Photo: Richard Drew/AP
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 20, 2016
ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO THE 71ST SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The United Nations
New York, New York
10:29 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President; Mr. Secretary
General; fellow delegates; ladies and gentlemen: As I address this hall
as President for the final time, let me recount the progress that we’ve
made these last eight years.
From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we
coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the
global economy to growth. We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens,
strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear
issue through diplomacy. We opened relations with Cuba, helped Colombia
end Latin America’s longest warm, and we welcome a democratically
elected leader of Myanmar to this Assembly. Our assistance is helping
people feed themselves, care for the sick, power communities across
Africa, and promote models of development rather than dependence. And
we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund more representative, while establishing a
framework to protect our planet from the ravages of climate change.
This is important work. It has made a real difference in the lives
of our people. And it could not have happened had we not worked
together. And yet, around the globe we are seeing the same forces of
global integration that have made us interdependent also expose deep
fault lines in the existing international order.
We see it in the headlines every day. Around the world, refugees
flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict. Financial
disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities.
Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has
broken down. We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and
quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information. Terrorist
networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth,
endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent
immigrants and Muslims. Powerful nations contest the constraints placed
on them by international law.
This is the paradox that defines our world today. A quarter century
after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less
violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are
filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife. Despite enormous
progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more
difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface.
And so I believe that at this moment we all face a choice. We can
choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and
integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and
ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race
and religion.
I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward, and not
backward. I believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles of
open markets and accountable governance, of democracy and human rights
and international law that we have forged remain the firmest foundation
for human progress in this century. I make this argument not based on
theory or ideology, but on facts — facts that all too often, we forget
in the immediacy of current events.
Here’s the most important fact: The integration of our global
economy has made life better for billions of men, women and children.
Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty
has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent.
That’s unprecedented. And it’s not an abstraction. It means children
have enough to eat; mothers don’t die in childbirth.
Meanwhile, cracking the genetic code promises to cure diseases that
have plagued us for centuries. The Internet can deliver the entirety of
human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a single
hand-held device. In medicine and in manufacturing, in education and
communications, we’re experiencing a transformation of how human beings
live on a scale that recalls the revolutions in agriculture and
industry. And as a result, a person born today is more likely to be
healthy, to live longer, and to have access to opportunity than at any
time in human history.
Moreover, the collapse of colonialism and communism has allowed more
people than ever before to live with the freedom to choose their
leaders. Despite the real and troubling areas where freedom appears in
retreat, the fact remains that the number of democracies around the
world has nearly doubled in the last 25 years.
In remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for
the dignity of all people no matter their gender, or race, or religion,
or disability, or sexual orientation, and those who deny others dignity
are subject to public reproach. An explosion of social media has given
ordinary people more ways to express themselves, and has raised people’s
expectations for those of us in power. Indeed, our international order
has been so successful that we take it as a given that great powers no
longer fight world wars; that the end of the Cold War lifted the shadow
of nuclear Armageddon; that the battlefields of Europe have been
replaced by peaceful union; that China and India remain on a path of
remarkable growth.
I say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face, or to suggest
complacency. Rather, I believe that we need to acknowledge these
achievements in order to summon the confidence to carry this progress
forward and to make sure that we do not abandon those very things that
have delivered this progress.
In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the
existing path to global integration requires a course correction. As
too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored
inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of
ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions
ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle
transnational challenges.
And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions
of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and
in the poorest: Religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or
tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism — sometimes
from the far left, but more often from the far right — which seeks to
restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside
contamination.
We cannot dismiss these visions. They are powerful. They reflect
dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. I do not believe those
visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long term, but I do
believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a very basic level, our
common humanity. Moreover, I believe that the acceleration of travel
and technology and telecommunications — together with a global economy
that depends on a global supply chain — makes it self-defeating
ultimately for those who seek to reverse this progress. Today, a nation
ringed by walls would only imprison itself.
So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration.
Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such
integration are broadly shared, and that the disruptions — economic,
political, and cultural — that are caused by integration are squarely
addressed. This is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but
let me offer in broad strokes those areas where I believe we must do
better together.
