Remarks by President Obama to the U

Remarks by President Obama to the United Nations General Assembly
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
10:18 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, it is worth reflecting on what, together, the members of this body have helped to achieve.
Out of the ashes of the Second World War, having witnessed the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the United States has worked with many nations in this Assembly to prevent a third world war -- by forging alliances with old adversaries; by supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power; and by building an international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over cooperation, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all people.
That is the work of seven decades. That is the ideal that this body, at its best, has pursued. Of course, there have been too many times when, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. Over seven decades, terrible conflicts have claimed untold victims. But we have pressed forward, slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are better and stronger and more consistent.
It is this international order that has underwritten unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity. It is this collective endeavor that’s brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world’s major powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion people from poverty. It is these international principles that helped constrain bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones, and advanced the emergence of democracy and development and individual liberty on every continent.
This progress is real. It can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed. And yet, we come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line, that our work is far from complete; that dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.
Today, we see the collapse of strongmen and fragile states breeding conflict, and driving innocent men, women and children across borders on an *epoch epic scale. Brutal networks of terror have stepped into the vacuum. Technologies that empower individuals are now also exploited by those who spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or radicalize our youth. Global capital flows have powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and accelerated inequality.
How should we respond to these trends? There are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the U.N. charter are unachievable or out of date -- a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own. Effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that pre-date this institution: the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don’t matter; and that in a time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force.
On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution’s mission; information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted. We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.
The increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. We see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. Most ominously, we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, or anti-Semitism; appeals to a glorious past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or worship God differently; a politics of us versus them.
The United States is not immune from this. Even as our economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, we see in our debates about America’s role in the world a notion of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived adversaries, a rising China, or a resurgent Russia; a revolutionary Iran, or an Islam that is incompatible with peace. We see an argument made that the only strength that matters for the United States is bellicose words and shows of military force; that cooperation and diplomacy will not work.
As President of the United States, I am mindful of the dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Remarks by President Obama to the United Nations General AssemblyUnited Nations HeadquartersNew York, New York10:18 A.M. EDTPRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, it is worth reflecting on what, together, the members of this body have helped to achieve. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, having witnessed the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the United States has worked with many nations in this Assembly to prevent a third world war by forging alliances with old adversaries; by supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power; and by building an international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over cooperation, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all people. That is the work of seven decades. That is the ideal that this body, at its best, has pursued. Of course, there have been too many times when, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. Over seven decades, terrible conflicts have claimed untold victims. But we have pressed forward, slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are better and stronger and more consistent. It is this international order that has underwritten an unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity. It is this collective endeavor that's brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world's major powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion people from poverty. It is these international principles that helped technique bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones, and advanced the emergence and development of democracy and individual liberty on every continent. This progress is real. It can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed. And yet, we come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line, that our work is far from complete; that dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world. Today, we see the collapse of strongmen and fragile states breeding conflict and driving innocent men, women and children across borders on an epoch * epic scale. Brutal networks of terror have stepped into the vacuum. Technologies that empower individuals are now also exploited by those who spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or to radicalize our youth. Global capital flows have powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of contagion, weakened the power of workers he opts, and accelerated the inequality. How should we respond to these trends? There are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the U.N. charter are unachievable or out of date-a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own. Effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that pre-date this institution: the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don't matter; and that in a time of rapid change, the order must be imposed by force. On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution's mission; information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted. We're told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it's the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse. The increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. We see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. Most ominously, we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to the sectarianism which had, or tribalism or racism or anti-Semitism; appeals to a glorious past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or worship God differently; a politics of us versus them. The United States is not immune from this. Even as our economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, we see in our debates about America's role in the world a notion of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived adversaries, a rising China or a resurgent Russia; a revolutionary Iran, or an Islam that is incompatible with peace. We see an argument made that the only strength that matters for the United States is bellicose words and shows of military force; that cooperation and diplomacy will not work. As President of the United States, I am mindful of the 1960s that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.

