The scholar Mark Oseil argued that “revisiting atrocities always help a nation consolidate memories and engage in secular rituals of commemoration even to a point of rendering the distinction of truth and falsity – distinction.” He further emphasized that such lengths are “justified in order to create a meaningful framework for publicly exploring traumatic memories of public violence.” Oseil suggested that a collective memory can probably be only enshrined through investigations and trials if an intention of achieving such an end is concealed from public audience. The murder of Deyda Hydara seven years ago in the Gambia is one such atrocity that is intentionally concealed from public audience. The questions: Who murdered Journalist Deyda Hydara in the Gambia? Why is the Gambia government not taking any serious investigations in to such a heinous crime?

Paradoxically, the enormous gap between the deceptive tactics of Gambian authorities and efforts made by civil society organizations to prosecute rights abuses in the tiny West African nation provides us with some troubling explanations – The onus  of full responsibility on The Gambia Government.

The late Deyda Hydara was a man of wisdom, a man whose courage and innovation nurtured the stage for public discourse taking the forefront of Gambian state of affairs. Gunned down on December 16th, 2004 at the steering wheel of his car, efforts to apply the rule of law in his brutal murder will only be an expression of hope, that legal institutions can handle immoral issues without betraying the ideals of law for “exigencies and pressures of politics”, personal biases or the new phase in the cycles of Vengeance.

It is therefore no historical accident that only ”Known rules not force actions judge us” as humans. Even governments are constrained against arbitrary conducts under such foundations of the rule of law. This is so because limiting government arbitrariness is not only fundamental fairness and opportunities for individuals to be heard, but also a full chance for one to refute allegations of culpability before impartial tribunals. The murder of Deyda Hydara requires such prosecutorial discretion to reflect efforts of identifying, arresting and bringing to justice those most responsible for his murder.

By any measure of human decency, such ruthless murders, repression against the media and other crimes against humanity in The Gambia obviously violates any notion of reasonableness, fairness and duty. That is why individual criminal responsibility not only matters, but binding international and national norms in existence also forbade all such gross violations of human rights.

“Thus the Nuremberg trials, the Yugoslavia tribunals, the tribunals of Rwanda, the special tribunal for Sierra- Leone are all commonly cited for establishing that there is no injustice in punishing defendants who knew they were committing a wrong condemned by the international community, even in the absence of a highly specified law”(M. Minnow). The United States of America (USA), The European Union (EU), The United Nations (UN), The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and civil society organizations must therefore maintain the sustained  efforts  to bring perpetrators of  Mr. Hydara’s brutal murder to the fullest radar of law. Perhaps  enforcement of  the  rule of law against such  state-sponsored and state countenanced murders is yet another  emboldening mechanism of treating horrors of a minuscule nation s a punishable international criminal offense perpetrated by identifiable individuals.

May the soul of Deyda Hydra rest in Perfect Peace.

October 24, 2011, 10:22 pm

Press Release
N°: 234/2011
22 November 2011 [Abuja - Nigeria]PRESS RELEASE RESS RELEASE

The ECOWAS Commission has informed the President of the Gambia about its decision not to dispatch an ECOWAS Observer Mission to the Presidential Election scheduled to take place in the country on 24 November 2011, because the preparations and political environment for the said election are adjudged by the Commission not to be conducive for the conduct of free, fair and transparent polls.

In keeping with the pertinent provisions of the ECOWAS Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, the President of the Commission dispatched a fact-finding mission to the Gambia, during which the mission interacted with a wide range of stakeholders to assess the state of preparedness of the country for the election. The Commission has also been conducting a regular monitoring of the political situation and preparations in the lead-up to the election through the ECOWAS Early Warning System.
Unfortunately, the reports of the fact-finding mission and the Early Warning System paint a picture of intimidation, an unacceptable level of control of the electronic media by the party in power, the lack of neutrality of state and para-statal institutions, and an opposition and electorate cowed by repression and intimidation. In the circumstance, the ECOWAS Commission is of the view that the conditions prevailing in the country do not meet the minimum standards set under the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance for the conduct of elections and has, therefore, decided to exercise the discretionary powers conferred on the Commission’s President under the Protocol to stand down the ECOWAS Observer Mission.

