Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route West Point, NY, 5/28/2014

Aboard Air Force One
En Route West Point, New York

8:47 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good morning.  I know it’s an early start.  Thank you for being here as we make our way to West Point where the President will deliver the commencement address.  Why don’t we just go straight to questions.  I’m sure you have a few.

Q    What’s he going to say about helping Syrian rebels?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Steve, as we’ve said from the beginning of the conflict in Syria, the Assad regime’s brutality against its own people creates a conflict that feeds extremism.  We look at the Syria conflict as a part of a broader counterterrorism challenge, and that is why we’re going to continue increasing our support to the moderate opposition who offer the best alternative to both the murderous Assad dictatorship and the extremists who have exploited the crisis in Syria for their own malign purposes.  We will also continue to increase our support for Syria’s neighbors as they continue to host refugees and confront the terrorist threat emanating from Syria.

We have a range of options that we will continue discussing within the administration and with Congress. 

Q    But, Jay, is this more about confronting al Qaeda and other terrorist elements within the opposition in Syria rather than going after Assad?

MR. CARNEY:  No, Jim, it’s really both.  What we’ve always said and what has come to pass is that the conflict launched by Assad has fed extremism, and that is why it’s so important to provide support to the moderate opposition and to continue to enhance that support in order to create that alternative, the best alternative to both the Assad regime and the extremists who have found fertile ground in the chaos created by the Assad regime.

Q    Did you confirm that the President is going to announce a new military training program for the Syrian opposition?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have details.  I’m going to the let the President discuss.  What I did say is that we are always looking -- we have obviously provided support to the moderate opposition, and we will continue to increase that support appropriately, but I’m not going to get into details ahead of the President.

Q    Jay, on the $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, what kind of groundwork have you guys laid on the Hill for that -- that you’re going to need Congress to actually move that through?  Is it your sense that it will be received well?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate the question, because the President’s speech today comes at a moment, following yesterday’s update on the disposition of our forces in Afghanistan and the winding down of that combat mission, to provide a view of the way forward after a dozen years of war.  And it’s the President’s belief and his approach and policy that we should be moving away from heavy concentrations of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda elements in the way that we have to address the conflicts and the threats that exist today through separate extremist groups, some closely and some lightly and some not at all affiliated with al Qaeda. 

And the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund would allow us to provide the kind of support for our partners, whether it’s in Mali and assisting with what the French have done there, or in Somalia or Yemen, to counter the threat posed by extremists in different parts of the world, from South Asia to North Africa to the Middle East.

Q    And where does that money come from -- the $5 billion?

MR. CARNEY:  We’re going to work with Congress on it.  And it’s up to $5 billion.  And we believe there is an absolutely compelling case to be made for this approach to counter the threat posed by disparate groups of extremists around the world, including in those three -- especially in those three areas I identified.

Q    Will the President talk about the savings in the budget from the drawdown in Afghanistan, and what else he proposes to do with that money in addition to the counterterrorism fund?

MR. CARNEY:  The President is going to focus on the path forward and the policy proposals that he believes are correct to advance our national security interests and protect our country and our allies.  It is certainly the case that when you have a situation where just in Afghanistan alone we once had 100,000 troops, and by the beginning of next year we’ll have 9,800, that we will be spending less for those kinds of operations.

And I think that goes also to the point of the question earlier about the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and the utility of taking an approach that the President will talk about today.

Q    The President has had a lot of criticism of his foreign policy, Jay.  What do you hope these critics will take away from this speech?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t think the President is going to be focused on critics.  He’ll be focused on his vision and his policies for how to continue to demonstrate American leadership around the globe -- we are the only indispensable nation; he firmly believes that -- and the steps we need to take to counter the threats that exist in this world in the wake of all of the heroic efforts that our military have conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

And the President’s belief is that we need to adapt to the threats that are there.  The fact is, in Afghanistan, as the President talked about yesterday, we’ve made enormous progress in going after the core al Qaeda leadership, and in standing up Afghan National Security Forces so that they can provide the security necessary in that country so that it does not and cannot once again become a haven for al Qaeda or other extremist groups that would threaten the United States or our allies.

Q    Jay, who’s the speech for?  Who’s the audience that he’s trying to reach?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, he’s going to give a significant foreign policy address, so it’s for the American --

Q    So is it targeted towards the American public?  Is it targeted towards our U.S. allies overseas?  Is it targeted towards foreign policy elites, members of Congress?  Like, who is he -- what is the intent and the goal and the audience that he hopes to reach?

MR. CARNEY:  The answer to all those questions is, yes.  He’s trying to reach every one of those audiences, because every one of those audiences has an interest and a stake in how we move forward after a dozen years of war.  So it’s an appropriate venue for that, as graduates of West Point will -- the current class of West Point graduates will be the first in a long time who are not likely to be deployed into a war zone -- at least not Iraq and Afghanistan.  And I think that reflects the kind of transition we’re making out of that footing that we’ve had for a dozen years as we tackle the challenges that we face today.

Q    Jay, on another subject -- school lunches.  CNN had a headline on the screen a few minutes ago that said, “First Lady In Food Fight With House GOP.”  Did the President -- what was the President’s reaction or view of the First Lady’s event yesterday?

MR. CARNEY:  The President and First Lady both feel very strongly about the need to continue moving forward when it comes to school nutrition and not allowing politics to pull us backward.  And I think the First Lady’s words speak for themselves. 

This is an important issue.  We’ve made an enormous amount of progress.  The fact is 90 percent of school districts are implementing the guidelines effectively.  It’s contributing to improved health for our kids.  And it is absolutely inappropriate to let politics and pressure from the food industry rescind this progress.  And that's why the President and First Lady have taken the stand that they’re taking.

