奥巴马总统在诺贝尔和平奖颁奖典礼上的讲话

白宫
新闻秘书办公室
即时发布
2009年12月10日
奥巴马总统在诺贝尔和平奖颁奖典礼上的讲话
挪威奥斯陆市政大厅
中欧时间下午1：44
总统：国王和王后陛下，各位殿下，杰出的挪威诺贝尔委员会（Norwegian Nobel Committee）委员，美国公民及全世界公民们：
获此殊荣，我深怀感激并深表谦恭。这个奖表达出我们的最高理想——尽管这个世界存在种种凶残困苦，但我们并不任命运摆布。我们的行动是有作用的，能够推动历史向正义方向发展。
不过，如果不坦承你们这项厚爱有加的决定所引起的相当激烈的争议，那我就有失疏忽了。（笑声）其中部分原因是，我在世界舞台上的奋斗才刚刚开始，而不是接近尾声。与曾经获此殊荣的一些历史巨人相比——史怀哲（Schweitzer）和马丁·路德·金(King)；马歇尔(Marshall)和曼德拉(Mandela)——我的成就微不足道。还有全世界为追求正义而遭到监禁和欧打的男女志士；那些为减轻苦难而在人道组织中艰辛工作的人；那千百万默默无闻地以充满勇气和关爱的无声行动让最悲观的愤世嫉俗者也受到感召的人们。我绝不反驳那些认为这样的男女志士——有些知名，有些只为他们所帮助的对象所知——远比我有资格获此殊荣的看法。
但与我获奖有关的最深层的问题可能在于我是一个正打着两场战争的国家的三军统帅。其中一场战争已接近尾声。另一场并非是美国挑起的冲突；有包括挪威在内的42个国家在与我们共同努力，为的是保护我们及其他所有国家不再遭受攻击。
然而，我们仍处在战争时期，是我派遣成千上万名美国年轻人远赴战场。有些人要杀射，有些人要被杀射。因此，我是带着对武装冲突的代价的敏锐感觉来到这里的——心中充满有关战争与和平的关系以及我们为用和平取代战争而努力的难题。
而这些问题并不新鲜。战争，以这样或那样的形式，随着人类的诞生而出现。在历史初期，战争的道义性无人质疑；它是如同干旱或疾病一样的现实——是各个部落以及后来的各种文明谋求权力和解决分歧的方式。
后来，随着旨在控制群体内部暴力的规范的出现，哲学家、宗教领袖和政治家也纷纷致力于用条文限制战争的破坏力。“正义战争”的概念由此形成，亦即认为，在符合以下几个具体条件时，战争是正义的：如果战争是最后手段或是为自我防御；如果武力程度适当；以及在一切可能的情况下不对平民使用暴力。
当然，我们都知道，在人类历史的大部分时间内，这种“正义战争”的概念鲜被理会。人类显然有无穷的能力不断想出新的方式相互残杀，同样也有无穷的能力毫不怜惜那些外貌不同或信仰不同的人。军队之间的战争变成国家间的战争——模糊了战斗人员与平民界线的全面战争。这种战争大屠杀曾在30年内两度侵吞这块大陆。虽然难以设想还有什么比击败第三帝国（Third Reich）和轴心国（Axispowers）更正义的事业，但在第二次世界大战中死亡的平民总数超过了战死疆场的军人。
在这种毁灭之后，并且随着核时代的到来，战胜者与战败者同样清楚地认识到，这个世界需要有防止另一次世界大战的机制。为此，在美国参议院拒绝接受国际联盟（League of Nations）的四分之一世纪后——而伍德罗·威尔逊（WoodrowWilson）正因为提出成立国联的设想而荣获诺贝尔和平奖，美国带动世界建起维护和平的体制：马歇尔计划(MarshallPlan)和联合国，对发动战争的规范，以及保护人权、防止种族灭绝大屠杀和限制最危险武器的各项条约。
这些努力在很多方面获得了成功。不错，可怕的战争仍然发生，种种暴行依然出现，但第三次世界大战没有爆发。冷战以兴高采烈的人群推倒一堵墙而告结束；商贸将世界大片地区紧密连在了一起；数十亿人口摆脱了贫困；自由、自决、平等和法治的理想断断续续地向前推进。我们是先辈们的坚韧精神和远大目光的继承人，这是我自己的国家有理由为之感到骄傲的业绩。
然而，在进入新世纪已10年之际，这一旧有的架构正在越来越难撑新生威胁的重压。世界或许不再为两个超级核大国之间可能发生战争而颤栗，但核扩散可能会增加发生巨大灾难的危险。恐怖主义一贯是一种手段，但现代技术会使少数怒火超量的小人以可怕的规模残杀无辜。
而且，国与国的战争正在日益被国家内部的战争所取代。民族和宗派冲突的重新抬头、分离主义运动、叛乱活动和失控国家的增加，都越来越将平民困于无休止的动乱中。在今天的战争中，平民的死亡大大超过军人；埋下未来冲突的种子；破坏经济；摧毁公民社会；形成大批难民；使儿童遭受创伤。
我今天没有带来对战争问题的决定性解决办法。但我确知，应对这些挑战要求具有几十年前那些英勇无畏的前辈所具有的远见、勤劳和坚韧不拔。这需要我们从新的角度思考正义战争的含义和正义和平的必备条件。
我们必须首先承认这个严峻的现实：在我们的有生之年，我们不会根除暴力冲突。会有一些时候，国家——不论是单独或共同行动——发现使用武力不仅必要，而且为道义所需。
我说这番话时并没有忘记马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther KingJr.）多年前在这同一仪式上说过的话：“暴力永远不会带来持久和平。它解决不了社会问题：只会制造新的、更复杂的问题”。我站在这里，作为金博士毕生奋斗的直接受益者，就是对非暴力的道义力量的活见证。我知道在甘地（Gandhi）和马丁·路德·金的信念与人生中，绝无软弱——绝无消极——绝无天真。
但是，作为宣誓保卫自己国家的一国元首，我不能只以他们的榜样为指南。我面对的世界是现实的世界，我不能面对美国人民遭到的威胁无动于衷。因为，切莫误会：邪恶在世界上确实存在。一场非暴力运??不可能阻止希特勒的军队。谈判不能说服基地（alQaeda）组织的头目放下武器。说武力有时是必要的并不是让大家变得愤世嫉俗——这是承认历史；是人类的不完美和情理的限度。
我说起这一点，我以这一点开头，因为今天在许多国家，对军事行动，不管出于什么理由，都存在一种深深的矛盾心理。有时候，这种矛盾又掺杂着对美国，这个世界上惟一的超级大国的一种反射性的不信任。
但世人必须记住，不简单地是因为国际体制——不只是条约和宣言——才给二战后的世界带来稳定。不管我们犯了多少错误，一个明白的事实是：美利坚合众国在60多年里，以自己公民的鲜血和军力，帮助维护和保证了世界的安全。我们的男女军人的贡献与牺牲促进了从德国到韩国的和平与繁荣，使民主能在像巴尔干这样的地方扎根。我们承受这些重负并不是因为我们谋求强加我们的意志。我们这样做是出于开化的自身利益——因为我们为我们的子子孙孙追求更美好的未来。我们相信如果别人的子子孙孙能生活在自由和繁荣中，他们的生活会更好。
所以，是的，战争的手段确实在保卫和平中具有作用。但这个事实必须同另一个事实共存——不管理由多么正当，战争导致人间悲剧。军人的勇敢和牺牲无比光荣，表达了对国家、事业、战友的忠诚。但战争本身决不光荣，我们决不能如此宣扬。
因此，我们面对的挑战部分来自于调和这两个看似不可调和的事实——战争有时必要，战争在某种程度上是人类愚蠢的表现。具体说，我们必须把我们的努力放在肯尼迪总统（Kennedy）很久以前所指出的使命上。他说：“让我们把注意力，集中在更实际，更能取得的和平上，这种和平不是基于人类本性的突发革命，而是基于人类体制的逐渐演进。”
