The United Nations
New York, New York
10:29 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President; Mr. Secretary General; fellow
delegates; ladies and gentlemen: As I address this hall as
President for the final time, let me recount the progress that we’ve
made these last eight years.
From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we
coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the
global economy to growth. We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens 1, strengthened the
nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian
nuclear issue 2 through
diplomacy. We opened relations with Cuba, helped Colombia end
Latin America’s longest war, and we welcome a democratically elected
leader of Myanmar to this Assembly. Our assistance is helping
people feed themselves, care for the sick, power communities across
Africa, and promote models of development rather than dependence.
And we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund more representative, while establishing a
framework to protect our planet from the ravages of climate change.3
This is important work. It has made a real difference in the
lives of our people. And it could not have happened had we not
worked together. And yet, around the globe we are seeing the same
forces of global integration that have made us interdependent also
expose deep fault lines in the existing international order.
We see it in the headlines every day. Around the world,
refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict.
Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire
communities. Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic
security, basic order has broken down. We see too many
governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring
the flow of information. Terrorist
networks 4 use social media to prey upon
the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger
against innocent immigrants and Muslims. Powerful nations contest
the constraints placed on them by international law.
This is the paradox that defines our world today. A quarter
century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures
less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our
societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife.
Despite enormous progress, as people
lose trust in institutions 5, governing becomes more
difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface.
And so I believe that at this moment we all face a choice. We can
choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration.6 Or we can retreat into a
world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines
of nation and tribe and race and religion.
I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward, and not
backward. I believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles
of open markets and accountable governance, of democracy and human
rights and international law that we have forged remain the firmest
foundation for human progress in this century. I make this
argument not based on theory or ideology, but on facts -- facts that
all too often, we forget in the immediacy of current events.
Here’s the most important fact: The integration of our global
economy has made life better for billions of men, women and
children. Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in
extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to
under 10 percent. That's unprecedented. And it's not an
abstraction. It means children have enough to eat; mothers don’t
die in childbirth.
Meanwhile, cracking the genetic code promises to cure diseases that
have plagued us for centuries. The Internet can deliver the
entirety of human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a
single hand-held device. In medicine and in manufacturing, in
education and communications, we’re experiencing a transformation of
how human beings live on a scale that recalls the revolutions in
agriculture and industry. And as a result, a person born today is
more likely to be healthy, to live longer, and to have access to
opportunity than at any time in human history.
Moreover, the collapse of colonialism and communism has allowed
more people than ever before to live with the freedom to choose their
leaders. Despite the real and troubling areas where freedom
appears in retreat, the fact remains that the number of democracies
around the world has nearly doubled in the last 25 years.
In remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for
the dignity of all people no matter their gender, or race, or religion,
or disability, or sexual orientation, and those who deny others dignity
are subject to public reproach. An explosion of social media has
given ordinary people more ways to express themselves, and has raised
people’s expectations for those of us in power. Indeed, our
international order has been so successful that we take it as a given
that great powers no longer fight world wars; that the end of the Cold
War lifted the shadow of nuclear
Armageddon;7
that the battlefields of Europe have been replaced by peaceful union;
that China and India remain on a path of remarkable growth.
I say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face, or to
suggest complacency. Rather, I believe that we need to
acknowledge these achievements in order to summon the confidence to
carry this progress forward and to make sure that we do not abandon
those very things that have delivered this progress.
In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that
the existing path to global integration requires a course
correction. As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of
globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have
ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have
left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded,
under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.
And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions
of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and
in the poorest: Religious fundamentalism; the politics of
ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism
-- sometimes from the far left, but more often from the far right --
which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free
of outside contamination.
We cannot dismiss these visions. They are powerful.
They reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. I do
not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the
long term, but I do believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a
very basic level, our common humanity. Moreover, I believe that
the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications --
together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain --
makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse this
progress. Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison
itself.
So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global
integration. Instead, we must work together to make sure the
benefits of such integration are broadly shared, and that the
disruptions -- economic, political, and cultural -- that are caused by
integration are squarely addressed. This is not the place for a
detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those
areas where I believe we must do better together.
