(Book Review 6: Finished reading on the 23rd of December 2011)
ISBN 9789812049841
Price: Unknown (it was a gift)
A monumental work by a monumental man, From Third World to First has been one of the most interesting and gripping books that I've read in 2011. Written in the frank, concise and lucid style so characteristic of former PM Lee, the book covers both domestic and international issues.
In the first half of the book, former PM Lee discusses the challenges that post independence Singapore faced and how Singapore managed to overcome them and eventually thrive. The second half of the book (and the one that I find more interesting given that the first half is somewhat familiar content for me) has former PM Lee look at international issues and has chapters looking at either a group of countries or specific countries. It provides a fascinating commentary by former PM Lee on world leaders and international developments as well as a good historical overview on Singapore's relations with other countries. His assessment of Southeast Asian countries, China and the UK are perhaps the best of all. I was particularly interested in the sections where former PM Lee wrote on his experiences of his long engagement with China and Taiwan. A third and rather short section expounds upon the political leadership transition in Singapore as well as the importance of family to former PM Lee. Found both of these chapters interesting and his viewpoints on the importance of a smooth and timely transition as well as the role of family very true.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, independent Singapore's first prime minister
Mr Lee in his later years
It is a must read for every Singaporean and essential for anyone wanting to know more about Southeast Asia and Singapore. Most importantly, it provides insight into one of the greatest political figures of the 20th century and likely Singapore's greatest leader. This book will definitely form the core of my library.
(Book Review 5: Finished reading on the 14th of December 2011)
ISBN 9786047703227
Price: 71,000 VND or SGD 4.41
At times repetitive and occasionally obtuse, this book is a bit of a challenge to read. Definitely not something I would call light reading. However, it was an enlightening book once I got used to Communist style purple prose. It describes the progress that Vietnam has made on all fronts in the past decade. Interesting to note that the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) admits that there are policies that need readjustment and that there still remains many areas for improvement. This shows that the Party is not stagnating and is conscious of the long term struggle and difficulties ahead. The economic figures cited in this book certainly re-impress upon me the great economic progress that Vietnam has made since the institution of Doi Moi (or the transformation from a socialist economy to a socialist oriented market economy). A definite must read for anyone interested in Vietnam and its recent growth into a Southeast Asian powerhouse.
(Note: This book review is in no way an endorsement of Communism or the VCP, just a private opinion. No offense is intended to anyone who believes in Communism either.)
The following pictures are those I got from Google showing the 11th National Congress in session.
A delightfully and superbly written book that effectively condenses the foreign policy challenges that the liberal democracies of the world face. It is rather hard to summarise this book for it in itself is a masterpiece at summary, being able to eloquently, elegantly and succinctly put forth a discussion about the political state of the world in 105 pages. An interesting view posited is the author's view of a contest between the world's liberal democracies and the autocratic regimes. He recognises the emergence of a multipolar world, but sees a geopolitical contest emerging between these two blocs, rather like a revised Cold War. I say revised because, as the author acknowledges, the various Great Powers are now deeply economically interlinked (more so in the case of China than Russia perhaps). Instead of looking at the BRICs versus the US and Europe, Kagan sees the democracies of Brazil and India aligning themselves with other liberal democracies. The book also provides a good overview of the transition from the post Cold War era into the New World Order posited by US triumphalism after the US's emergence as the sole remaining superpower into the future of Great Power relationships. Definitely a worthwhile read.
As I was scrolling through the archive of blog posts, it somewhat astounded me that I had yet to comment on one of the most momentous events of 2011, that of the Arab Spring and the revolutions that have engulfed the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, what more could I say on an issue that has saturated media coverage and on which various experts from politics, economics and academia have thoroughly analyzed. I will provide my own perspective on the issue, with perhaps a shift from the traditional policy perspective towards a more personal one.
Many have labelled the Arab Spring and the attendant uprisings as a vindication of the ideology of democracy. Indeed, it is undeniable that the protesters across the Middle East and North Africa truly desire democratic governments to replace the dictatorial or authoritarian ones that they are currently under. However, in looking at the desire for democracy, I perceive it as merely a means to an end, something that the protesters believe gives expression to their desire for the rights and dignities to which they have been deprived of for so long. No one can plausibly deny that the uprisings had a very strong economic root. People, especially the Arab youth were incensed by rising unemployment, economic destitution and the lack of opportunities that bred an atmosphere of hopelessness. The struggle for change is perhaps largely borne out of a desire for an improvement of one's standard of living.