这种演进可能具有何种形式？哪些可能是切实可行的步骤？
首先，我认为所有国家，无论强弱，都必须遵循对使用武力的规范。与任何国家元首一样，我保留在必要时采取单边行动保卫自己国家的权利。然而，我确信遵循标准——国际标准——的国家更有力量，而那些不遵循标准的国家会陷于孤立，并且被削弱。
“9.11”之后，全世界团结一致，与美国站在一起，并在今天继续支持我们在阿富汗的努力，这是滥杀无辜的残忍与公认的自卫原则使然。同样，当萨达姆·侯赛因（Saddam Hussein）入侵科威特时，世界也认识到必须与其抗衡。这一共识发出的清晰信息是：侵略必须付出代价。
另外，美国──以及任何国家──都不能在自己拒绝遵守规则时要求别人遵守规则。如果我们不以身作则，我们的行动就会表现为专横武断，使未来进行干预的合理性受到影响，无论理由多么充足。
当军事行动的目的超越了自卫或帮助某一国抵抗侵略者的防卫行动时，这一点变得尤其重要。我们大家都越来越多地面对棘手的问题：如何防止一国政府屠杀本国的平民？如何制止一场其暴行和所导致的痛苦会殃及整个地区的内战?
我认为，基于人道理由的武力是正当的，例如在巴尔干地区或饱经战乱的其他地区。不采取行动不仅折磨我们的良心，还会导致未来以更高的代价进行干预。因此，所有负责任的国家都必须相信使命明确的军事行动所能够发挥的维护和平作用。
美国将矢志不渝地致力于确保全球安全。然而，在这个威胁日益蔓延、使命日趋复杂的世界里，美国不能独自行动。美国独自行动不能带来和平。在阿富汗如此，在恐怖主义和海盗伴随饥荒肆虐、人民受苦受难的索马里等政府失控的国家也是如此。不幸的是，这种状况在今后岁月里会继续存在于动荡地区。
在阿富汗，北约国家以及其他友邦和盟国的领导人和军人以自身能力和勇气证实了上述论断。可是，在许多国家中，奉献者作出的努力与公众的矛盾心理之间存在脱节。我理解战争不受欢迎的原因，但我也知道：单凭向往和平的美好意愿很少能够带来和平。和平需要承担责任。和平需要作出牺牲。这是继续不能没有北约的原因。这是我们必须加强联合国及地区维和行动，不能将此重任推卸给少数几个国家的原因。因此，无论是在奥斯陆或罗马、渥太华或悉尼、达卡或基加利，我们都对那些完成维和行动与海外培训任务归来的军人给予极大的荣誉，因为他们不是战争制造者，而是和平缔造者。
请允许我对使用武力的问题最后再说明一点。即使我们对出兵参战一事作出了艰难的决定，我们还必须认真考虑我们如何参加作战。诺贝尔委员会在向亨利·杜南（Henry Dunant）颁发第一个和平奖时认识到这一点。亨利·杜南是红十字会（RedCross）创始人、《日内瓦公约》（Geneva Conventions?的幕后推动力量。
凡有必要使用武力的地方，我们出于道义与战略上的考虑，需要受某些行为准则的制约。即使我们遇到不遵守任何规则的邪恶对手，我认为美利坚合众国也必须一如既往成为遵守战争规范的楷模。这就是我们区别于作战对手的地方。这就是我们力量的源泉。这就是我禁止酷刑的原因。这就是我下令关闭关塔那摩湾监狱的原因。这就是我重申美国坚决遵守《日内瓦公约》的原因。我们为保卫自己的理想而战，如果我们放弃这些理想，我们就会自取其咎。（掌声）我们维护——我们维护这些理想，不论如何顺利，也不论如何艰难，都对这些理想恪守不渝。
我刚才比较详细地谈到我们在选择出兵参战之际，必须深思熟虑的问题。现在让我转而谈一谈我们为避免这类悲剧性的选择进行的努力，谈一谈我们维护正义和缔造持久和平的三个途径。
首先，对于那些不遵守规则和法律的国家，我认为我们必须采取一些除武力之外的其他方式，但需要有足以改变其行为方式的强硬措施——因为如果我们希望实现持久和平，那么国际社会说的话必须算数。不遵守规则的国家必须承担责任。各种制裁必须迫使对方付出实际的代价。如果拒不悔改，则必须施加更大的压力借以抗衡——全世界只有通力合作才有可能施加这样的压力。
举例来说，努力防止核武器扩散，争取一个没有核武器的世界是一项迫在眉睫的工作。上世纪中叶，各国同意受一项条约的约束，其内容十分明确：各国都可以和平使用核能；没有核武器的国家将不谋求核武器；拥有核武器的国家将努力裁减核军备。我坚决支持这项条约。这是我采取的外交政策的核心。我正与梅德韦杰夫（Medvedev）总统为削减美国和俄罗斯的核军备进行合作。
但我们大家也都有责任坚决不允许伊朗和北韩等国家玩弄这个制度。声称尊重国际法的人不能在这些法律遭到践踏时视而不见。关心自己安全的人无法忽视中东或东亚地区军备竞赛的危险。希望和平的人不可在一些国家为发动核战争建立军备时袖手旁观。
同样的原则也适用于那些违反国际法，残酷压榨本国人民的人。当达尔富尔地区出现种族大屠杀，当刚果发生层出不穷的强奸事件，当缅甸采取镇压行动的时候——必然会产生后果。是的，会进行接触，也会有外交行动——但当这些做法无法奏效时，必然会产生后果。我们如果更密切地合作，就很少有必要在武装??预和纵容专制压迫之间进行选择。
这就关系到我要讲的第二点——我们所寻求的和平的性质。和平并不仅仅意味着没有可见的冲突，只有基于每个人与生俱来的权利和尊严正义的和平才是真正的持久和平。
在第二次世界大战以后，正是这种真知灼见给了《世界人权宣言》（Universal Declaration of Human Rights）的起草者们以动力。在巨大的灾难之后，他们意识到，如果人权得不到保护，那么和平只是空洞的承诺。
但是，人权宣言被漠视的状况屡见不鲜。某些国家将人权原则是西方原则、与当地文化格格不入、不符合国家发展阶段等作为不维护人权的不实借口。在美国，那些自称为现实主义者或理想主义者的人之间，长期以来也存在矛盾——它代表着在狭隘地谋求利益与无休止地在全世界推行我们的价值观之间的僵化选择。
我拒绝这些选择。我认为，在那些公民无权自由发表意见或按照自己的意愿信教、不能选择自己的领导人或自由集会的地方，和平是不稳定的。被压抑的不满情绪会激起怨恨，压制部族和宗教的认同可能引发暴力反抗。我们也知道其实相反的情况。欧洲在赢得自由之后才最终享有和平。美国从来没有同民主国家交战，我们最亲密的友邦也都是保护其公民权利的政府。不管多么苛刻地界定，压制人的理想不会有利于美国的利益，也不会有利于世界的利益。
因此，即使在我们尊重不同国家的独特文化和传统的同时，美国仍将一如既往地为这些全人类共同的理想而大声疾呼。我们将为昂山素季（AungSang SuuKyi）那样具有沉静尊严的改革者见证；为不惧殴打而参加投票的津巴布韦人的勇气见证；为成千上万名在伊朗街头默默游行的人见证。这些都说明，那些政府的领导人对本国人民的理想的畏惧甚于任何其他国家的力量。全世界所有自由的人民和自由的国家都有责任明确宣告，我们站在这些行动——希望和历史的行动——的一边。
我还要这样说：促进人权不能仅限于规劝告诫。有时还必须辅以艰苦的外交努力。我知道，与压制性政权接触没有义愤填膺来得畅快。我也知道，如果一味制裁而没有主动接触，如果一味谴责而没有对话，只能保持一个有害的现状。任何压制性政权都不可能改弦易辙，除非它们有可以选择的出路。
