美国总统奥巴马5月28日面对西点军校毕业生演讲。他认为，美国的国力比任何时候都更加强盛，“全世界都期待美国出手相助”，“美国是一个不可或缺的国家，而且至今仍然如此。这是上一个世纪的现实，也将是下一个世纪的现实。”奥巴马将美国“在世界舞台上发挥领导作用”视为自己的底线，并表示“我们如果不领导世界，谁来领导？”当面对国际舆论时他说，“为了保护我国人民、我们的国土、我们的生活方式，美国永远不需要征求别人的许可”，“我对美国例外论深信不疑。”奥巴马认为，“美国对民主和人权的支持超出了理想主义的范畴”，“民主政权”这个最亲密的朋友能成为美国产品的市场。在中国南海问题上，他表示“我们正在这个过程中向东南亚国家提供支持”。最后，他勉励西点军校的毕业生们：“为了让美国领导世界，你们要竭尽所能。”

以下为奥巴马演讲全文

谢谢，非常感谢。感谢卡斯伦将军的介绍。特雷纳将军（General Trainor）、克拉克将军（General Clarke）、全体西点军校的教职员们，你们是这个光荣学府的杰出管理者，也是美军新晋军官的杰出导师。

5月28日，奥巴马在西点军校演讲

我要向陆军部长麦格修将军（General McHugh）和奥迪耶诺将军（General Odierno）表示感谢，同样要感谢的还有参议员杰克•里德（Senator Jack Reed），他今天也在这，他也是一名自豪的西点人。2014届毕业生们，祝你们再续西点军魂的传奇。

你们当中出了首届女指挥官小组：艾琳•莫尔丁（Erin Mauldin）和奥斯汀•波洛夫（Austen Boroff）。加拉•格拉文（Calla Glavin），你获得了罗德奖学金，而乔希•荷贝克（Josh Herbeck）则证明西点军校的命中率在三分线上也不差（乔希•荷贝克是一名篮球球员-译者注）。（笑声）

这是你们在西点最后的几个小时，我想对整个年级说，身为总司令，我在此赦免那些因为小错被关禁闭的学员们。（笑声，掌声）

我只想说，我上学的时候可没人对我这么好。

我知道你们要跟我一道向家人说声谢谢。乔•德莫斯（Joe DeMoss）的儿子詹姆斯毕业在即，乔在写给我的一封信中，说出了很多家长的心里话。“内心深处，”他写道，“我想自豪地宣称他们为了祖国不惜赴汤蹈火。”好几名毕业生都跟詹姆斯一样是退伍老兵，在这里我想请各位起立，不仅是向我们当中的老兵致敬，更是向250多万曾在伊拉克或阿富汗等地服役的人和他们的家人致敬。（掌声）

阵亡将士纪念日刚过去不久，今天纪念那些为我们的自由作出巨大牺牲的人很有必要。你们是9•11以来首届不用被送上伊拉克或阿富汗战场的毕业生。（欢呼，掌声）

当我2009年第一次在西点演讲时，我们在伊拉克还有10万驻军。我们还在准备大幅增加阿富汗驻军。我们的反恐工作重点是基地组织的核心领导层——他们实施了9•11袭击。而我们的国家刚开始走出那场大萧条（1929）以来最大的金融危机。

四年半之后，在你们毕业之际，情况已大不相同。我们从伊拉克撤军、缩小阿富汗战争的规模。巴基斯坦和阿富汗边境区域基地组织的首恶遭到灭顶之灾，奥萨马•本拉登不复存在。（欢呼、鼓掌）。在此期间，我们重新将投资重点放在美国的实力增长之源，即能为所有愿意努力工作、承担责任的人提供机会的增长型经济体。

实际上，从大多数指标来看，美国的国力比任何时候都更加强盛。有人对此表示不同意，他们认为美国正在衰落，已经从主导全球事务的地位下滑。这些人不是对历史作出了错误的解读，就是陷入了党派政治的漩涡。想想吧。我国军队无可匹敌。任何国家对我们造成直接威胁的可能性很小，远远低于我们冷战时期面临的危险。