It starts with making the global economy work better for all people
and not just for those at the top. While open markets, capitalism have
raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with
rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers
and their ability to secure a decent wage. In advanced economies like
my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have
disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used
their political power to further undermine the position of workers.
In developing countries, labor organizations have often been
suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by
corruption and underinvestment. Mercantilist policies pursued by
governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the
consensus that underpins global trade. And meanwhile, global capital is
too often unaccountable — nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax
havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective
oversight.
A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as
the other 99 percent will never be stable. I understand that the gaps
between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum today
can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a
smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast
between their own lives and others. Expectations rise, then, faster
than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice
undermine people’s faith in the system.
So how do we fix this imbalance? We cannot unwind integration any
more than we can stuff technology back into a box. Nor can we look to
failed models of the past. If we start resorting to trade wars, market
distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an overreliance on
natural resources instead of innovation — these approaches will make us
poorer, collectively, and they are more like to lead to conflict. And
the stark contrast between, say, the success of the Republic of Korea
and the wasteland of North Korea shows that central, planned control of
the economy is a dead end.
But I do believe there’s another path — one that fuels growth and
innovation, and offers the clearest route to individual opportunity and
national success. It does not require succumbing to a soulless
capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that
economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and
poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights
of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a
living wage. It means investing in our people — their skills, their
education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business.
It means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from
hardship and allows them to take more risks — to look for a new job, or
start a new venture.
These are the policies that I’ve pursued here in the United States,
and with clear results. American businesses have created now 15 million
new jobs. After the recession, the top one percent of Americans were
capturing more than 90 percent of income growth. But today, that’s down
to about half. Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest
rate in nearly 50 years. And with further investment in infrastructure
and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that
such progress will continue.
So just as I’ve pursued these measures here at home, so has the
United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of
capitalism — not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that
can destroy it. That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to create
higher and clearer standards for banking and taxation — because a
society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from
within. That’s why we’ve pushed for transparency and cooperation in
rooting out corruption, and tracking illicit dollars, because markets
create more jobs when they’re fueled by hard work, and not the capacity
to extort a bribe. That’s why we’ve worked to reach trade agreements
that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we’ve
done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits are more
broadly shared.
And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our countries,
I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap
between rich and poor nations around the globe. This is difficult
politically. It’s difficult to spend on foreign assistance. But I do
not believe this is charity. For the small fraction of what we spent at
war in Iraq we could support institutions so that fragile states don’t
collapse in the first place, and invest in emerging economies that
become markets for our goods. It’s not just the right thing to do, it’s
the smart thing to do.
And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat
climate change. If we don’t act boldly, the bill that could come due
will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations displaced, and
food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of despair. The Paris
Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our
ambition. And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the
agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive
forms of energy.
So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only be
the beginning. We need to invest in research and provide market
incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these technologies
accessible and affordable for poorer countries. And only then can we
continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our
children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.
So we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are
inclusive and sustainable. And in the same way, we need models of
governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.
I recognize not every country in this hall is going to follow the
same model of governance. I do not think that America can — or should —
impose our system of government on other countries. But there appears
to be growing contest between authoritarianism and liberalism right now.
And I want everybody to understand, I am not neutral in that contest.
I believe in a liberal political order — an order built not just
through elections and representative government, but also through
respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciaries
and the rule of law.
I know that some countries, which now recognize the power of free
markets, still reject the model of free societies. And perhaps those of
us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged since
the end of the Cold War, because we’ve learned that liberal democracy
will not just wash across the globe in a single wave. It turns out
building accountable institutions is hard work — the work of
generations. The gains are often fragile. Sometimes we take one step
forward and then two steps back. In countries held together by borders
drawn by colonial powers, with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions,
politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game. And
so, given the difficulty in forging true democracy in the face of these
pressures, it’s no surprise that some argue the future favors the
strongman, a top-down model, rather than strong, democratic
institutions.
