WELCOME TO THE SWORD OF TRUTH

The blog is design to addressing pressing global issues, thus serving as a medium for the voices of the voiceless in the humane quest of making our world a better and safer place for all of humanity. In a world confronted with daunting socio-economic and socio-political challenges, the blog will also provide compelling prescriptive policy measures for national, international and individual actors across the global political landscape.

A Tale of Two Sister State Politics: New York Mayoral and New Jersey Governor Elections

2009 November 5
by SOFA JAWARO

When one quickly analyzes the Tuesday November 4, 2009 mayoral and governor elections in the sister states of New York and New Jersey, it could rightfully be argued that a shift along the political spectrum of the two sister states gradually took shape. Even though Mayor Bloomberg’s victory was expected, the stunning performance of democratic contender; Mr. Thomson, that narrowed the Republican lead by only a 4% margin, indicates a comeback and a democratic unwavering quest of capturing the New York City Mayoral seat.

No one can deny that Mayor Bloomberg positively contributed towards the socio-politic and socio-economic development of New York City. The charismatic Mayor responsibly led the city in tough times, and made tough decisions at a time when the US economy was undergoing a downturn. Notable examples are the lay-offs from city jobs and the MTA fare hikes. How that has impacted the population remains to be unknown. What is certain is that the state of the economy may have contributed towards a slow shifting to a democratic control of the Mayoral seat. Many others have attributed the shift to the introduction of a legislation that has given him the incumbent Mayor a mandate to run for a third term in office.

As New Yorkers battled to reelect the incumbent Mayor with a slight 4% margin, a major political backlash at the sister state of New Jersey was the culmination of divergent political views. The heavily embryonic democratic state ousted its incumbent Governor Corzine in what could best be characterized as an electoral coup d’état. Even President Obama’s campaign support that was geared towards bolstering the Corzine campaign failed to avert the political pitfall.

Amidst corruption scandals that marred the New Jersey Political Landscape, rising unemployment of up to 10%, and a battered economic landscape as a result of the global economic crisis, citizens of New Jersey voted across party lines to get Governor Christi elected, according to pundits and analysts. Even though most of us advocated for a Jon Corzine ticket, the votes of November 4, 2009 vote indeed represents a “CHANGE” that New Jersey has long being paddling, and the Victory of Governor –Elect Chris Christi represents that change.

The elections across both sides of the Hudson River are two political variables and concrete political lessons. In both states, we have seen two prominent politicians battered by political forces beyond control. With the test of time, Mayor Bloomberg could have confessed to his Democratic Contender, just as Jon Corzine did following announcement of the results. The concrete lessons are twofold; Firstly New Jersey citizens wanted change and the electoral victory of Governor Elect Christi represents that change; Secondly New Yorkers have sent a signal that they may slowly, but certainly, be creeping towards a change by electing Mayor Bloomberg with only a 4% margin of victory. The political variables of the elections are indeed a historic tale. What else could one say?

CONGRATULATIONS TO BOTH GOVERNOR ELECT CHRISTI AND MAYOR BLOOMBERG FOR THE ELECTORAL VICTORIES

Critical - Objective Politics, Patriotic - Restricted Narrowly Confine Politics and Parasitic Non-State Political Serpents: What does the Future Hold for Gambia’s Political Landscape?

2009 November 4
by SOFA JAWARO

When one quickly analyze the political landscape of tiny minuscule Gambia since the July 22nd Military Coup of 1994, it could best be characterized as one comprising of Critical objective actors, patriotic- restricted narrowly confined actors, and Parasitic Non-State Political Serpents.

The critical objective political actors are those who are critical but maintain objectivity in their political engagements and activities. They are comprised of mostly students, academics, some former military officers and opposition politicians. A growing number of young Gambians could best be characterized under this group. Sometimes members of the group are seen as sympathizers to the ruling government based on their objectivity on related Gambian issues – that is giving credit as they paddle through the unknown political horizons. Others categorize them as those who compromised their integrity; an assertion that could reasonably be dispelled. This is so because it is important to understand that some of these people have deeply rooted political conflicts with the ruling government, but a track of their political activity would show a shift to one of objective political engagement: a strategic political move adopted for the purpose of containment.

This group is indeed a force to reckon with. Their exposure to the academic world brought to light several experiences, strategic lessons and conclusions. Members of this group are committed to the achievement of a progressive sustainable democratic process. They are moderate independent liberal think – tanks that are willing to go at length in engaging the dictatorship. It could be argued that great lessons must have been drawn from the experiences of Kenya and Zimbabwe, but how well they have mastered the art of doing so remain to be the very good question. Most of them are also determined to work with the actors restricted to the narrow confines of their political machinations.

The second group comprise of those restricted to the narrow confines of their political machinations. They are the hard liners who view the slightest objectivity in our political dispensation as somehow compromising. Members of the group also include former military men, civil-society activists, torture and persecuted victims, students and victims of crimes against humanity and some opposition politicians. For this group it is a deeply rooted contention that dealing with a callous government that is tainted with the blood of innocent citizens compromises universal values of human dignity.

