奥巴马诺贝尔获奖演说词
奥巴马励志演讲稿中文
大家好！今天，我站在这里，心情无比激动。
我想对在座的每一位说，你们都是我心中最宝贵的财富，是你们给了我力量，让我有勇气站在这里，与你们分享我的故事，我的梦想，以及我坚信可以实现的未来。
首先，我想谈谈我的成长。
我出生在夏威夷的一个小岛上，父母都是非洲裔美国人。
在我很小的时候，他们就教导我要勇敢地追求自己的梦想，无论遇到什么困难，都要坚持不懈。
这种信念一直伴随着我，让我在人生的道路上不断前行。
我记得小时候，我曾经梦想成为一名篮球运动员。
每天，我都会在球场上挥洒汗水，与队友们并肩作战。
虽然我最终没有实现这个梦想，但这段经历教会了我团队合作、努力拼搏和永不放弃的精神。
随着年龄的增长，我开始对政治产生了浓厚的兴趣。
我深知，政治不仅仅是权力斗争，更是为了人民福祉而奋斗的事业。
于是，我决定投身政治，为美国人民服务。
2008年，我有幸成为美国历史上第一位非洲裔总统。
那一刻，我感到无比自豪，同时也深知自己肩负着巨大的责任。
我承诺，我将尽我所能，为美国人民创造一个更加公正、繁荣和和谐的未来。
然而，实现这个目标并非易事。
在美国，种族歧视、贫富差距、教育不公等问题依然存在。
面对这些挑战，我曾感到迷茫和无力。
但我知道，我不能放弃，因为背后有无数双期待的眼睛。
在我的任期内，我们采取了一系列措施，努力改善美国人民的福祉。
我们推出了“医疗改革法案”，让更多人享受到高质量的医疗服务；我们投资于教育和基础设施，提高国民素质和国家的竞争力；我们打击了恐怖主义，保障了国家的安全。
这些成就的取得，离不开全体美国人民的共同努力。
正是你们，用勤劳的双手和智慧的头脑，书写了美国历史上的辉煌篇章。
在此，我想对那些在逆境中坚持奋斗的人们说，你们是真正的英雄。
你们的故事激励着我，让我更加坚定地走自己的路。
我想对那些曾经受到不公平待遇的人们说，你们的声音不会被忽视，你们的权益将得到保障。
亲爱的同胞们，我们生活在一个充满机遇和挑战的时代。
全球化、气候变化、恐怖主义等问题，考验着我们的智慧和勇气。
美国总统奥巴马胜选演讲稿(中英文)
美国总统奥巴马胜选演讲稿（中英文）超过10万人4日深夜把美国芝加哥格兰特公园变成狂欢的海洋。
当选总统贝拉克奥巴马在这里向支持者宣布:“变革已降临美国。
”他在这篇获胜演说中承诺推进“变革”,但呼吁支持者付出耐心,甚至提及连任。
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.如果,还有人怀疑美国是一切皆有可能的国度,还有人怀疑国父们的梦想在我们的时代是否还存在,还有人怀疑我们的民主所拥有的力量,那么今晚,你听到了回答。
It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.是那些今天在学校和教堂排着长队、数不胜数的选民做出了回答;是那些为了投票等待了三四个小时的人们做出了回答。
他们中的很多人,是有生以来第一次投票,因为他们相信,这次真的不同――他们的声音会让这次不同。
奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言——英文
奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言——英文(总9页)-CAL-FENGHAI.-(YICAI)-Company One1-CAL-本页仅作为文档封面，使用请直接删除THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. Icannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deservingof this honor than I.But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which weare joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effortto defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power andsettled their differences.And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek toregulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certainconditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think upnew ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- Americaled the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the wagingof war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are theheirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism haslong been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing na?ve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, Icannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say thatforce may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the bloodof our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service andsacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take holdin places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war atsome level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, moreattainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in hum an institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.What might this evolution look like What might these practical steps beTo begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle ofself-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves.F or when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extendsbeyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering.And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and couragethey’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but Ialso know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enoughto achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task toa few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war,but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions. Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as weconfront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And thatis why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very idealsthat we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weaponswill work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m workingwith President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those whoseek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be facedwith the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of everyindividual can truly be lasting.It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestionthat these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable wherecitizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religiousidentity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests -- nor the world’s -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformerslike Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Re agan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peaceis not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance. Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredientsin bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about.And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose offaith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or na?ve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war andpeace -- then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.) Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, asoldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits thebrutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.Thank you very much.11。
奥巴马获胜演说演讲稿(中英文)(多篇范文)
奥巴马获胜演说演讲稿（中英文）奥巴马获胜演说演讲稿（中英文）barack obama’s victory speech: change has e to americaif there is anyone out there who still doubts that america is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.如果，还有人怀疑美国是一切皆有可能的国度，还有人怀疑国父们的梦想在我们的时代是否还存在，还有人怀疑我们的民主所拥有的力量，那么今晚，你听到了回答。
it’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.是那些今天在学校和教堂排着长队、数不胜数的选民做出了回答；是那些为了投票等待了三四个小时的人们做出了回答。
他们中的很多人，是有生以来第一次投票，因为他们相信，这次真的不同――他们的声音会让这次不同。
it’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, democrat and republican, black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. americans who sent a message to the world that第1 页共88 页we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.we are, and always will be, the united states of america.这个回答来自青年、老人、穷人、富人、民主党、共和党人、黑皮肤、白皮肤、拉美人、亚裔、印第安人、同性恋和非同性恋者、残疾人和健全者。
奥巴马胜选演讲全文(中英)
奥巴马胜选演讲全文（中英）Thank you so much.非常感谢你们。
Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.今夜，在当年的殖民地赢得了决定自己命运的权利200多年以后，让美利坚合众国更加完美的任务又向前推进了一步。
It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.这一进程是因为你们而向前推进的，因为你们再次确认了那种使美国胜利克服了战争和萧条的精神，那种使美国摆脱绝望的深渊并走向希望的最高点的精神，以及那种虽然我们每个人都在追求自己的个人梦想、但我们同属一个美国大家庭、并作为一个国家和民族共同进退的信仰。
Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard,while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.今夜，在此次选举中，你们这些美国人民提醒我们，虽然我们的道路一直艰难，虽然我们的旅程一直漫长，但我们已经让自己振作起来，我们已经发起反击，我们在自己内心深处知道，对美利坚合众国来说，最美好一切属于未来。
The victory speech of Barack Obama 奥巴马获胜演讲全文(中英文对照)
奥巴马获胜演讲全文（中英文对照）The victory speech of Barack ObamaObama：奥巴马：Hello, Chicago.您好，芝加哥。
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.如果还有人对美国是否凡事都有可能存疑，还有人怀疑美国奠基者的梦想在我们所处的时代是否依然鲜活，还有人质疑我们的民主制度的力量，那么今晚，这些问题都有了答案。
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.这是设在学校和教堂的投票站前排起的前所未见的长队给出的答案；是等了三四个小时的选民所给出的答案，其中许多人都是有生以来第一次投票，因为他们认定这一次肯定会不一样，认为自己的声音会是这次大选有别于以往之所在。
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.这是所有美国人民共同给出的答案－－无论老少贫富，无论是民主党还是共和党，无论是黑人、白人、拉美裔、亚裔、原住民，是同性恋者还是异性恋者、残疾人还是健全人－－我们从来不是“红州”和“蓝州”的对立阵营。
奥巴马获胜演讲全文(双语).
奥巴马获胜演讲全文(双语学习版Hello, Chicago.您好,芝加哥。
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive i n our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your a nswer. 如果还有人仍在怀疑美国是否是一个一切皆有可能的国度的话,如果还有人仍在疑虑我们美国的缔造者的梦想是否还存在于我们这个时代的话, 如果还有人仍在质疑我们民主的力量的话,今晚你就可以得到答案。
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in nu mbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this ti me must be different, that their voices could be that difference. 它的答案告诉延伸线, 围绕学校和教堂的人数这个民族从未见过的, 等待三个小时, 四个小时的人们,许多第一次在他们的生活,因为他们认为,这次一定是不同的,他们的声音可能是不同的。
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republ ican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue s tates. 不管你是年轻人还是老年人,是富人还是穷人,是民主党人还是共和党人, 是黑人还是白人, 也不管你是拉丁美洲人或亚洲人还是本土美国人, 更无论你是否为同性变者、是否是残疾人, 这是美国人共同的答案。
奥巴马胜选演讲中英文全文