鉴于文化大革命的种种恐怖，尼克松与毛泽东的会晤似乎不可饶恕——但是，这确实帮助中国走上了另一条道路，千百万中国人摆脱了贫困并与开放社会建立了联系。教皇约翰·保罗（Pope John Paul）与波兰的接触不仅为天主教教会，也为列赫·瓦文萨（LechWalesa）等工会领袖拓宽了空间。罗纳德·里根（RonaldReagan）为武器控制所作的努力以及对苏联改革的欢迎不仅与苏联改善了关系，也给整个东欧的持不同政见者增添了力量。这里并没有一个简单的公式，但我们必须尽可能在孤立与接触、施压与鼓励之间找到平衡，以使人权和尊严能够与时俱进。
第三，正义的和平不仅包括公民和政治权利——它还必须包括经济安全保障与机会。因为真正的和平不仅摆脱恐惧，而且无乏匮之虞。
无可置疑，如果没有安全保障，发展难以扎根；同样肯定的是，在人们缺少生存所需的衣食，净水、医药和住所的地方，不会有安全。在孩子没有希望受到良好教育或人们没有可能得到工作养家的地方，不会有安全。无望会使社会从内部恶化。
因此，帮助农民养活本国人民——或帮助一个国家教育本国儿童并照顾病患——不仅仅是慈善之举。这也是全世界必须共同应对气候变化的原因。几乎毫无争议的科学事实是，如果我们无所行动，我们将面临更多的干旱、更多的饥荒、更大规模的流离失所——所有这一切都将在未来几十年引发更大冲突。为此，不仅是科学家和环保人士呼吁采取迅速和有力的行动——我国和其他国家的军事领袖也都知道，我们的共同安全处在紧要关头。
各国间的协议。强有力的机制。对人权的支持。投资于发展。所有这一切都是实现肯尼迪总统所说的逐渐演进的至关重要的要素。然而，我认为，如果没有另一个要素，我们就不会有意志、决心、持久力去完成这项工作——而这便是我们不断扩展的道德想象力；一个对我们共同享有某种无法削弱的东西的坚定信念。
随着世界越来越小，人们可能认为，人类会更容易认识到我们是多么相似；懂得我们基本上都在追求同样的东西；我们都希望在我们一生中，给我们自己和我们的家人带来某种程度的幸福感和满足感。
但是，由于全球化令人眩目的进程以及现代化带来的文化趋同，人们担心丧失他们所珍视的自身特征——他们的种族、部族，以及也许最强有力的，他们的宗教。在有些地方，这种担心导致冲突。有时，我们甚至好像在倒退。在中东，随着阿拉伯人与犹太人之间的冲突似乎深化，我们看到了这种情形。我们在因部族间的冲突而四分五裂的国家看到这种情形。
最危险的是，我们看到，宗教是怎样被那些歪曲并玷污伟大的伊斯兰教，以及那些从阿富汗向我国发动攻击的人当作谋杀无辜的借口。这些极端分子不是第一批以上帝名义进行屠杀的人；对十字军（Crusades）的暴行有大量记录。但是这些提醒我们，圣战绝不会是正义的战争。因为如果当人真的认为自己是在替天行道时，就根本不必有所收敛——不必对孕妇、对医务人员、对红十字会工作者、甚或有自身宗教信仰的人留情。这样一种扭曲的宗教观不仅与和平的理念不相容，而且我认为它与信仰的目的本身不相容——因为每一个主要宗教的核心教义都是，己所不欲，勿施于人。
坚持爱的法则常常是人性挣扎的主要内容。人难免要犯错误，我们会做错事，我们会受自负、权力、有时甚至邪念所诱。即使是我们中那些最怀善意的人们有时也未能改斜纠偏。
然而，即使我们知道人性不是完美的，我们仍然可以相信，人类的状态是可以改善的；即使我们生活其中的世界不是个理想世界，我们仍然能够追求让它变得更美好的理想。甘地与马丁·路德·金等人所实践的非暴力也许不是在所有情形下都切合实际或者可行，但他们所宣扬的爱——即他们对于人类进步的基本信念——必须永远是指引我们前行的北斗星。
因为，如果我们丧失了那个信念——如果我们觉得它愚蠢或过于天真而不屑一顾；如果我们在就战争与和平问题决策时抛开了它——那么我们就丧失了人性中最美好的东西，我们就失去了能为的信念，我们就失去了道德指南针。
和以往世世代代的人们一样，我们必须拒绝接受这样的未来。多年前，金博士在同样的场合曾经说道：“我拒绝接受以绝望作为对历史含糊性的最后反应。我拒绝接受所谓反映人类现实状况的‘实然’(isness)使其无法从道义上达到永远需要面对的终极‘应然’（oughtness）。”
让我们努力达到世界应该达到的境界——神圣的火花仍然在我们每一个人的灵魂中激荡。（掌声）
今天，在某一个地方，此时此刻，在现实的世界上，一名士兵知道自己势薄力单，但仍然坚定地维护和平。今天，在某一个地方，在这个世界上，一位年轻??示威者知道将受到政府的残酷镇压，但她仍然有勇气大步前进。今天，在某一个地方，一位母亲受尽贫困的折磨，但仍然不惜花时间教育自己的孩子，凑集仅有的一些零钱送孩子上学——因为她相信，在这个残酷的世界上，仍然有一线空间可以实现孩子的梦想。
让我们以他们为榜样生活。我们可以承认，压迫将经常伴随着我们，但我们仍奋力争取正义。我们可以认为，腐化难以消除，但我们仍积极要求获得尊严。保持清醒的头脑，我们可以知道，战争将会爆发，但我们仍努力争取和平。我们可以做到——因为这是人类进步的历程；这是全世界的希望；在当前面临挑战的时刻，这必须是我们在全球从事的工作。
多谢诸位。（掌声）
（完）
中欧时间下午2:20
英文原文：
President Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize
Courtesy of the White House
Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:39 AM
OBAMA: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deepgratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highestaspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, weare not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bendhistory in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I didnot acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generousdecision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am atthe beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage.Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize --Schweitzer and King; Marshalland Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are themen and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in thepursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations torelieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts ofcourage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannotargue with those who find these men and women -- some known, someobscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of thishonor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issuesurrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am theCommander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of twowars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict thatAmerica did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries-- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nationsfrom further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'mresponsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans tobattle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. Andso I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict --filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war andpeace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War,in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn ofhistory, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, likedrought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizationssought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law soughtto control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics andstatesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept ofa "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only whencertain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or inself-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, wheneverpossible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most ofhistory, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacityof human beings to think up new ways to kill one another provedinexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who lookdifferent or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way towars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction betweencombatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, suchcarnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard toconceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich andthe Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total numberof civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, andwith the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor andvanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent anotherworld war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senaterejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilsonreceived this prize -- America led the world in constructing anarchitecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations,mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect humanrights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these effortssucceeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocitiescommitted. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War endedwith jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much ofthe world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The idealsof liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law havehaltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight ofgenerations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country isrightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century,this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. Theworld may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclearsuperpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a fewsmall men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations haveincreasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnicor sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements,insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasinglytrapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many morecivilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict aresown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugeesamassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today adefinitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is thatmeeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, andpersistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. Andit will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just warand the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging thehard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert-- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of whatMartin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violencenever brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merelycreates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as adirect consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony tothe moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothingpassive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn toprotect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examplesalone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face ofthreats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist inthe world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler'sarmies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay downtheir arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a callto cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of manand the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with thispoint because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence aboutmilitary action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this isjoined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that itwas not simply international institutions -- not just treaties anddeclarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world.Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The UnitedStates of America has helped underwrite global security for more thansix decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of ourarms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform haspromoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea,and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We haveborne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have doneso out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better futurefor our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their liveswill be better if others' children and grandchildren can live infreedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war dohave a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth mustcoexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promiseshuman tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory,expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But waritself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge isreconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war issometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of humanfolly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that PresidentKennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a morepractical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution inhuman nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." Agradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that allnations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards thatgovern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve theright to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, internationalstandards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those whodon't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan,because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognizedprinciple of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need toconfront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America-- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of theroad if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, ouractions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of futureinterventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularlyimportant when the purpose of military action extends beyondself-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. Moreand more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent theslaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil warwhose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justifiedon humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other placesthat have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and canlead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsiblenations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate canplay to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia,where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. Andsadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years tocome.