Yet one cannot deny the political side of these uprisings. The desire for change is perhaps some intrinsically human. People never seem to be be entirely satisfied with a government or system that remains in power for too long, even if it is a good system. However, the exarcebating factor in the Arab world is that the political systems are sometimes simply rotten. Vast economic inequalities combined with a narrow power base means that for the vast majority of the population, political participation or influence is unthinkable. Coupled with brutal repression, which on many occasions merely stiffened the resolve of the protesters, it provided an incendiary spark for people to demand the perhaps basic right of being able to feel safe in their own country, to be able to perceive a better future for themselves and to believe that the individual matters.
Protesters in Bahrain
However as the year draws to a close, only in Tunisia is there a concrete sense of optimism. The birthplace of the Arab Spring, following the self-immolation of a young vegetable seller, it is so far the only country that has instituted elections with the moderate Islamist Ennhada party winning over two-fifths of the vote. It is remarkable that Islamists could engage secular political parties and form a coalition government. The peaceful nature of the revolution that overthrew the Tunisian dictator Ben Ali also perhaps set a better foundation for change. Yet concrete change cannot merely be achieved through the institution of the ballot box. The new Tunisian government must also create economic opportunities for the Tunisian people so as to address what is perhaps the fundamental cause of the Arab awakening.
Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia
Rached Ghannouchi, leader of Ennhada
Ousted Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali
In Libya, we might perceive a success. After all, it has been lauded in much of the Western media as a case study for successful military intervention in the Arab world (backing from the UN Security Council, support by Arab nations and a non-American dominated military effort). Yet the success of NATO's military intervention whilst undeniably significant in preventing the wholesale slaughter of the opposition by Gaddafi, also caused undoubtably many civilian causalities. Whilst not wishing to belittle the efforts of Libya's NTC, the various reports of abuses, reprisals and the wholesale destruction of Sirte and the suspicious circumstances of Gaddafi's death do not give Libya the same positive beginning of a transition that Tunisia enjoys. And what of the Libyan youth, many of whom were militarily involved in the struggle against Gaddafi. A militarized population is a dangerous thing, especially in a tribal country like Libya. Disarming the militias and bringing about national reconciliation and political change in Libya will be a tremendous challenge for any Libyan government and we can only hope that they prove up to the task in rebuilding Libya.
Protests against Gaddafi
Mahmoud Jibril, leader of the NTC during the Libyan Civil War
Gaddafi, former Libyan leader
Egypt however has seen perhaps a reversal of the revolution that toppled longstanding strongman Hosni Mubarak. What makes Egypt so crucial midst all the Arab countries is that it is seen as one of two pivotal Arab nations. Cairo and Riyadh (capital of Egypt and Saudi Arabia respectively) perhaps form the axis of the Arab world. Egypt, with one of the largest Arab populations, a large military and the home of the Arab League is the most important state to have undergone a revolution. Yet, it seems that little of the old guard have been removed and the military, under Field Marshal Tantawi still remain in charge although promises of a transfer to civilian authority have been given. However, the mood in Tahir Square remains defiant, especially with the appointment of a new PM (one who served under the Mubarak regime). Regardless of his positive credentials, it is perhaps understandable that the protesters would be furious at such attempts to install what they see as members of the old guard back into the Egyptian political scene. What happens in Egypt will have repercussions far greater than that of Libya and Tunisia. Egypt transformation and transition will be closely watched by the world, especially that of its Israeli neighbour for whoever ends up ruling in Cairo, will end up leading one of the Arab world's preeminent states. We can only hope that that transition will be a positive one.
Hosni Mubarak, ousted Egyptian leader
Protesters at Tahrir Square, Cairo
But now much of the world's attention is on Syria and on the Assad regime. The opposition and the regime seemed to have reached a deadlock with the regime's military suppression of the mass protests across the country being able to deter the protesters. With members of the Syrian Army defecting to the opposition and creating the Free Syrian Army, the conflict has definitely transited from one of peaceful demonstrations to one of violent uprising. Yet Syria presents a complex case. The political centre (Damascus) and the economic centre (Aleppo) have largely remained quiet. Furthermore, sectarian divisions between Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Kurds and Alawites with some groups supporting the regime more than others, and the more privileged business class still remaining on the side of the regime, there is a real concern that Syria could degenerate into a civil war that would probably engulf Lebanon for in Lebanon, pro and anti Assad supporters exist. Not to mention the Islamist group of Hezbollah in that country. Calls by the protesters for a foreign military intervention like the one executed in Libya have gone unanswered by the Western world. The West (effectively NATO), has no stomach or desire for an entanglement in Syria. Memories of the American invasion of Iraq and the debacle that ensued remain fresh. Embroilment of foreign military forces in Syria may cause the same sort of civil war that engulfed Iraq. Furthermore, the implacable opposition by China and Russia on any form of foreign intervention is likely to render the UN ineffective and enable to issue a firm stance. We have seen efforts, commendable efforts, by the Arab League to address the Syrian issue. Yet more needs to be done in order to either bring about regime change or effect a ceasefire and an end to the bloodshed. Perhaps in the near future, Turkey, which has announced frustration with the Assad regime may take the lead on the Syrian issue. The world can thus only hope that the bloodshed does not grow worse and comes to an end soon.