Thank you so much.Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people. Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.I want to thank every American who participated in this election, whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time. By the way, we have to fix that. Whether you pounded the pavement or picked up the phone, whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign, you made your voice heard and you made a difference.I just spoke with Gov. Romney and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign. We may have battl ed fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future. From George to Lenore to their son Mitt, the Romney family has chosen to give back to America through public service and that is the legacy that we honor and applaud tonight. In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Gov. Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.I want to thank my friend and partner of the last four years, America’s happy warrior, t he best vice president anybody could ever hope for, Joe Biden.And I wouldn’t be the man I am today without the woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago. Let me say this publicly: Michelle, I have never loved you more. I have never been prouder to watch t he rest of America fall in love with you, too, as our nation’s first lady. Sasha and Malia, before our very eyes you’re growing up to become two strong, smart beautiful young women, just like your mom. And I’m so proud of you guys. But I will say that for now one dog’s probably enough.To the best campaign team and volunteers in the history of politics. The best. The best ever. Some of you were new this time around, and some of you have been at my side since the very beginning. But all of you are family. No matter what you do or where you go from here, you will carry the memory of the history we made together and you will have the lifelong appreciation of a grateful president. Thank you for believing all the way, through every hill, through every valley. You lifted me up the whole way and I will always be grateful for everything that you’ve done and all the incredible work that you put in.I know that political campaigns can sometimes seem small, even silly. And that provides plenty of fodder for the cynics that tell us that politics is nothing more than a contest of egos or the domain of special interests. But if you ever get the chance to talk to folks who turned out at our rallies and crowded along a rope line in a high school gym, or saw folks working late in a campaign office in some tiny county far away from home, you’ll discover something else.You’ll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who’s working his way through college and wants to make sure every child has that same oppor tunity. You’ll hear the pride in the voice of a volunteer who’s going door to door because her brother was finally hired when the local auto plant added another shift. You’ll hear the deep patriotism in the voice of amilitary spouse who’s working the phon es late at night to make sure that no one who fights for this country ever has to fight for a job or a roof over their head when they come home.That’s why we do this. That’s what politics can be. That’s why elections matter. It’s not small, it’s big. It’s important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy. That won’t change after tonight, and it shouldn’t. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America’s future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers. A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t w eakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. We want to pass on a country that’s safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this – this world has ever known. But also a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war, to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being.We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture worker’s child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president –that’s the future we hope for. That’s the vision we share. That’s where we need to go –forward. That’s where we need to go.Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It’s not always a straight line. It’s not always a smooth path. By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin.Our economy is recovering. A decade of war is ending. A long campaign is now over. And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you’ve made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.Tonight you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. We’ve got more work to do.But that doesn’t mean your work is done. The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by ustogether through the hard and frustrating, but necessary work of self-government. That’s the principle we were founded on.This country has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military in history, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our university, our culture are all the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth. The belief that our destiny is shared; that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. The freedom which so many Americans have fought for and died for come with responsibilities as well as rights. And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. That’s what makes America great.I am hopeful tonight because I’ve seen the spirit at work in America. I’ve seen it in the family business whose owners would rather cut their own pay than lay off their neighbors, and in the workers who would rather cut b ack their hours than see a friend lose a job. I’ve seen it in the soldiers who reenlist after losing a limb and in those SEALs who charged up the stairs into darkness and danger because they knew there was a buddy behind them watching their back.I’ve seen it on the shores of New Jersey and New York, where leaders from every party and level of government have swept aside their differences to help a community rebuild from the wreckage of a terrible storm. And I saw just the other day, in Mentor, Ohio, where a father told the story of his 8-year-old daughter, whose long battle with leukemia nearly cost their family everything had it not been for health care reform passing just a few months before the insurance company was about to stop paying for her care.I had an opportunity to not just talk to the father, but meet this incredible daughter of his. And when he spoke to the crowd listening to that father’s story, every parent in that room had tears in their eyes, because we knew that little girl could be our own. And I know that every American wants her future to be just as bright. That’s who we are. That’s the country I’m so proud to lead as your president.And tonight, despite all the hardship we’ve been through, despite all the frustrations of Washington, I’v e never been more hopeful about our future. I have never been more hopeful about America. And I ask you to sustain that hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that st and in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.America, I believe we can build on the progress we’ve made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. W e’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and foreverwill be the United States of America.And together with your help and God’s grace we will continue our journey forward and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth.Thank you, America. God bless you. God bless these United States.今晚，你投给的不是政治，而是我们的行动。
奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言英文修订版
奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言英文Document number：PBGCG-0857-BTDO-0089-PTT1998THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall andMandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to preventanother world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a MarshallPlan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War endedwith jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirsof the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of warbetween two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations.The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civili ans are killed than soldiers; theseeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of D r. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing na?ve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiat ions cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other s’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.What might this evolution look like What might these practical steps beTo begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates an d weakens those who don’t.The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse t o follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extendsbeyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations mus tembrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace. America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen . and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests -- nor the world’s -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness tothe quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that theleaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history --they have us on their side.Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But Ialso know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appearedinexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but forlabor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work withoutsomething more -- and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or na?ve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasi on so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that fore ver confronts him.”Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.Thank you very much.。
奥巴马励志演讲稿中英
英文原文：Ladies and Gentlemen,It is an honor to stand before you today and share a few thoughts on the power of dreams and the courage to pursue them. As you may know, I have had the privilege of serving as the President of the United States, and during my time in office, I have seen the incredible resilience and determination of the American people. But let me tell you, it all starts with a dream.Dreams are the fuel that powers our souls. They are the light that guides us through the darkest of times. And they are the reason why we rise above our challenges and achieve greatness. In the words of the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "If you can dream it, you can do it."I remember growing up in a small town in Hawaii, the son of a white father and a black mother. My childhood was filled with dreams, big dreams. I dreamt of becoming a president, of making a difference in the lives of people, of uniting a nation that had been divided for far too long. But dreams alone are not enough. They require courage, perseverance, and hard work.When I first ran for the presidency, I was told that I was too young, too inexperienced, and that I didn't have what it takes to lead. But I didn't let that discourage me. Instead, I chose to embrace the challenge and work even harder. I believed in the power of dreams, and I knew that if I stayed true to my vision, I could make a difference.And so, I embarked on a journey that would change my life and the lives of millions of Americans. We faced obstacles and setbacks along the way, but we never lost sight of our dreams. We fought for healthcare reform, for equality, for justice, and for a more hopeful future. And little by little, we made progress.Today, I stand before you as a testament to the power of dreams and the courage to pursue them. I am not the same man who stood on that stage eight years ago. I have grown, I have learned, and I have beentransformed by the experiences of serving as the President of the United States.But let me remind you, my friends, that this journey does not end with me. It continues with you. Each and every one of you has the power to dream and the courage to pursue those dreams. Whether you aspire to be a doctor, a teacher, an engineer, or an artist, know that your dreams are valid, and they are within your reach.Here are a few lessons I have learned on this journey that I hope will inspire you:1. Believe in Yourself: The first step to pursuing your dreams is to believe in yourself. You are capable of achieving greatness, but you must first believe that you are worthy of it.2. Surround Yourself with Good People: Dreams are hard to achieve alone. Find mentors, friends, and family who will support you and help you