Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama Addresses the U.N. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired September 20, 2016 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:05] BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We opened relations with Cuba, helped Colombia end Latin America's longest war, and we welcomed 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 faultlines 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 swathes 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, 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.

[10:35:00] 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.

And in medicine and manufacturing and education and communications, we're experiencing a transformation of how human beings live on a scale that recalls (ph) 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 his 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 battlefield 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. 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 (ph), 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 (ph) 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.

[10:40:04] 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 in 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 under-investment.

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, and a shadow banking system that grows beyond 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 smart phone 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 undermines 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 and market-distorting subsidies, beggar-thy-neighbor policies and over- reliance on natural resources instead of innovation, these approaches will make us poorer collectively and they are more likely 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's 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.

[10:45:00] 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 (ph) of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within. That's why we push for transparency and cooperation and 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 combating inequality with other (ph) 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 (ph) 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 net 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 a 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 counties 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 argues the future favors the strong man, a top-down model rather than strong democratic institutions.

[10:50:09] 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 strong men are then left with two paths; permanent crackdown or to (ph) spark strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.

Now, I will admit, my belief that government serve the individual and not the other way around is shaped by American's story. Our nation began with the 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. It gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor. It made it possible for someone like 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 and the former Soviet block that embraced democracies 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 (inaudible).

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 faults. 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 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, 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 was at the time was a radical idea, the idea of the liberty of individual human beings endowed with certain God-given rights.

[10:55:18] 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 save (ph) 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, the caricature of the prophet Mohammed. 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.

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 mind set 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.

And these forces built up for years. They're now at work helping to fuel both Syria's tragic civil war and the mindless medieval menace of ISIL. The mind set 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 coexist 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.