But I believe this thinking is wrong. I believe the road of true
democracy remains the better path. I believe that in the 21st century,
economies can only grow to a certain point until they need to open up —
because entrepreneurs need to access information in order to invent;
young people need a global education in order to thrive; independent
media needs to check the abuses of power. Without this evolution,
ultimately expectations of people will not be met; suppression and
stagnation will set in. And history shows that strongmen are then left
with two paths — permanent crackdown, which sparks strife at home, or
scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.
Now, I will admit, my belief that governments serve the individual,
and not the other way around, is shaped by America’s story. Our nation
began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few. But
because of our democratic Constitution, because of our Bill of Rights,
because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize, and march,
and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out — opened doors for
women and minorities and workers in ways that made our economy more
productive and turned our diversity into a strength; that gave
innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor; that
made it possible for someone like me to be elected President of the
United States.
So, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of America,
but I do not think this story is unique to America. Look at the
transformation that’s taken place in countries as different as Japan and
Chile, Indonesia, Botswana. The countries that have succeeded are ones
in which people feel they have a stake.
In Europe, the progress of those countries in the former Soviet bloc
that embraced democracy stand in clear contrast to those that did not.
After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of
some plot imposed from abroad. They took to the streets because their
leadership was for sale and they had no recourse. They demanded change
because they saw life get better for people in the Baltics and in
Poland, societies that were more liberal, and democratic, and open than
their own.
So those of us who believe in democracy, we need to speak out
forcefully, because both the facts and history, I believe, are on our
side. That doesn’t mean democracies are without flaws. It does mean
that the cure for what ails our democracies is greater engagement by our
citizens — not less.
Yes, in America, there is too much money in politics; too much
entrenched partisanship; too little participation by citizens, in part
because of a patchwork of laws that makes it harder to vote. In Europe,
a well-intentioned Brussels often became too isolated from the normal
push and pull of national politics. Too often, in capitals,
decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs to be driven by
civic engagement from the bottom up, not governance by experts from the
top down. And so these are real problems, and as leaders of democratic
governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder
to set a better example at home.
Moreover, every country will organize its government informed by
centuries of history, and the circumstances of geography, and the deeply
held beliefs of its people. So I recognize a traditional society may
value unity and cohesion more than a diverse country like my own, which
was founded upon what, at the time, was a radical idea — the idea of the
liberty of individual human beings endowed with certain God-given
rights. But that does not mean that ordinary people in Asia, or Africa,
or the Middle East somehow prefer arbitrary rule that denies them a
voice in the decisions that can shape their lives. I believe that
spirit is universal. And if any of you doubt the universality of that
desire, listen to the voices of young people everywhere who call out for
freedom, and dignity, and the opportunity to control their own lives.
This leads me to the third thing we need to do: We must reject any
forms of fundamentalism, or racism, or a belief in ethnic superiority
that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with modernity.
Instead we need to embrace the tolerance that results from respect of
all human beings.
It’s a truism that global integration has led to a collision of
cultures; trade, migration, the Internet, all these things can challenge
and unsettle our most cherished identities. We see liberal societies
express opposition when women choose to cover themselves. We see
protests responding to Western newspaper cartoons that caricature the
Prophet Muhammad. In a world that left the age of empire behind, we see
Russia attempting to recover lost glory through force. Asian powers
debate competing claims of history. And in Europe and the United
States, you see people wrestle with concerns about immigration and
changing demographics, and suggesting that somehow people who look
different are corrupting the character of our countries.
Now, there’s no easy answer for resolving all these social forces,
and we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own
traditions — from their religion, from their ethnicity, from their sense
of nationhood. But I do not believe progress is possible if our desire
to preserve our identities gives way to an impulse to dehumanize or
dominate another group. If our religion leads us to persecute those of
another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions
lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the
basis of race or tribe or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of
civilization will fray. The world is too small, we are too packed
together, for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.
We see this mindset in too many parts of the Middle East. There, so
much of the collapse in order has been fueled because leaders sought
legitimacy not because of policies or programs but by resorting to
persecuting political opposition, or demonizing other religious sects,
by narrowing the public space to the mosque, where in too many places
perversions of a great faith were tolerated. These forces built up for
years, and are now at work helping to fuel both Syria’s tragic civil war
and the mindless, medieval menace of ISIL.