Q    Any reaction to those elections in Europe where isolationist parties seem to have made big gains?  Do you think it would impact in any way the T-TIP negotiations?

MR. CARNEY:  I think we're still assessing the outcome of those elections.  We obviously believe very strongly that the advantages of T-TIP for Europe and the United States are clear, and we’ll continue to work with our European partners on those negotiations.

Q    Jay, Ed Snowden gave an interview to NBC, wide-ranging interview.  Any reaction from the President to the remarks from Snowden?  One of them is that he felt stranded in Russia by the State Department in revoking his passport.

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a reaction from the President.  I haven’t discussed it with him.  Obviously, Mr. Snowden faces felony charges here in the United States and he ought to return as soon as possible to the United States to face those charges and enjoy the rights and protections that defendants in this country enjoy. 

On the other matter, Mr. Snowden has been charged with felonies and he ought to return to the United States.  He certainly has that option available to him.

Q    Jay, what is the President’s reaction to the outing of the CIA officer in Afghanistan over the weekend?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you’ve seen that the Chief of Staff has asked the White House Counsel to look into that and to make sure that we're taking steps so that something like that never happens again.

Q    Did the President have a specific reaction to it?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have anything more on that.

Q    Jay, on the immigration review, was there something specific that happened to -- not sure if it's the right word -- delay, whatever, to hold off on that for the summer?  Was there something specific, or just a compilation of things?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President believes that there’s an opportunity in the next several months to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform in Congress.  And he had been hearing from various supporters of that effort, including, a few weeks ago, from evangelicals, but more broadly that there was concern that the review undertaken by Secretary Johnson could be misused, if you will, in order to make -- create an excuse for not taking action, and we certainly wouldn’t want that to happen.  And that broad coalition of supporters of comprehensive immigration reform share the President’s hope that we might see some action in the House.  And we wouldn't want to create a reason not to act, or an excuse not to act.

So we're going to continue to press forward in Congress and hope that the House follows the Senate’s lead, hears the voices of, again, a broad coalition of support out there among labor and business, law enforcement and faith communities who all believe that we need to take action that would better secure our border, make sure everybody plays by the same rules, all our businesses are held accountable to that, and that would create a permanent solution for the millions of people living in the shadows in the United States.

Q    Jay, is the main take-away from that that if it doesn’t occur by the end of July, if immigration reform isn't taken up by the House by then, that there’s no chance of it for the remainder of the President’s presidency?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to speculate that far into the future.  I think a lot of people believe that now is the time.  The fact is the Senate passed a bill in this Congress and the House has the opportunity to act.  There is no question, and I doubt there’s a single question in this crowd or the broader White House press corps about the fact that if the Senate bill were put on the floor of the House it would pass with votes from Democrats and Republicans. 

We’re not asking for the Senate bill, we’re asking for the House to take action in its own way that reflects the need to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  I mean, we’d be happy if the House took up the Senate bill, but we understand that it may proceed differently.  The end result needs to be comprehensive immigration reform. 

Q    The speech time is at, like, half hour, hour?  What do you think?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President looks forward to the opportunity to give a broad view of how he sees the United States moving forward in the wake of a dozen years, a decade or more of war.  So I’m not going to put an endpoint on the speech, but I think it will be pretty comprehensive. 

Q    Jay, on the Nigerian abductions -- the government in Nigeria says it knows where these girls are located.  Does the U.S. government have any information to prove that that’s, in fact, true?

MR. CARNEY:  We cannot confirm that report.  We’re obviously working closely and advising and assisting the Nigerian government as it seeks to find and rescue the abducted girls.  We have made clear that the first step in that process is locating them, but I don’t have confirmation of that comment. 

All right.  Thank you.

END
9:03 A.M. EDT

Background Conference Call on the President's Commencement Address at West Point

11:15 A.M. EDT

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just say a few things and then take your questions.  So in the President’s speech today he was focused on defining, as we come out of a period dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what the next phase of our foreign policy is, both as it relates to our counterterrorism mission and also our broader role in the world.  You heard him speak at length about that.  I’ll only comment on a number of things.

First of all, as we laid out yesterday, we have a commitment now and a decision about how to wind down the war in Afghanistan that involves keeping a force of 9,800 U.S. servicemembers at the beginning of 2015, and then stepping down to a security presence in our embassy in Kabul, as we did in Iraq, by the end of 2016. 

Having made that decision and that announcement yesterday, today the President wanted to discuss the counterterrorism strategy that comes next, what replaces the approach that was focused on the large-scale deployments that we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And he made very clear that that approach needs to match our resources to the threat, which has changed as al Qaeda core has been severely degraded, but other al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged in different parts of the region from South Asia to the Sahel. 

The President was very clear that the focus of our efforts must be capacity building.  We need to build essentially a network of partners across this region so that we can deal with the terrorist threat.  And we will support that series of partnerships in different ways.  In some instances, we will provide training and equipping.  In some instances, we will facilitate actions like we were doing in Mali for the French.  We have resources that range from intelligence to special operations to trainers.  And, of course, we will take direct action against a terrorist when it is necessary for our own security.

In order to provide funding and resources for this capacity building, the President announced that he will be working with Congress to establish a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion.  And the purpose of this fund is to make sure that we have the resources available, and the flexibility available, to support all these different missions. 

We highlight the challenge of Syria as both a huge humanitarian crisis and a growing counterterrorism issue.  And the President indicated that this additional funding will support, for instance, Syria’s neighbors who are dealing with a terrorist threat that crosses borders.  He also made very clear that we will continue to find ways to support the Syrian opposition.  And we have, as we’ve told you, provided different types of support, including military support, to the Syrian opposition and we are doing more to increase that support.  And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do going forward.  And we will work with Congress, as he indicated, to find ways to increase that support for the Syrian opposition.

