Thank
you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new
headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York
City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down
the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the
Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we
should be doing and how we should think about the future.
Richard
just gave what could be described as a mini-version of my remarks in
talking about the issues that confront us. But I look out at this
audience filled with not only many friends and colleagues, but people
who have served in prior administrations. And so there is never a time
when the in-box is not full.
Shortly before I started at
the State Department, a former Secretary of State called me with this
advice: Don’t try to do too much. And it seemed like a wise admonition,
if only it were possible. But the international agenda today is
unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the
Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and
nuclear proliferation, global recession,
climate change,
hunger
and disease, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. All of
these challenges affect America’s security and prosperity, and they all
threaten global stability and progress.
But they are not
reason to despair about the future. The same forces that compound our
problems – economic interdependence, open borders, and the speedy
movement of information, capital, goods, services and people – are also
part of the solution. And with more states facing common challenges, we
have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American
leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart
of America’s mission in the world today.
Now, some see the
rise of other nations and our economic troubles here at home as signs
that American power has waned. Others simply don’t trust us to lead;
they view America as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its
will at the expense of their interests and our principles. But they are
wrong.
The question is not whether our nation can or should lead, but how it will lead in the 21
st
century. Rigid ideologies and old formulas don’t apply. We need a new
mindset about how America will use its power to safeguard our nation,
expand shared prosperity, and help more people in more places live up to
their God-given potential.
President Obama
has led us to think outside the usual boundaries. He has launched a new
era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual
respect. Going forward, capitalizing on America’s unique strengths, we
must advance those interests through partnership, and promote universal
values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people.
In this way, we can forge the global consensus required to defeat the
threats, manage the dangers, and seize the opportunities of the 21
st
century. America will always be a world leader as long as we remain
true to our ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. So we
will exercise American leadership to build partnerships and solve
problems that no nation can solve on its own, and we will pursue
policies to mobilize more partners and deliver results.
First,
though, let me say that while the ideas that shape our foreign policy
are critically important, this, for me, is not simply an intellectual
exercise. For over 16 years, I’ve had the chance, the privilege, really,
to represent our country overseas as First Lady, as a senator, and now
as Secretary of State. I’ve seen the bellies of starving children, girls
sold into
human trafficking, men dying of treatable diseases,
women
denied the right to own property or vote, and young people without
schooling or jobs gripped by a sense of futility about their futures.
I’ve
also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest
of odds. And for almost 36 years, I have worked as an advocate for
children, women and families here at home. I’ve traveled across our
country listening to everyday concerns of our citizens. I’ve met parents
struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their
children’s college tuitions, and afford healthcare.
And all that
I have done and seen has convinced me that our foreign policy must
produce results for people – the laid-off auto worker in Detroit whose
future will depend on global economic recovery; the farmer or small
business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can
drive political instability and economic stagnation; the families whose
loved ones are risking their lives for our country in
Iraq and
Afghanistan
and elsewhere; children in every land who deserve a brighter future.
These are the people – hundreds of millions of them here in America and
billions around the world – whose lives and experiences, hopes and
dreams, must inform the decisions we take and the actions that follow.
And these are the people who inspire me and my colleagues and the work
that we try to do every day.
In
ap
proaching
our foreign policy priorities, we have to deal with the urgent, the
important, and the long-term all at once. But even as we are forced to
multi-task – a very gender-related term (laughter) – we must have
priorities, which President Obama has outlined in speeches from Prague
to Cairo, from Moscow to Accra. We want to reverse the spread of nuclear
weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat. We
want to isolate and
defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while
reaching out to Muslims around
the world. We want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all
parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our
own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding
trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs. We want to combat
climate
change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a
prosperous clean-energy future. We want to support and encourage
democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for
their people. And we intend to stand up for human rights everywhere.
Liberty,
democracy, justice and opportunity underlie our priorities. Some accuse
us of using these ideals to justify actions that contradict their very
meaning. Others say we are too often condescending and imperialistic,
seeking only to expand our power at the expense of others. And yes,
these perceptions have fed anti-Americanism, but they do not reflect who
we are. No doubt we lost some ground in recent years, but the damage is
temporary. It’s kind of like my elbow – it’s getting better every day.