along the way.3. Stay True to Your Values: Your dreams should align with your values. Stay true to who you are and what you stand for, and you will never go wrong.4. Be Persistent: Pursuing a dream is not an easy journey. There will be challenges and setbacks, but you must stay persistent. Remember why you started and keep pushing forward.5. Embrace Failure: Failure is not the end, it is a stepping stone. Learn from your mistakes, and use them as fuel to propel you forward.6. Dream Big: Don't settle for anything less than your best. Aim high, and you will be surprised by what you can achieve.7. Help Others: As you pursue your dreams, remember to help others along the way. Your success is not just about you; it is about making a positive impact on the world.Ladies and Gentlemen,The power of dreams and the courage to pursue them is a force that can change the world. It is the force that has driven us as a nation to overcome adversity, to innovate, and to lead. And it is the force that will continue to drive us forward, even as we face new challenges and opportunities.So, I urge you to dream big, to be courageous, and to never give up. Your dreams are not just for you; they are for your family, for your friends, for your community, and for the world. And when you pursue those dreams with all your heart, you will not only achieve success, but you will also inspire others to do the same.Thank you, and may the dreams you chase today lead you to a brighter tomorrow.中文翻译：女士们，先生们，今天能站在这里与大家分享关于梦想的力量以及追求梦想的勇气的思考，我感到非常荣幸。
奥巴马诺贝尔获奖演说
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses,distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee,citizens of America, and citizens of the world:国王和王后陛下，各位殿下，杰出的挪威诺贝尔委员会（Norwegian Nobel Committee）委员，美国公民及全世界公民们：I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.获此殊荣，我深怀感激并深表谦恭。
这个奖表达出我们的最高理想——尽管这个世界存在种种凶残困苦，但我们并不任命运摆布。
我们的行动是有作用的，能够推动历史向正义方向发展。
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.不过，如果不坦承你们这项厚爱有加的决定所引起的相当激烈的争议，那我就有失疏忽了。
奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖演讲稿全文中英对照
奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖演讲稿全文中英对照第一篇：奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖演讲稿全文中英对照奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖演讲稿全文中英对照我陷入了一个两难的境地：我的面前，是尊敬的诺贝尔委员会，我的身后，是广大的美国民众，我的左边和右边，是两种截然不同的意见，和一些叽叽喳喳的喧哗。
奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖发表获奖感言视频截图奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖的获奖感言演讲稿(全文)时间：2009年12月10日演讲者：奥巴马撰稿者：陈罗祥尊敬的诺贝尔委员会，大家好！10月9日清晨，我接到了白宫发言人吉布斯的来电，获悉贵委员会决定，将本年度的诺贝尔和平奖颁发给我。
我感到十分荣幸，在此，我非常感谢诺贝尔委员会对我的褒奖、信任和支持。
我知道，不仅仅是我赢得了一个奖项，这同样也是全体美国民众的胜利！我知道，最近几十天来，有关我的获奖，引起多方的质疑和争论。
赞成者认为，我在削减核武器、解决核问题争端、应对气候变化、支持“多伙伴世界”等一系列全球性问题上的多次许诺和积极努力，是获奖的关键元素。
反对者认为，做出颁奖给我的这一决定过早也过于草率，因为我就任美国总统，毕竟只有短短几个月的时间，需要假以时日。
还有人认为，我的获奖仅仅是因为“明星力量”而非有意义的成就；我之能够获奖也仅仅因为我是美国有史以来的第一位黑人总统。
更有人认为，与其说把奖项颁给我是对我成绩的肯定，不如说是他们投给我的政府未来的“信任投票”。
甚至，有人认为，这不过是给我下的一个圈套而已。
我知道，我陷入了一个两难的境地：我的面前，是尊敬的诺贝尔委员会，我的身后，是广大的美国民众，我的左边和右边，是两种截然不同的意见，和一些叽叽喳喳的喧哗。
这时，我听到一个清晰的声音，穿越了时空，静静地传来……我知道，在遥远的中国，有一种宗教，叫道教；我知道，在五千年前的东方，有一个圣人叫老子。
在我获奖的翌日，有一位来自中国的道长，送了一本书给我：《道德经》。
我知道，这是中国传统文化的经典之一。
我打开了书，于是那些智慧的声音在我耳边响起：道可道，非常道；名可名，非常名……于是，我明白了——我知道，我信仰上帝，但我从不排斥，世界上任何一种智慧的声音。
奥巴马和平奖领奖全文
我今天并没有带来解决战争问题的最终方案。我所知道的是，迎接这些挑战将需要共同的信念，艰苦的工作以及持之以恒，就如同数十年前那些如此大胆地采取行动的人们一样。它还要求我们从全新的角度去审视“正义战争”和公正和平的必要性等提法。
我们首先必须承认确凿的事实:我们不能在我们的有生之年根除暴力冲突。这将会比国家——以个人名义或国家名义发现暴力的使用不仅必要而且在道德上是正义的要多花上好几倍的时间。
努力防止核武器扩散，并寻求一个没有核武器的世界就是一个迫切的例子。在上个世纪中叶，各国对一个内容明确的条约表示赞同:所有国家将和平地利用核能；没有核武器的国家将放弃核武器；已拥有核武器的国家将努力裁军。我将致力于维护这一条约。这是我的外交政策的核心。而且我要与梅德韦杰夫总统一起减少美国和俄罗斯的核武器储存。
这种演变可能是什么样子？可能的实际步骤是什么？
首先，我认为所有国家，无论强弱，必须坚持管制武力的使用。我，和任何国家的元首一样，保留在有必要的情况下采取单方面行动以捍卫我的国家的权利。尽管如此，我深信，应当坚持标准，国际标准，同时增强那些遵守规则的，孤立和削弱那些不遵守的。
在911恐怖袭击之后，全世界都站在美国一边，并且还在继续支持我们在阿富汗的行动，因为那里的恐怖袭击还在发生，因此自卫就应该受到认可。同样，当萨达姆政权入侵科威特的时候，全世界都认同必须面对他。这是一个简单的道理，即任何侵略都要付出代价。
这就把我带到了我要谈的第二点-我们所寻求的和平的性质。和平不仅仅是没有可见的冲突。只有建立在内在权利及个体尊严的基础上的和平，才能真正持久。
第二次世界大战之后，正是在这种认识激发了世界人权宣言起草者。在毁灭之后，他们认识到，如果人权得不到保障，和平就是一句空话。
然而很多时候，这些话被忽视了。某些国家，不维护人权，就以这是所谓的西方原则为借口，说这些原则不适用与当地文化或一个国家的发展阶段。而长期以来在美国，理想主义者和现实主义者之间一直很紧张-这一紧张暗示着一个抉择，即在狭隘地追求利益和持续地在全世界推行我们的价值观之间的抉择。
奥巴马获胜演讲稿(完整版)
