"Peace Prize And War"
Peace Prize and war
If anyone needed an illustration of just how complicated a place the world is, he should have directed his attention Thursday to Norway, where President Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The President spoke eloquently about diplomacy, the importance of mutual respect in foreign relations and the role of international law — areas in which the Nobel committee lauded Mr. Obama when it made its surprise announcement in October that he was its choice.
But Mr. Obama, of course, is also the president of a country engaged in two wars, and he is the commander in chief who just last week said he will dispatch 30,000 more troops to the conflict in Afghanistan.
To some protesters, the President's role in military conflict means that he is undeserving of the award. That argument is misleading.
Some of the most distinguished recipients of the Peace Prize have indeed been pacifists. One of them, Martin Luther King Jr., whom the President movingly credited with making his own place in public life possible, argued persuasively that violence never solved a social problem. Another, Nelson Mandela, came around to the view that a multi-racial democracy could be achieved in South Africa only through non-violent resistance to the apartheid regime.
But pacifism depends ultimately on redeeming qualities within the camp of the oppressor. Pacifism can overcome wrongs, if those who enforce what is wrong can and do eventually recognize the moral force of the non-violent opposition. Pacifism is doomed to failure, however, when it confronts true evil.
And “evil does exist in the world,” the President said at the Oslo ceremony.“A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms.”
Mr. Obama is not the leader of a resistance movement, seeking societal or political transformation; he is, in his words, “a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation.” No one in such a position can make an absolute choice between diplomacy and force, picking one to the exclusion of the other.
What an American president can do — and what Mr. Obama stressed in his acceptance speech — is to recognize that even justified war inexorably leads to tragedy; to insist that any war in the name of religion defiles faith; to offer openness and negotiation when imposing sanctions and condemnation; to open doors to a new path even to repressive regimes.
Such approaches will not eliminate violent conflict. In Mr. Obama's case, he must still show that his deeds will match his words.
But the Peace Prize signifies the yearning of so many in the world for leaders with the values of peace-seekers. That the Nobel committee sees those qualities in America's president is inspiring.
If anyone needed an illustration of just how complicated a place the world is, he should have directed his attention Thursday to Norway, where President Obama received the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The President spoke eloquently about diplomacy, the importance of mutual respect in foreign relations and the role of international law — areas in which the Nobel committee lauded Mr. Obama when it made its surprise announcement in October that he was its choice.
But Mr. Obama, of course, is also the president of a country engaged in two wars, and he is the commander in chief who just last week said he will dispatch 30,000 more troops to the conflict in Afghanistan.
To some protesters, the President's role in military conflict means that he is undeserving of the award. That argument is misleading.
Some of the most distinguished recipients of the Peace Prize have indeed been pacifists. One of them, Martin Luther King Jr., whom the President movingly credited with making his own place in public life possible, argued persuasively that violence never solved a social problem. Another, Nelson Mandela, came around to the view that a multi-racial democracy could be achieved in South Africa only through non-violent resistance to the apartheid regime.
But pacifism depends ultimately on redeeming qualities within the camp of the oppressor. Pacifism can overcome wrongs, if those who enforce what is wrong can and do eventually recognize the moral force of the non-violent opposition. Pacifism is doomed to failure, however, when it confronts true evil.
And “evil does exist in the world,” the President said at the Oslo ceremony.“A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms.”
Mr. Obama is not the leader of a resistance movement, seeking societal or political transformation; he is, in his words, “a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation.” No one in such a position can make an absolute choice between diplomacy and force, picking one to the exclusion of the other.
What an American president can do — and what Mr. Obama stressed in his acceptance speech — is to recognize that even justified war inexorably leads to tragedy; to insist that any war in the name of religion defiles faith; to offer openness and negotiation when imposing sanctions and condemnation; to open doors to a new path even to repressive regimes.
Such approaches will not eliminate violent conflict. In Mr. Obama's case, he must still show that his deeds will match his words.
But the Peace Prize signifies the yearning of so many in the world for leaders with the values of peace-seekers. That the Nobel committee sees those qualities in America's president is inspiring.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 12:59 PM
1 Comments:
The Noble war prize 2009..
Post a Comment
<< Home