Beyond counterterrorism, he laid out his vision for U.S. leadership in the world, one that is rooted in the United States strengthening existing international institutions and norms, but also working to establish clear rules of the road for emerging challenges from cybersecurity to maritime issues to climate change.  And you heard him highlight two of our key priorities, Iran and Ukraine, where we have worked through collective action with the international community to achieve our objectives.

And, of course, you heard the President speak about our ongoing commitment to promote our values around the world, both through support for democratic transitions in countries like Burma and in the Middle East and North Africa, but also through an increased focus on broadening our relationships and networks with peoples around the world.

With that, I’m happy to move to questions about any elements of the speech or any of the policies that the President touched on. 

Q    On Syria, could you give some more details on what the President means when he says he will work with Congress to find ways to ramp up support for the opposition?  Is the administration considering an open effort by the U.S. military to train and arm in some way the opposition?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, it’s a good question.  So, first of all, we have an ongoing effort to ramp up our support for the moderate opposition, and that is an effort that we coordinate very closely with our Arab partners and our European allies.  And we believe that the trajectory of that assistance has been upward and can make a real difference in strengthening the moderate opposition.

We also, as I indicated, are going to commit additional resources to the neighbors -- Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq -- who are dealing with both refugee and counterterrorism challenges.  But as we look for additional ways to strengthen the opposition, we want to review a variety of different options.  We believe, again, that strengthening the opposition is both the best counterweight to Assad and also the best counterweight to the extremist elements within Syria.  And we do want to work to review the possibility of the United States military participating in that effort.

I would draw your attention, for instance, to a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which indicates support for and authorities for the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition.  I think that indicates an emerging view in Congress that is supportive of providing that type of authority for the United States military to participate in support for the opposition.

So this is a conversation that we want to have with Congress as they develop their approaches, as we develop ideas for how to increase resources that can flow to the Syrian opposition.  So this is something, again, we’ll be discussing with Congress in the coming weeks and months.  I think the basic principle is, what are the best ways for us to provide support to the Syrian opposition; what are the different means of doing so; how can we increase resources, as the President spoke about; and how do we explore areas like authorities that are within that provision that I think was an initiative of Carl Levin, but also then drew broad support in the Armed Services Committee -- I believe it passed 26 to 1 23-3.

So this will be an ongoing focus for us as we head into the summer.

Q    After listening to your answer just now it’s still not entirely clear to me whether the U.S. will train an armed Syrian opposition.  Are you able to give a yes or no answer to that?  And secondly, the President talked about giving more support to Syria’s neighbors.  Is there a monetary figure on that support?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have been very clear that we do provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition, the armed Syrian opposition.  We don’t detail the specifics of that support. 

What we’re saying today, in addition to that, is not only do we want to continue to increase the assistance that we provide to the Syrian opposition, but we do want to have this discussion with Congress about the potential for there to be a role for the U.S. military in that effort.  We would need authorities to do that, obviously, and that is what, for instance, is in the Levin provision that I mentioned.

So this is something that we have to work with Congress on going forward.  But again, we are, as we said, providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition, and it’s something that will continue to be a focus given both the need to counter Assad but also to deal with the counterterrorism challenge within Syria.

In terms of the neighbors, this would be a part of this fund, again, that is up to $5 billion to deal with different contingencies across the region.  So I don’t want to break down the specific dollar amounts for individual countries; that’s something that we’ll be reviewing within the administration and the Congress as well. 

But the fact is, we want a fund like this precisely so we have flexibility, so that if we need to surge particular resources to a particular counterterrorism partner we can do that, even as we have steady support in places like Yemen or Somalia for security forces and peacekeeping forces.

So it will be a part of that Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund that the President discussed today. 

Q    Just a little more on that counterterrorism fund.  You all are asking for that money.  What’s sort of the plan if Congress doesn’t go along and actually fund that counterterrorism fund?  Do you have a second idea how you want to approach that?  And would you call the section of the speech where the President talked about our role in the world being less effective if perception takes hold, that we are conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens, the Edward Snowden effect?  And how much did the Edward Snowden leaks play into how the speech was developed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So on your first question, obviously, we need the support of Congress for any type of additional funding above and beyond what’s already established.  I think that, generally, we’ve had broad bipartisan support for counterterrorism missions in Congress, so we’re optimistic that this is the type of approach that can sustain that support as we discuss our overseas contingency funding with Congress in the coming weeks. 

Again, we also I think would say that this is substantially less funding than was required for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So for instance, recently, at the height of the Afghan war, we were spending $10 to $15 billion a month in Afghanistan.  Part of what we’re able to do, even with the type of presence that we’re going to have in Afghanistan next year, is have a substantial drawdown in resources and funding dedicated to Afghanistan.  We want to take some of those resources and apply it to this type of fund for counterterrorism partnerships. 

That’s part of reallocating our resources across the region to match the threat.  The threat is not overwhelmingly in Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore; in fact, it’s much more dispersed.  This is an effort to reallocate resources to match the threat so that we’re spending less in Afghanistan and we’re able to dedicate more resources to the partnerships that the President talked about in the Middle East and North Africa.

On your second question, this is not a focus of the speech.  Obviously, the speech that the President gave at the Justice Department earlier this year dealt broadly with not just the disclosures by Mr. Snowden, but our approach to bulk collection and other intelligence activities.

What the President was making a point of today is we must hold ourselves to high standards as a part of maintaining American leadership; that the legitimacy that the United States has to lead the world flows from the fact that we don’t act outside of the international standards that we’ve helped to establish, and that the confidence of other nations and people that work with us is rooted in their belief that the United States has a commitment, for instance, to the rule of law and to human rights.

