Obama. Transcript. UNGeneralAssembly. 23sep2013.

  Mr.President, Mr.SecretaryGeneral, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution. For most of recordedHistory, 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 ofArmies. 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 twoWorldWars to shift our thinking. The leaders who built theUnitedNations were notnaïve; 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 behaviour, and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time. For decades, theUN has in fact made a real difference, from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace. But like everygeneration 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 internationalcommunity, to squarely meet those challenges; whether theUnitedNations can meet the tests of our time. For much of my time asPresident, some of our most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated globalEconomy, and our efforts to recover from theworsteconomiccrisis of our lifetime. Now, fiveyears after the globalEconomy collapsed, thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilised, 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 the21stcentury. Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war. Fiveyearsago, nearly 180,000 americans were serving in harm’s way, and the war inIraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world. Today, all of our troops have leftIraq. Nextyear, an internationalcoalition will end its war inAfghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of alQaeda that attacked us on 9/11. For theUnitedStates, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual warfooting. Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to theUnitedStates where capture is not feasible, and there is a nearcertainty of no civilian casualties. We are transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts ofLaw, while workingdiligently to close the prison atGuantanamoBay. [Bullshit.] 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 properlybalance the legitimate security concerns of our citisens 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 morestable 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. InPakistan, nearly onehundredpersons were recently killed by suicidebombers outside a church. InIraq, killings and carbombs continue to be a horrific part of life. Meanwhile, alQaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which has not carried out an attack like9/11, but does pose serious threats to Governments, diplomats, businesses and civilians across the globe. Just as significantly, the convulsions in theMiddleEast and northAfrica 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 weaponsofmassdestruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace. Nowhere have we seen these trends converge morepowerfully than inSyria. 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 civilwar. The internationalcommunity recognised 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 peaceprocess is stillborn. 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 on21aug., the regime used chemicalweapons in an attack that killed morethan onethousandpersons, including hundreds of children. The crisis inSyria, and the destabilisation of the region, goes to the heart of broader challenges that the internationalcommunity must now confront. How should we respond to conflicts in theMiddleEast and northAfrica, conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them? How do we address the choice of standingcallously 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 civilised conduct? What is the role of theUnitedNations, and InternationalLaw, in meeting cries forJustice? Today, I want to outline where theUnitedStatesOfAmerica stands on these issues. With respect toSyria, we believe that as a starting point, the internationalcommunity must enforce the ban on chemicalweapons. When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against theAssadregime in response to the brazen use of chemicalweapons, I did not do so lightly. I did so because I believe it is in the securityinterest of theUnitedStates and the world to meaningfullyenforce a prohibition [principle] whose origins are older than theUNitself. The ban against the use ofchemicalweapons, even in war, has been agreed to by ninetyeightpercent of humanity. [Whatthefuck?]  It is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocated in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in gaschambers; and iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands. The evidence is overwhelming that theAssadregime used such weapons on21aug. UNinspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of saringas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regimecontrolled neighbourhood, and landed in opposition neighbourhoods.  It is an insult to humanreason, 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 theSecurityCouncil. But without a credible military threat, theSecurityCouncil had demonstrated no inclination to act at all. However, as I’ve discussed withPresidentPutin for over oneyear, mostrecently inSt.Petersburg, my preference has alwaysbeen a diplomatic resolution to this issue, and in the past several weeks, theUnitedStates, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to placeSyria’schemicalweapons under internationalcontrol, and then to destroy them. The syrianGovernment took a firststep by giving an accounting of its stockpiles. Now, there must be a strongSecurityCouncilResolution to verify that theAssadregime 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 internationallaws. On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemicalweapons has no place in the21stcentury, and that this body means what it says. Agreement on chemicalweapons should energise a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement withinSyria. I do not believe that military action by those withinSyria or by external powers, can achieve a lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will leadSyria, that is for the syrian people to decide. [Whatthefuck?] Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badlyfractured country. The notion that Syria can return to a prewarstatusquo is a fantasy. It’s time for-Russia and -Iran to realise 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 theSyrianpeople cannot afford a collapse ofState 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 aColdWar. There’s no [“]great game[“] to be won, nor does America have any interest inSyria beyond the wellbeing of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemicalweapons, and ensuring it does not become a safehaven for terrorists. I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution ofSyria’scivilwar. And as we move theGenevaprocess forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs inSyria and surrounding countries. America has committed over onebillionUSD to this effort, and today, I can announce that we will be providing an additional threehundredsandfortymillionsUSD. 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’spolicy towardsSyria? I know there are those who’ve been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to deposeAssad and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of american resolve in the region. Others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of chemicalweapons shows we’ve learned nothing fromIraq and that America continues to seek control over theMiddleEast for our own purposes. In this way, the situation inSyria mirrors the contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades. TheUnitedStates is chastised for meddling in the region, accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy, at thesame time theUnitedStates is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’sproblems and for showing indifference towards sufferingMuslim populations. I realise some of this is inevitable, giving, given America’srole in the world. But these contradictory attitudes have a practical impact on the american people’ssupport for our involvement in the region and allow leaders in the region, as well as the internationalcommunity sometimes, to avoid addressing difficult problems themselves. So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been USpolicy toward the MiddleEast and northAfrica and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidents [presidency]. TheUnitedStates OfAmerica is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in theGulfWar. We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. [Whatthefuck?] Although America is steadilyreducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world stilldepends on the region’senergysupply and a severe disruption could destabilise the entire globalEconomy. We will dismantle terroristnetworks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary, defend theUnitedStates against terrorist attack, we will take direct action. And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weaponsofmassdestruction. Just as we consider the use of chemicalweapons inSyria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclearweapons that could trigger a nucleararmsrace in the region and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Now, to say that these are America’scoreinterests is not to say that they are our onlyinterests. We deeplybelieve it is in our interests to see a MiddleEast and northAfrica that is peaceful and prosperous. And we’ll continue to promoteDemocracy and HumanRights and openmarkets because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity. But I alsobelieve that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral american action, particularly through military action. Iraq shows us that Democracy cannot simply be imposed by force. Rather, these objectives are bestachieved when we partner with the internationalcommunity and with the countries and peoples of the region. So what does this mean, going forward? In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues, Iran’s pursuit of nuclearweapons and the arabisraeliconflict. 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. TheUnitedStates and Iran have been isolated from one another since theIslamicRevolution of1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a History ofUSinterference in their affairs and of America’srole in overthrowing the iranianGovernment during theColdWar. On the other hand, americans see an iranianGovernment that has declared theUnitedStates an enemy and directly or through proxies taken american hostages, killed-UStroops and -civilians, and threatened our ally, Israel, with destruction. I don’t believe this difficult History can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’snuclearprogram, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect. Since I took office, I’ve made it clear in letters to the supreme leader inIran and morerecently toPresidentRouhani that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’snuclearprogram peacefully, although we are determined to preventIran from developing a nuclearweapon. We are not seeking regime change, and we respect the right of the iranian people to access peaceful nuclearenergy. Instead, we insist that the iranianGovernment meet its responsibilities under theNuclearNonproliferationtreaty and UNSecurityCouncilResolutions. Meanwhile, the supreme leader has issued a fatwah against the development of nuclear weapons. And PresidentRouhani has just recently reiterated that theIslamicRepublic will never develop a nuclearweapon. So these statements made by our respective [respecful]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. But to succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it’s the iranianGovernment’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place. And this not, is not simply an issue between theUnitedStates and Iran. The world has seenIran evade its responsibilities in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future. But I want to be clear. We are encouraged that PresidentRouhani received from the iranian people a mandate to pursue a moremoderate course, and given PresidentRouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directingJohnKerry to pursue this effort with the iranianGovernment in close cooperation with theEuropeanUnion, theUnitedKingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. The roadblocks may prove to be toogreat, but I firmlybelieve the diplomatic path must be tested. That while the statusquo will only deepenIran’sisolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and for the world, and will help the iranian people meet their extraordinary potential in commerce and culture, in-Science and -Education. We are also determined the resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between palestinians and israelis. I’ve made it clear that theUnitedStates will never compromise our commitment toIsrael’ssecurity, nor our support for its existence as a jewishState. 