From the description of the prizes according to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to someone who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." [my emphasis]
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, or Orwellian NewSpeak has now gained normal currency. Nobel’s description is reasonably open, yet quite specific: I would have thought that someone who engaged in the opposite of the ‘abolition or reduction of standing armies’ would be ineligible.
apart from the announced US troop increase of 30 000, another 56 000 ‘private contractors’ (jobs that were previously done by the military, including ’security’ armed personnel), as well as other NATO forces, are expected!!!
Of more concern still is Obama’s speech. I cannot but read it with something of the descriptions of Arhiman’s incarnation in mind. Surely this is the type of presentation that will ensue: lull and promise; do the opposite and justify it in terms of peace, truth, etc.
It’s also quite interesting to put his speech in accepting the PEACE prize into wordle.net and see what emerges. Here are the top 12 words (apart from common English words such as ‘that’ etc.):
|
 |
I’m also amazed at how this has unfolded given my much earlier comment on Ahriman on fourhares – which I wrote prior to Obama being nominated, and not assuming him to have been so at that time… I could, of course, be entirely misjudging the entire situation… only time will tell.
Transcript of Obama’s speech with my own comments interspersed (…to be completed – many comments still to come)
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
If it was not for what is to follow, this opening would appear rather mundane – yet even in the opening, the talk is not of ‘people’, but of ‘citizens’: that which serves to divide those who are deemed ‘in’, and those who stand outside and unaccepted. So even here the implied subtext is clear: ‘citizens’ are those people who are ‘legally recognised subjects’!
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility
why preface ‘humility’ with the adjective ‘great’? does this not make the phrase an oxymoron? Or was he seeking to somehow link his speech in its very opening with a Biblical dimension: ‘The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility’ (Proverbs 15:33)… except that here, instead of ‘it is with deep humility that I receive this honour’, the order is significantly inversed
It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations
subtlety of words here… it is an award that undoubtedly speaks to aspirations, but more importantly it is (supposed) to speak of contributions.
that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate
This is fine and well for someone not a prisoner of the cruelty and harship of many parts of our world: their fate is, often, monstrous.
Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
Our actions do in deed matter: they shape the unfurling of history. To claim to bend history, however, seems a little like taking on the mantle of a supra-sensible (or ‘god-like’) king of the world! Furthermore, if the ‘bent direction’ is claimed towards justice, the implication (oh subtlety of word usage!) is that the unbent and straight direction of history is towards injustice… something with which I personally do not agree.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.)
Not sure is the laughter is from the audience or the speaker, and whether it’s in sarcastic tone, discomfort, or plain acknowledgement of the statement, so cannot here comment on that part. What is the point of highlighting in this manner that the decision of the award is controversial?
In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage.
Who is speaking here? ‘The beginning of labours on the world stage’… and when the birth occurs, what then?
Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight.
The ambiguity of the final term makes for interesting reflection: not ‘little’ or ’small’, but ’slight’, whose precise meanings has various applications and connotations.
And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
It’s not a matter or arguing with them (another bringing in to the discussion of ‘contro-versy’)… it would have been interesting to find out, however, if Obama agreed that such people of far more deserving than he. Again, a choice of words that appear to seek to placate.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
There are numerous labels that the president of the USA could have used… yet he chose, amongst all these, the one that is the most antithetical to the substance of the Peace Prize: as Commander-in-Chief of the military in a nation in the midst of two wars. Wow…. even those words that follow the title ensures that such cannot be misunderstood or ambiguously heard!
And now we come to the central substance:
Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed.
‘Some will kill, and some will be killed’, and he mentions, in the middle of the acceptance of a PEACE prize, his responsibility in this!
And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Is this Orwellian, or what? the ‘difficult questions’ about the relationship between peace and war (this latter mentioned first!) is that one is NOT the other… and what of the effort to replace one with the other? should this be understoon in the context of increased war?
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.
Is the implied subtext that war is inevitable and part and parcel of being a real man?