While regretting the decision forced upon it by the circumstances, the ECOWAS Commission will remain seized with the situation in the Gambia, and expresses its readiness to engage the Government and other stakeholders in the Gambian polity, with a view to accompanying them in their endeavour to create a level playing field for future elections.
His Excellency James Victor Gbeho
President of the Commission

When Libya emerged as the subject of an international intervention, a contentious debate on sovereignty emerged across global political horizons. Whilst many were with the view that intervention was justified under purely humanitarian grounds, several others presented arguments based on a transgression of national sovereignty in pursuit of both geo-strategic and national interest. The latter however presented the most convincing for three major reasons: firstly the emergence of a new global hegemonic breed of leadership that is not willing to be judged by history on questions of morality ( Failure to prevent mass murder as happened in Rwanda and The Former Yugoslavia); secondly, changes in the nature of intervention to one of coercive prevention under the responsibility to protect; and thirdly a new global security awareness paradigm ( Gaddafi’s record of human rights abuses and support for global terror networks).
Libya’s geo-strategic importance as a global source and a producer of oil cannot in any way be underestimated in the conflict. However, it is the failure to expand horizons from such narrow confines that remains troubling. No one can deny Libya’s geo-strategic importance as an oil producer and a gateway to Europe, but to say the West intervened in Libya for sole purposes of protecting its economic interest is a tapestry to the reality. After all Libya contributes about only 3% of the world s oil. That brings us to looking at the causes of intervention from wider and more genuine lenses, one of which is the new breed of hegemonic leaders and Moral Conscience

Moral Conscience and Hegemonic Leaders
Shortly after the horrific events of Rwanda, the world was shocked by media images in a humanitarian crisis that could have been averted. President Clinton of the United States could not help it but take a special trip to apologize to the Rwandan People and the world at –large for failing to act. It was such a historic tragedy that raised the moral grounds for contemporary hegemonic leaders to say no more. One could largely argue that the views of President Obama, Sarkozy, and Prime Minster Cameron fall within such parameters. For example the Obama administration has adopted a Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities [PSD 10], which defines the prevention of mass atrocities as ‘a national security interest and moral responsibility of the United States”. China and Russia would have also vetoed United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR 1973) authorizing imposition of a No-Fly-Zone and the use of all necessary means to protect civilians. Both countries however chose to abstain.

What does the abstention of China and Russia portend for contemporary intervention? Has the abstention and Subsequent passage of UNSCR 1973 emboldened the translation of Sovereignty to Responsibility under the new doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect?

China and Russia – Shifting Paradigms
China and Russia’s shifting nature on intervention in Libya provides an important explanation to the dynamics of changing security notions. Intervention in the post-cold periods and the dawn of the new millennium were mostly driven by contentious divisions among hegemonic powers. Let’s put it this way -China and Russia have always used the principle of Sovereignty and non – interference as a guiding tool in opposing humanitarian intervention, whilst the United States, Britain and France had generally supported intervention on purely humanitarian ground. Since the end of World War II, it was only Operation Desert Storm designed to liberate Kuwait from the occupation of Saddam Hussein, which China and Russia voted in favor of a Security Council Resolution to intervene militarily. However, in the case of interventions in former Yugoslavia (1990s), the Democratic Republic of Congo and interventions in Sierra-Leone, Liberia and Ivory- Coast, both Chinese and Russian positions were driven by a traditional policy mechanism of non-interference.