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’s a growing recognition withinIsrael that the occupation of theWestBank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the jewishState. But, the children ofIsrael have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fullyrecognise their country, and where we unequivocallyreject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them. Likewise, theUnitedStates remains committed to the belief that the palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereignState. On thesametrip, I had the opportunity to meet with young palestinians inRamallah, whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel and having no firm place in the community of nations. They are understandablycynical that real progress will ever be made, and they’re frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation. But they, too, recognise that twoStates is the only real path to peace. Because just as the palestinian people must not be displaced, theState of Israel is here to stay. So the time is now ripe for the entire internationalcommunity to get behind the pursuit of peace. Already, israeli and palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. PresidentAbbas has put aside efforts to shortcut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. PrimeMinisterNetanyahu has released palestinian prisoners and reaffirmed his commitment to a palestinianState. Current talks are focused on final statusissues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem. So now the rest of us must be willing to take risks as well. Friends ofIsrael, including theUnitedStates, must recognise that Israel’ssecurity as a jewish- and democratic-State depend on the realisation of a palestinianState. And we should say so clearly. ArabStates and those who support the palestinians must recognise that stability will only be served through a twoState solution and a secureIsrael. All of us must recognise that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. And, 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’s emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, let’s support israeli and palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace. Now, real breakthroughs on these two issues, Iran’snuclearprogram and israelipalestinian peace, would have a profound and positive impact on the entireMiddleEast and northAfrica. But the current convulsions arising out of theArabSpring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only agreements between nations; it must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promoteJustice within nations. And by that measure, it’s clear that all of us have a lot morework to do. When peaceful transitions began in-Tunisia and -Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope. And although theUnitedStates, like others, was struck by the speed of transition, and although we did not, and, in fact, could not dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change. And we did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard and take time, societies based uponDemocracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be morestable, moreprosperous and morepeaceful. Over the last few years, particularly inEgypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be. MohammedMorsi was democraticallyelected but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fullyinclusive. The interimGovernment that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong term. But it, too, has made decisions inconsistent with inclusiveDemocracy through an emergencyLaw, and restrictions on the press and civil society, and opposition (inaudible). Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneouslyaccused of supporting theMuslimBrotherhood and engineering the removal of power. In fact, theUnitedStates has purposelyavoided choosing sides. Our overriding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage aGovernment that legitimately reflects the will of the egyptian people and recognises trueDemocracy as requiring a respect for minority rights and the rule ofLaw, FreedomOfSpeech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today. And so going forward, theUnitedStates will maintain a constructive relationship with the interimGovernment that promotes coreinterests like theCampDavidAccords in counterTerrorism, will continue support in areas likeEducation that directlybenefit the egyptian people, but we have not proceeded with the deliveryof certain military systems. And our support will depend uponEgypt’sprogress in pursuing a moredemocratic path. And our approach toEgypt reflects a larger point, theUnitedStates will at times work withGovernments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest internationalexpectations, but who work with us on our core interests. Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in theUniversalDeclarationOfHumanRights. [What the fuck?] We will reject the notion that these principles are simplywestern exports, incompatible with Islam- or theArab-world. We believe they are the birthright of everyperson. And while we recognise that our influence will, at times, be limited, although we will be wary of efforts to imposeDemocracy through military force, and although we will, at times, be accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency, we will be engaged in the region for the long haul, for the hard work of forging freedom and Democracy is the task of a generation. And this includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places likeIraq, Bahrain and Syria. We understand such longstanding issues cannot be solved by outsiders. They must be addressed byMuslimcommunities themselves. But [?] we’ve seen grinding conflicts come to an end before, mostrecently in northernIreland where catholics and protestants finallyrecognised that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fastmoving world. And so, we believe those same sectarian conflicts can be overcome in theMiddleEast and northAfrica. To summarise, theUnitedStates has a hardearned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries. Now, the notion of