Protests against Syrian leader Bashar Al Assad
Syrian President Bashar Al Assad
Pro-Assad rally
Recently in Yemen, the news that Ali Abdullah Saleh would relinquish power in a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) backed deal opens up a new chapter in Yemeni politics, but it also presents a whole new set of challenges. Many Yemenis are highly displeased by the fact that Saleh would be immune from prosecution. Furthermore, the deal still leaves much power in the hands of the old guard. It is thus highly questionable that the protesters would accept such an arrangement for long, if at all. With renegade commanders, angry protesters and uncontrollable tribal factions, there is a real possibility of Yemen degenerating into civil war.
Protests in Sanaa, Yemen
Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemeni President (soon to step down)
With such negativity and uninspiring outcomes (save for that of Tunisia), it would seem to many that the Arab Spring has turned into an Arab Winter. Yet, I have faith that this will not the final end of things. We have seen the power of the Arab street and of how ordinary people have fought for their dignity and their aspirations. It seems equally difficult for me to accept that the same people would back down in the face of regime resistance. A revolution is difficult to steal after all.
9. Nguyen Trung Thanh, Vietnam's Ambassador to Singapore
10. Ong Keng Yong, Ambassador-At-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore
11. Termsak Chalermpalanupap, Special Assistant to the ASEAN Secretary-General
12. Dian Triansyah Djani, Director-General for ASEAN Cooperation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Indonesia
13. Kao Kim Hourn, Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Cambodia
14. Bounkeut Sangsomak, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Lao PDR
Edited by:
1.Tommy Koh
2. Rosario G Manalo
3. Walter Woon
(Book Review No. 3: Finished reading in September)
ISBN: 9789812833907
Price: SGD 38.52 (original), SGD 20 (after sale)
The Making of the ASEAN Charter
ASEAN Flag
The book, with its collection of essays by the drafters of the Charter and other ASEAN personages, provides an interesting internal perspective on the issue by those who actually crafted the Charter. It is perhaps a simple expression of the nature of ASEAN itself, with decision making based on consultation and consensus and the importance of personal relationships and the critical role that informal diplomacy had to play. Written by a collection of some of the most prominent foreign policy elites in ASEAN, it provides an eloquent and elegant defense of the Charter as well, defending the various processes of ASEAN and the components of the Charter. It indeed is a must read for anyone interested in ASEAN.
I originally had very little knowledge about Laos. What I knew were just fragments. I knew that its capital was Vientiane, that it had a Communist government, was a rather undeveloped country in Southeast Asia and was landlocked and cut off from the world.
Post-War Laos : The Politics of Culture, History and Identity
Hmong Girls at the Plain of Jars, Laos
Whilst occasionally rather dense and sometimes overly technical for my liking, I was fascinated by how it presented the Laotian government's attempt at constructing national unity in a rather fractious country. Even the majority Lao community was subdivided into three separate ethnic communities, whilst the hill tribe minorities were almost too numerous to count. I was rather bemused by how many of the original ethnic labels had originated as a result of French colonial rule and their attempts to categorize the territory's population. As part of the nation building project, the Laotian government has overturned many of the old labels and established new ones, although the people whose ethnicities have officially changed often still stick to the old labels. It is curious that the Panthet Lao's (the Communists) success in ousting the old order of the Lao Royal Government was in no small way a result of the minority hill tribe support for their campaign. The book also notes the Vietnamese contribution towards the Panthet Lao campaign and how Laotian leaders subsequently used Vietnam as a model for constructing a socialist state. One only wonders how much influence Vietnam has over this country, a piece of territory that has long been a battleground between Thai and Vietnamese influence.
Coat of Arms of Laos
Flag of Laos
Overall it is an interesting book, and a must read for anyone interested in Laos or in the process of national building in what must be one of the world's most challenging geographical and sociological environment.
The following is a summary of the remarks made by Herman Van Rompuy at the 66th UN General Assembly. His Excellency Herman Van Rompuy is the President of the European Council of the European Union, the first long-term, non head of state or government to hold this post.
