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.

  現(xiàn)在——(掌聲)——這就是美軍取得的巨大成就。但是當(dāng)我們在阿富汗的使命轉(zhuǎn)向訓(xùn)練和顧問時，我們減少駐軍以后可以更有效地應(yīng)對中東和北非新出現(xiàn)的威脅。因此在今年早些時候，我讓國家安全事務(wù)部門就南亞和薩赫勒地區(qū)的合作伙伴關(guān)系網(wǎng)制定了一個計劃。

今天，作為我們行動的一部分，我呼吁國會支持通過數(shù)額為50億美元的新反恐合作基金，以幫助我們的同盟伙伴訓(xùn)練軍隊、提升能力、支援他們的前線。這些資金也讓我們又更大的自由度完成各項任務(wù)。這些任務(wù)包括：為打擊基地組織的也門政府訓(xùn)練安全部隊以支持多國部隊維護索馬里地區(qū)和平，同歐洲盟友一起在利比亞訓(xùn)練出合格的安全部隊和邊防軍，以及協(xié)助法國在馬里的行動。 

我們努力的重中之重是敘利亞危機。令人沮喪的是，解決這一危機沒有捷徑。軍事行動不能立馬消除當(dāng)?shù)厝嗣竦纳钪貫?zāi)難。作為總統(tǒng)，我決定不派遣軍隊卷入這場愈演愈烈的宗派內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。我相信這是一個正確的決定。但是這并不意味著我們不去幫助敘利亞人民奮起反抗，反對殺害自己人民、讓人民挨餓的獨裁者。我們協(xié)助那些為了敘利亞人民能選擇自己未來而奮斗的人，同時也積極打擊在越來越多混亂之中找到避風(fēng)港的極端分子。 

有了今天我所宣布的資金，我們將會加大力度，支持約旦、黎巴嫩、土耳其、伊拉克這些敘利亞的鄰國。因為他們得處理敘利亞邊境的難民、并打擊敘邊境的恐怖活動。我將與國會一起，加大對敘利亞反對派的支持。他們是替代恐怖分子和殘忍的獨裁者管理敘利亞最好的選擇。我們會繼續(xù)與我們的朋友、歐洲盟友和阿拉伯世界一起合作，推進敘利亞危機的政治解決途徑，以保證在支持敘利亞人民的努力中，并非僅有美國在做出努力，其他這些國家也都參與其中。

讓我就我們在反恐上的努力最后說一點。我所描述的伙伴關(guān)系并不排除為了保護美國而采取直接行動的可能。只要我們有可靠的情報，我們就會采取行動，比如1998年在我們大使館抓捕策劃安放炸彈的恐怖分子的行動，又如我們在也門和索馬里采取的無人機襲擊。

有時我們必須馬上采取行動，因為我們在保護國民方面決不能有半點猶豫。但就像我去年說的，采取直接行動時，我們也要堅守我們的價值觀。這就意味著只有我們面臨持續(xù)的或是眼前的威脅才會進行打擊。在沒有把握的時候，即便我們幾乎能避免平民傷亡，我們的行動也必須達到一個簡單的標準，那就是我們不能為了在戰(zhàn)場上擊斃敵人而樹立更多的敵人。

我也相信我們必須在反恐行動的出發(fā)點和具體行動方式方面更為公開。不管是無人機打擊或是訓(xùn)練盟友的軍隊，我們必須向公眾解釋我們的行動。我將會要求美軍帶頭，向公眾提供與我們行動相關(guān)的信息。我們的情報機構(gòu)工作出色，我們必須繼續(xù)保護我們的信息來源和獲取途徑。但如果我們不能清楚、公開地解釋我們的行動，我們就會面對恐怖分子的大肆宣傳和國際社會的質(zhì)疑，就會在我們伙伴國和人民面前失去合法性，就會失去我們政府的信譽。

公開透明直接與美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位的第三個方面相關(guān)，也就是我們強化國際秩序的努力。 

二戰(zhàn)之后，美國高瞻遠矚，設(shè)立了從北約、聯(lián)合國到世界銀行、國際貨幣組織一系列機構(gòu)來維護人類和平、支持人類進步。這些機構(gòu)并不完美，但是他們將我們的力量放大了數(shù)倍。他們減少美國進行單邊行動的需要，同時也增強了其他國家之間的制約能力。

現(xiàn)在，世界已經(jīng)歷巨變，這一框架也需改變。冷戰(zhàn)時，肯尼迪總統(tǒng)曾談到對于以人類機構(gòu)逐漸改善為基礎(chǔ)的和平的需要。對這些機構(gòu)進行改進以達到今天的需求，是美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位的重要一環(huán)。

現(xiàn)在有許多人，也有許多質(zhì)疑者經(jīng)常貶低多邊行動的有效性。對于他們而言，通過聯(lián)合國這類的多邊機構(gòu)進行合作或者是尊重多邊規(guī)則，是一種懦弱的表現(xiàn)。我認為他們錯了。讓我舉兩個例子來加以說明吧。 

俄羅斯最近在烏克蘭的舉動令我想起了蘇聯(lián)大批坦克開進東歐的情形。但是現(xiàn)在不是冷戰(zhàn)時期。我們制造的國際輿論讓俄羅斯在短時間內(nèi)就被孤立。在美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，國際社會馬上譴責(zé)俄羅斯的舉動，歐洲和七國集團同我們一樣對其實施制裁，北大西洋公約組織恪守我們對東盟的承諾，國際貨幣基金組織正在幫助穩(wěn)定烏克蘭的經(jīng)濟，歐洲安全和合作組織也在關(guān)注烏克蘭不穩(wěn)定地區(qū)的發(fā)展。

世界觀點和國際機構(gòu)立場的轉(zhuǎn)變，可與俄羅斯的宣傳、其邊境的軍隊以及全副武裝的士兵相抗衡。

這周末，數(shù)百萬的烏克蘭公民會進行民主投票。昨天，我同他們下一屆的總統(tǒng)進行了會談。我們不知道情況會如何演變，前方也仍存在巨大的挑戰(zhàn)，但是為了維護國際秩序，同我們的盟友一起，與國際組織進行合作，這給了烏克蘭人民一個選擇他們未來的機會一一這并不需要費一槍一彈。

類似的是，盡管美國、以色列及其他國家不斷地對伊朗發(fā)出警告，伊朗核計劃仍持續(xù)進行了好幾年。在我擔(dān)任總統(tǒng)職務(wù)初期，我們聯(lián)合對伊朗的經(jīng)濟實行了制裁，但同時也幫助伊朗政府進行民主建設(shè)?，F(xiàn)在我們有機會和平地解決我們的分歧。成功之路還十分漫長，我們要保留阻止伊朗獲得核武器的各種手段。十年來我們第一次真正有機會達成一項突破性的協(xié)定，這比我們用武力達成協(xié)定來得更有效，效果也更持久。通過這些磋商，我們愿意通過多邊途徑讓世界各國站在我們這一邊。

重點是，這是在美國的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下進行的。這是美國力量所在。