Reflecting on the numerous rights abuses from 1994 – Summary executions of November 11th 1994, the shooting and burning to death of former Finance Minister, Ousman Koro Ceesay, the shooting deaths of April 10th and 11th 2001 student demonstrators, the shooting death of Journalist Deyda Hydara, the summary executions, tortures and disappearances of members of the security forces and ordinary citizens, and numerous other foul plays crafted by the brutality of the repressive regime – one could rightfully understand the reasoning of such a group. How far this group is ready to go at lengths is a good question that must never be under –estimated.

Members of this group are indeed true patriots committed to propel tiny miniscule Gambia to the fore of developments in the global political arena. They are patriotic Gambian Citizens committed to ending dictatorship, and paddling the nation on a path that has the rule of law and justice as the anchor of national development and transformations of modern times.

Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the late long time dictator of Zaire Mobuto Sese Seko, were sent packing by such committed patriots. How far this group is ready to go at lengths is the good question that must never be under –estimated. What is certain is that, the volatility of The Gambia’s political landscape is what has become troubling. Hopefully the Gambian authorities will end impunity and callousness, engage political opponents with honesty and mutual respect, and responsibly reconcile the nation with its past.

The third group is the Parasitic Non-State Political Serpents. They act neutral and have no stake whatsoever into Gambian politics. Group members pretend to be opposition sympathizers when in actuality; they are the deadly political serpents exploiting the ruling government for monetary and material gains whilst oppressing the opposition camp. Members of this group include Gambians and Non-Gambians alike, foreign criminal gangs, professionals of international organizations and students. Some members of this group hide under the banner of civil society organizations and their deadly political machinations are influenced by hunger for material, cash and their lack of respect for human dignity.

It must therefore be noted that with all the reported developments over the years, our political landscape remains to be in a serious state of volatility. Reports of death threats, disappearances, torture, and attacks on the media, weak institutions, nepotism and the Gambia’s relevance to the crisis in neighboring Casamance, Southern Senegal has raised national and international alarms.

Paradoxically, in view of the volatile political landscape, it could rightfully be argued that the Gambia may be slowly, but certainly creeping towards instability. And that is not what the sub-region needs. The African Union (AU), The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the United Nations (UN) must therefore aggressively and progressively call for reforms across the governance landscape of the Gambia. Reforms in the Constitution, Security and Armed Forces, the executive and legislative are what The Gambia badly needs.

A failure to call for reforms may lead to violent political instability that may spread to neighboring Senegal and Guinea-Bissau thus becoming West Africa’s Second major violent Regional Conflict.

*Only the sky may be the limit before the good books are called to account for national sojourns*

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He also produces The Sword of Truth at http://www.sofawarrior.blog.com/ . he could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu.

Jon Corzine for Governor of New Jersey

2009 October 28
by SOFA JAWARO

If anyone should argue that New Jersey Governor race has placed the candidates on critical points of the political spectrum at different times, that argument would fall right on the political realities of the Garden State. Throughout the campaign trail, all the candidates presented varying policy aspects on taxes, job creation, health care and education. The republican contender, Christ Christi aggressively pulled strings dismissing Governor Corzine past years economic, health and tax policies as one that has put New Jersey on a brinks of unemployment and economic collapse; a call that most scholars, analysts and pundits dismissed as political fabrications based on convincing realities that the Corzine administration indeed adopted appropriate policies required to effectively deal with challenges of the Garden State.

Even though Governor Corzine was placed in a delicate governance situation amidst a corruption scandal that marred the New Jersey Political Landscape, the incumbent governor handled the situation responsibly and tactfully. Governor Corzine must be commended for adopting policies that continues to effectively address healthcare, education and unemployment. With the genius of his economic vision as the first Governor to adopt an economic recovery plan, the incumbent Governor has outlined one of the best developmental blue prints, thus stabilizing the rising unemployment, healthcare, education and the private sector.

Unlike his republican contender whose economic policies will only be a perennial source of unemployment, increased uninsured Jersey Residents and Citizens, and the lack of prescriptive policy measures, Governor Corzine’s economic formulas are in line with both national and the international quest of containing the worst economic crisis since the great depression of 1930’s. Developments in public transportation, public works, infrastructure, healthcare and national security will be the characteristics of the incumbent Governors term in office.

Christ Christi’s rejection of the Federal Economic Stimulus Package in his economic policies, would result to the lost of over 30, 000 teaching jobs, over 18,000 public sector jobs and a state wide property taxes increase of $1.5 - 2 billion, according to modern economic analysts. It must be noted that the use of Stimulus Recovery Packages as a major tool of confronting the economic crisis has taken a forefront of global economic recovery efforts. This was echoed and adopted in both the last G8 summit in Italy, and G20 in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Governor Corzine’s economic policies therefore fall along the right policy trajectories.

For the State of New Jersey to progressively overcome the socio-economic and socio-political challenges of modern times, re-electing Jon Corzine for Governor is the rightful national duty that all citizens should aggressively pursue. A Corzine administration will shape history, mold our communities with sustainable economic growth, strengthen national security and positively influence every doorstep and hamlet of our communities that we could all proudly call home.

By Binneh s Minteh, Former Gambian Army First Lieutenant, Newark, New Jersey

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He also produces The Sword of Truth at http://www.sofawarrior.blog.com/ . He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu.

