用户名: 密码: 验证码:    注册 | 忘记密码?
首页|听力资源|每日听力|网络电台|在线词典|听力论坛|下载频道|部落家园|在线背单词|双语阅读|在线听写|普特网校
您的位置:主页 > 英语能力 > 翻译 > 口译 > 练习材料 > 教育 >

视频: 奥巴马西点军校2014年毕业典礼演讲

2014-07-04    来源:网络    【      美国外教 在线口语培训
— 查看译文 —

tips:怎样阅读才是有质量的阅读了? 中英对照请点击【中英对照】查看译文请点击 【查看译文】进行核对。


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. General Trainor, General Clarke, faculty and staff at West Point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.

I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed who is here and a proud graduate of West Point himself. To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.

Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. (Laughter.)

To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point, as commander in chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Laughter, applause.)

Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.



I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made. “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.” Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran, and I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families. (Applause.)

It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who’ve sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Cheers, applause.)

When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al-Qaida’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. (Cheers, applause.) And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.

In fact, by most measures America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise -- who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.

Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War. Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent. From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.

America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. (Applause.) So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century past, and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.

Russia’s aggression towards former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.

From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as commander in chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being.

Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view, from interventionists from the left and right, says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.

And each side can point to history to support its claims, but I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.

As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.

And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake -- abiding self-interest -- in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.

I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe.

But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”

Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point. Four of the service members who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort. A lot more were wounded.

I believe America’s security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted by those deaths. I am haunted by those wounds. And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.

Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.

And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your commander in chief -- to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.

First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.

In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life. (Applause.)

On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation, appeals to international law, and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.

This leads to my second point. For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.

And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al-Qaida leadership. Instead it comes from decentralized al-Qaida affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate. And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi. It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.

We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us. And empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. Together with our allies, America struck huge blows against al-Qaida core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country.

But sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job. And that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police. Earlier this spring, those forces -- those Afghan forces -- secured an election in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history. And at the end of this year, a new Afghan president will be in office, and America’s combat mission will be over.

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 effectively 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 effort, 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 effort 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 efforts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with refugees 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 efforts 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 reflect 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 battlefield.

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 efforts. Our intelligence community has done outstanding work and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our efforts 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 effort 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 effectiveness 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 peacefully. 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 effective 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.

In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge. Now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading.

For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known but we’re now working with NATO allies to meet new missions both within Europe, where our eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s borders, where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.

Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. Now, we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace so that we can prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan. We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)

Keep in mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict. We have a serious problem with cyberattacks, which is why we’re working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens. In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.

That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters, and conflicts over water and food, which is why, next year, I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet.

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership. That’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.(Applause.)

And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo, because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders. (Applause.) That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens. (Applause.) America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost; we stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere -- which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership: our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.

America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism; it is a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war. Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods. Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.

A new century has brought no end to tyranny. In capitals around the globe -- including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has been a crackdown on civil society. The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.

And watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab world, it’s easy to be cynical. But remember that because of America’s efforts -- because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our military -- more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history. Technology is empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control. New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And even the upheaval of the Arab world reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective governance.

In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests, from peace treaties to Israel to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.

And meanwhile, look at a country like Myanmar, which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States. Forty million people. Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once- closed society; a movement by Myanmar leadership away from partnership with North Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies.

We’re now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism. And progress there could be reversed, but if Myanmar succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot -- American leadership.

In each of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight. That’s why we form alliances -- not only with governments, but also with ordinary people. For unlike other nations, America is not afraid of individual empowerment. We are strengthened by it. We’re strengthened by civil society. We’re strengthened by a free press. We’re strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses. We’re strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people and women and girls. That’s who we are. That’s what we represent. (Applause.)

I saw that through a trip to Africa last year, where American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation, while helping Africans care themselves for their sick. We’re helping farmers get their products to market to feed populations once endangered by famine. We aim to double access to electricity in sub- Saharan Africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy. And all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict.

Now, tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram -- the group that kidnapped those girls.

And that’s we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth. This should be one of the hard-earned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development. They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought -- something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security. It is part of what makes us strong.

Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.

Class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson. You leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can claim. You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces, for in the course of your service, you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts.

