T

his 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 the International Monetary Fund (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, former president John F. 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 lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, like the UN or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they'€™re wrong.

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 with us to impose sanctions, NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies, the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine'€™s economy, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (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.

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.

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 UN 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.

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 (CoC) with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and we'€™re working to resolve these disputes through international law.

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone 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 is 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 the 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.

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.

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.

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.

In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests, from peace treaties to 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. Forty 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.

Now, 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 the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.

This is the second of a two-part article excerpted from President Obama'€™s speech on May 28, 2014 at the graduation ceremony of the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York.