And again, as a part of that, we do believe that we need to give greater confidence to not just the American people, but to foreign publics as well, that the United States is not engaged in bulk collection for the purpose of conducting surveillance on ordinary people; they were focused on threats.  And so we’re taking a number of steps that the President outlined earlier this year to give those additional protections to citizens in other countries to provide assurances about what our intelligence is focused on and what it’s not focused on.

So this is going to be a significant focus for us in the next two and a half years.  And it’s a part of how we lead not just through our extraordinary capabilities in areas like intelligence, but in our commitment to use those capabilities in a way that people have confidence is not violating their privacy unnecessarily. 

Q    It’s a two-parter.  On climate change, since it’s a mention in the national security context, I’m wondering whether the administration is considering or committed to both framing the rollout of coal stuff and other climate change stuff in a national security framework, and also using that as sort of executive power authorization to do climate change policy. 

And then, I’m sorry to beat the dead horse -- I’m just a little slow -- on the Syria consideration of U.S. military to do some of the rebel training, can you review real quickly what you think Hagel can do now and what you think it is that he needs congressional authority to do?  And would the training be in Syria or in neighboring countries? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the climate change issue, I think, broadly, climate change is a challenge that cuts across many different areas.  One of those is national security, because, as the President said, this is going to pose increasing national security dangers to the United States, and we’re going to be called upon to respond to conflicts or situations that have connections to climate change.  You can’t draw a red line, but clearly there has been an uptick in extreme weather events. 

When there’s a typhoon in Southeast Asia, when there’s a tsunami, the U.S. military is often called in for disaster response.  As the President referenced today, when there are refugees or conflicts over basic resources like food and water, that ultimately can have a bearing on national security.  So there’s a very clear intersection, we believe, between a changing climate and our national security interests. 

I think what’s important to note here is that our efforts domestically do intersect with our leadership internationally.  Next year, we are aiming to conclude a global climate framework agreement that has been a process of negotiation since Copenhagen in 2009.  Any successful international climate agreement is going to depend on many nations, including the United States, making commitments to reduce their emissions.  So in other words, actions that nations take domestically are going to have to be a part of how we build an international response, because everybody has to step up to the plate.  Of course, one of the things we said is we’re willing to take steps to reduce our emissions, but we need countries like China and India that are emerging emitters to take steps as well.

So the Climate Action Plan that we’ve developed over the course of the last year or so informed America’s commitment that we can then make as we pursue this type of global climate agreement.  These are steps that are important to take in their own right for the sake of the American people, and they’re also steps that will allow us to meet the types of commitments that we made in Copenhagen, whether you’re talking about fuel efficiency standards or coal-fired power plants. 

I won’t get into the specifics of those development elements beyond saying that they do intersect with the way in which we’re going to lead, as the President said, in pursuing this global climate framework agreement next year.  And that’s a big piece of business for us, and it’s going to demand U.S. leadership -- because, frankly, this is not the type of agreement that’s going to work if it’s only a handful of nations.  We really need the entire international community to make their commitments, to stand by those commitments in a transparent manner.  And that’s what we’ll be pursuing.

On Syria, I think if you look at the different options for providing assistance, the U.S. military would need certain additional authorities and resources to be able to step up with assistance to the Syrian opposition.  And you see in the language of the Levin provision that just moved through committee the types of authorities to the Secretary of Defense that would enable him to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition. 

So that is something where there needs to be coordination and a dialogue between the administration and Congress.  That’s a discussion that’s ongoing that we’ll continue to have.  And again, that is one option available for looking at ways to increase support to the Syrian opposition.  We’re working across many lines of effort.  We provide many types of assistance, from humanitarian to nonlethal, to the types of military support we’ve indicated, to the Syrian opposition.  That’s one area where we want to explore whether we can come to some understanding with Congress about the best way to maximize our resources and to get additional support to the Syrian people.

Q    To continue on this same subject of the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, first, do you envision that as being both a Title 10 and Title 50 available fund -- in other words, able to do both types of CT missions? 

Second, you’ve talked a lot about the role that the military might play in Syria, and you seem to be focusing on a training role.  But can you envision emerging from these discussions with Congress something broader in which the military would assist in some ways in providing greater security in the zones that the opposition now holds in the north and south? 

And finally, you’ve said again and again we’re going to have discussions with Congress, we have to talk about this with Congress.  Has the administration itself made up its mind what it wants to propose yet?  It sounds to me as if you haven’t. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So on your first question, this is military funding title, so this would not get at the intelligence community; this would be for security support for a range of different purposes.  The President said a couple of examples today where we’ve dedicated some resources.  We dedicate resources to Mali to facilitate French actions with intelligence, with logistical support that is essential for their operations.  We train Yemeni security services.  We provide support to AMISOM in Somalia.  We equip Iraqi security forces. 

So these are all different missions that have a common thread of building capacity for partners, and the assistance would take place in that context.  The intelligence community has a separate budgeting process.

On Syria -- and your question overlaps with part of Margaret’s -- look, no, this is not -- we’re talking specifically about assistance to the opposition; we’re not talking about activities within Syria by the United States military.  That is not something that we’re contemplating. 

So I think the way to characterize the last part of your question is that we have decided that we need to continue to find ways to increase support to the opposition.  We have different ways to do that, both through our own actions, to the manner in which we collaborate with allies and partners in Europe and the Gulf, and we also want to consider whether an approach that involves the U.S. military could add to that capability.

So I think we’re looking across many different means that we have to provide this assistance.  And this is an additional option that we want to pursue with Congress and make a determination then about whether it’s the best way to increase that support.