Afghanistan: A Constructive Way Forward to the Crisis

2009 October 27
by SOFA JAWARO

The war in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost eight years with no end in sight as to the best possible approaches to a successful containment of the crisis. Several theories and hypothesis have been formulated and put before the appropriate policy and decision makers, but nonetheless, the war continues to take an eventual twist of turns around varying trajectories. Many have finally contended that the situation seems to be a historical repetition just as seen happened in the Vietnamese war. Whether true or false, the war has indeed become a delicate policy theme needing proper pondering in reaching a prescriptive venture towards the adoption of an approach that will effectively contain the crisis.

How does one therefore approach the crisis, and what are the appropriate modus operandi required to put an end to such deadly turn of events that is thwarting modern civilization to an apex of economic cleavages and wanton human destruction? These are the good old questions policy makers and decision makers are left to ponder.

In light of these impending conundrums of modern times, it is first important to take a quick look at the background of the crisis from a historical context before taking a look at the operational approaches and the prescriptive policy measures required to tackle the onslaught.

Historically it is important to understand that Afghanistan was trapped in an ideological warfare well before the modern war of the region. The battle between communism and liberal democracy propelled the positioning of an Islamic regime that was appealing to liberal democracy at a time when communism was determined to be deeply rooted across the region. This led to a war that dragged communist Soviet Union to the brink of demise, dogging Russian military myth to an unconditional state of defeat after their shameful withdrawal from the mountainous and cave trodden territories of Afghanistan – a dogma that still hunts Russian global military influence.

Until today, a scholarly debate on the defeat of the Soviets is mostly attributed to the support of the Islamic government (The Taliban) by the forces of Western Liberal Democratic actors namely: USA; Britain; France; Germany, and other actors within the horizons of the Liberal Democratic forces. This is no political gimmicks or machinations but a historical reality in the contours of global transformations; the naked hypothesis behind the Taliban’s ascension to power in Afghanistan.

Nonetheless Liberal Democratic Forces continued to provide daunting support for the Taliban without considerations of precautionary measures in the case of any triggering of backlashes as a result of what Samuel Huntington once duped as the clash of civilizations. It could be noted that when the distinguished Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington widely published his book titled The Clash of Civilizations, many scholars quickly denounced his scholarly analysis as lacking a basis , thus out of touch with the realities of the changing world.

Many others came up with several hypothesis and theories countering the distinguished scholar’s findings, thus contributing to a shift in policy formulations that could have thwarted our modern day predicament. The late Professor Huntington was not only track, but his findings that was carefully and brilliantly crafted in his Clash of civilization has indeed become a historical prophesy that will continue to shape generations. It was indeed a clash of civilization that brought us modern day ideological tensions. Thanks to the moderate forces of all civilizations for shedding light on the real contradictions.

A meaningful deciphering of Dr Huntington’s hypothesis and analysis could have triggered a rightful policy adoption in containing Taliban resentment against Liberal Democratic ideology. It was indeed a miss opportunity for an ideological compromise through positive and constructive engagements along socio-economic and socio-political developmental fronts. Lapses in Intelligence further polarized such meaningful policy actions that could have ushered in a paradigm of engagement and containment. This has indeed laid the ground for a deep and firmly rooted fundamentalist ideology across the parables of Taliban Administration.

A de-legitimization and denouncement of the Taliban administration after the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the US was therefore no historical accident. The US led multinational military operations that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan was an evidence base multilateral action that stemmed from policy failures as a result of a flouted intelligence axiom.

In view of lessons from the Soviet experience, and policy failures that continues to threaten the stability of the region, it is imperative to brilliantly evaluate strategy towards the war in Afghanistan using uncompromising parallels of strengthening national and international security. Dragging on four almost 8-9 years with no end in sight, pursuing the war using a combination of engagement and containment- winning hearts and minds through socio-economic development programs; continuing to provide support and training for Afghani troops and the use of counter – insurgency tactics are the rightful policy moves that should largely be supported than a deployment of additional troops that has the potential of further escalations.

President Obama’s decision to review a decision on sending an additional 40,000 US troops to Afghanistan therefore comes very timely, especially in the midst of controversy looming over Afghanistan in the aftermath of the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Supporting the troops already on the ground and providing Afghani forces with the necessary intelligence and back up support in all their respective operations are the rightful operational policy measures required at such crucial times. Just as the Pakistani forces are taking a lead in their operations in the Province of Waziristan, so must the Afghani Army supported by Coalition Forces. This is just a food for thought.

The Military and Politics in the Developing World: What are Lessons for the Gambian Armed Forces?

2009 October 19
by SOFA JAWARO

In his contemporary Analysis of The Military as a Distinct Ethnic or Quasi –Ethnic Identity in Developing Countries, Daniel Zirker and Constantine P. Danapoulos argued that the military has over the years become a source of divisions and instability within the developing world as it seeks to protect the privileged position of a particular group or groups to the disadvantage of others. By recognizing and understanding the dynamics of military involvement in the politics of West Africa alone, not to mention Latin America, one could satisfactorily conclude that the sub-regions violent political instability in the last decade was largely a result of military involvement in to the political affairs of the nation.