与此同时，我国经济活力充沛，在全球仍然首屈一指；我国企业最具创新精神。每年，我们都自主生产更多的能源。从欧洲到亚洲，我们是世界有史以来最强大联盟的核心。

美国继续吸引勤奋努力的移民。我们的建国理念激励了全球各地的议会领导人和公共广场上新发起的各类运动。当台风袭击菲律宾的时候，当尼日利亚女学生被绑架的时候，当蒙面人占领乌克兰建筑物的时候，全世界都期待美国出手相助。（掌声）所以，美国是一个不可或缺的国家，而且至今仍然如此。这是上一个世纪的现实，也将是下一个世纪的现实。

但是，这个世界正加速发生变化。这种情况提供了机会，也构成了新的危险。众所周知，由于9•11以来的技术状况和全球化，原来一些由国家掌握的权力已经掌握在个人手中，这增强了恐怖主义分子造成危害的能力。

俄罗斯入侵前苏联共和国的行为震撼了欧洲各国首都的神经，与此同时中国的经济崛起和军力扩张引起了邻国的不安。

从巴西到印度，不断上升的中产阶级与我们展开竞争，各国政府要求在全球事务中获得更大的发言权。但即使在发展中国家迎接民主和市场经济之际， 24小时不间断的新闻和社交媒体提醒我们，不要对持续不断的宗派冲突、国家衰败和民众起义等视而不见，这些可能是上一代人没有遇到的问题。

你们这一代人的任务将是应对这个新的世界。我们面临的问题、你们每一个人将面临的问题，不是美国是否能领导世界，而是我们如何领导世界——不仅仅是保障我们的和平与繁荣，还要让和平与繁荣扩展到全球各地。

 

但这不是一个新问题。至少从乔治∙华盛顿担任总司令开始，就有人发出警告，反对卷入不直接影响到我国安全和经济福祉的外部纠纷。

今天，从保守的现实主义角度来说，我们不该介入叙利亚、乌克兰或中非的冲突。毫无疑问，经过代价高昂的战争和国内不断的反战宣传，这种观点已经被很多美国人接受。

来自左翼和右翼的干涉主义者提出了另外一种观点，他们认为我们不能对这些冲突视而不见，否则我们自身会走向灾难。在他们看来，美国在世界各地使用武力，是世界免于战乱的最后保障。面对叙利亚的暴政和俄罗斯的挑衅，美国如果不采取行动，不仅违背了我们的良知，而且会招致未来日益升级的侵略行动。

这两派都可以引用历史资料支持自己的观点。但是我认为，不论哪一种观点都无法准确表达时代的需求。21世纪的美国孤立主义并不是可取的方案，这毫无疑问。对于我国边界以外的事态，我们不能选择置之不理。比如核材料如果得不到安全处理，就会威胁美国人民。

目前叙利亚内战已经跨出国界，富于侵略性的极端主义团伙袭击我们的能力正在加强。地区性侵略行为如果不得到制止——不论在南乌克兰、南中国海（South China Sea），还是全世界任何地方——最终都将影响到我国的盟国，届时我国军队可能被卷入其中。我们不能无视我国边界以外的事态。

除了这些狭隘的解释之外，我认为，我们还面临一个现实的道德选择，这同样是我们无法切割的利益。我们必须保证我们子孙生活的世界不再有女学生被绑架（指近日尼日利亚伊斯兰极端组织的袭击），不再有人因自己的民族、信仰和政治观点被杀害。

我认为世界获得更大的自由和更多的宽容，不仅是道义之必需，而且有助于保障我们的安全。

但是，我谈到我们在海外争取和平与自由，以保障我们自身利益的问题，这并不意味着对每一个问题都需要采取军事手段。自第二次世界大战以来，我们所犯的一些代价最高昂的错误都不是因为我们采取克制态度，而是因为我们没有认真考虑后果就匆忙进行军事冒险——没有事先争取国际支持和确立行动的合法性；没有坦白地将必需的牺牲告诉美国人民。豪言壮语容易成为头条新闻，但战争并不因口号而分胜负。艾森豪威尔将军对这个问题有刻骨铭心的体会。1947年，他在这里的毕业典礼上发表讲话说：“战争是人类最悲惨和最愚蠢的闹剧；蓄意或鼓动挑起战争是反对全人类的邪恶肮脏罪行。”