You’ll get to know allies and train partners. And you will embody what it means for America to lead the world.

Next week I will go to Normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there. And while it’s hard for many Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you. At West Point, you define what it means to be a patriot.

Three years ago Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan. Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his community and his family and the folks back home. Gavin lost one of his legs in an attack. I met him last year at Walter Reed. He was wounded but just as determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point. And he developed a simple goal. Today his sister Morgan will graduate. And true to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her. (Cheers, applause.)

We have been through a long season of war. We have faced trials that were not foreseen and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward. But there is something in Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character, that will always triumph.

Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side. Your charge now is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just. As your commander in chief, I know you will. May God bless you. May God bless our men and women in uniform. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)



美国总统奥巴马:谢谢!非常感谢!谢谢!谢谢卡斯兰将军的介绍!特雷纳将军、克拉克将军、西点军校的教职工们,你们一直以来都是这所令人自豪的学府的优秀管理者,也是美国陆军新晋军官的杰出导师。

我要向陆军领导层表示感谢,包括陆军部长麦克休将军以及参谋长奥迪耶诺将军,同时也要感谢到场的杰克•里德参议员,他是西点军校引以为荣的毕业生之一。2014级的毕业生们,祝贺你们承接了西点军魂的使命。

在你们当中,有美国首支女子指挥团队,包括艾琳•墨登和奥斯丁•波洛夫。卡拉•格莱文展现了一位罗兹学者的风采,而乔希•赫贝克则证明了西点的精准度远在三分线之外。(笑声)

全体学员们,请安心度过你们在西点的最后时光,我以最高统帅的名义在此赦免所有因犯轻罪而关禁闭的学员。(笑声、掌声)

容我说一句,我当学生的时候,可从未有人这么做过。

我知道,你们和我一样都要向自己的家人表示感谢。乔•狄摩斯是本届毕业生詹姆斯的父亲,他给我来信讲诉你们所作出的牺牲,也道出了许多父母的心声。他写道:“在我们的内心深处,我们为他们立志报效国家而感到无比自豪。”和多位毕业生一样,詹姆斯也是位战场老兵。我请今天在座的各位起立,向我们当中的老兵,也向250多万曾在伊拉克和阿富汗服役的美国人及其家属致敬。(掌声)

这是继数天前阵亡将士纪念日后的又一个极有意义的时刻,让美国人民得以回想那些为我们的自由作出巨大牺牲的英雄。你们将是自911恐怖袭击以来,第一届不会被派到伊拉克或阿富汗参战的毕业生。(欢呼声、掌声)


2009年,我首次在西点发表演讲时,我们仍有10万多名士兵驻扎在伊拉克,也正准备增兵阿富汗。而我们的反恐重心则是基地组织的核心头目——正是他们发动了911恐怖袭击。此外,我们的国家正开始一段摆脱大萧条以来最严重经济危机的漫长历程。


四年半以后,就在你们毕业之际,情况已发生了转变。我们已从伊拉克撤军,正逐步结束阿富汗的战争。潜伏在巴基斯坦和阿富汗边境地区的基地组织头目已被斩草除根,而奥萨马•本•拉登也早已命丧黄泉。(欢呼声、掌声)在经历了这一切之后,我们又将关注重心调整到美国实力的重要源头上来,这个源头就是不断发展的经济,为每一个愿意努力工作并愿意承担起家国责任的人提供机会。

事实上,与世界上其他国家相比,美国在很多方面都处于强势地位。有些人持不同观点,他们认为美国正在衰弱或正失去世界的领导地位,这些人不是对历史存在误读,就是陷入了党派政治的泥潭。

你们想一想,我们的军队天下无敌,任何国家对我们构成直接威胁的几率极小,而且与我们在冷战时期所面临的危险相差甚远。同时,我们的经济活力仍居世界第一,企业的创新性也名列前茅。我们的能源独立性都在逐年增强。从欧洲到亚洲,我们是各国有史以来无人能敌的联盟轴心。

美国将继续吸纳奋发图强的外国移民。我们的建国理念激励着各国议会的领导人,也激励着世界各地在公共广场上发起的新运动。当台风袭击菲律宾的时候,当尼日利亚女学生遭到绑架的时候,当蒙面歹徒攻占乌克兰政府大楼的时候,全世界都翘首以待美国的援助之手。(掌声)因此,美国始终是一个无可取代的国家,上个世纪如此,下个世纪亦是如此。