But I think irrespective of that, clearly our trajectory is more support to the neighbors, more support to the opposition, more coordination with, for instance, the countries in the London 11, and then consideration of this additional alternative means of providing support to the opposition. 

Q    Yes, let me try this one more time, because I don’t think we’re getting a straight answer here.  Is it safe to say the White House has not decided whether to endorse the Senate language here?  Because that’s really the only thing on the table in Congress, and they’re quite clear that they have the Pentagon train and support and provide assistance to the rebels.  Have you not decided that yet?  Is that where we are? 

And if that’s the case, what do you say to critics who say, listen, you should have trained and armed the rebels two years ago when the entire national security establishment said, do so.  So what do you say to them that this whole notion of coordinating and dialogue is just delaying?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, first of all, we have been providing assistance to the opposition for some time now.  So we’re not at a standing start here when it comes to support for the armed opposition in Syria. 

With respect to the Levin provision, clearly we think that it puts forward a good concept, which is why we made a point today of indicating the fact that we want to pursue these discussions with Congress.  The fact of the matter is this is not something we can do alone as an administration; this is something that we have to do in partnership with Congress.  So I think that’s why we want to see this discussion move forward between the executive branch and the legislative branch. 

And we also want to make sure that wherever we land in terms of those discussions, that it fits appropriately into our broader strategy as it relates to how we’re working with the partners in the Arab World, how we’re working with our allies.  All these pieces need to fit together.

So this would be an additional piece, and we’re looking carefully at it.  We do think that language in the Levin provision is positive and puts forward a good concept, but we want to take the time necessary to ensure that we get this right and that we fold this into a broader strategy that supports our objectives inside of Syria. 

Q    On Syria, again -- what’s the White House’s sense of timing on this, with increasing evidence that the opposition is losing militarily after the fall of Aleppo?  What’s the timeframe for making a decision and actually beefing up military assistance if that’s indeed what the White House wants to do?  Is there a sense of urgency here? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are two questions here.  We are beefing up our assistance.  That is an ongoing process.  So resources are reaching the opposition, resources are reaching the armed opposition.  Coordination has improved with our partners in the Arab World, particularly in the Gulf. 

So there is that upward trajectory already.  That’s not in question at all.  And additional funding that can support that effort and support the neighbors is a focal point of how we look at building partnerships across the region, which is what the President said today. 

Then there’s the separate question of simply what additional authorities might be necessary for the U.S. military to participate in our efforts.  And that’s the question that we’ll be pursuing in the coming weeks.  But again, that doesn’t foreclose the fact that we are working this already, we are increasing our support already, we are coordinating better with partners already.  That’s going to continue to be the case no matter what. 

Q    I wanted to just turn to China and ask you, what is the message to China here?  I mean, we heard the President talk about the use of military action to defend the security of U.S. allies, which of course includes Japan and the Philippines.  But he also called out the U.S. Senate for not ratifying UNCLOS.  So what’s the message to China?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The message is that the United States is going to support basic international rules of the road that should apply to everyone.  And we’ve said many times our Asia rebalance strategy is not aimed at China.  It’s focused on strengthening U.S. engagement in the region, but also strengthening the rules of the road across the region -- whether it’s on trade through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whether it’s on maritime security where we would like to see disputes resolved consistent with international law.

So the bottom line is that the United States would like to see China act consistent with those rules of the road.  And we believe that they have an opportunity to do so, for instance, through negotiation of a code of conduct with the ASEAN countries or through taking the different claims that are at stake in the South China Sea to international law and dispute resolution.  At the same time, though, we are going to be very clear that we object to bigger nations bullying smaller ones; that the United States is going to support those nations that abide by rules of the road and work to isolate those nations that don’t. 

So for China we would like to see them as a part of an Asia Pacific community that is adhering to high standards of trade, that is resolving disputes peacefully, consistent with international law, that is respecting basic rules and norms.  But if China acts outside of those norms, as they’ve done, for instance, on cyber issues, we’re going to call them out.

With respect to the Law of the Sea, the President made very clear that part of how the United States shows our own commitment to those rules and norms is by upholding them ourselves.  And we act consistent with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but it would send an important message for the Senate to ratify it, because that is the means by which we want to see disputes resolved. 

So, again, we lead on behalf of an international order that can uphold peace and security both by what we do in regions like the Asia Pacific and on issues like trade and cyber and maritime, but we also have to lead on behalf of that international order through our own example.  And that’s why we believe the Senate has long passed the time when they should have ratified the Law of the Sea.

Q    Just one subject that the President didn’t bring up and I was hoping you might be able to lend some clarity to would be the status of -- about a year ago, the President called for a review and even repeal of the AUMF.  I’m wondering whether the administration is planning to send Congress specific language in terms of fixing it, any timetable in terms of when they want to work with Congress in terms of getting that repealed.  And if you could provide a little bit of maybe a window into the administration’s thinking in terms of how to approach this subject.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I’d say a couple of things.  The point the President made at NDU is that we shouldn’t just have open-ended authorities for the use of military force that continue indefinitely; that we shouldn’t be in a permanent war here; that the AUMF in 2001 was written for a specific purpose and time.  And I think in terms of the timeframe, we look at the end of 2014 as a very important milestone as our combat mission comes to a close in Afghanistan and as our mission shifts there.  And so we look at a whole host of issues as intersecting with the end of 2014. 

The AUMF, which was written in the context of us going to Afghanistan -- we’ll want to talk to Congress about the AUMF as we approach the end of the year.  That’s a good time to have that discussion because we will be pivoting from where our combat mission is today and the type of role we’ll be playing in Afghanistan after 2014.  