跟艾森豪威尔一样，这一代的军人非常清楚战争的代价，它包括你们西点人的性命。当我宣布阿富汗增兵后，4名听众（指上次在西点军校演讲的军校生听众）为此牺牲，很多人都负了伤。

我相信为了保障美国安全，我们需要这些军事行动。但我对死难者无法释怀，我对伤者无法释怀。如果我置你们于危险之中仅仅为了解决世界某地的问题，或者担心批评者压力，用军事介入来避免美国显得软弱，那么我就背叛了我对你们的责任，背叛了我们热爱的国家。

我的底线是：美国必须一如既往在世界舞台上发挥领导作用。我们如果不领导世界，谁来领导？你们的军队是这种领导作用的中流砥柱，现在如此，一贯如此，今后也将如此。但是，美国的军事行动不能成为我们在每个场合发挥领导作用的唯一因素——甚至不是最基本的因素。不能因为我们有最优质的榔头，就把每个问题都当成钉子。

由于军事行动承担的代价如此高昂，你们应该知道，你们的每一位文职领导人——特别是你们的总司令——很清楚如何发挥这种无比强大的威力。余下的时间，请允许我谈谈我今后美国和美国军队如何发挥领导作用。因为你们将参与这种领导作用。

首先，请让我重复我担任总统之初提出的一项原则：在我国核心利益需要的时候——当我国人民受到威胁，当我们的生存处于紧急关头，当盟邦面临危险，美国将在必要的情况下单方面出兵。

在上述情况下，我们仍然需要提出一些尖锐的问题，考虑我们的行动是否适当，是否有效，是否正当。国际舆论需要受到重视，但为了保护我国人民、我们的国土、我们的生活方式，美国永远不需要征求别人的许可。（掌声）

另一方面，如果全球性问题对美国并未构成直接的威胁，当某些危机激发了我们的道德责任，或者使全世界滑向更危险的方向——但并不直接威胁到我们的时候，出兵的门槛必须提高。在这类情况下，我们不应该单独行动。相反，我们必须动员盟邦和伙伴采取集体行动。我们必须扩展我们的干预方式，比如深度外交、制裁、国际法；同时在正当、必要和有效的情况下，采取多边军事行动。在这类情况下，我们必须与其他力量合作，因为在这类情况下采取集体行动才更有可能成功，更有可能持久，同时比较不容易犯代价高昂的错误。

由此引出我的第二个观点：在可预见的未来，在美国国内与海外，最直接的威胁仍然是恐怖主义。但是，对每一个包庇恐怖主义网络的国家都发动攻击，这个战略未免过于天真，也不可能持续。我认为，我们必须调整我国打击恐怖主义的战略——吸取我们在伊拉克和阿富汗的成功经验和失败教训——转而与国内有恐怖主义基地的某些国家进行有效的伙伴合作。

新战略的必要性展示一个事实，即今天的主要威胁不再是中央集权的“基地”组织领导层，而是分散的“基地”组织外围团伙和极端主义分子，他们经常挑战所在国家的秩序。这种局面降低了本土遭受大规模9•11式袭击的可能性，但增加了美国海外人员受到袭击的危险。正如我们在班加西看到的情况（大使被杀）。这种情况令防备薄弱的目标身处险境，例如我们在内罗毕购物商场看到的情况。为此，我们必须制定适于应对这类弥漫式威胁的战略——扩大我们的影响，但不派遣军队，避免军队的战线过长，也可以避免引发当地的不满情绪。

我们需要合作伙伴与我们一起打击恐怖主义分子。在我们已经进行的工作和我们目前在阿富汗所做的工作中，很大一部份是提高伙伴的自主反恐能力。美国与我们的盟邦一起对“基地”组织核心给予沉重的打击，挫败了他们试图颠覆国家的反叛活动。