(Laughter.)
Whether in
Latin America or
Lebanon,
Iran or
Liberia,
those who are inspired by democracy, who understand that democracy is
about more than just elections – that it must also protect minority
rights and press freedom, develop strong, competent and independent
judiciaries, legislatures and executive agencies, and commit for
democracy to deliver results – these are the people who will find that
Americans are their friends, not adversaries. As President Obama made
clear last week in
Ghana,
this Administration will stand for accountable and transparent
governance, and support those who work to build democratic institutions
wherever they live.
Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19
th century concert of powers, or a 20
th century balance of power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism.
Today,
we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world: First,
no nation can meet the world’s challenges alone. The issues are too
complex. Too many players are competing for influence, from rising
powers to corporations to criminal cartels; from NGOs to al-Qaida; from
state-controlled media to individuals using
Twitter.
Second, most nations worry about the same global threats, from
non-proliferation to fighting disease to
counterterrorism,
but also face very real obstacles – for reasons of history, geography,
ideology, and inertia. They face these obstacles and they stand in the
way of turning commonality of interest into common action.
So
these two facts demand a different global architecture – one in which
states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their
responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the
sidelines or sow discord and division.
So we will exercise
American leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts at places
like the Council call “collective action problems” and what I call
obstacles to cooperation. For just as no nation can meet these
challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America.
And
here’s how we’ll do it: We’ll work through existing institutions and
reform them. But we’ll go further. We’ll use our power to convene, our
ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy
strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. We’ll go
beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and
individuals to contribute to solutions.
We believe this approach
will advance our interests by uniting diverse partners around common
concerns. It will make it more difficult for others to abdicate their
responsibilities or abuse their power, but will offer a place at the
table to any nation, group, or citizen willing to shoulder a fair share
of the burden. In short, we will lead by inducing greater cooperation
among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the
balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.
Now,
we know this approach is not a panacea. We will remain clear-eyed about
our purpose. Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our
values and interests. And some will actively seek to undermine our
efforts. In those cases, our partnerships can become power coalitions to
constrain or deter those negative actions.
And to these foes
and would-be foes, let me say our focus on diplomacy and development is
not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to
talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to
defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people vigorously
and when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an
option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise to all Americans.
Building
the architecture of global cooperation requires us to devise the right
policies and use the right tools. I speak often of
smart power
because it is so central to our thinking and our decision-making. It
means the intelligent use of all means at our disposal, including our
ability to convene and connect. It means our economic and military
strength; our capacity for entrepreneurship and innovation; and the
ability and credibility of our new President and his team. It also means
the application of old-fashioned common sense in policymaking. It’s a
blend of principle and pragmatism.
Smart power translates
into specific policy approaches in five areas. First, we intend to
update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners; second, we
will pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us;
third, we will elevate development as a core pillar of American power;
fourth, we will integrate civilian and military action in conflict
areas; and fifth, we will leverage key sources of American power,
including our economic strength and the power of our example.
Our
first approach is to build these stronger mechanisms of cooperation
with our historic allies, with emerging powers, and with multilateral
institutions, and to pursue that cooperation in, as I said, a pragmatic
and principled way. We don’t see those as in opposition, but as
complementary.
We
have started by reinvigorating our bedrock alliances, which did fray in recent years. In
Europe, that means improved bilateral relationships, a more productive partnership with the
European Union, and a revitalized
NATO.
I believe NATO is the greatest alliance in history. But it was built
for the Cold War. The new NATO is a democratic community of nearly a
billion people stretching from the Baltics in the East to Alaska in the
West. We’re working to update its strategic concept so that it is as
effective in this century as it was in the last. At the same time, we
are working with our key treaty allies Japan and Korea, Australia,
Thailand, and the Philippines and other partners to strengthen our
bilateral relationships as well as trans-Pacific institutions. We are
both a trans-Atlantic and a trans-Pacific nation.
We will also put special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers –
China,
India, Russia and
Brazil, as well as
Turkey,
Indonesia, and
South Africa –
to be full partners in tackling the global agenda. I want to underscore
the importance of this task, and my personal commitment to it. These
states are vital to achieving solutions to the shared problems and
advancing our priorities – nonproliferation, counterterrorism, economic
growth, climate change, among others. With these states, we will stand
firm on our principles even as we seek common ground.