It starts with making the global
economy work better for all people 8 and not just for those at the
top. While open markets, capitalism have raised standards of
living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and
technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability
to secure a decent wage. In advanced economies like my own,
unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have
disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization
have used their political power to further undermine the position of
workers.
In developing countries, labor organizations have often been
suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by
corruption and underinvestment. Mercantilist policies pursued by
governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the
consensus that underpins global trade. And meanwhile, global
capital is too often unaccountable -- nearly $8 trillion stashed away
in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of
effective oversight.
A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as
the other 99 percent will never be stable. I understand that the
gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum
today can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person
with a smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the
contrast between their own lives and others. Expectations rise, then, faster than
governments can deliver 9, and a
pervasive sense of injustice undermine people’s faith in the system.
So how do we fix this imbalance? We cannot unwind integration
any more than we can stuff technology back into a box. Nor can we
look to failed models of the past. If we start resorting to trade
wars, market distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an
overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation -- these
approaches will make us poorer, collectively, and they are more like to
lead to conflict. And the stark contrast between, say, the
success of the Republic of Korea and the wasteland of North Korea shows
that central, planned control of the economy is a dead end.
But I do believe there’s another path -- one that fuels growth and
innovation, and offers the clearest route to individual opportunity and
national success. It does not require succumbing to a soulless
capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that
economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and
poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights
of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a
living wage. It means investing in our people -- their skills,
their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a
business. It means strengthening the safety net that protects our
people from hardship and allows them to take more risks -- to look for
a new job, or start a new venture.
These are the policies that I’ve pursued here in the United States,
and with clear results. American businesses have created now 15
million new jobs. After the recession, the top one percent of
Americans were capturing more than 90 percent of income growth.
But today, that's down to about half. Last year, poverty in this
country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And with
further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and
basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.
So just as I’ve pursued these measures here at home, so has the
United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of
capitalism -- not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that
can destroy it. That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to
create higher and clearer standards for banking and taxation -- because
a society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot
from within. That’s why we’ve pushed for transparency and
cooperation in rooting out corruption, and tracking illicit dollars,
because markets create more jobs when they're fueled by hard work, and
not the capacity to extort a bribe. That’s why we’ve worked to
reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise
environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, so that the benefits are more broadly shared.
And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our
countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close
the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe. This is
difficult politically. It's difficult to spend on foreign
assistance. But I do not believe this is charity. For the
small fraction of what we spent at
war in Iraq we could support institutions10 so that fragile states don’t
collapse in the first place, and invest in emerging economies that
become markets for our goods. It's not just the right thing to
do, it's the smart thing to do.
And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat
climate change. If we don't act boldly, the bill that could come
due will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations
displaced, and food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of
despair. The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but
only if we scale up our ambition. And there must be a sense of
urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer
countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy.
So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only
be the beginning. We need to invest in research and provide
market incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these
technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries. And
only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without
condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.
So we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are
inclusive and sustainable. And in the same way, we need models of
governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.
I recognize not every country in this hall is going to follow the
same model of governance. I do not think that America can -- or
should -- impose our system of government on other countries. But
there appears to be growing contest between authoritarianism and
liberalism right now. And I want everybody to understand, I am
not neutral in that contest. I believe in a liberal political
order -- an order built not just through elections and representative
government, but also through respect for human rights and civil
society, and independent judiciaries and the rule of law.
I know that some countries, which now recognize the power of free
markets, still reject the model of free societies. And perhaps
those of us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged
since the end of the Cold War, because we've learned that liberal
democracy will not just wash across the globe in a single wave.
It turns out building accountable institutions is hard work -- the work
of generations. The gains are often fragile. Sometimes we
take one step forward and then two steps back. In countries held
together by borders drawn by colonial powers, with ethnic enclaves and
tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a
zero-sum game. And so, given the difficulty in forging true
democracy in the face of these pressures, it’s no surprise that some
argue the future favors the strongman, a top-down model, rather than
strong, democratic institutions.