但是,如今的世界瞬息万变。这为我们带来了机遇,也带来了新的危险。911恐怖袭击事件让我们清楚地认识到,科技和全球化发展是如何让原本由国家掌控的权力落入个人之手,令恐怖分子为非作歹的。

不久前,俄罗斯派兵入侵前苏联加盟共和国——乌克兰,这一军事动作牵动欧洲各国神经,与此同时,中国经济崛起及其军事走向则引发邻国担忧。

从巴西到印度,新兴中产阶级在与我们展开竞争,此外,各国谋求在国际事务中争取更多话语权。尽管发展中国家拥护民主、认同市场经济,但全天候新闻以及社交媒体报道使得人们无法对接连发生在这些国家的派系冲突、国家衰败与民众暴动等事件视而不见。然而,这些对于上一代人而言,只能引来他们的“侧目”罢了。

如何能在新形势下有所作为的重担就要落在你们这一代的肩上了。摆在我们面前的问题,不是美国是否处在领导地位,而是她将如何引领各国;不只是美国能否实现繁荣发展,而是她如何能在全球范围内“播撒”和平与繁荣的“种子”,而这也是你们将来要面对的问题。

这个问题并非新鲜。至少,自乔治•华盛顿就任总司令——即美国爆发独立战争以来,就存在一些警告的声音,表示反对美国卷入与本国国家安全或经济福祉无直接关联的外部纷争之中。

现在,那些自诩为现实主义者的人认为,美国无需理会发生在叙利亚、乌克兰,以及中非共和国的冲突。的确,在经受了战争以及来自国内的多重挑战之后,这种观点为许多美国人所认同,这并不意外。

然而,干涉主义者对此持不同观点。他们认为,无视这些冲突最终会危及我们自身,美国在全球充当“世界警察”角色的意愿能够最彻底地保卫世界安全,使其免于陷入混乱。而若美国对叙利亚的暴乱或俄罗斯的挑衅撒手不管、无所作为的话,那么这不仅违背我们的良心,也会使得这些行径在未来愈演愈烈。

尽管双方的观点从历史角度看都成立,但我认为他们并没有充分反映当前形势下的需求。显然,对21世纪的美国而言,孤立主义行不通。我们无法对发生在世界其他地区的事情漠然视之。例如,如果核燃料不安全,那么它就会威及美国人民的生命。


随着叙利亚内战战火跨越边境,受战争洗礼的极端组织攻击美国的能力也在增强。地区冲突接踵而至,无论是在乌克兰南部地区、南海亦或是世界其他地方,如果我们对此坐视不管,最终这将危及美国盟友的利益,美军也会卷入其中。因此,我们必须时刻关注外界事态。

此外,跳出这些狭隘的理论框架来看,我认为大家还存在着一个真正的共同关切——持久的个人利益,那就是要始终确保我们的子孙后代成长在这样一个世界当中,在那里,人们不会因为种族、信仰或政治理念的迥异而劫持女学生或滥杀无辜。

我认为,建设一个更加自由及包容的世界不仅在道德上势在必行,而且有助于维护我们自身安全。

尽管我们有意向在全球倡导和平与自由,但这并不意味着我们要借助军事手段来解决每个问题。二战结束以来,我们所犯的那些严重的错误,皆源自我们倾向于以诉诸武力的方式来解决问题,而对后果考虑不周、缺乏国际支持及法律支持,也没有向美国人民交代他们需要作出的牺牲,以使他们心中有数。虽然强硬的表态时常占据报纸头条,但战争却很少与口号“步调一致”。正如对这个问题深有体会的艾森豪威尔将军(General Eisenhower),于1947年在西点军校毕业典礼上所说的那样:“战争是人类最悲惨、最愚笨的蠢行,无论是蓄意挑起战争,还是为其献计献策,这都是对全人类犯下的滔天罪行。”

与他一样,这一代的军人——无论男女,都对战争理解深刻。这其中也包括了你们西点毕业生。在我宣布增兵阿富汗时,听众当中的4名服役人员后来就在那里壮烈牺牲。此外,还有许多西点士兵受伤。