GTMO is another issue that is relevant here.  GTMO was opened, after all, when we went into Afghanistan.  And the initial detainee population was heavily weighted with people who were taken off the battlefield in Afghanistan.  So we believe, again, as we bring our combat mission to an end in Afghanistan, that this is an appropriate year to make a redoubled effort to close GTMO.  So this is the context for how we’re approaching the AUMF as well.  I think this is a discussion we’ll have as we get closer to the end of the year.

I think in terms of what we’re looking for, we’re not looking for simply layering on more and more and more authorities within the existing AUMF.  The point here is to not just keep expanding some universal AUMF that applies to every challenge.  As the President said at NDU, what we want to do is narrow and refine authorities so that they’re focused on specific groups that do pose a direct threat to the United States.  And so that’s the approach that we would take into this discussion, which is how do we make sure that we have authorities that are focused on those groups who pose a direct threat to the United States and not simply stacking on additional authorities in the existing AUMFs. 

So this will be a part of how we wind down the war in Afghanistan and pivot to a more sustainable and focused counterterrorism effort across the region. 

Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  We can stay in touch on these issues.  And the only thing I’d say in closing is we said to you, I think, in the run-up to this that we weren’t solely focused on one speech here.  The President will obviously be going to Europe next year -- or next week.  In Poland, he’ll be able to talk about our commitment to European security, our commitment to NATO and our NATO allies.  He’ll have a G7.  He’ll speak at Normandy.  Other members of the administration will talk about different elements of our foreign policy priorities.  The President laid out I think a pretty clear roadmap of the types of issues he wants to get done in the next two and a half years. 

And I think you’ll hear different administration figures speak to different pieces of that agenda in the coming weeks as well.  So we’ll look forward to staying in touch.

MS. HAYDEN:  Thanks, everyone, for joining us.  Again, a reminder this call is on background to senior administration official.  And, as he noted, feel free to be in touch with us with other questions you have.  But everyone have a great day.  Thanks.

END
11:55 A.M. EDT

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Designates the First 12 Manufacturing Communities through the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership to Spur Investment and Create Jobs

America’s middle class was built on the strength of our manufacturing sector.  Today, five years after we pulled our economy back from the brink of collapse, manufacturers have created 647,000 jobs.  But there’s more work to do to create more of these good jobs making things the rest of the world buys, and President Obama has focused on boosting U.S. manufacturing by rewarding companies that create jobs here, rescuing the U.S. auto industry and expanding exports. 

To build on this momentum in manufacturing, the Obama Administration launched the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) last September– an initiative to spur communities to develop integrated, long-term economic development strategies that strengthen their competitive edge in attracting global manufacturers and their supply chains to our local communities—increasing investment and creating jobs. IMCP specifically brings together the resources of multiple federal departments and agencies to support strong local economic development plans.

Today, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker is announcing the first 12 communities that will be designated Manufacturing Communities as part of the second phase of the IMCP.  Selected out of more than 70 communities that applied, these 12 communities developed strong economic development plans and have deep partnerships in place across the public and private sectors to carry out their plans.

The first 12 Manufacturing Communities designated by the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership are:

• Southwest Alabama led by the University of South Alabama
• Southern California led by the University of Southern California Center for Economic Development
• Northwest Georgia led by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission
• The Chicago metro region led by the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development
• South Kansas led by Wichita State University
• Greater Portland region in Maine led by the Greater Portland Council of Governments
• Southeastern Michigan led by the Wayne County Economic Development Growth Engine
• The New York Finger Lakes region led by the City of Rochester
• Southwestern Ohio Aerospace Region led by the City of Cincinnati
• The Tennessee Valley led by the University of Tennessee
• The Washington Puget Sound region led by the Puget Sound Regional Council
• The Milwaukee 7 Region led by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee

Eleven federal agencies with $1.3 billion in economic development funds will be able to use the designees' plans to make targeted investments in demonstrably strong public-private partnerships to strengthen regional manufacturing. In addition, each designated community will also receive a federal liaison and branding and promotion as a designated Manufacturing Community to help attract additional private investment and partnerships.

Later this year, the Administration will launch a second Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership competition to designate the next round of communities. In the meantime, the Administration and federal agencies will work with all the applicant communities to help them strengthen their plans and to identify opportunities for communities to work with the federal government on their local economic development priorities.

And later this year, the White House will convene the more than seventy communities that applied for the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership to share best practices in economic development planning and attracting new jobs and investment in manufacturing.

IMCP Manufacturing Communities:

Southwest Alabama
Home to 14 major shipbuilders and many more small manufacturers making everything from U.S. Navy vessels to commercial tug boats, Mobile, Alabama and the surrounding Southwest Alabama area, including Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Escambia, Mobile, Monroe, and Washington counties, led by the University of South Alabama, are strengthening and expanding their workforce partnerships to compete for shipbuilding and aerospace manufacturing.

Southern California
At the vanguard of innovation in aerospace manufacturing and home to innovative companies like SpaceX, AeroVironment, and Sapphire Energy, the Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties, led by the University of Southern California Center for Economic Development, are investing in infrastructure to reduce shipping costs, higher today due to congestion by 50-250%, and developing a regional workforce training consortium in manufacturing.

Northwest Georgia
Called the “Carpet Capital of the World” for producing over 70% of the nation’s carpet, the Dalton County and Northwest Georgia region led by the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission is transferring innovations from its universities into its local supply chain and out into the skills of its workforce to spur a more sustainable floor covering industry.

The Chicago Metro Region
Home to 3,700 metals and machining companies, the Chicago metro region including Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties, led by the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development, has formed an integrated strategy to strengthen its lead in metals and machining leveraging local strengths like its strong transportation access – including six Class 1 railroads, seven interstates, and the nation’s second busiest cargo airport.

