Round The World

New Delhi, 15 December 2009

Noble Peace Speech

OBAMA JUSTIFIES WAR

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

 Putting his oratory skills and rhetorical flourish to the best use, President Barack Obama with his speech in Oslo has managed to give his critics much food for thought. Dispelling strict dichotomy between war and peace, between realism and idealism, Obama dwelt on the idea that war is sometimes inevitable and necessary in the pursuit for peace. He combined pessimism in human nature to do evil things with the optimism in the human ability to bond and fight evil forces. Giving a clever mix of the world as it is and the world as it ought to be, he emphasized that a leader entrusted with the responsibility of securing a nation had to resort to force in the real world where evil is not a product of mere imagination.

Reflecting on the challenges that the human race has had to face in its history, he stated that pacific and non-violent means could not have confronted and defeated the cruel and diabolic advances of Hitler’s Nazis. He added that negotiations cannot convince the Al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.

President Obama’s speech, on an occasion awarding him as the champion of peace, presented some watered down realist dishes with some well-placed idealist toppings. He sought to highlight the realist cynicism in human nature, the willingness and the capability of human beings to inflict damage upon each other and that the necessity of war is often a by-product of the mistakes made by humans. As such, he sought to strive for a more pragmatic approach to bringing peace, which as President Kennedy had propounded should be based “not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

In an effort to further build on his image as a US President, who prioritized American security but at the same time respected the centrality of international institutions, he spoke at length about the validity of international norms and standards. He called for more multilateral actions in global relations, especially hinting to the need for cooperation in Afghanistan. Though accepting that war in itself could never be glorious, he also believed that, “peace required responsibility and sacrifices and that the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.”

Reflecting on the fact that the superpower could not go alone in changing the world, where the problems are more complex and multi-pronged needing the resources and expertise of different nations, President Obama said, “America's commitment to global security will never waiver. 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.” While accepting that the nature of the international system often necessitates self-help measures to defend one’s country, he expressed the significance and legitimacy of internationally-supported actions.

The idea of “American exceptionalism”, the idea of the US being a standard bearer in human conduct was liberally sprinkled all over the speech. The world at present is confronted with unconventional threats and the distortion of religious teachings lead to violent ramifications against the human race. No country is really secured from the scourge of terrorists groups that try to subvert all forms of law and conduct, while nation States are bounded by the norms and standards of international co-existence. But, President Obama spoke in favor of maintaining these differences, re-emphasizing American values and conduct. He said, “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 US must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.”

Obama spoke in favor of both sanctions and engagement with the “rogue States”, which flout international standards of conduct. His attempts at engaging with countries such as Iran and North Korea have met with little results. But it is too early to give a report card. “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure,” he said, emphasizing the need for multilateral and concerted actions, noting “such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”

In difficult situations of negotiations when it is hard to strike a bargain, clever diplomacy demands that the other party should not be pushed to a corner with no choice and no traction. As such, he spoke in favour of efforts of engagement and choices amid sanctions and impending punishment. “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,” he said.

Treading an imperfect world populated by a more imperfect human race, force is often a necessary evil in the pursuit of peace. The path of the unending search for virtue is often laden with vices. This is best expressed in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. whom President Obama quoted. King had said, “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.”

Indeed, Obama raised eyebrows of peaceniks in the US who want the Afghanistan war ends once and for all. His recent announcement to increase troops there upset anti-war Democrats, a key component of his election victory. His speech in Oslo only inflamed opposition to the troop surge. But the speech won praises from conservative figures like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Gingrich in an interview on National Public Radio said, “I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having force I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech.”

In the final analysis, Obama’s speech served as a reminder that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the lone military superpower in the world, engaged globally. It served as a much more nuanced justification of the American engagement in Afghanistan. He entered as one of the most popular US presidents at home and abroad. But his popularity ratings are dipping, with two unfinished wars and a derailed economy. In the face of such adversities, it was a courageous act to defend the use of force to preserve peace. However, it has become a norm with Obama’s speeches. It now needs to be seen how much of his policy projections and brilliant ideas can be implemented on ground. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)