

這是我堅持推進關閉關塔那摩監獄的原因，美國價值觀與法律傳統不容許在美國境外無限期關押人員。（掌聲）這是我們近來限制美國情報收集與使用方式的原因，如果美國一意孤行，繼續監控普通民衆的話，美國的合作伙伴勢必會減少，效率勢必會更爲低下。（掌聲）美國並不支持不惜任何代價維護穩定或消除衝突；我們支持擁護唯有機遇與自由可以爲世界各國人民帶來的更爲持久的和平。這是我要談的美國領導力量的第四個、也是最後一個要素，那就是我們願爲人類尊嚴而努力奮鬥。

美國對民主與人權的主張勝過對理想主義的追求；這是關乎國家安全的大計。民主國家是美國最親密的盟友，民主國家絕不可能走向戰爭。基於自由開放的經濟體發揮着更加積極的作用，也逐漸成爲我國產品的目的市場。尊重人權有利於改善動盪局勢，緩和不滿情緒，遏制暴力及恐怖的滋生。

新世紀早已到來，暴政卻還未終結。不幸地，在一些國家，包括美國的夥伴國家在內，鎮壓依然存在於公民社會中。腐敗的毒瘤養富了政府官員及其裙帶密友，但也激怒了全國各地的普通民衆。

想想這些現實潮流，想想阿拉伯世界的暴力動亂，我們很容易變得憤世嫉俗。但要記住，是美國的努力奮鬥，美國的外交政策，美國的對外援助，還有美國軍人的無私奉獻，使得更多人在民選政府的管理之下安居樂業，這在歷史上無可比擬。科技賦予公民社會更多權利，這也是鐵臂金剛所控制不了的。得益於科技新突破，千百萬人擺脫貧困。甚至是阿拉伯世界的動亂也反映了人們對動盪獨裁秩序的摒棄，也產生了對一個更爲有求必應的更有效率政府管理的長期願景。

在埃及這樣的國家，我們承認從和平條約到與以色列共同對抗暴力極端主義等安全利益方面，我們的關係停滯不前。我們沒有切斷與埃及新政府的往來合作，但我們有能力，也會堅持推進埃及人民要求的各項改革措施。

同時，再看看緬甸，僅僅幾年前還是頑固獨裁之地，還對美國持敵對態度。多虧四千萬緬甸人的巨大勇氣，多虧美國主動開啓的外交之旅，多虧美國領導力量的共同作用，我們看到了可喜的政治變革，看到了一個曾經閉關的社會重新開放；緬甸領導人避與朝鮮合作，爲的是實現與美國及美國同盟更好的交流往來。

現在，通過投資援助、公開批評與感召勸服，我們支持緬甸改革、支持緬甸人民渴望的民族和解。發展進程可能會倒退逆轉，如果不費一兵一卒，如果緬甸取得成功，我們也就多了個合作伙伴，這就是美國的領導力量。

任何時候我們不能指望改變一蹴而就。所以我們必須結盟，不僅與政府結盟，也與普通民衆結成盟友。與其他國家不同，美國從不畏懼個人力量，而是從中汲取能量。公民社會，自由輿論，創業人才，小型企業，教育交流以及針對全社會面向婦女兒童敞開的機會之門無一不是我們的力量之源。這就是美國人，這纔是美國夢。

去年的非洲之行讓我看到美國向非洲伸出援手，治病救人，使得一代非洲人遠離艾滋的願景成爲可能。我們幫助當地農民銷售農產品，令倍受饑荒折磨的人們不再捱餓。我們爲撒哈拉以南的非洲地區帶去光明，讓全球經濟的累累碩果惠及當地百姓。如此一來，既催生了新的合作伙伴，也搗毀了恐怖主義與暴力衝突的溫牀。

遺憾的是，目前美國安全行動還未能根除由極端組織帶來的威脅，例如綁架女童的博科聖地（Boko Haram）。

我們要做的不僅是解救被困女童，還應支持尼日利亞發展青年教育事業。我們在伊拉克與阿富汗的寶貴經驗表明美軍已成爲外交與發展最強勁的倡導者。戰士們都明白對外援助並非事後諸葛亮，而是和國防及國土安全一樣不可偏廢的崇高事業。我們也因此變得強大。

現在，最後我要說引領全球的使命要求我們直視這個充滿危險與動盪的世界。除了未雨綢繆，防患於未然，我們別無選擇，但這並不妨礙我們勾畫未來世界的藍圖——人人心懷希望，凡事不再畏懼，讓寫入憲章的真理引領我們在通往正義的大道上勇往直前。這一切就看你們的了。

各位2014屆畢業生，過去的你們是哈德遜河畔（西點軍校所在地）的學子，而今後離開象牙塔的你們將承載這份榮耀延續美國軍隊的輝煌。作爲部隊的一員，每一位履行職責的你們終將匯聚成美國武裝部隊，因爲在這一過程中，你們實際上是在同外交官與發展專家並肩作戰。

你們將結識盟友，培養搭檔，用你們的實際行動告訴世界對美國來說領導世界意味着什麼。

下週，我將參加諾曼底登陸70週年紀念活動。儘管許多美國人難以對諾曼底號船員的魄力與責任感感同身受，但是你們可以。在西點軍校，愛國者的形象由你們來塑造。

3年前，加文•懷特（Gavin White）從西點畢業，前往阿富汗服役。和每一位投身阿富汗前線的士兵一樣，加文背井離鄉，幫助素未謀面的當地人，爲了軍隊，家人和美國人民的利益不辭勞苦。加文在一次戰鬥中不幸失去一條腿。去年我在沃爾特•裏德(Walter Reed)陸軍醫療中心見過他。儘管負了傷，他仍然像剛進西點時一樣，不忘初心，並且立下另一個志願。 今天，他的妹妹摩根（Morgan）也將從這裏畢業。加文終於能夠兌現當初的承諾，和妹妹互敬軍禮。

我們經歷了戰爭的洗禮，經受過突如其來的考驗，開闢出前進的道路。但是有一樣東西烙在加文的骨子裏，鐫刻在美國人與生俱來的品質中，使得我們所向披靡。

你們心繫祖國人民，離開西點。你們代表的是一個歷經風雨，躊躇滿志的美國。你們的使命不僅是保家衛國，更是伸張正義。身爲最高統帥，我對你們充滿信心。願上帝保佑你們，保佑美國公民，保佑美利堅合衆國。（歡呼，掌聲）