Paradoxically, the abstention by China and Russia and the subsequent passage of UNSCR 1973 authorizing the imposition of a no-fly – zone in Libya and the use of all necessary means in protecting civilians is a manifestation of a paradigm shift on purely moral grounds – the protection of innocent lives from threats of wanton humanitarian conundrum perpetrated by the state. The failure to use veto power to stop the Libyan intervention goes far in demonstrating both China and Russia’s knowledge of a credible threat to the 10 -15 million Benghazi residents and others in major Libyan cities. Although the abstentions conform to the embedded traditional principle of non-interference for both countries, one could very well argue that both countries understood the security threats to the millions of Libyan citizens, hence no veto efforts were pursued to stop the Intervention – a paradigmatic shift strengthening coercive prevention under parameters of the responsibility to protect.

The Responsibility to Protect – Meaning and Affirmation
Similarly, intervention in Libya brought to light one of the most important debates around the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. Whilst many have used abstentions by both China and Russia in explaining death of the doctrine, others have opined the emboldening of the doctrine around a threshold of translating sovereignty into responsibility. Others have also used the Libyan model to characterize it as either “The Obama Doctrine,” or “The Sarkozy/ Cameron Doctrine,” Arguably; using the China and Russia abstentions as reasons for the death of the doctrine is quite premature. Such an argument could only make sense if UNSCR 1973 was vetoed by China and Russia. The abstention has only strengthened the legal threshold of the responsibility to Protect.

Whether it is the Obama Doctrine of Limited Intervention or the Sarkozy/ Cameron Doctrines of full Scale intervention, the Libyan model provides us with an opportunity to ponder the importance of translating sovereignty into responsibility. Firstly, it has translated Libyan Sovereignty into responsibility – Because the Gaddafi regime failed in its responsibility to protect Libyan citizens, the international community intervened to protect a citizenry suffering and repressed by the State. Secondly, the Security Council acted in its obligation inherent in the concept of sovereignty and the maintenance of international Peace and Security. Thirdly, intervention was driven by core tenets of preventing mass murder, protecting innocent citizens from the repressive and vicious security battery of the Libyan regime, providing assistance and recovery whilst bridging divides across fragmented Libyan communities. Fifthly, the intervention has met the “Just Cause Threshold of the Responsibility to Protect,” through its prevention of a large scale loss of life and ethnic cleansing. Sixthly, it was driven by a right intention, proportionality, and last resort and had reasonable prospects. Finally, the intervention was driven by a clearly defined United Nations Security Council Mandate – UNSCR 1973 with clear objectives, common military approach and rules of engagement. Thus, the Libyan intervention has not only propelled the Responsibility to Protect to new heights, but it opened vices strengthening our understanding of the doctrine as a vanguard of contemporary security priority.

Security – A Contemporary Priority
In both practical and realistic terms, the Westphalia State System characterizing governance on a global stage does not limit or restrict the way we interact with the state, non state actors and with each other on a global stage. Such interaction and interdependence on a global stage are what strengthened core values of human rights. – protecting the core of human live, enhancing human freedom, fulfillment and as Sadaga Ogata once noted “protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations”. Such values are what the Libyan intervention consolidated across our changing world

Considering Gaddafi’s four decades of concomitant global security breaches, his renouncement of terrorism and willingness to join the international community, and his subsequent unleashing of terror and threats to annihilate a city of 10 million, the international community was left with no choice, but to respond quickly in thwarting another humanitarian disaster that would have lasting impacts across generations. Exporting terrorisms to other parts of the world further reminded us about the cruelty of his four decades rule – He unleash terror on the West through the Bombing of a Pan-Am Flight that killed over 300 innocent world citizens; the Bombing of a German Night Club in Berlin, killing and wounding several US soldiers; the regime was notorious for supporting rebel wars in most of Sub-Saharan Africa ( The 1981 rebellion in The Gambia , the Civil war of Sierra-Leone ( 1991 -2002) , Liberia ( 1989 -2003), and Ivory- Coast ( 2002- 2007), ushering the deaths of over half a million West African citizens, supported rebel activities in Chad, Niger, Mali and the Colombian FARC rebels in their decade’s long campaign against the Colombian government.