At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned;
My recollection of the dawn of history is that its morality WAS questioned… and has been throughout. Is this a subtle manner of implying that war’s morality ought not to be questioned?
it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
War is a different kind of ‘fact’ to either drought and disease as these latter are not (at least intentionally) the direct involvement of people with people, whereas in war there is the intentional killing of a person by another.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups,
The emergence of laws was not to control violence, but rather to reflect ideals of Justice.
so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war.
Interesting use of ‘cleric’ in that sentence, especially in light of what occurs later which seeks to paint Christianity as aggressor against islam! Of course, I realise that the term ‘cleric’ is far more generic in meaning that its common usage – it remains, nonetheless, full of religious implications. On a general note, to claim that philosophers and statesmen sought to ‘regulate’ the power of war is non-sensical… though again there is here a hidden suggestion that war’s regularity has the implied blessing of ‘cleric’, philosopher and statesman!
The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Here is a double implication: the first is that the concept of a just war meeting those stated conditions is bunk; yet just wars are Just… even if… let’s get to the next point
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.
Let’s take a brief few second pause and call to mind that this is a speech in acceptance of the Nobel PEACE prize! And here humanity’s capacity described as inexhaustible – not towards that which is good or peaceful, but in the context of justifying ways to kill people.
Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.
the implication is that we now live in a world in which war is between all, not simply combatants.
In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent.
Sure he’s talking about the past… the ensuing sentence points clearly to this. Yet as either heard or read, the sentence has been given its attention without the mind able to ascertain if what is presented is prophecy or a period of past history.
And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
A strange sequence of words – virtually putting into doubt that the defeat of the Nazis was for the best.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
Are the implications here that such has not been sufficient (as wars are still occuring) and that, therefore, new and more severe institutions are now required to prevent yet another world war, and that such be in the leadership of the USA? seems like it given the ensuing two paragraphs!
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
This ‘old architecture’ that is ‘buckling’ is therefore, by implication, in need of replacement with a newer architecture? This ‘old architecture’ that has promoted liberty, self-determination and equality is in need of what? Is the shudder of modern technology in the hands of those with liberty and self-determination being painted (given the proximity of the paragraphs) as equivalent to the rise of inevitable terrorism? This is the type of weaved word-smithing that leads to totalitarianism with the willing support of the masses: let us be conscious of what will inevitably follow from such speech!
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations.
‘Wars within nations’ is either another word for a revolution, or an excuse to bring in measures to diminish linerty, autonomy and self-determination of people. I am lead to wonder if Obama’s political manual was/is Grotius’s De Jure belli et pacis (The Law of War and Peace).
The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
..so the picture being painted is that we have entered the worse of times, with unending chaos and the growth and resurgence of conflict, all as seeds of future conflict! what a view of the world situation.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.
…interesting choice of words: ‘today’. But tomorrow, will a ‘definitive solution’ be imposed?
What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago.
If it’s the same bold vision of the past, are we about to face the same kind of foreces they faced?
And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
‘imperative of a just peace’??? What kind of double-talk is that? What’s a ‘Just Peace’ together with the concept of ‘imperatives’?
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
Never mind ‘eradication’ – how about striving for diminishment of violence and the blessings of peace?
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work,
If violence brings no permanent peace, is the quote somehow used to justify its use as peace: War is (non-permanent) Peace!
I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.
Wow – illuminates the opening statement about his own humility! I really can’t get over this statement – it’s quite mind-boggling.
I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
Where’s the implication that theirs is somehow weakness… except within the very line above!?
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.
Seems more that that final word of that sentence is an added word to mask the actions that seem to stop short of any guidance of Gandhi (who was, it should be recalled, also a head of state of an even more populous nation than the USA). …or perhaps the example meant from Gandhi is his saying that ‘It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence‘… but then, what Gandhi was really teaching is not being properly understood!
I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.
so where now is the brave earlier comment about ‘bending history’… even in the face of threats?
For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world.
Does Good not also exist? why this focus? and is the ‘in the world’ in reference to an embodiment of Evil?
A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.
A non-violent movement would not have established Hitler’s armies, and a non-violent response to those armies, once established, may have had unexpected consequences. And in the context of a PEACE acceptance speech, it may be worth considering how Gandhi would have replied to that very sentence! Perhaps recalling his ‘Violent means will give violent freedom’ is apt here.
Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.
…but it is not the leaders who bear arms…
To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
In other words, given that people have limited reason and are imperfect, use of violence is justifiably necessary – again, the ‘natural law’ advocated by Grotius!
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
…and should there ever be a time when violent military action should not raise ambivalance?
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
My limited observation of the USA is that there is far less freedom therein than there appears to have been to those children’s parents and grandparents… unless one happens to be wealthy.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
Do the instruments of war have a role in preserving peace? Perhaps they need to be used against similar instruments in non-peaceful situations, but that’s an entirely different case, and certainly mis-painting and mis-representing peace for ‘control and subjugation by violence and threat of violence’. In a speech on PEACE, would not the peaceful person’s courage, sacrifice, love be better examplars of gloriousness?
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
…so, given that Obama views that war is a necessity and therefore at base people are irrational and have folly, what type of gradual transformations of ‘human institutions’ is he likely to suggest? let’s see:
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.
Ie., if we can tick the boxes of ’standards’, then no matter what atrocities, deaths, and pain is caused will be nothing more than regrettable co-lateral damage… but at least we’ll all be ‘playing’ by the same insane rules of murder. This is a further expansion of eroding freedoms and the encroachment of bureaucracy under the guise of ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’. Expect to hear a lot more of those words!
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
…and the message? that aggression begets even greater aggression, and that this latter is considered ‘morally’ justifiable.
Furthermore, America — in fact, no nation — can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
rules of the road? euphemism for atrocities, murder, interrogations (another euphemism for torture in many cases), destruction, etc. Again, let’s recall that this is in a speech on the acceptance of the Nobel PEACE prize!
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
… not to sure how to read this… sounds like ‘as there are less and less wars between nations, we’ll have to find ways to engage with an aggressor in order to continue to make war’
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
… ‘or in other places that have been scarred by war’. This is a circular problem: we’ll use force in such places, then justify further force therein as it will then be a scarred place’… and then, of course, have a ‘clear mandate’ to use force to keep the peace! When one considers that such use of the word ‘peace’ in included in the word count at the top of this entry, it’s really quite astounding!
America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
Is the implication that the USA (ie, ‘America’… as the other American countries appear to not exist) will henceforth need to increase their global military involvement in various wars?
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers — but as wagers of peace.
…I see: friends and allies are leaders and soldiers of NATO countries and those like them. Also, interesting turn of words at the end of that paragraph: so now we have not ‘wagers of war’ and ‘makers of peace’, but instead ‘makers of war’ and ‘wagers of peace’… Orwell would have been proud!
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
I’m missing the point here in the relationship between the USE of force and the Red Cross, which, contrary to that, does not use force. Or is the implication that the example of the Red Cross, which also operates in war areas, justifies the use of force?
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.
… hmmm… all this appears to be forgetting something about what appears to be a change from an isolated Guantanamo to a far more general proposal: Cf ‘<a href="http://blog.fourhares.com/30/05/2009/brain-plasticity-and-other-stuff/">Obama, the USA and imprisonment without fair trial</a>’ (the section is near the bottom of that post).
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war.
..as we CHOOSE this option of war.
But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
uh oh…. here it comes…
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
‘accountable’… and all the world must be as ONE…
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.
good… it should perhaps be recalled that much of those stockpiles that will inevitably be announced as being done away with are already past their expiry date. What will be interesting to see is if of, for example, 300 nuclear warheads that are due to be decommisioned the announcement is that this will be reduced to 100 (ie, in real terms making a new set of 100).
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma — there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
Complicity in oppression is not to be counternanced, of course – but that’s entirely different to supporting violence by continuing to, for example, supply (and manufacture) small arms.
This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
Here we go… here comes the universalisation that seeks to undermine the introduction of laws to be assessed by the higher aspiration of Justice:
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
We have progressively been so numbed by the push for ‘human rights’ that instead of asking whether any law reflects Justice, there is a push for a blanket verbal submission to Rights… not that signitaries to rights have eliminated, for example, torture, the death sentence, hunger or poverty! I’m pleased to mention that at least up until now, Australia has not a signitary to such crap (except for Victoria and the ACT who have succumbed).