Taking a closer look at the violent political ruptures of Liberia, Sierra-Leone, Ivory –Coast, Guinea-Bissau and most recently Guinea-Conakry, military involvement in to politics has largely been the driving force behind the intermittent violence that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Sadly all West African violent ridden nations followed similar paradigm shifts and trajectories.

Considering experiences of the sub-region, the most recent shake up across the architecture of the Gambian armed forces brought to light compelling dangers, implications and threats, thus raising several concerns. Whilst some members of the armed forces may benefit from the thunderbolt that has shaken the military command structure, the overall situation may be far from the reality as argued by pundits and analysts. The reasoning by several security analysts for example, is based on similar regional thunderbolts that followed the collapse of the political science axiom marking the end of the cold war period. Notable examples in the region include the Civil Wars of Liberia and Sierra-Leone.

Whether the Gambian Military would add similar political parallels to its legacy remains to be seen. What is however certain is that, the Gambian Armed Forces have earned an extra-ordinary reputation for taking a forefront of major peace-keeping missions of the sub-region and the continent in general. Hopefully concrete lessons are drawn from those peace-keeping missions.

The axed Army Chief, General Lang Tombong Tamba and other dismissed top ranking officers, and all other members of the Armed Forces are all honorable men and women. I am sure that both President Jammeh, and the dismissed Army Chiefs, and the fine men and women of the Armed Forces are cognizant of the dangers, implications and challenges of military involvement in to politics.

In view of the aforementioned analysis, President Jammeh must exercise Caution, Mercy, and Restraint as the commander- in-chief. His actions and policy towards the Armed Forces must be more of a unifying, than a divisive mechanism. The opportunities to do so are available. Hopefully the President will use his knowledge of the background of the dismissed army chiefs to ease the impending fear griping the nation, drop all impending charges, and put the disgraced senior officers back to work – if not the military, they could work at other public institutions. That is to the best interest of miniscule Gambia, and more importantly, because the “Army is a nation within a nation.” A disengagement of the military from politics is what The Gambia and the sub-region badly needs. What else could one say?

The author is an Independent Researcher Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize: Why he Deserves the Award

2009 October 13
by SOFA JAWARO

When President Obama was announced the 2009 Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Award Recipient, varying echoes were heard across all global political and social mediums, spurring on whether the Young hegemonic American leader thus deserve the Award. In an October 9, 2009 press release, in Oslo, the award committee pointed that its decision to Award President Obama as the 2009 Nobel Peace Winner was based on “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, his call for dialogue and negotiations as instruments for resolving international conflicts, and his vision of a world free from nuclear arms, thus stimulating disarmament and arms control negotiations.” The announcement was however received with a mix-reaction.

Just as many argued that winning the award nine months in to his Presidency was too soon, many others opined that the Award was indeed a novelty that he very well deserves.

In the midst of two wars, the left of the global political spectrum concluded the Award as a controversy. The right on the other hand argued Obama’s Nobel Peace Award as a compromise of American leadership and influence. Others also contend the Award was a backlash on the Policies of his predecessor, former President Georg Bush. Many others – including previous award winners- hailed the decision to name President Obama as the 2009 Nobel Peace Award recipient as a historic reasoning of modern times.

Who is right or wrong? How do we therefore collectively come to a genuine reasoning on the choice of the 2009 Norwegian Nobel Peace Award winner? These are the questions that will continue to be a global hot theme.

Even though a mix response to the aforementioned questions already took shape, it is important to understand that objectivity across the global political discourse must never be under-estimated. Obama came to office at a time when American influence and leadership was questioned and challenged, international diplomacy threatened by a rising global tension among nations, the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a dangerous clash of ideologies among civilizations.

Nonetheless his call for partnerships in all international efforts has steered global politics on to a path that has curb the dangers and threats to International Peace and Diplomacy. His policies ushered in a paradigm shift promoting peace, security and development of a world in the midst of real challenges. His message of change and his call for a shared responsibility and a global response to global challenges is shaping doorsteps, hamlets, cubicles and remote places across the world.

Carefully taking an in-depth analysis of global politics in the last decade, it is important to acknowledge the serious divisions that best characterized the 21st century international politics. President Obama’s renouncement of torture and bold move to close Guantanamo, his call for diplomacy and a multi-lateral approach to confront modern global challenges could not have come at a better time. By using diplomacy in his quest for a better and safer world, he has not the least compromised America’s image around the world, but only bolstered American leadership, values and influence, thus strengthened global solidarity.

Laying such great foundations within nine months of his Presidency is a step in the right direction. The Nobel Peace Prize will only strengthen his noble quest of global citizenship: that is making the world a better place for all. It is therefore only fair to say that he deserves the Award.

Binneh s Minteh, Newark, New Jersey

Former Gambian Army First Lieutenant

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

The Crisis in Casamance, Southern Senegal: A Call to Action for the Presidents of Senegal, The Gambia, and Guinea – Bissau!

2009 October 12
by SOFA JAWARO

Following an in-depth study of the Casamance Crisis, I concluded that colonial legacies such as arbitrary boundaries, ethnicity, poverty and the regions linkage to the single capitalist global economic system have largely been the driving forces towards the intermittent fueling of the conflict. I also concluded that a political economy approach as theorized by several contemporary scholars of modern African Affairs must be adopted to effectively address poverty, underdevelopment, the threat of drugs and deadly weapons.