Результаты (английский) 2:

By President Obama Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly
United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
10:18 AM EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, it is worth reflecting on what, together, the members of this body have helped to achieve.
Out of the ashes of the Second World War, having witnessed the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the United States has worked with many nations in this Assembly to prevent a third world war - by forging alliances with old adversaries; by supporting the steady emergence of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power; by building an and international system that imposes a cost on those who choose cooperation over conflict, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all people.
That is the work of seven decades. That is the ideal that this body, at its best, has pursued. Of course, there have been too many times when, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. Over seven decades, terrible conflicts have claimed untold victims. We have pressed But forward, slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are better and stronger and more consistent.
It is this international order that has underwritten unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity. It is this collective endeavor that's brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world's major powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion people from poverty. Is these international It principles that helped constrain bigger countries from imposing our will on smaller ones, and advanced the emergence of democracy and development and individual liberty on every continent.
This is real progress. It can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases conquered, and in mouths fed. And yet, we come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line, that our work is far from complete; risk dangerous currents that pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world.
Today, we see the collapse of fragile states strongmen and breeding conflict, and driving innocent men, women and children across borders on an epic scale * epoch. Brutal networks of terror have stepped into the vacuum. Technologies that empower individuals are now also exploited by those who spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or radicalize our youth. Capital flows have Global powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and accelerated inequality.
How should we respond to these trends? There are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the UN charter are unachievable or out of date - a legacy of a postwar era not suited to our own. Effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history and that pre-date this institution: the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals do not matter; that in a and time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force.
On this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution's mission; information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society restricted. We're told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it's the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. Accordance with this In logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.
The increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. We see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out immigrants. Most ominously, we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, or anti-Semitism; appeals to a glorious past before the body politic was infected by those who look different, or worship God differently; politics of us a versus them.
The United States is not immune from this. Even as our economy is growing and our troops have largely returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, we see in our debates about America's role in the world a notion of strength that is defined by opposition to old enemies, perceived adversaries, a rising China, or a resurgent Russia; a revolutionary Iran, or an Islam that is incompatible with peace. We see an argument made ​​that the only strength that matters for the United States is bellicose words and shows of military force; cooperation and diplomacy that will not work.
As President of the United States, I am mindful of the dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.

Результаты (английский) 3:

remarks by president obama to the united nations general assembly
united nations headquarters - new york, new york
10:18 a.m. EDT
president OBAMA: mr. president, mr. secretary general, - delegates, ladies and family, seventy years after the founding of the united nations, it is worth reflecting on what this the members of this body have helped to achieve.
out of the ashes of the second world war, having witnessed the unthinkable power of the atomic age, the united states has worked with many writers in this assembly to prevent a third world war -- by forging alliances with old adversaries; by supporting the steady they of strong democracies accountable to their people instead of any foreign power.and by building an international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over cooperation, an order that recognizes the dignity and equal worth of all people.
that is the work of seven decades. that is the ideal that this body, at its best, has pursued. of course, there have been too many times and, collectively, we have fallen short of these ideals. over seven decades,if conflicts have claimed untold victims. but we have pressed forward, slowly, steadily, to make a system of international rules and norms that are better and stronger and more consistent.
it is this international order that has underwritten unparalleled advances in human liberty and prosperity.it is this collective endeavor that's brought about diplomatic cooperation between the world's major powers, and buttressed a global economy that has lifted more than a billion people from poverty. it is these international principles that helped constrain countries from time imposing our will on smaller ones.and advanced the they of democracy and development and individual liberty on every continent.
this progress is real. it can be documented in lives saved, and agreements forged, and diseases well, and in mouths fed. and yet, we come together today knowing that the march of human progress never travels in a straight line, that our work is far from complete.that dangerous currents risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world. "today, we see the writing of strongmen and fragile connection states of conflict, and all innocent men, women and children across borders on an * epoch some scale. brutal networks of terror have choice into the vacuum.technologies that need individuals are now also exploited by those who spread disinformation, or suppress dissent, or radicalize our youth. global capital flows have powered growth and investment, but also increased risk of contagion, weakened the bargaining power of workers, and using inequality. - how should we respond to these trends?there are those who argue that the ideals enshrined in the u.n. charter are unachievable or out of date -- a legacy of a postwar era not but to our own. effectively, they argue for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history, and that pre date this institution: the belief that power is a zero - sum game; that might makes right.that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don't matter; and that in a time of rapid change, the order must be imposed by force. "on this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that contravene international law. we see an erosion of the democratic principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution's mission.information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society working. we're told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder; that it's the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. in accordance with this logic, we should support virginia is like Bashar al Assad, and again to bombs to massacre innocent children, because the alternative is worse there.
the increasing skepticism of our international order can also be found in the most advanced democracies. we see greater polarization, more frequent gridlock; movements on the far right, and sometimes the left, that insist on stopping the trade that binds our fates to other nations, calling for the building of walls to keep out divergences. the ominously,we see the fears of ordinary people being exploited through appeals to sectarianism, or tribalism, or racism, and anti semitism; appeals to a glorious past before the body politics was infected by those who look different, or worship god differently; the politics of us versus them. "the united states is not immune from this.