但是，这个进程能否持续进行取决于阿富汗人从事这项工作的能力。正是因为这个原因，我们为成千上万阿富汗士兵和警察提供训练。今年早春，这些部队，这些阿富汗部队保障了选举的进行，阿富汗人为该国有史以来第一次政权的民主转移进行投票。今年年底，新的阿富汗总统将就任，美国作战部队的使命也将完成。（掌声）

这是以美国军队为后盾取得的巨大成就。但是随着我们在阿富汗的作战行动转向训练和顾问活动，我们减少阿富汗驻军后可以更有效地应对中东和北非新出现的威胁。为此，今年早些时候，我要求我的国家安全事务团队就南亚和萨赫勒（撒哈拉沙漠南部的半干旱地区）等地的伙伴关系网络制定一个计划。

今天，作为这项努力的内容之一，我要求国会批准新的打击恐怖主义伙伴关系基金，筹款50亿美元用于我们为第一线的反恐伙伴国提供训练，建立军队并激励他们攻击。这些资源将使我们具备完成不同使命的灵活性，包括训练已经对“基地”组织发动攻势的也门安全部队；支援一支多国部队维持索马里的和平；与欧洲盟国合作为利比亚安全部队和边境巡逻部队发挥功能提供训练；并支持法国在马里的行动。

这项工作的一个很关键的方面将是应对叙利亚持续存在的危机。由于局势十分严重，不可能有简单的解决办法，任何军事方案都无法很快解除人们面临的深重苦难。我作为总统作出决定，我们不应该派美国军队卷入这场日益激烈的宗派战争。我认为，这是正确的战略。但是这并不意味着我们不应该帮助叙利亚人民反抗，不意味着我们无视用炸弹和饥饿残害本国人民的独裁者。我们帮助那些为叙利亚人民自决权而奋斗的人们，同时也对人数日益增长的极端主义分子给予狠狠的打击，这些极端主义分子正乘混乱之机寻求安全的庇护所（指加入叙利亚反政府武装的基地组织成员）。

所以，我今天宣布提供更多的资源后，我们将对叙利亚邻国加强支持——例如约旦和黎巴嫩；土耳其和伊拉克——这些国家需要应付难民问题，并抗击跨越叙利亚边境的恐怖主义分子。我将与国会一起加强对叙利亚反对派人士的支持。这些反对派是取代恐怖分子和残暴独裁者的最佳选择。我们将继续与我们在欧洲及阿拉伯世界的朋友和盟邦相互协调，推动为化解这场危机采取政治解决方案，同时确保这些国家，不仅仅是美国，都为支持叙利亚人民作出自己应该作出的一份贡献。

 

请让我就反恐行动谈最后一点。我所说的伙伴关系并没有排除在必要时直接采取行动保护我们自己。我们在掌握可行性情报时会这样做——比如将一名策划1998年我国大使馆被炸案的恐怖主义分子绳之以法；或是我们在也门和索马里执行过的那种无人机空袭。

有时采取这样的行动是必要的，为了保护我们的人民，我们不能犹豫不决。当正如我去年所指出的，我们在采取直接行动时必须秉持体现我们价值观的各项标准。这意味着只有在我们面临一种持续不断、迫在眉睫的威胁时，只有在基本上能够肯定不会造成平民伤亡时，才会发起攻击。因为我们的行动应当经得起一个简单的考验：我们绝不能在战场上消灭敌人的同时制造更多的敌人。

我还相信，我们必须让我们的反恐怖主义行动更站得住脚，提高我们行动的透明度。我们必须能够公开说明有关行动，不论是无人机空袭还是训练合作伙伴。我将越来越依赖于我国军方发挥世界领导作用，并向公众提供有关我们的各项行动的信息。我们的情报部门工作出色，我们必须继续保护其情报来源和工作方式。不过，如果我们不能清楚地、公开地说明我们的努力，我们就将面对恐怖主义宣传和国际社会的质疑，我们将在我们的合作伙伴和我们的人民面前丧失合法性，而且我们还将削弱对我们本国政府的监督。