But I believe this thinking is wrong. I believe the road of
true democracy remains the better path. I believe that in the
21st century, economies can only grow to a certain point until they
need to open up -- because entrepreneurs need to access information in
order to invent; young people need a global education in order to
thrive; independent media needs to check the abuses of power.
Without this evolution, ultimately expectations of people will not be
met; suppression and stagnation will set in. And history shows
that strongmen are then left with two paths -- permanent crackdown,
which sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can
lead to war.
Now, I will admit, my belief that governments serve the individual,
and not the other way around, is shaped by America’s story. Our
nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the
few. But because of our democratic Constitution, because of our
Bill of Rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to
organize, and march, and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out
-- opened doors for women and minorities and workers in ways that made
our economy more productive and turned our diversity into a strength;
that gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human
endeavor; that made it possible for someone like me to be elected
President of the United States.
So, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of
America, but I do not think this story is unique to America. Look
at the transformation that's taken place in countries as different as
Japan and Chile, Indonesia, Botswana. The countries that have
succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a stake.
In Europe, the progress of those countries in the former Soviet
bloc that embraced democracy stand in clear contrast to those that did
not. After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets
because of some plot imposed from abroad. They took to the
streets because their leadership was for sale and they had no
recourse. They demanded change because they saw life get better
for people in the Baltics and in Poland, societies that were more
liberal, and democratic, and open than their own.
So those of us who believe in democracy, we need to speak out
forcefully, because both the facts and history, I believe, are on our
side. That doesn’t mean democracies are without flaws. It
does mean that the cure for what ails our democracies is greater
engagement by our citizens -- not less.
Yes, in America, there is too
much money in politics 11;
too much entrenched partisanship; too little participation by citizens,
in part because of a patchwork of laws that makes it harder to
vote. In Europe, a well-intentioned Brussels often became too
isolated from the normal push and pull of national politics. Too
often, in capitals, decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs
to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up, not governance by
experts from the top down. And so these are real problems, and as
leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad,
we better strive harder to set a better example at home.
Moreover, every country will organize its government informed by
centuries of history, and the circumstances of geography, and the
deeply held beliefs of its people. So I recognize a traditional
society may value unity and cohesion more than a diverse country like
my own, which was founded upon what, at the time, was a radical idea --
the idea of the liberty of individual human beings endowed with certain
God-given rights. But that does not mean that ordinary people in
Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East
somehow prefer arbitrary rule 12that
denies them a voice in the decisions that can shape their lives.
I believe that spirit is universal. And if any of you doubt the
universality of that desire, listen to the voices of young people
everywhere who call out for freedom, and dignity, and the opportunity
to control their own lives.
This leads me to the third thing we need to do: We must
reject any forms of fundamentalism, or racism, or a belief in ethnic superiority 13
that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with
modernity. Instead we need to embrace the tolerance that results
from respect of all human beings.
It’s a truism that global integration has led to a collision of
cultures; trade, migration, the Internet, all these things can
challenge and unsettle our most cherished identities. We see
liberal societies express opposition when women choose to cover
themselves. We see protests responding to Western newspaper
cartoons that caricature the Prophet Muhammad. In a world that
left the age of empire behind, we see Russia attempting to recover lost
glory through force. Asian powers debate competing claims of
history. And in Europe and the United States, you see people
wrestle with concerns about immigration and changing demographics, and
suggesting that somehow people who look different are corrupting the
character of our countries.
Now, there’s no easy answer for resolving all these social forces,
and we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own
traditions -- from their religion, from their ethnicity, from their
sense of nationhood. But I do not believe progress is possible if
our desire to preserve our identities gives way to an impulse to
dehumanize or dominate another group. If
our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith14, if
we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to
prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of
race or tribe or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of civilization will
fray. The world is too small, we are too packed together, for us
to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.
We see this mindset in too many parts of the Middle East.
There, so much of the collapse in order has been fueled because leaders
sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs but by resorting
to persecuting political opposition, or demonizing other religious
sects, by narrowing the public space to the mosque, where in too many
places perversions of a great faith15
were tolerated. These forces built up for years, and are now at
work helping to fuel both Syria’s tragic civil war and the mindless,
medieval menace of ISIL.
