Obama Nobel Peace Prize Speech: In Oslo, Norway The President Walks A Tightrope
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009
by Edward Rhymes
The President gave his Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo today against the backdrop of two wars; a economic crisis unseen since the Great Depression; and a summit clouded by controversy 300 miles away in Copenhagen.
President Obama, in the past, has shown a penchant for striking the right rhetorical note when the situation and circumstances call for it. In his speech, he acknowledged the debate that raged just after it was announced that he had won the prize --- what has he really done to deserve it? He addressed the issue by saying:
"Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. 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 of 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."
He then focused on the seeming contradiction of being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who has just ordered 30,000 more troops to the war in Afghanistan. President Obama met this challenge head-on by first stating that he was a product of Dr. King's (non-violent) work and that he was a "living testimony to the moral force of non-violence." He then said, "I know there is nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
He quickly couched those sentiments, however, with a hard truth that as the Commander-in-Chief; as a head of state, he had a moral obligation to protect the citizens of his country:
"[As] a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. 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. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."
I believe that at this point it would have been a good time for our current President to quote or echo a former President and general's words:
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
He might not have been able to say it as a soldier, but I believe our 44th president could have gleaned some sobering truths from our 34th. Nevertheless, overall his nuanced, balanced and forthright accounting of the complex issues that he faces as President and that we face as a world, struck the right chord (although at times he appeared to be over-justifying his positions concerning the war in Afghanistan).
He then finished by drawing (as he has so many times in his speeches) from the American civil rights legacy and the historical global struggle for human rights. These are the exact words from the text of his speech:
"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 faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naive; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
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 nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, 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, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
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 depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth."
President Obama's speech is sure to be met with some cynicism, skepticism and yes, even optimism. Speeches and rhetoric can never be a substitute for action, but they can, however, be used as a call to it.
President Obama, in the past, has shown a penchant for striking the right rhetorical note when the situation and circumstances call for it. In his speech, he acknowledged the debate that raged just after it was announced that he had won the prize --- what has he really done to deserve it? He addressed the issue by saying:
He then focused on the seeming contradiction of being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who has just ordered 30,000 more troops to the war in Afghanistan. President Obama met this challenge head-on by first stating that he was a product of Dr. King's (non-violent) work and that he was a "living testimony to the moral force of non-violence." He then said, "I know there is nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."
He quickly couched those sentiments, however, with a hard truth that as the Commander-in-Chief; as a head of state, he had a moral obligation to protect the citizens of his country:
"[As] a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. 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. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."
I believe that at this point it would have been a good time for our current President to quote or echo a former President and general's words:
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
He might not have been able to say it as a soldier, but I believe our 44th president could have gleaned some sobering truths from our 34th. Nevertheless, overall his nuanced, balanced and forthright accounting of the complex issues that he faces as President and that we face as a world, struck the right chord (although at times he appeared to be over-justifying his positions concerning the war in Afghanistan).
He then finished by drawing (as he has so many times in his speeches) from the American civil rights legacy and the historical global struggle for human rights. These are the exact words from the text of his speech:
"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 faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naive; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
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 nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, 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, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
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 depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth."
President Obama's speech is sure to be met with some cynicism, skepticism and yes, even optimism. Speeches and rhetoric can never be a substitute for action, but they can, however, be used as a call to it.
This Article has been viewed 2,427 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (7 total)Great article!I think this was the best speech President Obama has given and I agree that there are many who will not take to his words. Acknowledging that war is sometimes the only answer is a truth and the President said it graciously, honestly and with great humility. For one who was stuck 'between a rock and a hard place' over the Nobel Peace Prize issue, he deserves applause and approval.Thanks Nancy. I still don't agree with his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but I do recognize the complexities that are inherit in the choices he has to make.I guess what I'm trying to say is that he did an excellent job of stating a position I don't necessarily agree with. He is my president and I'll be praying for him, the troops and the people of Afghanistan who are suffering.Thanks again Nancy for stopping by.And we do need to support him with prayer - that is probably the one thing we can do that will be the most effective... Marijo
I agree it was a good speech, and yet Mr. Obama has no shortage of those. I also hope this is a call to action as opposed to (more) debate and deliberation. I have hope for this president, even with his slow start and the myriad of problems he is facing.As always, we are Americans and if he leads, we will follow. He is doing his part, now is the time for us to do ours.Nicely done. Edward.Thanks Michael. I essentially looked at the circumstances that he faced as he made that speech in Oslo (as well as the irony) and I believe he did an excellent job of framing his position --- and now I will be say this for the third time... a position with which I don't agree with.I do, however, believe (and you touched on this in your comment) that certain level of respect ought to be given concerning the difficulty of the decisions he has to make. By that I do not my mean that we cease to critique his decisions or criticize what we feel are wrong moves.Thanks again for reading and commenting Michael.
