fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen:

Each year we come together to reaffirm

the founding vision of this institution.

For most of recorded history, individual aspirations

were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires.

Divisions of race and religion and tribe were settled

through the sword and the clash of armies.

The idea that nations and peoples could come together

in peace to solve their disputes

and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable.

It took the awful carnage of two world wars

to shift our thinking.

The leaders who built the United Nations were not naïve;

they did not think this body could eradicate all wars.

But in the wake of millions dead and continents in rubble,

and with the development of nuclear weapons

that could annihilate a planet,

they understood that humanity

could not survive the course it was on.

And so they gave us this institution,

believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts,

enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation

that would grow stronger over time.

For decades, the United Nations has in fact made a difference --

from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children,

to brokering peace.

But like every generation of leaders,

we face new and profound challenges,

and this body continues to be tested.

The question is whether we possess

the wisdom and the courage,

as nation-states and members of an international community,

to squarely meet those challenges;

whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time.

For much of my tenure as President,

some of our most urgent challenges have revolved

around an increasingly integrated global economy,

and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis

of our lifetime.

Now, five years after the global economy collapsed,

and thanks to coordinated efforts

by the countries here today,

jobs are being created,

global financial systems have stabilized,

and people are once again being lifted out of poverty.

But this progress is fragile and unequal,

and we still have work to do together to assure

that our citizens can access the opportunities

that they need to thrive in the 21st century.

Together, we've also worked to end a decade of war.

Five years ago, nearly 180,000 Americans

were serving in harm's way,

and the war in Iraq was the dominant issue

in our relationship with the rest of the world.

Today, all of our troops have left Iraq.

Next year, an international coalition

will end its war in Afghanistan,

having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda

that attacked us on 9/11.

For the United States, these new circumstances have

also meant shifting away from a perpetual war footing.

Beyond bringing our troops home,

we have limited the use of drones

so they target only those who pose

a continuing, imminent threat to the United States

where capture is not feasible,

and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.

We're transferring detainees to other countries

and trying terrorists in courts of law,

while working diligently to close the prison

at Guantanamo Bay.

And just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary

military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals,

we've begun to review the way that we gather intelligence,

so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns

of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns

that all people share.

As a result of this work,

and cooperation with allies and partners,

the world is more stable than it was five years ago.

But even a glance at today's headlines

indicates that dangers remain.

In Kenya, we've seen terrorists target innocent civilians

in a crowded shopping mall,

and our hearts go out to the families

of those who have been affected.

In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed

by suicide bombers outside a church.

In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be

a terrible part of life.

And meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional

networks and militias, which doesn't give them

the capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11,

but does pose serious threats to governments and diplomats,

businesses and civilians all across the globe.

Just as significantly,

the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa

have laid bare deep divisions within societies,

as an old order is upended and people grapple

with what comes next.

Peaceful movements have too often

been answered by violence --

from those resisting change and from extremists

trying to hijack change.

Sectarian conflict has reemerged.

And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction

continues to cast a shadow over the pursuit of peace.

Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully

than in Syria.

There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime

were met with repression and slaughter.

In the face of such carnage,

many retreated to their sectarian identity --

Alawite and Sunni; Christian and Kurd --

and the situation spiraled into civil war.

The international community recognized the stakes early on,

but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge.

Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering

of the wounded and displaced.

A peace process is stillborn.

America and others have worked

to bolster the moderate opposition,

but extremist groups have still taken root

to exploit the crisis.

Assad's traditional allies have propped him up,

citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime.

And on August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons

in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people,

including hundreds of children.

Now, the crisis in Syria,

and the destabilization of the region,

goes to the heart of broader challenges

that the international community must now confront.

How should we respond to conflicts

in the Middle East and North Africa --

conflicts between countries,

but also conflicts within them?

How do we address the choice of standing callously by

while children are subjected to nerve gas,

or embroiling ourselves in someone else's civil war?

What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten

the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards

of civilized conduct?

What is the role of the United Nations and international law

in meeting cries for justice?

Today, I want to outline where the United States of America

stands on these issues.

With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting

point, the international community must enforce

the ban on chemical weapons.

When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against

the Assad regime in response to the brazen use

of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly.

I did so because I believe it is in the security interest

of the United States and in the interest of the world

to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins

are older than the United Nations itself.

The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war,

has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity.

It is strengthened by the searing memories

of soldiers suffocating in the trenches;

Jews slaughtered in gas chambers;

Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime

used such weapons on August 21st.

U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets

fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians.

These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood,

and landed in opposition neighborhoods.

It's an insult to human reason --

and to the legitimacy of this institution --

to suggest that anyone other than the regime

carried out this attack.

Now, I know that in the immediate aftermath of the

attack there were those who questioned the legitimacy

of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate

from the Security Council.

But without a credible military threat,

the Security Council had demonstrated

no inclination to act at all.

However, as I've discussed with President Putin for over a year,

most recently in St. Petersburg, my preference has always been

a diplomatic resolution to this issue.

And in the past several weeks,

the United States, Russia and our allies

have reached an agreement to place Syria's chemical weapons

under international control, and then to destroy them.

The Syrian government took a first step

by giving an accounting of its stockpiles.

Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution

to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments,

and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.

If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show

that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing

the most basic of international laws.

On the other hand, if we succeed,

it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons

has no place in the 21st century,

and that this body means what it says.

Agreement on chemical weapons should energize

a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement

within Syria.

I do not believe that military action --

by those within Syria, or by external powers --

can achieve a lasting peace.

Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine

who will lead Syria;

that is for the Syrian people to decide.

Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens

and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy

to lead a badly fractured country.

The notion that Syria can somehow return

to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy.

It's time for Russia and Iran to realize

that insisting on Assad's rule will lead directly

to the outcome that they fear:

an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate.

In turn, those of us who continue to support

the moderate opposition must persuade them

that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse

of state institutions,

and that a political settlement

cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears

and concerns of Alawites and other minorities.

We are committed to working this political track.

And as we pursue a settlement,

let's remember this is not a zero-sum endeavor.

We're no longer in a Cold War.

There's no Great Game to be won,

nor does America have any interest in Syria

beyond the wellbeing of its people,

the stability of its neighbors,

the elimination of chemical weapons,

and ensuring that it does not become

a safe haven for terrorists.

I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring

about a peaceful resolution of Syria's civil war.

And as we move the Geneva process forward,

I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs

in Syria and surrounding countries.

America has committed over a billion dollars to this effort,

and today I can announce that we will be providing

an additional $340 million.

No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives

the Syrian people the chance to rebuild their country,

but it can help desperate people to survive.

What broader conclusions can be drawn

from America's policy toward Syria?

I know there are those who have been frustrated