With a track record of such human quandary, Colonels Gaddafi’s threats were not taken lightly. Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron, Medvedev and Hu Jin are familiar with the barbaric nature of Colonel Gaddafi, and so acted very well-calculatedly to contain the ruthlessness and carnage of leadership. Thanks to visionary global governance the convoluted African Union (AU) initiative did not become a vehicle for another continental tragedy similar to Rwanda. Perhaps it is the moral conscience of global hegemonic leaders, the growing importance of the responsibility to protect and global security paradigms that piloted the Libyan Intervention and not oil or geo-strategic interest. Nobody wants to see colonel Gaddafi end in that brutal fashion. His experience nonetheless sends a clear message that freedom cannot be compromised.

The Author is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at New Jersey City University/ Rutgers University. He is also a Doctoral Candidate of Global Affairs at Rutgers University, Newark New Jersey.

By Binneh s Minteh, Former Gambian Army First Lieutenant

The events of November 11th 1994 marked the beginning of a gloomy era in the annals of Gambian history. But what does that break mean? In a conventional approach to international affairs, war took place among nations. But on the sad day of November 11th 1994, very poor, uneducated and half baked high school graduates challenged surprised and summarily executed gallant sons of The Gambia. Their execution showed an awful form of violence and to assess that faithful day’s state of affairs, several questions are necessary. Who carried out the executions? What justifies the summary execution of those gallant sons?

Of all the potential manifestations of innocence on the part of the AFPRC military junta that carried out the summary executions, a review of the standard bodies of evidence appealed in supporting the fact that members of the Armed Forces Patriotic Revolutionary Council ordered the summary executions of the officers and men of the Gambian armed forces on that sad. For the presentation before any legal institution, these evidences can be divided into four interrelated sets of arguments for any legal proceedings.

In that regards, the evidences could be presented as follows: (1) The presence of council members at Yundum Army Barracks. (2) The assembling of soldiers and firing of threatening shots by council members at the Yundum Army Barracks. (3) The arresting of Lieutenant Bassiru Barrow and others and the attack on Fajara Barracks in the wee hours of the night. (4) The Executions at Fajara Barracks, Yundum Barracks and Nyambai Forests. These are the principal ways in which the military junta fully participated in the summary executions and torture of officers and men of The Gambian Armed Forces in November 1994.

Historically, the evolution of most communities did not come through a golden pathway. However, understanding such brutalities that consolidated tyranny makes a nation and a people better as the world continues paddling through those unknown horizons. In the process, it is therefore important for public officials to be held accountable and take full responsibility for their actions. Events of November 11th 1994 therefore provide Gambians with those opportunities.

Arguably, with the issue of human rights robustly transforming the international community and international human rights laws rapidly gaining ground, the November 11^th 1994 perpetrators shall sooner or later is called to account for the criminality in the extra-judicial execution of the following Officers and Men of The Gambian Armed Forces:

1. Lieutenant Bassiru Barrow
2. Lieutenant Abdoulie Dot Faal
3. Lieutenant Gibril Seye
4. Second Lieutenant Bakary Manneh
5. Second Lieutenant Buba Jammeh
6. Second Lieutenant Momodou Lamin Darboe.
7. Officer-Cadet Sillah.
8. Warrant- Officer Nyang.
9. Cpl Bassiru Camara and many others rank and files.

Rest in Peace Soldiers – You will never be Forgotten

The Author is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at New Jersey City University/ Rutgers University. He is also a Doctoral Candidate of Global Affairs at Rutgers University, Newark New Jersey.

By Tarik Kafala BBC News

Muammar Gaddafi came to power in Libya in September 1969 as the leader of a bloodless military coup which overthrew the British-backed King Idris.

He was 27 years old, inspired by Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser and he seemed to fit the regional template of Arab nationalist from the military becoming president. But he outlasted his contemporaries.

During nearly 41 years in power he invented his own system of government, supported radical armed groups as diverse as the IRA in Northern Ireland and the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and presided over what may have been North Africa’s most totalitarian, arbitrary and brutal regime.