From the study it is important to understand that, with the volatility of the region to several actors, brokering and maintaining a peace deal in the quest of ending the crisis has become rather difficult, if not challenging. The crisis has since then become a massive humanitarian disaster for the sub-region, with thousands of people killed and thousands others displaced. Until today, intermittent violence and the deadly effects of land mines continue to ravage the volatile region.

The Friday, October 3rd 2009 deadly ambush that killed Six Senegalese soldiers at the Niagha district along Senegal’s border with Guinea Bissau, about 120 kilometers east of the regional capital Ziguinchor, and the fleeing of over 1,000 civilians along the Guinea-Bissau border must be a call to action for the leaders of Senegal, Guinea – Bissau and the Gambia.
Current reports also indicate that the Movement of Democratic Forces in the Casamance (MFDC) is now operating in three respective splinter groups – one operating along the border of Guinea –Bissau, one in mid-land Casamance, and a third along the Gambia and Senegal Border in Casamance.

Following findings in the study of the Conflict, what courses of action does the actors of the conflict have to adopt to effectively contain the crisis? That is the very old question that needs to be carefully pondered.

With regional integration that is slowly shaping the sub-region and consequently the African continent, it is important that the major actors of the crisis take a forefront in crafting a peaceful resolution that will pave the way for a lasting solution of the crisis. Major actors such as Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, The three MFDC factions, must all be part of such an effort.

In view of the aforementioned analysis it is important that an African Union Emissary be deployed to meet the Secessionist leaders before a peace and solidarity meeting that will bring the Heads of States of the three neighboring countries and the Secessionist leaders together; such an emissary could be either a former Head of State or a former distinguish African of high International credentials.

Knowing the historical ties and the colonial legacies that divided the region, it is imperative that a Comprehensive Peace and Reconciliation meeting be attended by the President’s of Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia and all the three MFDC faction leaders. With an understanding that the people of Casamance aligned themselves more to Guinea-Bissau and The Gambia, and that The Gambia and Senegal are one people in two separate states, significant progress could be made towards the achievement of a lasting peace.

The Comprehensive Peace Plan must include Disarmament, Integration, and Amnesty, with a properly spelt out economic incentives for Secessionist combatants. The Integration must take shape across political, economical and social parallels of all the three neighboring countries.

Such a Comprehensive Peace Plan must be supported by micro-finance projects in education, agriculture and Professional studies for rebel combatants and youths – an international effort in funding from the World Bank, the IMF, the European Union, the African Union, the League of Arab Nations, China, Japan and the United States could provide considerable support for the cause.

The governments of Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea- Bissau must work together to adopt Integration packages that are in touch with socio-economic and socio –political realities of the respective countries.

A team of experts from the three countries could be appointed to work out details of the integration using peace-making and conflict resolution tools. Such experts must include Professionals with credentials from accredited Peace and Conflict Resolution Institutes. Using conflict resolution tools, the experts would outline an integration and implementation plan for the Secessionist Combatants.

Research further showed that ending violent political conflicts in a region duped as “the Periphery of all Peripheries,” requires a political-economy approach to development with a vibrant capitalist- class free from state predation and poverty reduction (McGowan 2005). Using the States Security apparatus in containing the situation will only fuel the crisis.

Building a strong region will require promoting policies that will eradicate poverty, promote integration and disarmament, end repression and oppression, mobilize resources for indigenous businesses to be competitive in both national and global markets, and uphold the rule of law as stipulated in national constitutions.

There is no doubt that once the Presidents of Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and the three MFDC faction leaders meet in the name of African Unity, global peace and security, the Casamance province may likely be on the path of becoming a conflict-free zone in West Africa.

This is just a food for thought.

Binneh s Minteh, Former Gambian Army Lieutenant, Newark, New Jersey

The author is an Independent, Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

President Jammeh’s 64th United Nations General Assembly Speech - A Critical and Objective Analysis

2009 October 7
by SOFA JAWARO

When one critically and objectively analyze President Jammeh’s 64th United Nations General Assembly Speech from a contemporary modern global political perspective, it could be argued that the charismatic Gambian leader spurred compelling relevant arguments on Partnerships in Global governance, Peace and Security, Africa in the modern world and the relation of developing nations and global economic partners, and the contentious plight of the Palestinian people. He also defended the interest of The Gambia through his foreign policy, but failed short in diplomatic language, and using the occasion as an opportunity to bridge the controversies surrounding his administration.

On partnerships in Global Governance and development, President Jammeh called for greater unity, partnerships and collaborations among nations –small or large- poor or rich- one that is based on mutual respect, understanding under the framework of justice and the rule of law. Taking an in-depth analysis of the global political landscape, the Gambian leader could not have said it better, as the world has indeed changed – Change that requires greater cooperation among nations to enable us deal with global economical, political and social challenges and contradictions. Numerous scholars of contemporary global affairs made similar arguments that only through openness, cooperation and partnerships in global governance and could we effectively deal with Peace and Security challenges of our times. This according to several analysts would include equal representation and equal voices in the United Nations as the world governing body. The Gambian leader only failed short to use the occasion in building his image as a champion of justice and the rule of law. He could have used the international occasion to bridge the divide by apologizing to all victims of alleged human rights violations under his regime. That would only make him a strong leader and pave a way for The Gambia to come to terms with its past.

