奥巴马在2014西点军校毕业典礼上的演讲

　　Let me make one final point about our efforts againstterrorism. The partnerships I’ve described do noteliminate the need to take direct action whennecessary to protect ourselves. When we haveactionable intelligence, that’s what we do --through capture operations like the one thatbrought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb ourembassies in 1998 to face justice; or drone strikeslike those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.There are times when those actions are necessary, and we cannot hesitate to protect ourpeople.

　　But as I said last year, in taking direct action we must uphold standards that reflect ourvalues. That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and onlywhere there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties. For our actionsshould 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 counterterrorismactions and the manner in which they are carried out. We have to be able to explain thempublicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners. I will increasingly turn to our militaryto take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts. Our intelligencecommunity has done outstanding work, and we have to continue to protect sources andmethods. But when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terroristpropaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and ourpeople, 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 andsupport 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 needfor 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 theCold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon, “a gradualevolution in human institutions.” And evolving these international institutions to meet thedemands 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 ofmultilateral action. For them, working through international institutions like the U.N. orrespecting international law is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong. Let me offer just twoexamples 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; Europeand the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to EasternEuropean allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought theeyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine. And this mobilization of world opinion andinternational institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russiantroops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.

　　This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions. Yesterday, I spoke to their next President. Wedon’t know how the situation will play out and there will remain grave challenges ahead, butstanding 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 Iraniannuclear program steadily advanced for years. But at the beginning of my presidency, we built acoalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand ofdiplomacy to the Iranian government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve ourdifferences peacefully.

　　The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining anuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving abreakthrough agreement -- one that is more effective and durable than what we could haveachieved through the use of force. And throughout these negotiations, it has been ourwillingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.

　　The point is this is American leadership. This is American strength. In each case, we builtcoalitions to respond to a specific challenge. Now we need to do more to strengthen theinstitutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading. For example, NATO isthe strongest alliance the world has ever known. But we’re now working with NATO allies tomeet new missions, both within Europe where our Eastern allies must be reassured, but alsobeyond Europe’s borders where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism andrespond to failed states and train a network of partners.

　　Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep thepeace in states torn apart by conflict. Now we needto make sure that those nations who providepeacekeepers have the training and equipment toactually keep the peace, so that we can prevent thetype of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan. Weare going to deepen our investment in countriesthat support these peacekeeping missions, becausehaving other nations maintain order in their ownneighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s a smartinvestment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)