This week, I will travel to
India,
where External Affairs Minister Krishna and I will lay out a
broad-based agenda that calls for a whole-of-government approach to our
bilateral relationship. Later this month, Secretary Geithner and I will
jointly lead our new strategic and economic dialogue with China. It will
cover not just economic issues, but the range of strategic challenges
we face together. In the fall, I will travel to Russia to advance the
bi-national presidential commission that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I
will co-chair.
The fact of these and other meetings does not
guarantee results, but they set in motion processes and relationships
that will widen our avenues of cooperation and narrow the areas of
disagreement without illusion. We know that progress will not likely
come quickly, or without bumps in the road, but we are determined to
begin and stay on this path.
Now our global and regional
institutions were built for a world that has been transformed, so they
too must be transformed and reformed. As the President said following
the recent G-8 meeting in Italy, we are seeking institutions that
“combine the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.”
From the
UN to the World Bank,
from the IMF to the G-8 and the G-20, from the OAS and the Summit of the
Americas to ASEAN and APEC – all of these and other institutions have a
role to play, but their continued vitality and relevance depend on
their legitimacy and representativeness, and the ability of their
members to act swiftly and responsibly when problems arise.
We also will reach out beyond governments, because we believe partnerships with people play a critical role in our 21
st
century statecraft. President Obama’s Cairo speech is a powerful
example of communicating directly with people from the bottom up. And we
are following up with a comprehensive agenda of educational exchanges,
outreach, and entrepreneurial ventures. In every country I visit, I look
for opportunities to bolster civil society and engage with citizens,
whether at a town hall in Baghdad – a first in that country; or
appearing on local popular television shows that reach a wide and young
audience; or meeting with democracy activists, war widows, or students.
I
have appointed special envoys to focus on a number of specific
challenges, including the first Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues and
an ambassador to build
new
public-private partnerships
and to engage Diaspora communities in the United States to increase
opportunities in their native lands. And we are working at the State
Department to ensure that our government is using the most innovative
technologies not only to speak and listen across borders, not only to
keep technologies up and going, but to widen opportunities especially
for those who are too often left on the margins. We’re taking these
steps because reaching out directly to people will encourage them to
embrace cooperation with us, making our partnerships with their
governments and with them stronger and more durable.
We’ve
also begun to adopt a more flexible and pragmatic posture with our
partners. We won’t agree on every issue. Standing firm on our principles
shouldn’t prevent us from working together where we can. So we will not
tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that
they’re either with us or against us. In today’s world, that’s global
malpractice.
Our diplomacy
regarding North Korea is a case in point. We have invested a significant
amount of diplomatic resources to achieve Security Council consensus in
response to North Korea’s provocative actions. I spoke numerous times
to my counterparts in Japan, South Korea, Russia and China, drawing out
their concerns, making our principles and redlines clear, and seeking a
path forward. The short-term results were two unanimous Security Council
resolutions with real teeth and consequences for North Korea, and then
the follow-on active involvement of China, Russia, and India with us in
persuading others to comply with the resolutions. The long-term result,
we believe, will be a tougher joint effort toward the complete and
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Cultivating
these partnerships and their full range takes time and patience. It
also takes persistence. That doesn’t mean procrastinating on urgent
issues. Nor is it a justification for delaying efforts that may take
years to bear fruit. In one of my favorite observations, Max Weber said,
“Politics is the long and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both
passion and perspective.” Perspective dictates passion and patience. And
of course, passion keeps us from not [sic] finding excuses to do
nothing.
Now I’m well aware that time alone does not heal all
wounds; consider the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That’s why we wasted
no time in starting an intensive effort on day one to realize the rights
of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security in two
states, which is in America’s interests and the world’s. We’ve been
working with the Israelis to deal with the issue of settlements, to ease
the living conditions of Palestinians, and create circumstances that
can lead to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. For the
last few decades, American administrations have held consistent
positions on the settlement issue. And while we expect action from
Israel, we recognize that these decisions are politically challenging.
And
we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the
United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action
on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and
extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully
against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make
meaningful negotiations less likely.