Sparring on the plight of Africa and developing nations in the modern world, President Jammeh’s argument falls right on the trajectories of history. Although institutional failures in modern day African governments could take some of the brunt, post-colonial Africa has been designed as a colonial instrument of exploitation. Africa’s relations with Multinational cooperation’s are not based on openness, trust, mutual respect and interest. The Gambian leader made a compelling argument, and ending Africa’s image as a neo-colonial exploitative unit is the first step in confronting the continents challenge. And that could only be attained by taking leadership and ownership through accountability and transparency based on mutual interest.

President Jammeh’s argument falls along similar reasoning with several contemporary modern scholars, who argued that relations with Global Financial Institutions and Multinational Cooperation has been built around controversial policies, thus propelling many African countries in huge debt burdens. For example citing Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina, and Sub-Saharan Africa in his 2002 book, Globalization and its Discontents, the contemporary modern economist Joseph Stiglz accuses the IMF of placing flawed economic demands on developing nations which have demonstrably resulted in further economic ruin for many of those nations which have sought aid at the doorstep of the IMF (Eichengreen, 2002). Joseph Stiglz argued that the implementation of conditional IMF economic policy in exchange for much-needed financial aid resulted in total collapses of those nations financial institutions. By making such an argument at the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Gambian leader could not have said it better.

The only observation with this part of President Jammeh’s argument is the standard of diplomatic language used in his characterization of Multinational Co-operations. He therefore fell short by referring to Multi-National co-operations as “locusts,” and the United Nations as an “Animal Farm.” Such a language should be left for scholars to use, but not a Head of State. The use of diplomatic language in the international diplomatic arena is critical as it has a direct impact on the image of a leader and a nation. Hopefully, President Jammeh’s speech writers would take concrete steps to ensure that proper diplomatic language is used in all his forthcoming speeches at International Functions.

On the question deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis, President Jammeh must be commended for acknowledging global efforts and calling on support for International Research on the use of traditional medicine in confronting the menaces of diseases in Africa. This has indeed manifested the President dropping his previous claims of curing aids and seeking for a collective global support for traditional treatments using theories and hypothesis of modern science. By boldly using the United Nation General Assembly as a venue to do so, the Gambian leader manifested courage and commitment to the global quest of tackling the menaces of deadly diseases.

Addressing the contentious plight of the Palestinians, President Jammeh’s call for respecting a two state solution, as crafted by the International Community falls on the right path of history. It could be rightfully argued that the inconsistency of the International community and failure to handle the crisis with honesty, openness and respect is what has dragged on the conflict for so long. Israel must put an end to continuous settlement of Palestine Territory, and Palestine must also end rocket attacks on Israel.

Chronicling global Peace and Security, President Jammeh’s call for international cooperation in finding peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world is indeed timely. With the global financial meltdown taking its toll on communities around the world, greater cooperation in dealing with conflicts such as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine/ Israel, Darfur, Sudan, and the delicate nuclear impasse with Iran, is what the world needs. International assistance and cooperation in bridging the divide in nations with volatile political landscapes is also needed at such times.

The Gambian leader only fail short to use this occasion as an opportunity of appealing to the World Body, to assist in bridging the political divide in The Gambia through a national reconciliation. The occasion was indeed an opportunity for President Jammeh to usher in a new chapter in the midst of all the controversy that surrounds his administration. He could have also used the occasion to call for greater international cooperation and support for a lasting solution to the low level insurgency in Casmance, Senegal, and the drug trade that ravaged West Africa over the years. Nonetheless the Gambian leaders call for greater international cooperation in finding peaceful solutions to conflicts must be hailed as a milestone in the annals of modern times.

Calling an end to US Sanctions against Cuba, the recognition of Taiwan as a Sovereign State, and the Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco on the question of Moroccan Sahara, President Jammeh defended both his foreign policy and the interest of The Gambia. It should be noted that following sanctions in the aftermath of the Military coup that brought President Jammeh to power in 1994, bilateral relations with Cuba and Taiwan were strengthened, for the survival and security of the nation. The Gambia has since then received considerable amount of aid from Taiwan and Cuba. Cuba’s medical team is active in virtually all aspects of The Gambia’s health care system, giving considerable emphasis to preventive care (Whitney Jr, 2007). Until today, both Cuba and Taiwan continue to provide assistance in Education, Science and Technology.

From a contemporary global political analysis, President Jammeh’s call to end sanctions against Cuba falls along the trajectories of several scholarly policy arguments. Several other nations called for an end to sanctions against Cuba. Even in the United States, some legislators and policy analysts opined along similar parallels. It could therefore be argued that the Gambian leader not only defended his Foreign Policy and the interest of the Gambia, but made compelling calls that are in line with the new multi – lateral global order.