这个透明度问题直接关系到美国的领导力的第三个方面，即我们严格维护国际秩序的努力。

在第二次世界大战之后，美国深思远虑，要缔造维护和平及支持人类进步的机构——从北约组织到联合国，从世界银行到国际货币基金组织。这些机构并不完美，但它们一直发挥着使力量倍增的作用。它们减少了美国单方面采取行动的需要，增加了其他国家之间的约束力。

然而，世界已经变了，这种架构也必须改变。在冷战最紧张的时候，肯尼迪总统指出和平应当基于“人类机制的逐渐演进”。让这些国际机构不断演进以满足今日的种种需求，这必须成为美国的领导力的一个关键部分。

不过，有很多人，有很多持怀疑态度的人，往往贬低多边行动的效力。对他们而言，通过联合国这样的国际机构进行努力或是尊重国际法，都是软弱的表现。我认为他们是错误的。请让我仅以两个实例说明理由。

在乌克兰，俄罗斯最近的所作所为让人们回想起苏联坦克开进东欧地区的日子。但现在已经不是冷战时代了。我们影响世界舆论的能力立即把俄罗斯推进了孤立处境。由于美国的领导，全世界立即开始谴责俄罗斯；欧洲和7国集团同我们一道实施制裁；北约组织增强了我们对东欧盟友的承诺；国际货币基金组织正在帮助稳定乌克兰的经济；欧安组织的监察员将乌克兰动乱地区置于全世界的关注之下。

世界舆论和国际机构动员起来！就能够与俄罗斯的宣传抗衡，和部署在边境的俄军抗衡，和带着蒙面武装人员抗衡（指易装的俄军）。

本周末，千百万乌克兰人参加了投票。昨天，我同他们的候任总统通了话。我们不知道局势将如何发展，而且前面依然会有严峻的挑战，但我同我们的盟友站在一起，代表国际秩序同国际机构共同努力，从而不放一枪一炮就为乌克兰人民提供了一个决定自己的未来的机会。

同样地，尽管美国、以色列和其他方面不断发出警告，但伊朗多年来一直在一步步发展核项目。而在我就任总统伊始，我们结成了一个联盟，一方面对伊朗经济实施制裁，一方面向伊朗政府伸出外交之手。现在，我们有机会以和平方式解决我们之间的分歧。

成功的可能性仍然不大，而且我们保留所有制止伊朗获取核武器的选择。但10年来第一次，我们有了一个达成突破性协议的真切的机会——这可能比我们通过使用武力获得的协议更有效力、更加持久。在整个谈判过程中，我们始终愿意通过多边渠道进行努力，让国际社会一直站在我们一边。

重要的是，这就是美国的领导力。这就是美国的实力。

在上述每个实例中，我们都结成联盟来应对具体的挑战。现在，我们需要作出更大的努力来强化这些机构，它们能够预见问题并防止问题扩散。

例如，北约组织是全世界有史以来最强大的联盟。但我们现在正在同北约盟国共同执行新的使命，不仅在在东欧盟国关心的欧洲之内（指东欧边界），而且在欧洲以外。我们的北约盟国必须在欧洲之外尽力抗击恐怖主义，避免“失败国家”彻底失控并为一个合作伙伴网络提供训练。

同样地，联合国提供了一个在被冲突蹂躏的国家中维持和平的平台。现在，我们应当确保那些提供维和人员的国家得到切实维护和平所需的训练和装备，以使我们能够制止我们在刚果和苏丹所目睹的屠杀行径。我们将深化我们对支持这些维和使命的国家的投入，因为让其他国家邻近地区维护秩序，能减少我们被迫将自己的军队派往危险之地的情况。这是一种明智的投入。这是正确的领导方式。（掌声）

别忘了，并非所有国际准则都与武装冲突直接相关。我们面临着一个网络攻击的严重问题，因此，我们正在努力制定并严格执行行为规则，以保护我国网络和我国公民的安全。在亚太地区，东南亚国家与中国就南中国海出现了海事争端，我们正在这个过程中向东南亚国家提供支持，希望达成一项协议。而且我们正在通过国际法努力解决这些争端。