我认为,出于维护美国国家安全的考虑,这些军事部署是很有必要的。但是,这些伤亡者的英魂和伤痛一直萦绕在我的脑海、令我难安。如果我将你们派上战场,仅仅是因为世界某地出现问题需要处理,或是担心批评家会将军事不作为视作是美国软弱的表现,那么,我就违背了自己对你们、对这个我们所爱国家的职责了。

我的底线是:美国必须在世界范围保持领导力。如果我们不能,没人能。你们所加入的美军,永远都是美国领导世界的中坚力量。但是美国的军事行动不是我们展现领导力的唯一方式,更不是主要部分。因为虽然我们有最好的锤子(美军),但并不意味着每个问题都是钉子。

因为军事行动代价极大,所以你们应该期望每个平民领袖——尤其是你们的总司令——清楚如何使用这一令人生畏的力量。所以,让我用剩下的时间来描述一下我的想法:关于美国和美军在未来几年应怎样领导世界,而你们将会成为领导世界力量的一部分。

首先,让我重申一下我在就任总统时提出的原则:当我们的核心利益需要的时候——我们的人民受到威胁、生计受到威胁、盟友的安全处于危险之中——如果有必要,美国将单方面使用军事力量。

当然在这些情况下,我们仍然需要扪心自问,我们的行动是否合适有效公正。虽然国际舆论很重要,但是在保护我们的人民、祖国和生活方式这些问题上,美国不需要得到别人的许可。(掌声)

另一方面,当引起世界关注但没有直接威胁到美国利益的危机产生时,当这些问题亟待解决时,当能触动我们的良心或推动世界向更危险的方向发展但不对美国构成直接威胁的危机出现时,我们更不能轻易采取军事行动。在这种情况下,我们不应该单打独斗。相反,我们必须动员盟友和合作伙伴采取集体行动。我们应该广泛使用各种手段,包括外交和发展、制裁和孤立、诉诸于国际法,甚至在必要情况下采取多边军事行动。在这些情况下,我们必须与其他国家合作,因为集体行动更容易成功,持续性强,还可以减少代价惨痛的错误。”

这引出了我的第二个观点。在可预见的未来,不管国内还是国外,对美国最直接的威胁仍是恐怖主义。但是,那种对每个包庇恐怖主义组织的国家都采取进攻手段的战略未免过于天真,也不可能长期进行。我认为,我们必须从伊拉克和阿富汗问题上汲取经验和教训,将美国打击恐怖主义的战略转变为与那些国内有恐怖组织基地的国家进行有效的伙伴合作。

并且,对新战略的需求反映出一个事实:今天我们主要的威胁不再是来自于基地组织的集中领导,而是来自分散的“基地”组织分支机构和极端分子,其中很多都在他们从事活动的国家内进行活动。虽然这种情况降低了美国本土遭受大规模9•11式袭击的可能性,但是就像我们在班加西(Benghazi)看到的那样,这会增加美国海外人员遇险的可能性。就像我们在内罗毕(Nairobi)购物商场看到的那样,这还会增加防备薄弱目标遇险的可能性。因此,我们需要制定战略应对这种传播式的威胁,这一战略必须能够在不派遣军队、避免战线过长、避免引发当地不满情绪的前提下扩大我们的影响力。

我们需要合作伙伴一起打击恐怖分子。我们在阿富汗已经完成和正在进行的工作,很大一部份是为了增进伙伴的自治能力。在与盟友的共同努力下,美国给基地组织核心造成了沉重的打击,挫败了其试图颠覆国家的叛乱活动。

但是,决定这个进程能否持续下去的是阿富汗人民在处理这一问题上的能力。这就是我们训练成千上万的阿富汗士兵和警察的原因。今年春天早些时候,这些部队,这些阿富汗部队保障了选举的进行,阿富汗人为该国史上第一次政权的民主移交进行了投票。今年年底,阿富汗新总统将上任,届时美国作战部队的使命也将完成。(掌声)

 

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。



顶一下
(3)
100%
踩一下
(0)
0%
手机上普特 m.putclub.com 手机上普特
[责任编辑:katee]
------分隔线----------------------------
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
  • 推荐文章
  • 资料下载
  • 讲座录音
普特英语手机网站
用手机浏览器输入m.putclub.com进入普特手机网站学习
查看更多手机学习APP>>