South Kansas
The 27-county region around Wichita, Kansas is the most manufacturing-specialized metro area in the country with 32% of employment in manufacturing, half of which is in the aerospace supply chain. Led by Wichita State University, South Kansas is leveraging shared research and innovation facilities to compete on the frontier of advanced materials used in planes, cutting-edge machinery, and refineries.

Greater Portland Region in Maine
With arguably more breweries per capita than anywhere else in the country and over 60 food processers and hundreds of home microbusinesses, Cumberland County, home to Portland, Maine, is a food processing powerhouse. Led by the Greater Portland Council of Governments, the community is upgrading its port and improving the transportation and distribution efficiency of its supply chains to grow its lead in sustainable food production.

Southeastern Michigan
Thirteen counties in Southeastern Michigan, including the cities of Detroit, Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Pontiac, produce 22% of all vehicles made in America and at $14 billion a year, account for over 70% of total U.S. auto research investment. Led by the Wayne County Economic Development Growth Engine, Southeastern Michigan is building on its strengths in connected-vehicle technologies, including technologies that allow cars to communicate with each other and with the road to carry their passengers more safely and efficiently to their destinations.

The New York Finger Lakes Region
With over 120 photonics manufacturers and more than 500 photonics patents last year alone, the Greater Rochester region, led by the City of Rochester, is bringing new life to manufacturing business parks and expanding its workforce development efforts to maintain its historic lead in precision machining and optics, photonics, and imaging.

Southwestern Ohio Aerospace Region
The birthplace of modern aviation, with over 116,000 manufacturing workers across all stages of the aerospace supply chain, the 27 counties along the I-75 Corridor, led by the City of Cincinnati, are expanding industry-led curriculum and training and launching efforts to certify more small manufacturers for aerospace manufacturing.

The Tennessee Valley
In the past two years alone, more than 150 auto and auto parts manufacturers have announced expansions or new facilities in the Tennessee Valley automotive region, which spans 69 counties in Tennessee and portions of southern Kentucky, north Alabama, and north Georgia. Led by the University of Tennessee, the region is better connecting its nationally renowned research institutions with manufacturers to move up the value chain in automotive manufacturing.

The Washington Puget Sound Region
The counties along the I-90 and I-5 Aerospace Corridors in Washington State host the largest aerospace cluster in the world, with over 132,000 aerospace-related employees and more than 1,350 aerospace firms. Led by the Puget Sound Regional Council, the region is working with local employers to identify training needs and to develop new manufacturing capabilities to strength its aerospace supply chains.

The Milwaukee 7 Region
Known as the “Machine Shop of the World”, the seven-county Milwaukee region in Southeast Wisconsin employs than 15% of its workforce in manufacturing. Led by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee, the region is building on its historic strengths in precision machining to attract new jobs and investment in energy and power, water technologies, and food and beverage manufacturing.

Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership to Spur Investment and Create Jobs

• Appalachian Regional Commission
• Delta Regional Authority
• Environmental Protection Agency
• National Science Foundation
• Small Business Administration
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• U.S. Department of Commerce
• U.S. Department of Defense
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• U.S. Department of Labor
• U.S. Department of Transportation

Remarks by the President at the United States Military Academy Commencement Ceremony

U.S. Military Academy-West Point
West Point, New York

10:22 A.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  And thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction.  To General Trainor, General Clarke, the faculty and staff at West Point -- you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.  I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed, who is here, and a proud graduate of West Point himself. 
 
To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.  Among you is the first all-female command team -- Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff.  In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar.  And Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three-point line.  To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point:  As Commander-in-Chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses.  (Laughter and applause.)  Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.  (Laughter.) 
 
I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families.  Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made.  “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.”  Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran.  And I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute -- not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families.  (Applause.)
 
This is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day.  You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.  (Applause.)  When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq.  We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan.  Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al Qaeda’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks.  And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
 
Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed.  We have removed our troops from Iraq.  We are winding down our war in Afghanistan.  Al Qaeda’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.  (Applause.)  And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength:  a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.
 
In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.  Those who argue otherwise -- who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.  Think about it.  Our military has no peer.  The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War.
Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth; our businesses the most innovative.  Each year, we grow more energy independent.  From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.  America continues to attract striving immigrants.  The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe.  And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help.  (Applause.)  So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.  That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.
 
But the world is changing with accelerating speed.  This presents opportunity, but also new dangers.  We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.  Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.  From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.  And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.
 
It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.  The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead -- not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.
 
Now, this question isn’t new.  At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing.  Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve.  And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.
 
A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.
 
And each side can point to history to support its claims. But I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment.  It is absolutely true that in the 21st century American isolationism is not an option.  We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders.  If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American cities.  As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases.  Regional aggression that goes unchecked -- whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world -- will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military.  We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.
 
And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake, an abiding self-interest, in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.  I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative, it also helps to keep us safe.
 
But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution.  Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences -- without building international support and legitimacy for our action; without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required.  Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans.  As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947:  “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”
 
Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point.  Four of the servicemembers who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort.  A lot more were wounded.  I believe America’s security demanded those deployments.  But I am haunted by those deaths.  I am haunted by those wounds.  And I would betray my duty to you and to the country we love if I ever sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.  
 
Here’s my bottom line:  America must always lead on the world stage.  If we don’t, no one else will.  The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership.  But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.  And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your Commander-in-Chief -- to be clear about how that awesome power should be used.
 
So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America and our military should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.  
 
First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency:  The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger.  In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just.  International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.  (Applause.)  
 