americanEmpire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or by publicopinion. Indeed, as recent debates within theUnitedStates overSyria clearlyshow. The danger for the world is not an America that is tooeager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or to take on everyproblem in the region as its own. The danger for the world is, that theUnitedStates after a decade of war, rightlyconcerned about issues aback home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout theMuslimworld, may disengage creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill. I believe such disengagement would be a mistake. I believe America must remain engaged for our own security, but [?, !] I alsobelieve the world is better for it. Some may disagree. But I believe 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 selfinterest, but for the interest of all. I must be honest though, we’re farmorelikely 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 fromEurope toAsia, fromAfrica to theAmericas, nations that have persevered on a democratic path, have emerged moreprosperous, morepeaceful and moreinvested in upholding our commonsecurity and our commonhumanity. I believe that thesame will hold true for theArabworld. This leads me to a final point. There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial, that the internationalcommunity will be called upon to act. This will require new thinking and some verytough choices. While theUnitedNations was designed to prevent wars betweenStates, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter withinStates. And these challenges will grow morepronounced as we are confronted withStates that are fragile or failing, places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk with no hope of protection from their national institutions. I’ve made it clear that even when America’scoreinterests are notdirectlythreatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights. But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone. InMali, we supported both the french intervention, but successfully pushed back alQaida, and the african forces who are keeping the peace. In easternAfrica, we are working with partners to bring theLord’sResistanceArmy to an end. And inLibya, when theSecurityCouncil 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 criticise the action inLibya as an object lesson, that point to the problem that the country nowconfronts, a democraticallyelectedGovernment struggling to provide security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of the fractured land. And so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look atLibya. And no one’s moremindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding UScitizens who were committed to the libyan people, includingAmbassadorChrisStevens, a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city ofBenghazi. But does anyone truly believe that the situation inLibya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalise his people into submission? It’s farmorelikely that without internationalaction, Libya would now be engulfed in civilwar and bloodshed. We live in a world of imperfect choices. Different nations will not agree on the need for action in everyinstance. And the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our internationalorder. But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit onemurder**, or an excuse for the internationalcommunity to turn a blind eye. While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy everyevil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda, or Srebrenica? If that’s the world that people want to live in, they should say so, and reckon with the cold [“]logic[“] of massgraves. But I believe we can embrace a different future. And if we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better, all of us, with 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 rootcauses of conflict, notmerely its aftermath, through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalised. And, yes, sometimes although this will not be enough, there are gonna be moments where the internationalcommunity will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the veryworst from occurring. Ultimately, this is the internationalcommunity that America seeks, One where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution and where we all take responsibility. [What the fuck?] 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-NewYork or -Nairobi, in-Peshawar or -Damascus. These are extraordinary times with extraordinary opportunities. Thanks to humanprogress, a child born anywhere onEarth today can do things can sixtyyears 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, and America is with them, partnering to feed the hungry and care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid. I see it across thePacificregion, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a singlegeneration. I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with a click of a button and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty and 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. It’s happening in Europe and across the Americas. That’s the future that the people of theMiddleEast and northAfrica deserve as well, 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. And time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change, to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our betterHistory. Lastmonth, I stood where fiftyyears ago MartinLutherKingJr. told America about his dream at a time when many people of my race could not even vote forPresident. Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where NelsonMandela endured decades cut off from his own people in the world. Who are we to believe that today’schallenges cannot be overcome when we’ve seen what changes the humanspirit 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 ofHistory I want theUnitedStatesOfAmerica to be on. We’re ready to meet tomorrow’schallenges with you, firm in the belief that all men and women are, in fact, createdequally, each individual possessed with a dignity and inalienable rights that cannot be denied. That’s why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope, and that’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a morepeaceful, prosperous and just world to the next generation. Thank you, verymuch.