这种合作精神应被用于鼓舞抗击气候变化的全球性努力——这一日益严峻的全球安全危机将影响到你们身着军装期间的使命，因为我们要受命应对难民潮、自然灾害以及争夺水和粮食的冲突，因此，我计划明年一定要让美国积极主导制定一个保护整个地球的全球性框架。

你们看，每当我们以身作则地发挥领导作用，美国的影响力便会增强。我们不能让自己免于遵守适用于其他所有人的规则。如果我国有那么多的政治领导人都不承认气候变化正在发生，我们就无法敦促其他人作出抗击气候变化的承诺。如果《海洋法公约》得不到美国参议院的批准，我们就无法争取解决南中国海问题。而且我们的最高层军事领导人都说该公约能增进我们的国家安全。

这（回避国际准则）不是领导作用，这是退缩回避；这不是强大，而是软弱。恐怕像罗斯福和杜鲁门以及艾森豪威尔和肯尼迪这样的领袖对此（拒绝国际条约-译者注）会感到无比陌生。

我对美国例外论深信不疑。但令我们与众不同的不是我们能够无视国际准则和法治，而是我们愿意通过我们的行动维护它们。（掌声）

正因为如此，我将继续推动关闭关塔纳摩监狱——因为美国的价值观和法律传统不允许无限期地在我们境外关押人员。（掌声）正因为如此，我们正在针对美国收集和使用情报的行动实施新的限制措施——因为如果我们承认监控普通公民是正常的事，我们的合作伙伴就将越来越少而且我们的行动效果将会减弱。（掌声）美国不会简单地主张稳定或消除冲突，不会不惜代价去落实这些想法。我们主张更加持久的和平，这必须在各国人民都享有机遇和自由的前提下才能实现。由此我要阐明美国领导作用的第四个、也是最后一个要素：我们愿意出于人类尊严而采取行动。

美国对民主和人权的支持超出了理想主义的范畴——这关系到国家安全。民主政权是我们最亲密的朋友，而且它们卷入战争的可能性要小得多。基于自由和开放的市场的经济体增长更快，并能成为我国产品的市场。尊重人权能够平息不稳定局面，能压制不满，消灭暴力和恐怖。

新的世纪并没有铲除暴政。在全球各国——令人遗憾的是，其中还包括一些美国的合作伙伴——公民社会遭到压制。腐败的毒瘤喂肥了太多的统治者以及权贵，从穷乡僻壤中到首都广场上，人民为此而愤怒。看到这样的发展趋势，看到阿拉伯世界部分地区的暴力动乱，人们不禁会对未来感到悲观怀疑。

但请你们记住，由于美国的种种努力，由于美国的外交工作和对外援助，以及我国军人付出的牺牲，今天民选政权管理的民众比人类历史上任何时期都多。技术正在增强公民社会的力量，这是任何铁拳都无法管控的。新的突破性成果正在使数亿人民摆脱贫困。甚至连阿拉伯世界的动荡局势都说明专制制度无法长久。而且（这种动荡）从长期来看，提供了更好的改革可能。

在埃及这样的国家，我们承认我们的关系植根于安全利益——从与以色列的和平协定，到反对暴力极端主义的共同努力。因此，我们没有切断同埃及新政府（军政府）的合作，但我们能够而且一定会支持埃及人民，支持他们改革的诉求。

与此同时，看一看像缅甸这个国家，这个人口4000万的国家在短短几年前还是一个顽固不化的独裁国家，而且与美国为敌。多亏了该国人民巨大的勇气，而且由于我们采取了外交行动并发挥了美国的领导作用，我们已经看到政治改革使一个一度封闭的社会逐步开放；缅甸领导人脱离同北韩的伙伴关系，转而倾向于同美国和我们的盟友接触。

我们正在通过援助和投资，通过说服劝告，甚至有时公开地予以批评，来支持改革以及迫切需要的全国和解。那里取得的进步有可能出现倒退，但如果缅甸取得成功，我们就不放一枪一炮地赢得了一个新的合作伙伴。这就是美国的领导力！