In the last years of his rule, Libya emerged from the international isolation that followed the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland in December 1988. The country was once again courted by Western governments and companies drawn to its vast energy reserves and rich contracts on offer it an ambitious infrastructure programme.

The uprising that eventually overthrew him started in Libya’s February 2011 in second city Benghazi, a city he had neglected and whose residents he mistrusted throughout his rule.

Jamahiriya

Col Gaddafi was born to a Bedouin family in Sirte in 1946.

He always played on his humble, tribal roots, preferring to greet visitors in his tent, and to pitch it when on foreign visits. His legitimacy depended on his anti-colonialist credentials at first, and then on keeping the country in perpetual revolution.

His stated political philosophy, expounded at length in the Green Book, was “government by the masses”.

In 1977, Gaddafi proclaimed the Libyan “Jamahiriya” – a neologism meaning roughly state of the masses.

The theory was that Libya had become a democracy of the people, governed through local popular Revolutionary Councils.

In practice, all key decisions and state wealth remained tightly under his control.

Social theories

Gaddafi was a skilled political manipulator, playing off different tribes against each other and against state institutions or constituencies. He also developed a strong personality cult.

More and more, his rule became characterised by patronage and the tight control of a police state.

The worst period for Libyans was probably the 1980s, when Col Gaddafi experimented on his people with his social theories.

As part of his “cultural revolution” he banned all private enterprise and unsound books were burned.

He also had dissidents based abroad murdered. Freedom of speech and association were absolutely squashed and acts of violent repression were numerous.

Col Gaddafi experimented on his people with his social theories during the 1980s

This was followed by a decade of isolation by the West after the Lockerbie bombing.

For Libyans critical of Col Gaddafi his greatest crime may have been the squandering of wealth on foreign adventures and corruption.

With a population of only six million and annual oil revenues of US $32bn in 2010, Libya’s potential is huge. Most Libyans do not feel this wealth and living conditions can be reminiscent of far poorer countries.

A lack of jobs outside government means that unemployment is estimated to be 30% or more.

Libya’s particular form of socialism does provide free education, healthcare and subsidised housing and transport, but wages are extremely low and the wealth of the state and profits from foreign investments have only benefited a narrow elite.

In 1999, the Libyan leader made a comeback from almost total international isolation when he accepted the blame for the Lockerbie bombing.

The demonstrations spread to Tripoli after after cities in the east appeared to fall to the opposition

Following 11 September 2001, he signed up to the US government’s so-called “war on terror”. Soon after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Libya announced that it was abandoning its nuclear and biological weapons programmes. Both of these were seen by his critics a highly cynical moves.

In the final years of his rule, as questions of succession arose, two of his sons seemed to be in open and damaging competition against each other for his favour.

The influence of Saif al-Islam, the elder son who took an interest in the media and human rights issues, appeared to be waning as the influence of Mutassim, who had a powerful role in the security services, grew.

Inspired by neighbours to the west and east, Libyans rose up against 40 years of quixotic and often brutal rule in early 2011.

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly

United Nations
New York, New York

10:12 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great honor for me to be here today. I would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United Nations — the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.

War and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilizations. But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. It was this killing that compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes.

No American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin Roosevelt. He knew that a victory in war was not enough. As he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations, “We have got to make, not merely peace, but a peace that will last.”

The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than just the absence of war. A lasting peace — for nations and for individuals — depends on a sense of justice and opportunity, of dignity and freedom. It depends on struggle and sacrifice, on compromise, and on a sense of common humanity.

One delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of the United Nations put it well: “Many people,” she said, “have talked as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we loved peace and we hated war. Now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world.”

The fact is peace is hard. But our people demand it. Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty. Even as we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred of war, there are still convulsions in our world that endanger us all.

I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place — Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization — remained at large. Today, we’ve set a new direction.

At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq — for its government and for its security forces, for its people and for their aspirations.

As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.