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
…. this have nothing to do with concepst of so-called human rights. Matthew 7:5 comes to mind here, for in the USA, many are killed by the state (which has a ‘declaration of human rights’); many go hungry; are without shelter; etc… and of those many who seek to better themselves, they enslave… errrr…. indenture themselves to the US military machine, hoping their lot will never be of seeing active action, in their struggle to better their options!
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.
We have to be very careful here… Germans elected Hitler… and Russians willingly followed Lenin and Stalin. In all these cases, until the regret was too late.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements — these movements of hope and history — they have us on their side.
Peace is perhaps not, however, about sides, but about being able, despite differences, to allow those to flourish and have space.
But enough comments for a little while.. and allow me to present a few paragraphs as they stand:
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded.
…wow -’ the cruelties of the Crusades’ Seems to be a not-so-sutble denigration of Christianity and, by implication, of Christ. Yes, there were numerous barbaric and cruel acts undertaken by the crusaders as well as by the barbaric cruelties of muslims as they expanded their rule by the sword as they swept through North Africa and upwards into central Europe. On both sides were people who were kind and generous even despite the warring tendencies, and both sides had their voluminous atrocities. Obama’s is the type of statement that insenses and divides contemporary folk in ongoing tension with those who hold deep views on either side of the religious divide.
But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war.
That’s quite a construct of words mentioning that ‘no Holy War’ can ever be a just war… with the implication that an UNHOLY war is the only one that can possibly be just!?!
For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother,
Of recent times, the horrendousness of such crime has not been linked with images of pregnant mothers-to-be blown by ’suicide’ bombers, nor dropped bombs… but of an Israeli T-shirt with the words something like ‘two with one [bullet]‘. It is absolutely shocking that such is depicted… and even more that atrocities of the kind actually accurs with explosives… the statement, however, harkens inevitably to anti-Israeli tones.
or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
There are clear differences between the Christian, Buddhist, and other concept of ‘do onto others as we would have them do unto us’. Unfortunately, one such view is to use the saying as an excuse to impose one’s will over others.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature.
The ‘LAW‘ of love??? and its ‘adherance’? here is a lack of understanding of the freedom of Love, with is the opposite of a ’struggle’, and certainly not a core struggle!
For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
those last words are pretty incredible, implying that ‘righting the wrongs’ of others is not a manifestation of pride and power!
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their fundamental faith in human progress — that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
…and again, in a speech in accepting the PEACE prize, talking of non-violence as not practicle nor possible and implied as a bit of a dream-in-the-sky for those so worldly folk out there… still, it’s nice to keep them in mind in the deep North of our thoughts (in the northern hemisphere, the place of greatest cold).
For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
…but then, why call it ‘their’ faith in the previous paragraph, rather than ‘our’ faith? and is that ‘moral compass’ to be subtly echoed with the reverberations of the earlier statement that Obama claims himself as the ‘living testimony to the moral force of non-violence’?
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him"
Let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
..the world that ‘ought to be’… according to whose image?
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school — because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.
…. somewhere today, here and now, a person sees a need in another and opens his or her heart, shares, and supports. Somewhere today, a person working within no matter how poor or oppressive an institution or government, works at ameliorating the lot of others within their limited power. Somewhere, today, a child supports the efforts of his or her elders to provide him or her with better opportunities then they themselves had…. now which of these two has more of a peace-filled sequence of words?
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.
It would have been heartening to hear that though oppression still exists (rather that ‘will ALWAYS be with us’), we can take steps to diminish such; instead of falsely ‘admitting the intractability of deprivation’ and somehow therein to find a false dignity, hearing that deprivations are not intractable and may, admittedly, be worked upon by joint effort between neighbours; and what’s this ‘clear-eyed’ statement to strive for peace whilst stating its Orwellian notion!?
We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
what a closing statement: ‘at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth’….
Thank you very much. (Applause.)