We need to be praying for our President and his family, Michelle, Sasha and Malia daily - also his advisers and others who are in key positions in our government... Thanks for writing this Edward! MarijoThanks Marijo and Amen.
Yes, Edward, it was a great speech as yours is a well-written article. Yet I think the president could have shown moral courage had he turned down the Peace Prize due to his decision to be actively engaged in a war he has recently escalated. How could President Obama in good conscience dispatch 30,000 troops to Afghanistan on one hand, then reach out with the other hand to grab a Peace Prize in Norway? It is hard to miss the glaring hypocrisy of being Man O' War and Man O' Peace at the same time. But the Nobel Committee bears the greater blame and shame for mocking the notion of a Peace Prize on a global scale. ~mogama~Thanks for commenting Mogama.I agree that he should have rejected the Prize, IF he felt the same way that we do. You and I may believe that it is wrong (and I do) to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but we should not be surprised --- this is what he campaigned on.He said Iraq was the wrong war; Afghanistan was the right war. He said when he got in office that he would put the military's focus back on Afghanistan, because the previous administration dropped the ball. What did we expect him to do?Now, those of us who voted for him had to have heard him say these things and yet... he still got our votes. Once again: I do not believe in the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, but in terms of arguing his case (and I am still not in favor his position) he did very well.Thanks Mogama for stopping by and commenting. I admire your passion.
I think it would be hard to be in the Presidents position. I do not agree with his policies or beliefs but I do respect the office of the President. I will continue to pray for him and his family and as always for God's will to be done in all situations. Thanks for a great article.Linda DThanks Linda. I believe, as you it is difficult to be in his position and there are some hard decisions that he has to make. I also believe, however, that we will be a lot more effective in our prayers and concerns if we didn't make it a zero-sum advocacy.You wrote that you "do not agree with his policies or beliefs." Are there no policies of his that you agree with? If you can find even one, I think it helps in our empathy not only for the President, but others in our lives who we, at times, find it difficult to agree with.Please don't take my observation as a rebuke, because it is not --- I find I have to continually remind myself of what I communicated to you.Thanks for stopping by Linda and blessings to you.
Good read Ed!I still think the International governments (New World Order) want sustained action in Afghanistan, therefore they pressured the Nobel committee to give the Nobel to O'bama as a symbol of a trusting peaceful man. Without the Nobel it would have been hard for O'bama to sell the American people and their allies on the idea of more troops.With the Nobel at his side it makes the public have the, "Well if the Nobel committee and world leaders agree he deserved the Nobel, then his decision to add troops in Afghanistan must mean he knows what he's doing," attitude.It's only when people finally realize governments by their very nature are corrupt and do not represent the people, will we see things as they are and not as they want us to view them. Remember, governments have the weapons, secret services, power, and money for propaganda. That's powerful stuff against the average uninformed mind.Notice how he mentioned time and again the likes of King and Gandhi? The New World Order is advertising and selling us on the notion that O'bama is a peaceful man, while their secret society makes all the decisions for escalating war. I can't prove any of this, but common sense tells me this is SCREWY!My hope is O'bama is following the New World Order's agenda with a plan of his own to undermine it. The Kennedy's were too vocal in their opposition to secret societies, thus they had to be "eliminated." Maybe O'bama is aware of this, and will go along for the ride much like an undercover police officer does when pursuing proof of a crime or corruption.Only time will tell.Thanks for commenting Kenny. I, for one, am not among those who thinks that Nobel committee's selection of him as a prize recipient, makes his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan proper or right.My writing of this was strictly a critique of tone and context of his speech --- based on those things, he made a compelling (yet flawed) case.Thanks for stopping Kenny.
Trust me Ed, I KNOW you wouldn't or couldn't agree to his escalation of war in Afghanistan. I wasn't thinking that of you.I didn't think you did Kenny. I just find it a whole lot easier to state my intentions clearly --- just out of reflex. Thanks friend for commenting, I always appreciate it.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.