And Arab states have a
responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and
deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare
their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region.
The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a
positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking
those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat
and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and
vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for
lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and
offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states
could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of
peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate,
intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict.
Our
second policy approach is to lead with diplomacy, even in the cases of
adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We believe that doing so
advances our interests and puts us in a better position to lead with our
other partners. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some
suggest that this is a sign of naiveté or acquiescence to these
countries’ repression of their own people. I believe that is wrong. As
long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is
unwise to take it off the table. Negotiations can provide insight into
regimes’ calculations and the possibility – even if it seems remote –
that a regime will eventually alter its behavior in exchange for the
benefits of acceptance into the international community. Libya is one
such example. Exhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to
make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion fail.
With this in mind, I want to say a few words about Iran.
We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to
be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell
the voices of the Iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by
arresting foreign journalists and nationals, and expelling them, and
cutting off access to technology. As we and our G-8 partners have made
clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable.
We know very
well what we inherited with Iran, because we deal with that inheritance
every day. We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has
not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon,
reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of
its citizens.
Neither the President nor I have any illusions
that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any
kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following
the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to
engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the
international community as a responsible member or to continue down a
path to further isolation.
Direct talks provide the best
vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we
offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a
right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent
that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it
reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will
use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Iran can
become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its
neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position
in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human
rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but
the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open
indefinitely.
Our third policy approach, and a personal priority
for me as Secretary, is to elevate and integrate development as a core
pillar of American power. We advance our security, our prosperity, and
our values by improving the material conditions of people’s lives around
the world. These efforts also lay the groundwork for greater global
cooperation, by building the capacity of new partners and tackling
shared problems from the ground up.
A central purpose of the
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review that I announced last week
is to explore how to effectively design, fund, and implement development
and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy. Let’s face
it. We have devoted a smaller percentage of our government budget to
development than almost any other advanced country. And too little of
what we have spent has contributed to genuine and lasting progress. Too
much of the money has never reached its intended target, but stayed here
in America to pay salaries or fund overhead in contracts. I am
committed to more partnerships with NGOs, but I want more of our tax
dollars to be used effectively and to deliver tangible results.
As
we seek more agile, effective, and creative partnerships for
development, we will focus on country-driven solutions, such as those we
are launching with Haiti on recovery and sustainable development, and
with African states on global hunger. These initiatives must not be
designed to help countries scrape by – they are a tool to help countries
stand on their own.
Our development agenda will also focus on
women as drivers of economic growth and social stability. Women have
long comprised the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, and
underfed. They are also the bulk of the world’s poor. The global
recession has had a disproportionate effect on women and girls, which in
turn has repercussions for families, communities, and even regions.
Until women around the world are accorded their rights – and afforded
the opportunities of education, health care, and gainful employment –
global progress and prosperity will have its own glass ceiling.
Our
fourth approach is to ensure that our civilian and military efforts
operate in a coordinated and complementary fashion where we are engaged
in conflict. This is the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq,
where we are integrating our efforts with international partners.
In
Afghanistan
and Pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat
al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either
country. Yet Americans often ask, why do we ask our young men and women
to risk their lives in Afghanistan when al-Qaida’s leadership is in
neighboring Pakistan? And that question deserves a good answer: We and
our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al-Qaida
and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In
other words, to eliminate al-Qaida, we must also fight the Taliban.
Now,
we understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support
al-Qaida, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when
in power. And today we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome
anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al-Qaida, lays down their
arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is
enshrined in the Afghan Constitution.
To achieve our goals,
President Obama is sending an additional 17,000 troops and 4,000
military trainers to Afghanistan. Equally important, we are sending
hundreds of direct hire American civilians to lead a new effort to
strengthen the Afghan Government, help rebuild the once-vibrant
agricultural sector, create jobs, encourage the rule of law, expand
opportunities for women, and train the Afghan police. No one should
doubt our commitment to Afghanistan and its people. But it is the Afghan
people themselves who will determine their own future.
As we
proceed, we must not forget that success in Afghanistan also requires
close cooperation from neighboring Pakistan, which I will visit this
fall. Pakistan is itself under intense pressure from extremist groups.