The mindset of sectarianism, and extremism, and bloodletting, and
retribution that has been taking place will not be quickly
reversed. And if we are honest, we understand that no external
power is going to be able to force different religious communities or
ethnic communities to co-exist for long. But I do believe we have to be honest about the nature of
these conflicts,16 and our international
community must continue to work with those who seek to build rather
than to destroy.
And there is a military component to that. It means being
united and relentless in destroying networks like ISIL, which show no
respect for human life. But it also means that in a place like
Syria, where there’s no ultimate military victory to be won, we’re
going to have to pursue the hard work of diplomacy that aims to stop
the violence, and deliver aid to those in need, and support those who
pursue a political settlement and can see those who are not like
themselves as worthy of dignity and respect.
Across the region’s conflicts, we have to insist that all parties
recognize a common humanity and that nations end proxy wars that fuel
disorder. Because until basic questions are answered about how
communities co-exist17, the embers of extremism will
continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer -- most of all in
that region -- but extremism will continue to be exported
overseas. And the world is too small for us to simply be able to
build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies.
And what is true in the Middle East is true for all of us.
Surely, religious traditions can be honored and upheld while teaching
young people science and math, rather than intolerance. Surely, we can
sustain our unique traditions while giving women their full and
rightful role in the politics and economics of a nation. Surely,
we can rally our nations to solidarity while recognizing equal
treatment for all communities -- whether it’s a religious minority in
Myanmar, or an ethnic minority in Burundi, or a racial minority right
here in the United States. And surely, Israelis and Palestinians
will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the
legitimacy of Israel, but Israel
recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land18 . We all have to do better as
leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity
that leads us to diminish others.
And this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do, and
that is sustain our commitment to international cooperation rooted in
the rights and responsibilities of nations.
As President of the United States, I know that for most of human
history, power has not been unipolar. The end of the Cold War may
have led too many to forget this truth. I’ve noticed as President
that at times, both America’s adversaries and some of our allies
believe that all problems were either caused by Washington or could be
solved by Washington -- and perhaps too many in Washington believed
that as well. (Laughter.) But I believe America has been a
rare superpower in human history insofar as it has been willing to
think beyond narrow self-interest; that while we’ve made our share of
mistakes over these last 25 years -- and I’ve acknowledged some -- we
have strived, sometimes at great sacrifice, to align better our actions
with our ideals. And as a consequence, I believe we have been a
force for good.
We have secured allies. We’ve acted to protect the
vulnerable. We supported human rights and welcomed scrutiny of
our own actions. We’ve bound our power to international laws and
institutions. When we've made mistakes, we've tried to
acknowledge them. We have worked to roll back poverty and hunger
and disease beyond our borders, not just within our borders.
I'm proud of that. But I also know that we can't do this
alone. And I believe that if we're to meet the challenges of this
century, we are all going to have to do more to build up international
capacity. We cannot escape the prospect of nuclear war unless we
all commit to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a
world without them.
When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program that
enhances global security and enhances Iran's ability to work with other
nations. On the other hand, when North Korea tests a bomb that
endangers all of us. And any country that breaks this basic
bargain must face consequences. And those nations with these
weapons, like the United States, have a unique responsibility to pursue
the path of reducing our stockpiles, and reaffirming basic norms like
the commitment to never test them again.
We can't combat a disease like Zika that recognizes no borders --
mosquitos don't respect walls -- unless we make permanent the same
urgency that we brought to bear against Ebola -- by strengthening our
own systems of public health, by investing in cures and rolling back
the root causes of disease, and helping poorer countries develop a
public health infrastructure.
We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable
development goals that we have set are more than words on paper. Human
ingenuity now gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of
our children -- including our girls -- the education that is the
foundation for opportunity in our world. But we have to put our
money where our mouths are.
And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding
-- to replace the ravages of war with cooperation -- if powerful
nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I'm criticized
in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and
multilateral institutions. But I am convinced that in the long
run, giving up some freedom19
of action -- not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue
our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over
the long term -- enhances our security. And I think that's not
just true for us.