奥巴马获胜演讲稿奥巴马获胜演讲稿that in the depth of inter, hen nothing but hope and virtue ould survivethat the it and the ountr, alarmed at one mon danger, ame forth to meet .“我们要让未来的世界知道……在深冬的严寒里，唯有希望和勇气才能让我们存活……面对共同的危险时，我们的城市和国家要勇敢地上前去面对。
”ameria. in the fae of our mon dangers, in this inter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless ords. ith hope and virtue, let us brave one more the i urrents, and endure hat storms ma e. let it be said b our hildren's hildren that hen e ere tested e refused to let this journe end, that e did not turn bak nor did e falter; and ith ees fixed on the horizon and god's grae upon us, e arried forth that greatgift of freedom and delivered it safel to future generations.今天的美国也在严峻的寒冬中面对共同的挑战，让我们记住国父们不朽的语言。
带着希望和勇气，让我们再一次勇敢地面对寒流，迎接可能会发生的风暴。
我们要让我们的子孙后代记住，在面临挑战的时候，我们没有屈服，我们没有逃避也没有犹豫，我们脚踏实地、心怀信仰，秉承了宝贵的自由权利并将其安全地交到了下一代的手中。
奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言——英文
THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war”emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war”was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.”As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.I know there’s nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing na?ve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,”he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”A gradual evolution of human institutions.What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extendsbeyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists oridealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests -- nor the world’s -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or na?ve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’that forever confronts him.”Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.Thank you very much.。
The victory speech of Barack Obama 奥巴马获胜演讲全文(中英文对照)
奥巴马获胜演讲全文（中英文对照）The victory speech of Barack ObamaObama：奥巴马：Hello, Chicago.您好，芝加哥。
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.如果还有人对美国是否凡事都有可能存疑，还有人怀疑美国奠基者的梦想在我们所处的时代是否依然鲜活，还有人质疑我们的民主制度的力量，那么今晚，这些问题都有了答案。
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.这是设在学校和教堂的投票站前排起的前所未见的长队给出的答案；是等了三四个小时的选民所给出的答案，其中许多人都是有生以来第一次投票，因为他们认定这一次肯定会不一样，认为自己的声音会是这次大选有别于以往之所在。
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.这是所有美国人民共同给出的答案－－无论老少贫富，无论是民主党还是共和党，无论是黑人、白人、拉美裔、亚裔、原住民，是同性恋者还是异性恋者、残疾人还是健全人－－我们从来不是“红州”和“蓝州”的对立阵营。
奥巴马胜选演讲词
奥巴马胜选演讲词/Obama's victory speech（中英文对照完整版）Hello, Chicago.芝加哥的市民，你们好！If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.如果现在仍然有人在那里怀疑着美国是不是任何事情都可能发生的地方，疑惑于我们国家的缔造者们的梦想是否还鲜活地存在于这个时代，对我们民主的力量打上问号的话，今夜就是你的答案。
It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.这是这个国家前所未见的、在学校和教堂（投票站前）排起的长队得出的答案；是等了三、四个小时的选民得出的答案，许多人还是有生以来第一次投票，因为他们相信这一次一定会不一样，相信他们的声音会是这次（大选）不一样之所在。
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states, we are, and always will be, the United States of America.这是美国人共同说出的答案，无论老还是少，无论穷还是富，无论民主党还是共和党，无论是黑人、白人、西班牙裔、亚裔还是本土原住民，无论是同性恋者还是异性恋者，无论是残疾人还是非残疾人，都向世界发出同一种信息------我们从来不是个体的一群人或者红州和蓝州的一群人，我们是，而且永远将是，美利坚合众国。
诺贝尔和平奖获得者美国总统奥巴马的获奖感言【原创】
诺贝尔和平奖获得者美国总统奥巴马的获奖感言【原创】女士们、先生们、全世界热爱和平的朋友们：你们好！今天，我很高兴有人用好消息把我从噩梦中叫醒，要不我还将一直在梦境中为了我们美利坚合众国惨不忍睹的经济而挣扎。
当美国时间9日凌晨，白宫发言人罗伯特·吉布斯告诉我，巴拉克·侯赛因·奥巴马，得到了2009年诺贝尔和平奖，我很惊喜，也很意外。
这只能说我很幸运，因为我等到了一个不错的机会。
当然，这首先得感谢我的前任乔治·沃克·布什，是他把世界搞得战火纷飞、狼烟四起，让大家害怕战争、讨厌战争，大家看过法国作家左拉的《陪衬人》吗，正是在布什好战、无赖、无能的陪衬下，让我招人喜欢，觉得我不错，至少我现在还不那么令人讨厌吧。
得这个和平奖，我很惭愧。
确实，我曾经说过什么“解决国际冲突首选对话和谈判”，什么“美国在应对世界气候变化方面发挥建设性作用”，什么“无核世界理念”……这些话，可是，那只是一种权宜之计，是竞选总统和上台造势的需要，以后，我就渐渐地会把这些话给淡忘了，现在不是已经有人在说，“他（奥巴马）现阶段的行为与当初竞选承诺不相符，这让人感到沮丧”，这也是没有办法的事。
用中国这个古老的民族现在正在流行的一句话说，那叫“潜规则”，以前我的前任们搞竞选不都是这么做的吗，我以为，别人可以，我也可以，这样才显得公平、平等。
不过，现在可能不行了，有人把诺贝尔和平奖给了我，它不光光是荣誉，同时还有1000万瑞典克朗的实惠，既然我拿了，我就得多多少少干一点事实，对得起这个和平奖。
但是丑话在先，我也只是尽力而为，因为有些事情不是象人们想象的那么简单，尽管我是美国总统，但是管着我的大有人在，许多事情美国国会的众参两院通不过，我就干不成，希望大家不要让我勉为其难。
现在，世界上对我得诺贝尔奖有颇多的非议，这很不应该。
试想，这诺贝尔和平奖，并不是一个披萨饼，可以随便给任何一个人，这是事关世界和平的大事，如果不颁给我这个现任的美国总统，还能颁给谁。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
国王和王后陛下，各位殿下，杰出的挪威诺贝尔委员会委员，美国公民及全世界公民们:获此殊荣，我深怀感激并深表谦恭。
这个奖表达出我们的最高理想——尽管这个世界存在种种凶残困苦，但我们并不任命运摆布。
我们的行动是有作用的，能够推动历史向正义方向发展。
不过，如果不坦承你们这项厚爱有加的决定所引起的相当激烈的争议，那我就有失疏忽了。
（笑声）其中部分原因是，我在世界舞台上的奋斗才刚刚开始，而不是接近尾声。
与曾经获此殊荣的一些历史巨人相比——史怀哲和马丁·路德·金；马歇尔和曼德拉——我的成就微不足道。
还有全世界为追求正义而遭到监禁和殴打的男女志士；那些为减轻苦难而在人道组织中艰辛工作的人；那千百万默默无闻地以充满勇气和关爱的无声行动让最悲观的愤世嫉俗者也受到感召的人们。