Summary of Remarks made on the 22nd of September 2011:
His Excellency divided up his speech into three sections, 1. Hopes, 2. Worries, 3. Europe's Global Responsibility. My comments upon the main points of his speech are in orange.
1. Hope
There has been an increased economic uplifting of peoples, with emerging economies becoming emerged economies and the corresponding decrease in poverty.
South Sudan is an example of how peace and diplomacy can prevail.
North Africa has provided examples of the possibility for tyranny and terrorism to be defeated.
Europe is close to the Arab world, geographically and historically and hence will support the democratic and economic reforms of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt with financial aid and access to European markets.
Europe and the international community have an important responsibility to assist the new Libyan government
The decade after 9/11 has shown no great clash of civilizations, no religious hatred. The revolutions in the Arab world have also exhibited little of such sentiment. Rather the Arab peoples demand a desire for human dignity in their revolutions.
Systems must reform in order to stay strong.
One area of critique from me. Has there really been no clash of civilizations and no religious hatred? Whilst he argues that the 9/11 attacks did not spark global hatred towards Islam, an increased suspicion of Islam certainly has taken root in Europe and in America. Perhaps it is true that there have been no civilization clash, as evidenced by how the Arab Spring where people demand the same rights that those in the West do.
Herman Van Rompuy addressing the 66th UNGA
2. Worries
Oppression and violent crackdowns on protesters in Syria
Urged others to join the European condemnation of Syria
The famine in the Horn of Africa
Issues on nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea as well as nuclear power safety issues
The challenge of climate change
In the short term, we work towards protecting human life
In the long term, we work towards protecting humanity
Actions undertaken to combat climate change are insufficient and must be increased exponentially
I agree with His Excellency on this portion of his speech. Climate change certainly is one of the greatest challenges of our time.
Map of EU Member States
EU Flag
3. Europe's Global Responsibility
Supporting hope and fighting the causes of worry globally
Europe is the largest donor of development aid
And is one of the largest donor towards climate aid (aid to tackle and mitigate the effects of climate change)
Offers manpower aid (peacekeeping, development and aid workers, volunteers, police officers)
Europe is ambitious in climate talks
Europe seeks reforms in the international financial systems in recognition of the changing economic weight of countries
It seeks to solve conflict in the Balkans
Has an important role to play in the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
Seeks the implementation of a two state solution based upon 1967 borders with mutually agreed territorial swaps
Supports the Palestinian Authority in its state building process
Mutual concerns are important and legitimate, Israelis must have a state and security and recognition; Palestinians must also have a state of their own
History severely judges political moves that only create shortcomings
In Europe's example of achieving peace, there must be a lasting compromise built upon mutual sacrifice and trust
Invites other industralised countries to follow Europe's aims and goals in cutting carbon emissions in a bid to tackle climate change
Europe is committed towards tackling the sovereign debt crisis as it is responsible to the global economy.
Europe will continue to do what it takes to tackle the defining challenge of this European generation
But Europe also expects other major countries to bring their own houses in order
Europe will stand shoulder to shoulder with the UN
The UN is crucial to the world
The EU's 500 million citizens reject splendid isolation in favour of global engagement
The world belongs to no one nation, it belongs to us all
Most interesting section. Outlines Europe as a global power quite different from say China or the US. Emphasis on European soft power (e.g. development support, peacekeeping, economic power). Interesting allusion to the European project that created European peace (save for the Balkans). Indeed, the MEPP can only plausibly succeed if sacrifices can be made and trust created. Both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate and inalienable claims to the Holy Land. Emphasis on climate change efforts are made. Comments on the sovereign debt crisis and the reiteration of European resolve. Interestingly, the invitation for industrialised countries to join the European targets of carbon emissions reduction as well as the comments on other countries needing to keep their balance sheets in order seem directed at the US. Perhaps a double attack for US sidelining the EU at Copenhagen and for Secretary Geithner comments on the sovereign debt crisis. In this new era of increasing US decline, it is perhaps important to have Europe actively engaged in the world. It after all is the most peaceful and economically developed region of the globe with examples and lessons for us all to learn from.
(The following text is the full version of President Obama's speech to the 66th UN General Assembly. I have underlined portions of the speech in order to highlight certain key points)
{Many key issues are being addressed here. It's a compelling speech, but at times, there appears to be a disconnect between US foreign policy and its stated aims. Interesting to see the perspective on Bahrain and Israel. I'll have you make what you will out of this speech though. I think different people will view this differently.)
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. AndCôte 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 nowthe 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.
President Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
President Obama addressing the General Assembly (note the two giant TV screens)
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.