If Russia continues to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors,
it may be popular at home, it may fuel nationalist fervor for a time,
but over time it is also going to diminish its stature and make its
borders less secure. In the South China Sea, a peaceful
resolution of disputes offered by law will mean far greater stability
than the militarization of a few rocks and reefs.
We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls
upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we
belong. And the good news is, is that many nations have shown
what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments.
Consider what we’ve accomplished here over the past few years.
Together, we mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for U.N.
peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better prepared to
deal with emergencies. Together, we established an Open
Government Partnership so that, increasingly, transparency empowers
more and more people around the globe. And together, now, we have
to open our hearts and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a
home.
We should all welcome the pledges of increased assistance that have
been made at this General Assembly gathering. I'll be discussing
that more this afternoon. But we have to follow through, even
when the politics are hard. Because in the eyes of innocent men
and women and children who, through no fault of their own, have had to
flee everything that they know, everything that they love, we have to
have the empathy to see ourselves. We have to imagine what it
would be like for our family, for our children, if the unspeakable
happened to us. And we should all understand that, ultimately,
our world will be more secure if we are prepared to help those in need
and the nations who are carrying the largest burden with respect to
accommodating these refugees.
There are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right
thing. But many nations -- particularly those blessed with wealth
and the benefits of geography -- that can do more to offer a hand, even
if they also insist that refugees who come to our countries have to do
more to adapt to the customs and conventions of the communities that
are now providing them a home.
Let me conclude by saying that I recognize history tells a
different story than the one that I've talked about here today.
There's a much darker and more cynical view of history that we can
adopt. Human beings are too often motivated by greed and by
power. Big countries for most of history have pushed smaller ones
around. Tribes and ethnic groups and nation states have very
often found it most convenient to define themselves by what they hate
and not just those ideas that bind them together.
Time and again, human beings have believed that they finally
arrived at a period of enlightenment only to repeat, then, cycles of
conflict and suffering. Perhaps that's our fate. We have to
remember that the choices of individual human beings led to repeated
world war. But we also have to remember that the choices of
individual human beings created a United Nations, so that a war like
that would never happen again. Each of us as leaders, each nation
can choose to reject those who appeal to our worst impulses and embrace
those who appeal to our best. For we have shown that we can
choose a better history.
Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote
that, “Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it
comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with
God.” And during the course of these eight years, as I've
traveled to many of your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young
people, who are more educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and
more diverse, and more creative than our generation; who are more
empathetic and compassionate towards their fellow human beings than
previous generations. And, yes, some of that comes with the
idealism of youth. But it also comes with young people’s access
to information about other peoples and places -- an understanding
unique in human history that their future is bound with the fates of
other human beings on the other side of the world.
I think of the thousands of health care workers from around the
world who volunteered to fight Ebola. I remember the young
entrepreneurs I met who are now starting new businesses in Cuba, the
parliamentarians who used to be just a few years ago political
prisoners in Myanmar. I think of the girls who have braved taunts
or violence just to go to school in Afghanistan, and the university
students who started programs online to reject the extremism of
organizations like ISIL. I draw strength from the young Americans
-- entrepreneurs, activists, soldiers, new citizens -- who are remaking
our nation once again, who are unconstrained by old habits and old
conventions, and unencumbered by what is, but are instead ready to
seize what ought to be.
My own family is a made up of the flesh and blood and traditions
and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world --
just as America has been built by immigrants from every shore.
And in my own life, in this country, and as President, I have learned
that our identities do not have to be defined by putting someone else
down, but can be enhanced by lifting somebody else up. They don’t
have to be defined in opposition to others, but rather by a belief in
liberty and equality and justice and fairness.
And the embrace of these principles as universal doesn't weaken my
particular pride, my particular love for America -- it strengthens
it. My belief that these ideals apply everywhere doesn’t lessen
my commitment to help those who look like me, or pray as I do, or
pledge allegiance to my flag. But my faith in those principles
does force me to expand my moral imagination and to recognize that I
can best serve my own people, I can best look after my own daughters,
by making sure that my actions seek what is right for all people and
all children, and your daughters and your sons.
This is what I believe: that all of us can be co-workers with
God. And our leadership, and our governments, and this United
Nations should reflect this irreducible truth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
11:17 A.M. EDT