我绝不反驳那些认为这样的男女志士——有些知名，有些只为他们所帮助的对象所知——远比我有资格获此殊荣的看法。
但与我获奖有关的最深层的问题可能在于我是一个正打着两场战争的国家的三军统帅。
其中一场战争已接近尾声。
另一场并非是美国挑起的冲突；有包括挪威在内的42个国家在与我们共同努力，为的是保护我们及其他所有国家不再遭受攻击。
然而，我们仍处在战争时期，是我派遣成千上万名美国年轻人远赴战场。
有些人要射杀，有些人要被射杀。
因此，我是带着对武装冲突的代价的敏锐感觉来到这里的——心中充满有关战争与和平的关系，以及我们为用和平取代战争而努力的难题。
而这些问题并不新鲜。
战争，以这样或那样的形式，随着人类的诞生而出现。
在历史初期，战争的道义性无人质疑；它是如同干旱或疾病一样的现实——是各个部落以及后来的各种文明谋求权力和解决分歧的方式。
后来，随着旨在控制群体内部暴力的规范的出现，哲学家、宗教领袖和政治家也纷纷致力于用条文限制战争的破坏力。
“正义战争”的概念由此形成，亦即认为，在符合以下几个具体条件时，战争是正义的:如果战争是最后手段或是为自我防御；如果武力程度适当；以及在一切可能的情况下不对平民使用暴力。
当然，我们都知道，在人类历史的大部分时间内，这种“正义战争”的概念鲜被理会。
人类显然有无穷的能力不断想出新的方式相互残杀，同样也有无穷的能力毫不怜惜那些外貌不同或信仰不同的人。
军队之间的战争变成国家间的战争——模糊了战斗人员与平民界线的全面战争。
这种战争大屠杀曾在30年内两度侵吞这块大陆。
虽然难以设想还有什么比击败第三帝国和轴心国更正义的事业，但在第二次世界大战中死亡的平民总数超过了战死疆场的军人。
在这种毁灭之后，并且随着核时代的到来，战胜者与战败者同样清楚地认识到，这个世界需要有防止另一次世界大战的机制。
为此，在美国参议院拒绝接受国际联盟的四分之一世纪后——而伍德罗-威尔逊正因为提出成立国联的设想而荣获诺贝尔和平奖，美国带动世界建起维护和平的体制:马歇尔计划和联合国，对发动战争的规范，以及保护人权、防止种族灭绝大屠杀和限制最危险武器的各项条约这些努力在很多方面获得了成功。
不错，可怕的战争仍然发生，种种暴行依然出现，但第三次世界大战没有爆发。
冷战以兴高采烈的人群推倒一堵墙而告结束；商贸将世界大片地区紧密连在了一起；数十亿人口摆脱了贫困；自由、自决、平等和法治的理想断断续续地向前推进。
我们是先辈们的坚韧精神和远大目光的继承人，这是我自己的国家有理由为之感到骄傲的业绩。
然而，在进入新世纪已10年之际，这一旧有的架构正在越来越难撑新生威胁的重压。
世界或许不再为两个超级核大国之间可能发生战争而颤栗，但核扩散可能会增加发生巨大灾难的危险。
恐怖主义一贯是一种手段，但现代技术会使少数怒火超量的小人以可怕的规模残杀无辜。
而且，国与国的战争正在日益被国家内部的战争所取代。
民族和宗派冲突的重新抬头、分离主义运动、叛乱活动和失控国家的增加，都越来越将平民困于无休止的动乱中。
在今天的战争中，平民的死亡大大超过军人；埋下未来冲突的种子；破坏经济；摧毁公民社会；形成大批难民；使儿童遭受创伤。
我今天没有带来对战争问题的决定性解决办法。
但我确知，应对这些挑战要求具有几十年前那些英勇无畏的前辈所具有的远见、勤劳和坚韧不拔。
这需要我们从新的角度思考正义战争的含义和正义和平的必备条件。
我们必须首先承认这个严峻的现实:在我们的有生之年，我们不会根除暴力冲突。
会有一些时候，国家——不论是单独或共同行动——发现使用武力不仅必要，而且为道义所需我说这番话时并没有忘记马丁·路德·金多年前在这同一仪式上说过的话:“暴力永远不会带来持久和平。
它解决不了社会问题:只会制造新的、更复杂的问题”。
我站在这里，作为金博士毕生奋斗的直接受益者，就是对非暴力的道义力量的活见证。
我知道在甘地和马丁·路德·金的信念与人生中，绝无软弱——绝无消极——绝无天真。
但是，作为宣誓保卫自己国家的一国元首，我不能只以他们的榜样为指南。
我面对的世界是现实的世界，我不能面对美国人民遭到的威胁无动于衷。
因为，切莫误会:邪恶在世界上确实存在。
一场非暴力运动不可能阻止希特勒的军队。
谈判不能说服基地组织的头目放下武器。
说武力有时是必要的并不是让大家变得愤世嫉俗——这是承认历史；是人类的不完美和情理的限度。
我说起这一点，我以这一点开头，因为今天在许多国家，对军事行动，不管出于什么理由，都存在一种深深的矛盾心理。
有时候，这种矛盾又掺杂着对美国，这个世界上惟一的超级大国的一种反射性的不信任。
但世人必须记住，不简单地是因为国际体制——不只是条约和宣言——才给二战后的世界带来稳定。
不管我们犯了多少错误，一个明白的事实是:美利坚合众国在60多年里，以自己公民的鲜血和军力，帮助维护和保证了世界的安全。
我们的男女军人的贡献与牺牲促进了从德国到韩国的和平与繁荣，使民主能在像巴尔干这样的地方扎根。
我们承受这些重负并不是因为我们谋求强加我们的意志。
我们这样做是出于开化的自身利益——因为我们为我们的子子孙孙追求更美好的未来。
我们相信如果别人的子子孙孙能生活在自由和繁荣中，他们的生活会更好。
所以，是的，战争的手段确实在保卫和平中具有作用。
但这个事实必须同另一个事实共存——不管理由多么正当，战争导致人间悲剧。
军人的勇敢和牺牲无比光荣，表达了对国家、事业、战友的忠诚。
但战争本身决不光荣，我们决不能如此宣扬。
因此，我们面对的挑战部分来自于调和这两个看似不可调和的事实——战争有时必要，战争在某种程度上是人类愚蠢的表现。
具体说，我们必须把我们的努力放在肯尼迪总统很久以前所指出的使命上。
他说:“让我们把注意力，集中在更实际，更能取得的和平上，这种和平不是基于人类本性的突发革命，而是基于人类体制的逐渐演进。
”这种演进可能具有何种形式？哪些可能是切实可行的步骤？首先，我认为所有国家，无论强弱，都必须遵循对使用武力的规范。
与任何国家元首一样，我保留在必要时采取单边行动保卫自己国家的权利。
然而，我确信遵循标准——国际标准——的国家更有力量，而那些不遵循标准的国家会陷于孤立，并且被削弱。
“9.11”之后，全世界团结一致，与美国站在一起，并在今天继续支持我们在阿富汗的努力，这是滥杀无辜的残忍与公认的自卫原则使然。
同样，当萨达姆-侯赛因入侵科威特时，世界也认识到必须与其抗衡。
这一共识发出的清晰信息是:侵略必须付出代价另外，美国──以及任何国家──都不能在自己拒绝遵守规则时要求别人遵守规则。
如果我们不以身作则，我们的行动就会表现为专横武断，使未来进行干预的合理性受到影响，无论理由多么充足。
当军事行动的目的超越了自卫或帮助某一国抵抗侵略者的防卫行动时，这一点变得尤其重要。
我们大家都越来越多地面对棘手的问题:如何防止一国政府屠杀本国的平民？如何制止一场其暴行和所导致的痛苦会殃及整个地区的内战?我认为，基于人道理由的武力是正当的，例如在巴尔干地区或饱经战乱的其他地区。
不采取行动不仅折磨我们的良心，还会导致未来以更高的代价进行干预。
因此，所有负责任的国家都必须相信使命明确的军事行动所能够发挥的维护和平作用。
美国将矢志不渝地致力于确保全球安全。
然而，在这个威胁日益蔓延、使命日趋复杂的世界里，美国不能独自行动。
美国独自行动不能带来和平。
在阿富汗如此，在恐怖主义和海盗伴随饥荒肆虐、人民受苦受难的索马里等政府失控的国家也是如此。
不幸的是，这种状况在今后岁月里会继续存在于动荡地区。
在阿富汗，北约国家以及其他友邦和盟国的领导人和军人以自身能力和勇气证实了上述论断。
可是，在许多国家中，奉献者作出的努力与公众的矛盾心理之间存在脱节我理解战争不受欢迎的原因，但我也知道:单凭向往和平的美好意愿很少能够带来和平。
和平需要承担责任。
和平需要作出牺牲。
这是继续不能没有北约的原因。
这是我们必须加强联合国及地区维和行动，不能将此重任推卸给少数几个国家的原因。
因此，无论是在奥斯陆或罗马、渥太华或悉尼、达卡或基加利，我们都对那些完成维和行动与海外培训任务归来的军人给予极大的荣誉，因为他们不是战争制造者，而是和平缔造者。
请允许我对使用武力的问题最后再说明一点。
即使我们对出兵参战一事作出了艰难的决定，我们还必须认真考虑我们如何参加作战。
诺贝尔委员会在向亨利·杜南颁发第一个和平奖时认识到这一点。
（亨利·杜南是红十字会创始人、《日内瓦公约》的幕后推动力量。
）凡有必要使用武力的地方，我们出于道义与战略上的考虑，需要受某些行为准则的制约。
即使我们遇到不遵守任何规则的邪恶对手，我认为美利坚合众国也必须一如既往成为遵守战争规范的楷模。
这就是我们区别于作战对手的地方。
这就是我们力量的源泉。
这就是我禁止酷刑的原因。
这就是我下令关闭关塔那摩湾监狱的原因。
这就是我重申美国坚决遵守《日内瓦公约》的原因。
我们为保卫自己的理想而战，如果我们放弃这些理想，我们就会自取其咎。
（掌声）我们维护——我们维护这些理想，不论如何顺利，也不论如何艰难，都对这些理想恪守不渝。
我刚才比较详细地谈到我们在选择出兵参战之际，必须深思熟虑的问题。
现在让我转而谈一谈我们为避免这类悲剧性的选择进行的努力，谈一谈我们维护正义和缔造持久和平的三个途径。
首先，对于那些不遵守规则和法律的国家，我认为我们必须采取一些除武力之外的其他方式，但需要有足以改变其行为方式的强硬措施——因为如果我们希望实现持久和平，那么国际社会说的话必须算数。
不遵守规则的国家必须承担责任。
各种制裁必须迫使对方付出实际的代价。
如果拒不悔改，则必须施加更大的压力借以抗衡——全世界只有通力合作才有可能施加这样的压力。
举例来说，努力防止核武器扩散，争取一个没有核武器的世界是一项迫在眉睫的工作。
上世纪中叶，各国同意受一项条约的约束，其内容十分明确:各国都可以和平使用核能；没有核武器的国家将不谋求核武器；拥有核武器的国家将努力裁减核军备。