So let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding. When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline. This is critical for the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s also critical to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home.

Moreover, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength. Ten years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken heart in the center of this city. Today, as a new tower is rising at Ground Zero, it symbolizes New York’s renewal, even as al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.

So, yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The United Nations’ Founding Charter calls upon us, “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” And Article 1 of this General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.” Those bedrock beliefs — in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women — must be our guide.

And in that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of extraordinary transformation. More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.

Think about it: One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt. But the international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination. And last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down their arms, men and women wept with joy, and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape.

One year ago, the people of Côte D’Ivoire approached a landmark election. And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way. U.N. peacekeepers were harassed, but they did not leave their posts. The Security Council, led by the United States and Nigeria and France, came together to support the will of the people. And Côte D’Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected to lead.

One year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed. But they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but he ignited a movement. In a face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word, “freedom.” The balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. And now the people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy that they deserve.

One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life — men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian — demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa — and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab world.

One year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world’s longest-serving dictator. But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery. We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those early days of the revolution and said, “Our words are free now.” It’s a feeling you can’t explain. Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom. And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. The Arab League called for this effort; Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks.

In the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable, and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied. Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months. From Tripoli to Misurata to Benghazi — today, Libya is free. Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in Tripoli.

This is how the international community is supposed to work — nations standing together for the sake of peace and security, and individuals claiming their rights. Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libya — the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.

So this has been a remarkable year. The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him. Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way that they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Dictators are on notice. Technology is putting power into the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, some peoples, some religions, some ethnicities do not desire democracy. The promise written down on paper — “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” — is closer at hand.

But let us remember: Peace is hard. Peace is hard. Progress can be reversed. Prosperity comes slowly. Societies can split apart. The measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security. And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations. And we have more work to do.

In Iran, we’ve seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people. As we meet here today, men and women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more have poured across Syria’s borders. The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice — protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. And the question for us is clear: Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?

Already, the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders. We supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people. And many of our allies have joined in this effort. But for the sake of Syria — and the peace and security of the world — we must speak with one voice. There’s no excuse for inaction. Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.

Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. America supports those aspirations. We must work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.

In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability. We’re pleased with that, but more is required. America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc — the Wifaq — to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people. We believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart. It will be hard, but it is possible.

We believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights depend on elections that are free and fair; on governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; justice that is equal and fair. That is what our people deserve. Those are the elements of peace that can last.

Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy — with greater trade and investment — so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also with civil society — students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country. And we’ve sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who’ve been silenced.

Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there’s one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state — negotiations between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth — each side has legitimate aspirations — and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.

This body — founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person — must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

Now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize — we must also remind ourselves — that peace is not just the absence of war. True peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity: nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance and disease. These forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace and together we’re called upon to confront them.

To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, we’ve begun to walk down that path. Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. Next March, a summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of them. The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in half a century, and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve even deeper reductions. America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of fissile material needed to make them.

And so we have begun to move in the right direction. And the United States is committed to meeting our obligations. But even as we meet our obligations, we’ve strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. And to do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them.

The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful. It has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the South. There’s a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.

To bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity. In this effort, let us not forget that we’ve made enormous progress over the last several decades. Closed societies gave way to open markets. Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live and the things that we do. Emerging economies from Asia to the Americas have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. It’s an extraordinary achievement. And yet, three years ago, we were confronted with the worst financial crisis in eight decades. And that crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year — our fates are interconnected. In a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.

And today, we confront the challenges that have followed on the heels of that crisis. Around the world recovery is still fragile. Markets remain volatile. Too many people are out of work. Too many others are struggling just to get by. We acted together to avert a depression in 2009. We must take urgent and coordinated action once more. Here in the United States, I’ve announced a plan to put Americans back to work and jumpstart our economy, at the same time as I’m committed to substantially reducing our deficits over time.

We stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenges. For other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economy towards more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation. So we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of living create new markets that promote global growth. That’s what our commitment to prosperity demands.

To combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a basic human right. The United States has made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed themselves. And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of Africa, our conscience calls on us to act. Together, we must continue to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those in need. And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children. Our common humanity is at stake. Let us show that the life of a child in Somalia is as precious as any other. That is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demand.

To stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health. We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We will focus on the health of mothers and of children. And we must come together to prevent, and detect, and fight every kind of biological danger — whether it’s a pandemic like H1N1, or a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease.

This week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge. And today, I urge all nations to join us in meeting the HWO’s [sic] goal of making sure all nations have core capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012. That is what our commitment to the health of our people demands.

To preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate change demands. We have to tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce. And together, we must continue our work to build on the progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all the major economies here today follow through on the commitments that were made. Together, we must work to transform the energy that powers our economies, and support others as they move down that path. That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.

And to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. No country can afford the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer. Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. That’s why we’ve partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on open government that helps ensure accountability and helps to empower citizens. No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.

And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs. This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women’s Participation. Next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down the economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. This is what our commitment to human progress demands.

I know there’s no straight line to that progress, no single path to success. We come from different cultures, and carry with us different histories. But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations — to live with dignity and freedom; to get an education and pursue opportunity; to love our families, and love and worship our God; to live in the kind of peace that makes life worth living.

It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn these lessons over and over again. Conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Yet that is precisely why we have built institutions like this — to bind our fates together, to help us recognize ourselves in each other — because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war, and freedom is preferable to suppression, and prosperity is preferable to poverty. That’s the message that comes not from capitals, but from citizens, from our people.

And when the cornerstone of this very building was put in place, President Truman came here to New York and said, “The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspirations.” The moral nature of man’s aspirations. As we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace, that’s a lesson that we must never forget.

Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible. So, together, let us be resolved to see that it is defined by our hopes and not by our fears. Together, let us make peace, but a peace, most importantly, that will last.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END
10:47 A.M. EDT

Below is the Full Text of President Obama’s  Kennedy Center Speech  in Commemoration  of the 10th Anniversary of  September 11th , 2001

“The Bible tells us, “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.”

Ten years ago, America confronted one of our darkest nights. Mighty towers crumbled. Black smoke billowed up from the Pentagon. Airplane wreckage smoldered on a Pennsylvania field. Friends and neighbors, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters – they were taken from us with heartbreaking swiftness and cruelty. On September 12, 2001, we awoke to a world in which evil was closer at hand, and uncertainty clouded our future.

In the decade since, much has changed for Americans. We’ve known war and recession, passionate debates and political divides. We can never get back the lives that were lost on that day, or the Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in the wars that followed.

And yet today, it is worth remembering what has not changed. Our character as a nation has not changed. Our faith – in God and each other – that has not changed. Our belief in America, born of a timeless ideal that men and women should govern themselves; that all people are created equal, and deserve the same freedom to determine their own destiny – that belief, through tests and trials, has only been strengthened.

These past 10 years have shown that America does not give in to fear. The rescue workers who rushed to the scene; the firefighters who charged up the stairs; the passengers who stormed the cockpit – these patriots defined the very nature of courage. Over the years we have also seen a more quiet form of heroism – in the ladder company that lost so many men and still suits up and saves lives every day; the businesses that have rebuilt from nothing; the burn victim who has bounced back; the families that press on.

Last spring, I received a letter from a woman named Suzanne Swaine. She had lost her husband and brother in the Twin Towers, and said that she had been robbed of “so many would-be proud moments where a father watches their child graduate, or tend goal in a lacrosse game, or succeed academically.” But her daughters are in college, the other doing well in high school. “It has been 10 years of raising these girls on my own,” Suzanne wrote. “I could not be prouder of their strength and resilience.” That spirit typifies our American family. And the hopeful future for those girls is the ultimate rebuke to the hateful killers who took the life of their father.