The mindset of sectarianism, and extremism, and bloodletting, and
retribution that has been taking place will not be quickly reversed.
And if we are honest, we understand that no external power is going to
be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities
to co-exist for long. But I do believe we have to be honest about the
nature of these conflicts, and our international community must continue
to work with those who seek to build rather than to destroy.
And there is a military component to that. It means being united and
relentless in destroying networks like ISIL, which show no respect for
human life. But it also means that in a place like Syria, where there’s
no ultimate military victory to be won, we’re going to have to pursue
the hard work of diplomacy that aims to stop the violence, and deliver
aid to those in need, and support those who pursue a political
settlement and can see those who are not like themselves as worthy of
dignity and respect.
Across the region’s conflicts, we have to insist that all parties
recognize a common humanity and that nations end proxy wars that fuel
disorder. Because until basic questions are answered about how
communities co-exist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn,
countless human beings will suffer — most of all in that region — but
extremism will continue to be exported overseas. And the world is too
small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from
affecting our own societies.
And what is true in the Middle East is true for all of us. Surely,
religious traditions can be honored and upheld while teaching young
people science and math, rather than intolerance. Surely, we can sustain
our unique traditions while giving women their full and rightful role
in the politics and economics of a nation. Surely, we can rally our
nations to solidarity while recognizing equal treatment for all
communities — whether it’s a religious minority in Myanmar, or an ethnic
minority in Burundi, or a racial minority right here in the United
States. And surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if
Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel,
but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle
Palestinian land. We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down,
rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish
others.
And this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do, and
that is sustain our commitment to international cooperation rooted in
the rights and responsibilities of nations.
As President of the United States, I know that for most of human
history, power has not been unipolar. The end of the Cold War may have
led too many to forget this truth. I’ve noticed as President that at
times, both America’s adversaries and some of our allies believe that
all problems were either caused by Washington or could be solved by
Washington — and perhaps too many in Washington believed that as well.
(Laughter.) But I believe America has been a rare superpower in human
history insofar as it has been willing to think beyond narrow
self-interest; that while we’ve made our share of mistakes over these
last 25 years — and I’ve acknowledged some — we have strived, sometimes
at great sacrifice, to align better our actions with our ideals. And as
a consequence, I believe we have been a force for good.
We have secured allies. We’ve acted to protect the vulnerable. We
supported human rights and welcomed scrutiny of our own actions. We’ve
bound our power to international laws and institutions. When we’ve made
mistakes, we’ve tried to acknowledge them. We have worked to roll back
poverty and hunger and disease beyond our borders, not just within our
borders.
I’m proud of that. But I also know that we can’t do this alone. And
I believe that if we’re to meet the challenges of this century, we are
all going to have to do more to build up international capacity. We
cannot escape the prospect of nuclear war unless we all commit to
stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a world without
them.
When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program that
enhances global security and enhances Iran’s ability to work with other
nations. On the other hand, when North Korea tests a bomb that
endangers all of us. And any country that breaks this basic bargain
must face consequences. And those nations with these weapons, like the
United States, have a unique responsibility to pursue the path of
reducing our stockpiles, and reaffirming basic norms like the commitment
to never test them again.
We can’t combat a disease like Zika that recognizes no borders —
mosquitos don’t respect walls — unless we make permanent the same
urgency that we brought to bear against Ebola — by strengthening our own
systems of public health, by investing in cures and rolling back the
root causes of disease, and helping poorer countries develop a public
health infrastructure.
We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development
goals that we have set are more than words on paper. Human ingenuity now
gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children —
including our girls — the education that is the foundation for
opportunity in our world. But we have to put our money where our mouths
are.
And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding —
to replace the ravages of war with cooperation — if powerful nations
like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I’m criticized in my own
country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral
institutions. But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some
freedom of action — not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or
pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules
over the long term — enhances our security. And I think that’s not just
true for us.