In comparison to his previous United Nations General Assembly speeches, President Jammeh demonstrated considerable leadership and knowledge whilst sparring on Partnerships in Global governance, Peace and Security, Africa in the modern world and the relation of developing nations and global economic partners, and the contentious plight of the Palestinian, and The Gambia’s Foreign Policy and Interest. The Gambian leader only failed short in his diplomatic language, the call for international assistance in bridging the political divide in The Gambia through a national reconciliation, the issue of the low – level insurgency in Casmance, Senegal, and the drug trade ravaging the sub-region.

Hopefully great lessons are learned from this experience. His overall Performance was encouraging for a Young African Leader of modern times. This is just a food for thought.

By Binneh s Minteh, Newark, New Jersey

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

“Protecting women and girls is vital to international peace”-Hillary Clinton

2009 October 7
by SOFA JAWARO
On Wednesday, September, 30th, 2009, United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton chaired a United Nations Security Council session for the adoption of a Resolution giving stronger mandate to protect women and girls in conflicts, at the Security Council Chamber of the United Nation.Following her Introduction of the Resolution and the unanimous vote of the council supporting the said resolution, Document s/2009/489 Report containing UNSCR 1820 was adopted as UNSCR 1888, 2009.

In her remarks after adoption of the resolution, she cited the protection of women and girls as vital to International Peace and Security. In view of the fact that violence against women and girls has not diminished, thus posing challenges she warned, it is the collective responsibility of the International Community to provide protection.

Citing her experiences at The Democratic Republic of Congo, and the situations in Sudan and Liberia, she noted that considerable progress has been made, but lots remain to be achieved. She opined that the resolution calls for the Secretary General to deploy a team of Experts; governments to introduce mechanisms strengthening judicial processes; gives a new and renewed peace-keeping mandate; expertise in peace-keeping through training, and more women to serve as peace-keepers.

Acknowledging President Obama’s United Nations General Assembly Speech that calls on nations to confront the Protection of women and girls as a major challenge, she warned that the relative peace achieved in GOMA must be an example for the world to emulate.

The United Nations Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon also emphasized that the UN’s commitment to enforce UNSCR1820, Gender equality, and the empowerment of women will be a core of the United Nations agenda. He urged nations to end violence against women, end impunity and redouble efforts in protecting women.

Using the 28th, September, 2009 violent political rupture in Guinea-Conakry, the French Minister of State and Cooperation emphasized the collective action of the International Community as a prerequisite of ending impunity. Condemning the violent sexual raping of women and girls in Guinea –Conakry, he called on the United States and the Security Council for action against perpetrators.

Security council representatives of The United Kingdom, Costa-Rica, Mexico, Austria, Japan, Libya, Burkina-Faso, Uganda, Russia, Vietnam, Turkey, Croatia, China and Vietnam all welcomed adoption of resolution as a milestone in the annals of modern times.

The overwhelming support ushering adoption of said resolution is welcoming news for Global civil society organizations. Hopefully the protection of women and girls in conflict and conflict –prone societies will be at the apex of national agendas of modern times.

President Obama’s Historic Address to The United Nations

2009 September 23
by SOFA JAWARO

In a historic address to the United Nations, President Obama pondered the realities of modern times citing partnerships in international development and global security as compelling prescriptive measures in dealing with challenges of the 21st century.

Chronicling peace and security, good governance and effective institutions, human rights,economic and political freedom, he reminded governments and leaders about the importance of effective deliverance in meeting obligations as public officials.

The speech was indeed not only timely, but in touch with realities of our changing world. A dynamic President Obama used the occasion to further decipher the challenges of climate change and Americas commitment in taking a leadership role in confronting the the hazards of climate change. Please find below President Obama’s speech in Full Text. The speech is titled “Responsibility for our Common Future.”

“Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: it is my honor to address you for the first time as the forty-fourth President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted – I believe – in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child – anywhere – can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it’s what I will speak about today. Because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems – it will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies – a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states – Israel and Palestine – in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested 80 billion dollars in clean energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G-20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over two trillion dollars in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink. We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution – for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

This is what we have done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: this cannot be solely America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought – in word and deed – a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility. Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world. Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace – but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet I also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.

Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits and arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue, and to vote – often in this body – against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides – coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east and west; black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

That is the future America wants – a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome – the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next twelve months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.

America will keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the Treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

I will also host a Summit next April that reaffirms each nation’s responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can’t – because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East – then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that Treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace.

The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict. Or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, coordinate law enforcement, and protect our people. We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow. And we will pursue positive engagement that builds bridges among faiths, and new partnerships for opportunity.

But our efforts to promote peace cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings – the belief that the future belongs to those who build, not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end, and a new day begin.

That is why we will strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take hold. We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of Darfur, and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve. And in countries ravaged by violence – from Haiti to Congo to East Timor – we will work with the UN and other partners to support an enduring peace.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts by both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns – to break the cycle of insecurity and despair – all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we make take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act – why we failed to pass on intact the environment that was our inheritance.

That is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency – and share new technologies – with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the whole world.

Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change has already wrought – and travel a path of clean development – will not work.

It is hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. It’s even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

This leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills. Across the globe, we find promising signs, yet little certainty about what lies ahead. And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our common humanity – the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease, or a mother losing her life as she gives birth.