Trilateral cooperation among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United
States has built confidence and yielded progress on a number of policy
fronts. Our national security, as well as the future of Afghanistan,
depends on a stable, democratic, and economically viable Pakistan. And
we applaud the new Pakistani determination to deal with the militants
who threaten their democracy and our shared security.
In
Iraq, we are bolstering our diplomacy and development programs while we
implement a responsible withdrawal of our troops. Last month our combat
troops successfully redeployed from towns and cities. Our principal
focus is now shifting from security issues to civilian efforts that
promote Iraqi capacity – supporting the work of the Iraqi ministries and
aiding in their efforts to achieve national unity. And we are
developing a long-term economic and political relationship with Iraq as
outlined by the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. This Agreement
forms the basis of our future cooperation with Iraq and the Iraqi
people, and I look forward to discussing it and its implementation with
Prime Minister Maliki when he comes to Washington next week.
Our
fifth approach is to shore up traditional sources of our influence,
including economic strength and the power of our example. We renewed our
own values by prohibiting torture and beginning to close the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility. And we have been straightforward about our own
measure of responsibility for problems like
drug trafficking in
Mexico
and global climate change. When I acknowledged the obvious about our
role in Mexico’s current conflict with narco-traffickers, some were
critical. But they’re missing the point. Our capacity to take
responsibility, and our willingness to change, to do the right thing,
are themselves hallmarks of our greatness as a nation and strategic
assets that can help us forge coalitions in the service of our
interests.
That is certainly true when it comes to key
priorities like nonproliferation and climate change. President Obama is
committed to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and a series
of concrete steps to reduce the threat and spread of these weapons,
including working with the Senate to ratify the follow-on
START
agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking on greater
responsibility within the Non Proliferation Treaty Framework and
convening the world’s leaders here in Washington next year for a nuclear
summit. Now we must urge others to take practical steps to advance our
shared nonproliferation agenda.
Our Administration is also
committed to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a plan
that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume and conserve
energy, and in the process spark an explosion of new investment, and
millions of jobs. Now we must urge every other nation to meet its
obligations and seize the opportunities of a clean energy future.
We
are restoring our economy at home to enhance our strength and capacity
abroad, especially at this time of economic turmoil. Now, this is not a
traditional priority for a Secretary of State, but I vigorously support
American recovery and growth as a pillar of our global leadership. And I
am committed to restoring a significant role for the State Department
within a whole-of-government approach to international economic
policy-making. We will work to ensure that our economic statecraft –
trade and investment, debt forgiveness, loan guarantees, technical
assistance, decent work practices – support our foreign policy
objectives. When coupled with a sound development effort, our economic
outreach can give us a better form of globalization, reducing the bitter
opposition of recent years and lifting millions more out of poverty.
And
finally, I am determined to ensure that the men and women of our
Foreign and Civil Service have the resources they need to implement our
priorities effectively and safely. That’s why I appointed for the first
time a
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. It’s why we worked so hard to secure additional
funding for State and
USAID.
It’s why we have put ourselves on a path to double foreign assistance
over the next few years. And it’s why we are implementing a plan to
dramatically increase the number of diplomats and development experts.
Just
as we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into
battle, we cannot send our civilian personnel into the field
underequipped. If we don’t invest in diplomacy and development, we will
end up paying a lot more for conflicts and their consequences. As
Secretary Gates has said, diplomacy is an indispensable instrument of
national security, as it has been since Franklin, Jefferson and Adams
won foreign support for Washington’s army.
Now all of this
adds up to a very ambitious agenda. But the world does not afford us the
luxury of choosing or waiting. As I said at the outset, we must tackle
the urgent, the important and the long-term all at once.
We
are both witness to and makers of significant change. We cannot and
should not be passive observers. We are determined to channel the
currents of change toward a world free of violent extremism, nuclear
weapons, global warming, poverty, and abuses of human rights, and above
all, a world in which more people in more places can live up to their
God-given potential.
The architecture of cooperation we seek
to build will advance all these goals, using our power not to dominate
or divide but to solve problems. It is the architecture of progress for
America and all nations.
More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine
said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.”
Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that
power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the
right policies, we have the right President, and we have the American
people, diverse, committed, and open to the future.
Now all we have to do is deliver. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