If Russia continues to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors, it
may be popular at home, it may fuel nationalist fervor for a time, but
over time it is also going to diminish its stature and make its borders
less secure. In the South China Sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes
offered by law will mean far greater stability than the militarization
of a few rocks and reefs.
We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls
upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we
belong. And the good news is, is that many nations have shown what kind
of progress is possible when we make those commitments. Consider what
we’ve accomplished here over the past few years.
Together, we mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for U.N.
peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better prepared to
deal with emergencies. Together, we established an Open Government
Partnership so that, increasingly, transparency empowers more and more
people around the globe. And together, now, we have to open our hearts
and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a home.
We should all welcome the pledges of increased assistance that have
been made at this General Assembly gathering. I’ll be discussing that
more this afternoon. But we have to follow through, even when the
politics are hard. Because in the eyes of innocent men and women and
children who, through no fault of their own, have had to flee everything
that they know, everything that they love, we have to have the empathy
to see ourselves. We have to imagine what it would be like for our
family, for our children, if the unspeakable happened to us. And we
should all understand that, ultimately, our world will be more secure if
we are prepared to help those in need and the nations who are carrying
the largest burden with respect to accommodating these refugees.
There are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right thing.
But many nations — particularly those blessed with wealth and the
benefits of geography — that can do more to offer a hand, even if they
also insist that refugees who come to our countries have to do more to
adapt to the customs and conventions of the communities that are now
providing them a home.
Let me conclude by saying that I recognize history tells a different
story than the one that I’ve talked about here today. There’s a much
darker and more cynical view of history that we can adopt. Human beings
are too often motivated by greed and by power. Big countries for most
of history have pushed smaller ones around. Tribes and ethnic groups
and nation states have very often found it most convenient to define
themselves by what they hate and not just those ideas that bind them
together.
Time and again, human beings have believed that they finally arrived
at a period of enlightenment only to repeat, then, cycles of conflict
and suffering. Perhaps that’s our fate. We have to remember that the
choices of individual human beings led to repeated world war. But we
also have to remember that the choices of individual human beings
created a United Nations, so that a war like that would never happen
again. Each of us as leaders, each nation can choose to reject those
who appeal to our worst impulses and embrace those who appeal to our
best. For we have shown that we can choose a better history.
Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that,
“Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it comes
through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.”
And during the course of these eight years, as I’ve traveled to many of
your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more
educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and more diverse, and
more creative than our generation; who are more empathetic and
compassionate towards their fellow human beings than previous
generations. And, yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth.
But it also comes with young people’s access to information about other
peoples and places — an understanding unique in human history that their
future is bound with the fates of other human beings on the other side
of the world.
I think of the thousands of health care workers from around the world
who volunteered to fight Ebola. I remember the young entrepreneurs I
met who are now starting new businesses in Cuba, the parliamentarians
who used to be just a few years ago political prisoners in Myanmar. I
think of the girls who have braved taunts or violence just to go to
school in Afghanistan, and the university students who started programs
online to reject the extremism of organizations like ISIL. I draw
strength from the young Americans — entrepreneurs, activists, soldiers,
new citizens — who are remaking our nation once again, who are
unconstrained by old habits and old conventions, and unencumbered by
what is, but are instead ready to seize what ought to be.
My own family is a made up of the flesh and blood and traditions and
cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world — just as
America has been built by immigrants from every shore. And in my own
life, in this country, and as President, I have learned that our
identities do not have to be defined by putting someone else down, but
can be enhanced by lifting somebody else up. They don’t have to be
defined in opposition to others, but rather by a belief in liberty and
equality and justice and fairness.
And the embrace of these principles as universal doesn’t weaken my
particular pride, my particular love for America — it strengthens it.
My belief that these ideals apply everywhere doesn’t lessen my
commitment to help those who look like me, or pray as I do, or pledge
allegiance to my flag. But my faith in those principles does force me
to expand my moral imagination and to recognize that I can best serve my
own people, I can best look after my own daughters, by making sure that
my actions seek what is right for all people and all children, and your
daughters and your sons.
This is what I believe: that all of us can be co-workers with God.
And our leadership, and our governments, and this United Nations should
reflect this irreducible truth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
11:17 A.M. EDT