In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world’s largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to work. That means taking steps to rekindle demand, so that a global recovery can be sustained. And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed, excess and abuse that led us into disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest in broader questions of development. And so we will continue our historic effort to help people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS; to end deaths from tuberculosis and malaria; to eradicate polio; and to strengthen public health systems. We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization. We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade. We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s Summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.

Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. Developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress – for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That’s why we will support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector. Our goal is simple: a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.

The changes that I have spoken about today will not be easy to make. And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums like this. For as in any assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we represent. That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals. That is where we will build the consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for peaceful purposes; to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that can be sustained and shared.

I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts – democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I have discussed today. Because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than the narrow interest of those in power.

The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.

This Assembly’s Charter commits each of us, and I quote – “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women.” Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own government.

As an African-American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. That guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose the side of justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights – for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; and the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and – in the past – America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident – and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering and enormous sacrifice that had taken place. “We have learned,” he said, “to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.”

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world – from Africa and Asia; form Europe to the Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve – it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war, and the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

Now it falls to us – for this institution will be what we make of it. The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution – they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be indispensable in advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. With confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve. Thank you.

The speech is titled “Responsibility for our Common Future.” Here are President Obama’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentleman: it is my honor to address you for the first time as the forty-fourth President of the United States. I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted – I believe – in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope – the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 – more than at any point in human history – the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child – anywhere – can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future. No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it’s what I will speak about today. Because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems – it will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.

On my first day in office, I prohibited – without exception or equivocation – the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies – a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states – Israel and Palestine – in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested 80 billion dollars in clean energy. We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards. We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G-20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over two trillion dollars in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink. We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries. And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution – for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

This is what we have done. But this is just a beginning. Some of our actions have yielded progress. Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. But make no mistake: this cannot be solely America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought – in word and deed – a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility. Consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world. Protracted conflicts that grind on and on. Genocide and mass atrocities. More and more nations with nuclear weapons. Melting ice caps and ravaged populations. Persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: the magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our action.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together. Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way – and I quote: “The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one Nation…. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.”

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace – but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet I also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and to point fingers and stoke division. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that.

Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits and arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue, and to vote – often in this body – against the interests of their own people. They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down. Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides – coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east and west; black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours. We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, and failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for. Or, we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution: the United Nations.

That is the future America wants – a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. That is the bargain that makes this work. That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

Today, I put forward four pillars that are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a super-power stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome – the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next twelve months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.

America will keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the Treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

I will also host a Summit next April that reaffirms each nation’s responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can’t – because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist. And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT. Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities. Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation’s demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East – then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that Treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future: the pursuit of peace.

The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully. And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction. We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict. Or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated. On this, there can be no dispute. The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves. They offer nothing but hatred and destruction. In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, coordinate law enforcement, and protect our people. We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow. And we will pursue positive engagement that builds bridges among faiths, and new partnerships for opportunity.

But our efforts to promote peace cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings – the belief that the future belongs to those who build, not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end, and a new day begin.

That is why we will strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take hold. We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of Darfur, and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve. And in countries ravaged by violence – from Haiti to Congo to East Timor – we will work with the UN and other partners to support an enduring peace.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts by both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

The time has come to re-launch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we only lend it lip-service. To break the old patterns – to break the cycle of insecurity and despair – all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security.

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It is paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the night. It is paid by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are God’s children. And after all of the politics and all of the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land. And that is why – even though there will be setbacks, and false starts, and tough days – I will not waiver in my pursuit of peace.

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we make take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act – why we failed to pass on intact the environment that was our inheritance.

That is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over. We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency – and share new technologies – with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the whole world.

Those wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change has already wrought – and travel a path of clean development – will not work.

It is hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy. It’s even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession. Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first. But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together. As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

This leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills. Across the globe, we find promising signs, yet little certainty about what lies ahead. And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our common humanity – the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease, or a mother losing her life as she gives birth.

In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world’s largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to work. That means taking steps to rekindle demand, so that a global recovery can be sustained. And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed, excess and abuse that led us into disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest in broader questions of development. And so we will continue our historic effort to help people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS; to end deaths from tuberculosis and malaria; to eradicate polio; and to strengthen public health systems. We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization. We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade. We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s Summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.

Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. Developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress – for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That’s why we will support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector. Our goal is simple: a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.

The changes that I have spoken about today will not be easy to make. And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums like this. For as in any assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we represent. That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals. That is where we will build the consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for peaceful purposes; to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that can be sustained and shared.

I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people. These principles cannot be afterthoughts – democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I have discussed today. Because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than the narrow interest of those in power.

The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.

This Assembly’s Charter commits each of us, and I quote – “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women.” Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own government.

As an African-American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. That guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose the side of justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights – for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; and the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and – in the past – America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident – and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.

Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering and enormous sacrifice that had taken place. “We have learned,” he said, “to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.”

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world – from Africa and Asia; form Europe to the Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve – it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war, and the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

Now it falls to us – for this institution will be what we make of it. The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution – they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be indispensable in advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. With confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve. Thank you.”