On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake -- when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us -- then the threshold for military action must be higher.  In such circumstances, we should not go it alone.  Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action.  We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international law; and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action.  In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.
 
This leads to my second point:  For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.  But a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.  I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy -- drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan -- to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.
 
And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al Qaeda leadership.  Instead, it comes from decentralized al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in countries where they operate.  And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi.  It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. 
 
So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat -- one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stir up local resentments.  We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us.  And empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. 
 
Together with our allies, America struck huge blows against al Qaeda core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country.  But sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job.  And that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police.  Earlier this spring, those forces, those Afghan forces, secured an election in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history.  And at the end of this year, a new Afghan President will be in office and America’s combat mission will be over.  (Applause.)
 
Now, that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces.  But as we move to a train-and-advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa.  So, earlier this year, I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel.  Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines.  And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia; working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya; and facilitating French operations in Mali.
 
A critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria.  As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon.  As President, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian war, and I believe that is the right decision.  But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people.  And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.  
 
So with the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon; Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders.  I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators.  And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis, and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share to support the Syrian people.
 
Let me make one final point about our efforts against terrorism.  The partnerships I’ve described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do -- through capture operations like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice; or drone strikes like those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.  There are times when those actions are necessary, and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. 
 
But as I said last year, in taking direct action we must uphold standards that reflect our values.  That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.  For our actions should meet a simple test:  We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.
 
I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out.  We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners.  I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts.  Our intelligence community has done outstanding work, and we have to continue to protect sources and methods.  But when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.
 
And this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership, and that is our effort to strengthen and enforce international order. 
 
After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF.  These institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier.  They reduce the need for unilateral American action and increase restraint among other nations. 
 
Now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well.  At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon, “a gradual evolution in human institutions.”  And evolving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership. 
 
Now, there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptics, who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action.  For them, working through international institutions like the U.N. or respecting international law is a sign of weakness.  I think they’re wrong.  Let me offer just two examples why.
 
In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe.   But this isn’t the Cold War.  Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away.  Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy; OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.  And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.
 
This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions.  Yesterday, I spoke to their next President.  We don’t know how the situation will play out and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future without us firing a shot. 
 
Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years.  But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government.  And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. 
 
The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement -- one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force.  And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.
 
The point is this is American leadership.  This is American strength.  In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge.  Now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading.  For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known.  But we’re now working with NATO allies to meet new missions, both within Europe where our Eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s borders where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.
 
Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict.  Now we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace, so that we can prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan.  We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions, because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way.  It’s a smart investment.  It’s the right way to lead.  (Applause.) 
 
Keep in mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict.  We have a serious problem with cyber-attacks, which is why we’re working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens.  In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea.  And we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.  That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change -- a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters and conflicts over water and food, which is why next year I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet. 
 
You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example.  We can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else.  We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it’s taking place.  We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security.  That’s not leadership; that’s retreat.  That’s not strength; that’s weakness.  It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
 
I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.  But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.  (Applause.)  And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo -- because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders.  (Applause.)  That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens.  (Applause.)  America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost.  We stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere. 
 
Which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership:  Our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.  America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism -- it is a matter of national security.  Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war.  Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods.  Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.
 
A new century has brought no end to tyranny.  In capitals around the globe -- including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has been a crackdown on civil society.  The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies, and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.  And watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab World, it’s easy to be cynical.
 
But remember that because of America’s efforts, because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance as well as the sacrifices of our military, more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history.  Technology is empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control.  New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.  And even the upheaval of the Arab World reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective governance. 
 
In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests -- from peace treaties with Israel, to shared efforts against violent extremism.  So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.
 
And meanwhile, look at a country like Burma, which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States -- 40 million people.  Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once closed society; a movement by Burmese leadership away from partnership with North Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies.  We’re now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism.  And progress there could be reversed, but if Burma succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot.  American leadership.
 
In each of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight.  That’s why we form alliances not just with governments, but also with ordinary people.  For unlike other nations, America is not afraid of individual empowerment, we are strengthened by it.  We’re strengthened by civil society.  We’re strengthened by a free press.  We’re strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses.  We’re strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people, and women and girls.  That’s who we are.  That’s what we represent.  (Applause.)  
 
I saw that through a trip to Africa last year, where American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation, while helping Africans care themselves for their sick.  We’re helping farmers get their products to market, to feed populations once endangered by famine.  We aim to double access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy.  And all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict. 
 
Now, tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram, the group that kidnapped those girls.  And that’s why we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth.  This should be one of the hard-earned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development.  They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought, something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security.  It is part of what makes us strong.
 
Ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty.  We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency.  But American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters; where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in a direction of justice.  And we cannot do that without you.
 
Class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson.  You leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can claim.  You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces, for in the course of your service you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts.  You’ll get to know allies and train partners.  And you will embody what it means for America to lead the world.
 
Next week, I will go to Normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there.  And while it’s hard for many Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you.  At West Point, you define what it means to be a patriot.
 
Three years ago, Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan.  Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his community and his family, of the folks back home.  Gavin lost one of his legs in an attack.  I met him last year at Walter Reed.  He was wounded, but just as determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point -- and he developed a simple goal.  Today, his sister Morgan will graduate.  And true to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her.  (Applause.) 
 
We have been through a long season of war.  We have faced trials that were not foreseen, and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward.  But there is something in Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character that will always triumph.  Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens.  You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side.  Your charge, now, is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just.   As your Commander-in-Chief, I know you will.
 
May God bless you.  May God bless our men and women in uniform.  And may God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)
 
END
11:08 A.M. EDT