奥巴马在西点军校2017年毕业典礼上演讲(3).

Now -- (applause) -- that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces. But as we move to a train and advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence there allows us to more fectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. So earlier this year I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel.

Today, as part of this fort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.

A critical focus of this fort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria. As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers there, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. As president, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision. But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people. And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.

So with the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our forts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with rugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share of support to the Syrian people.

Let me make one final point about our forts against terrorism. The partnerships I’ve described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do, through capture operations, like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice, or drone strikes, like those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.

There are times when those actions are necessary and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. But as I said last year, in taking direct action, we must uphold standards that rlect our values. That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties, for our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlield.

I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners. I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our forts. Our intelligence community has done outstanding work and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our forts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.

And this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership, and that is our fort to strengthen and enforce international order.

After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF. These institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier. They reduce the need for unilateral American action and increase restraint among other nations.

Now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well. At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon a gradual evolution in human institutions. And evolving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership.

Now, there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often downplay the fectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, like the U.N. or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong. Let me offer just two examples why.

In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions, Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions, NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies, the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy, OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.

And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.

This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions. Yesterday, I spoke to their next president. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order, working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future -- without us firing a shot.

Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years. But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more fective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force. And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.

The point is, this is American leadership. This is American strength.

现在——(掌声)——这就是美军取得的巨大成就。但是当我们在阿富汗的使命转向训练和顾问时，我们减少驻军以后可以更有效地应对中东和北非新出现的威胁。因此在今年早些时候，我让国家安全事务部门就南亚和萨赫勒地区的合作伙伴关系网制定了一个计划。

今天，作为我们行动的一部分，我呼吁国会支持通过数额为50亿美元的新反恐合作基金，以帮助我们的同盟伙伴训练军队、提升能力、支援他们的前线。这些资金也让我们又更大的自由度完成各项任务。这些任务包括：为打击基地组织的也门政府训练安全部队以支持多国部队维护索马里地区和平，同欧洲盟友一起在利比亚训练出合格的安全部队和边防军，以及协助法国在马里的行动。

我们努力的重中之重是叙利亚危机。令人沮丧的是，解决这一危机没有捷径。军事行动不能立马消除当地人民的深重灾难。作为总统，我决定不派遣军队卷入这场愈演愈烈的宗派内战。我相信这是一个正确的决定。但是这并不意味着我们不去帮助叙利亚人民奋起反抗，反对杀害自己人民、让人民挨饿的独裁者。我们协助那些为了叙利亚人民能选择自己未来而奋斗的人，同时也积极打击在越来越多混乱之中找到避风港的极端分子。

有了今天我所宣布的资金，我们将会加大力度，支持约旦、黎巴嫩、土耳其、伊拉克这些叙利亚的邻国。因为他们得处理叙利亚边境的难民、并打击叙边境的恐怖活动。我将与国会一起，加大对叙利亚反对派的支持。他们是替代恐怖分子和残忍的独裁者管理叙利亚最好的选择。我们会继续与我们的朋友、欧洲盟友和阿拉伯世界一起合作，推进叙利亚危机的政治解决途径，以保证在支持叙利亚人民的努力中，并非仅有美国在做出努力，其他这些国家也都参与其中。

让我就我们在反恐上的努力最后说一点。我所描述的伙伴关系并不排除为了保护美国而采取直接行动的可能。只要我们有可靠的情报，我们就会采取行动，比如1998年在我们大使馆抓捕策划安放炸弹的恐怖分子的行动，又如我们在也门和索马里采取的无人机袭击。

有时我们必须马上采取行动，因为我们在保护国民方面决不能有半点犹豫。但就像我去年说的，采取直接行动时，我们也要坚守我们的价值观。这就意味着只有我们面临持续的或是眼前的威胁才会进行打击。在没有把握的时候，即便我们几乎能避免平民伤亡，我们的行动也必须达到一个简单的标准，那就是我们不能为了在战场上击毙敌人而树立更多的敌人。

我也相信我们必须在反恐行动的出发点和具体行动方式方面更为公开。不管是无人机打击或是训练盟友的军队，我们必须向公众解释我们的行动。我将会要求美军带头，向公众提供与我们行动相关的信息。我们的情报机构工作出色，我们必须继续保护我们的信息来源和获取途径。但如果我们不能清楚、公开地解释我们的行动，我们就会面对恐怖分子的大肆宣传和国际社会的质疑，就会在我们伙伴国和人民面前失去合法性，就会失去我们政府的信誉。

公开透明直接与美国领导地位的第三个方面相关，也就是我们强化国际秩序的努力。

二战之后，美国高瞻远瞩，设立了从北约、联合国到世界银行、国际货币组织一系列机构来维护人类和平、支持人类进步。这些机构并不完美，但是他们将我们的力量放大了数倍。他们减少美国进行单边行动的需要，同时也增强了其他国家之间的制约能力。

现在，世界已经历巨变，这一框架也需改变。冷战时，肯尼迪总统曾谈到对于以人类机构逐渐改善为基础的和平的需要。对这些机构进行改进以达到今天的需求，是美国领导地位的重要一环。

现在有许多人，也有许多质疑者经常贬低多边行动的有效性。对于他们而言，通过联合国这类的多边机构进行合作或者是尊重多边规则，是一种懦弱的表现。我认为他们错了。让我举两个例子来加以说明吧。

俄罗斯最近在乌克兰的举动令我想起了苏联大批坦克开进东欧的情形。但是现在不是冷战时期。我们制造的国际舆论让俄罗斯在短时间内就被孤立。在美国的领导下，国际社会马上谴责俄罗斯的举动，欧洲和七国集团同我们一样对其实施制裁，北大西洋公约组织恪守我们对东盟的承诺，国际货币基金组织正在帮助稳定乌克兰的经济，欧洲安全和合作组织也在关注乌克兰不稳定地区的发展。

世界观点和国际机构立场的转变，可与俄罗斯的宣传、其边境的军队以及全副武装的士兵相抗衡。

这周末，数百万的乌克兰公民会进行民主投票。昨天，我同他们下一届的总统进行了会谈。我们不知道情况会如何演变，前方也仍存在巨大的挑战，但是为了维护国际秩序，同我们的盟友一起，与国际组织进行合作，这给了乌克兰人民一个选择他们未来的机会一一这并不需要费一枪一弹。

类似的是，尽管美国、以色列及其他国家不断地对伊朗发出警告，伊朗核计划仍持续进行了好几年。在我担任总统职务初期，我们联合对伊朗的经济实行了制裁，但同时也帮助伊朗政府进行民主建设。现在我们有机会和平地解决我们的分歧。成功之路还十分漫长，我们要保留阻止伊朗获得核武器的各种手段。十年来我们第一次真正有机会达成一项突破性的协定，这比我们用武力达成协定来得更有效，效果也更持久。通过这些磋商，我们愿意通过多边途径让世界各国站在我们这一边。

重点是，这是在美国的领导下进行的。这是美国力量所在。

　　本文由澳际顾问冯诗蕴老师推荐，转载请注明出处!