在上述各个实例中，我们都不应当期待一夜之间完成变革。因此，我们不仅要同各国政府，还要同普通民众结成联盟。因为与其他一些国家不同的是，美国不害怕增强个人的自主权，反而因此而更加强大。公民社会使我们更加强大，自由媒体使我们更加强大，努力奋斗的企业家和小企业使我们更加强大，教育交流以及性别平等使我们更加强大。这是我们的核心力量。这就是我们所代表的一切！（掌声）

我在去年访问非洲的旅途中看到，美国的援助使消灭艾滋病成为可能，同时帮助非洲人民照护病患。我们正在帮助农民将他们的产品送到市场，为一度受到饥荒威胁的人口提供粮食。我们致力于将非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南地区的电力供应扩大一倍，以使那里的人民与全球经济的前景互联互通。所有这一切都带来了新的合作伙伴，并压缩了恐怖主义和冲突的空间。

然而，令人痛心的是，美国的安全行动无法根除像“博科圣地”（Boko Haram）这类极端主义组织所构成的威胁，该组织绑架了那些女孩。

因此，我们不仅应当集中力量马上营救出那些女孩，而且应当支持尼日利亚让青少年接受教育的努力。这应当是在伊拉克和阿富汗艰苦得来的教训之一，我们的军队已成为在那里提倡外交与发展的最坚定的倡导者。他们懂得，对外援助不是锦上添花，不是与我们的国家防御和我们的国家安全脱节的善举。这是使我们强大的因素之一。

归根结底，全球领导力要求我们必须认清世界的真相，认清其中的种种威胁和不确定性。我们必须做好最坏的准备，必须做好一切应急准备。但保持美国的领导也要求我们必须看到这个世界应有的未来——在这里，每个人的理想抱负都至关重要；在这里，主宰一切的是希望而不是恐惧；在这里，铭刻在我们建国文献中的真理能够让历史的潮流向正义的方向奔涌。为了实现这些目标，我们离不开你们的努力。

2014级毕业生们，此时时刻，你们即将离开哈德逊河宁静的河岸。你们即将延续一个传奇，在人类历史上空前的传奇。你们将作为团队的一员执行任务——团队不仅意味着你所在的部队，甚至不仅仅意味着美国三军。在你们服役的过程中，你们将同外交家和发展专家团队协作。

你们将认识盟友、训练战友。为了让美国领导世界，你们要竭尽所能。

下周我将去诺曼底缅怀曾经冲向沙滩的将士。也许很多美国人无法理解那些跳上登陆艇的将士的勇气和责任感，但你们理解。在西点，你们定义什么才算是爱国。

三年前卡文•怀特（Gavin White）从这所学院毕业。他去了阿富汗服役。跟比他先到的军人一样，他踏上了异国的土地，帮助那些从未谋面的人。他以身犯险只为保护他的社区、家人和亲友。在一次袭击中卡文失去了一条腿。我去年在瓦尔特•里德（Walter Reed）陆军医疗中心见过他。虽然身负重伤，但他跟刚来西点时一样意志坚定。他有一个简单的愿望。今天他的妹妹摩根即将毕业，卡文也兑现了他的诺言，他将在这里和她的妹妹互敬军礼。（欢呼，掌声）

我们经历了很长一段时间的战争。我们经历了无法预知的考验，也曾对未来规划产生分歧。但是卡文有一种精神，美国有一种精神，它总能让我们取得胜利。

你们将带着同胞们的敬意离开这里。你们代表一个国家的历史和希望。你们的责任不仅是保护我们的国家，还要伸张世界的正义。作为你们的总司令，我知道你们会不负所托。愿上帝保佑你们。愿上帝保佑我们的军人，愿上帝保佑美利坚合众国。（欢呼，掌声）

（爱英语吧、观察者网 王杨/译 观察者网/校）

（翻页看奥巴马演讲英文原文）

 

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 reducing 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 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 Burma, 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 Burmese 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 Burma 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.)