The leaders and soldiers of NATOcountries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth throughthe capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan.But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts ofthose who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understandwhy war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace isdesirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requiresresponsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues tobe indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regionalpeacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why wehonor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about theuse of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war,we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committeerecognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to HenryDunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind theGeneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have amoral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules ofconduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by norules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standardbearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different fromthose whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why Iprohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bayclosed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abideby the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise thevery ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- wehonor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it ishard.
I have spoken at some length to thequestion that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose towage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragicchoices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lastingpeace.
First, in dealing with those nationsthat break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternativesto violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for ifwe want a lasting peace, then the words of the international communitymust mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be heldaccountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must bemet with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when theworld stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort toprevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world withoutthem. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound bya treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peacefulnuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; andthose with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I amcommitted to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreignpolicy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America andRussia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all ofus to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game thesystem. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert theireyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own securitycannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or EastAsia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations armthemselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to thosewho violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. Whenthere is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression inBurma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement;yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences whenthose things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely wewill be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicityin oppression.
This brings me to a second point --the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely theabsence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherentrights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drovedrafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the SecondWorld War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if humanrights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words areignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights isexcused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Westernprinciples, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation'sdevelopment. And within America, there has long been a tension betweenthose who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tensionthat suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests oran endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believethat peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speakfreely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemblewithout fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribaland religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that theopposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally findpeace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and ourclosest friends are governments that protect the rights of theircitizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests-- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the uniqueculture and traditions of different countries, America will always be avoice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness tothe quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the braveryof Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to thehundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets ofIran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear theaspirations of their own people more than the power of any othernation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and freenations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hopeand history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotionof human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must becoupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement withrepressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But Ialso know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation withoutdiscussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. Norepressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice ofan open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution'shorrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet itsurely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens havebeen lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope JohnPaul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the CatholicChurch, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's effortson arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relationswith the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout EasternEurope. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we canto balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so thathuman rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not onlycivil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security andopportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedomfrom want.
It is undoubtedly true thatdevelopment rarely takes root without security; it is also true thatsecurity does not exist where human beings do not have access to enoughfood, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive.It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education ora job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a societyfrom within.
And that's why helping farmers feedtheir own people -- or nations educate their children and care for thesick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come togetherto confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that ifwe do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more massdisplacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. Forthis reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activistswho call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in myown country and others who understand our common security hangs in thebalance.
Agreements among nations. Stronginstitutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. Allthese are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution thatPresident Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we willhave the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete thiswork without something more -- and that's the continued expansion ofour moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreduciblethat we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you mightthink it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar weare; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things;that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measureof happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzyingpace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhapscomes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish intheir particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhapsmost powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led toconflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We seeit in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems toharden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it inthe way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents bythose who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, andwho attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not thefirst to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades areamply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a justwar. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will,then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnantmother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person ofone's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not justincompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatiblewith the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at theheart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we wouldhave them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love hasalways been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. Wemake mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power,and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions willat times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think thathuman nature is perfect for us to still believe that the humancondition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealizedworld to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place.The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not havebeen practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love thatthey preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that mustalways be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if wedismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions thatwe make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best abouthumanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, wemust reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so manyyears ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to theambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness'of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching upfor the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now,in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firmto keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestorawaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to marchon. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes thetime to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has tosend that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel worldstill has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We canacknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strivefor justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and stillstrive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will bewar, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is thestory of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at thismoment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much.
END