These past ten years have shown America’s resolve to defend its citizens, and our way of life. Diplomats serve in far-off posts, and intelligence professionals work tirelessly without recognition. Two million Americans have gone to war since 9/11. They have demonstrated that those who do us harm cannot hide from the reach of justice, anywhere in the world. America has been defended not by conscripts, but by citizens who choose to serve – young people who signed up straight out of high school; guardsmen and reservists; workers and businesspeople; immigrants and fourth-generation soldiers. They are men and women who left behind lives of comfort for two, three, four or five tours of duty. Too many will never come home. Those that do carry dark memories from distant places, and the legacy of fallen friends.

The sacrifices of these men and women, and of our military families, remind us that the wages of war are great; that while service to our nation is full of glory, war itself is never glorious. Our troops have been to lands unknown to many Americans a decade ago – to Kandahar and Kabul, to Mosul and Basra. But our strength is not measured in our ability to stay in these places; it comes from our commitment to leave those lands to free people and sovereign states, and our desire to move from a decade of war to a future of peace.

These 10 years have shown that we hold fast to our freedoms. Yes, we are more vigilant against those who threaten us, and there are inconveniences that come with our common defense. Debates – about war and peace, about security and civil liberties – have often been fierce these last 10 years. But it is precisely the rigor of these debates, and our ability to resolve them in a way that honors our values and our democracy, that is a measure of our strength. Meanwhile, our open markets still provide innovators with the chance to create, our citizens are still free to speak their minds, and our souls are still enriched in churches and temples, our synagogues and mosques.

These past 10 years underscore the bonds between all Americans. We have not succumbed to suspicion and we have not succumbed to mistrust. After 9/11, to his great credit, President Bush made clear what we reaffirm today: The United States will never wage war against Islam or any religion. Immigrants come here from all parts of the globe. In the biggest cities and the smallest towns, in schools and workplaces, you still see people of every conceivable race, religion and ethnicity – all of them pledging allegiance to the flag, all of them reaching for the same American dream – e pluribus unum, out of many, we are one.

These past 10 years tell a story of our resilience. The Pentagon is repaired, filled with patriots working in common purpose. Shanksville is the scene of friendships forged between residents of that town, and families who lost loved ones there. New York remains the most vibrant of capitals of arts and industry, fashion and commerce. Where the World Trade Center once stood, the sun glistens off a new tower that reaches toward the sky. Our people still work in skyscrapers. Our stadiums are filled with fans, and our parks full of children playing ball. Our airports hum with travel, and our buses and subways take millions where they need to go. Families sit down to Sunday dinner, and students prepare for school. This land pulses with the optimism of those who set out for distant shores, and the courage of those who died for human freedom.

Decades from now, Americans will visit the memorials to those who were lost on 9/11. They will run their fingers over the places where the names of those we loved are carved into marble and stone, and they may wonder at the lives they led. Standing before the white headstones in Arlington, and in peaceful cemeteries and small-town squares in every corner of our country, they will pay respects to those lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. They will see the names of the fallen on bridges and statues, at gardens and schools.

And they will know that nothing can break the will of a truly United States of America. They will remember that we have overcome slavery and Civil War; we’ve overcome bread lines and fascism; recession and riots; Communism and, yes, terrorism. They will be reminded that we are not perfect, but our democracy is durable, and that democracy – reflecting, as it does, the imperfections of man – also gives us the opportunity to perfect our union. That is what we honor on days of national commemoration – those aspects of the American experience that are enduring, and the determination to move forward as one people.

More than monuments, that will be the legacy of 9/11 – a legacy of firefighters who walked into fire and soldiers who signed up to serve; of workers who raised new towers, of citizens who faced down fear, most of all of children who realized the dreams of their parents. It will be said of us that we kept that faith; that we took a painful blow, and we emerged stronger than before.

“Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.”

With a just God as our guide, let us honor those who have been lost, let us rededicate ourselves to the ideals that define our nation, and let us look to the future with hearts full of hope. May God bless the memory of those we lost, and may God bless the United States of America.

Source: The Hufftington Post