The following comment contains my prepared remarks for a public colloquium at the University of Delaware focusing on the 2009 Nobel Prize Laureates. I was tasked with discussing the Nobel Peace Prize.
“Barack Obama and the Audacity of Peace”
By David C. Wilson, Ph.D.
October 23, 2009
Our New Way of Life
In September of 2001, our country changed. Prior to 2001, although other nations across the globe have lived FOR DECADES under the daily threat of attack, the United States had been largely viewed as “untouchable.” We now know we were not.
In response to the attacks of September 11th, the Legislative Branch of our government gave the Office of the President unprecedented powers to protect America and its inhabitants. The resulting policy choice was characterized by unilateralism, preemptive military action, and dogma.
If you were not “with us,” you were “against us, AND if our leaders believed another country was a threat to attack America, it was our policy to treat that country as IF it had actually carried out the attack. This doctrine encouraged the American public to view other nations with skepticism and dissention. It also helped to highlight our DIFFERENCES and blind us to our SIMILARITIES with other nations.
My Experience
I am a direct witness to the effects of such a policy. From February 2003 to April 2004, I was an Army Reservist activated in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was sent to Baghdad, Iraq to work with the Coalition Provisional Authority. Our task was to rebuild Iraq, and my job was to help build a new Iraqi Defense Force or “New Iraqi Army.” But, as I traveled across Iraq, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other bordering countries, I sensed that Americans were no longer viewed as the “protectors of the FREE WORLD,” instead we were viewed as the “perpetrators” of hostile and unsavory acts; Acts often justified through the lens of war.
From the front lines we saw stories of torture in Abu Ghraib; [we saw] soldiers stealing from, abusing, and assaulting innocent civilians (AND U.S. contractors…who were not all American….doing the same); I witnessed objectionable treatment of Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers; and we read about (and KNEW ABOUT) the “extra-ordinary rendition” of individuals also known as torture by proxy via “black sites”.
I saw firsthand the effects of war, the pain and suffering of children without parents, families with homes destroyed to rubble and dust; and I saw people without hope. I witnessed the blood and the body parts, the smell and sight of death, and the uncertainty of knowing whether or not the day you start alive would end the same way.
And, when I returned home I was shocked to see how little Americans knew about the everyday aspects of WAR, and worse, how much people not THERE were removed from the Conflicts being conducted in their name. The “US” and “THEM,” the “HERE” and “THERE,” they were more concrete and visible as ever. It was the exact opposite of PEACE.
The Nobel Prize goes to U.S. President Barack Obama
On October 9th of this year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. At his press conference, Barack Obama accepted the award on behalf of his administration, and also on behalf of everyone who strives for "justice and dignity.” He FELT he didn’t deserve "to be in the company" of past Nobel Peace Prize winners; BUT, …..I think the President was a bit too gracious in his acceptance remarks.
One of only 4 U.S. presidents to win the award he was only the 3rd sitting president to win….. AND, he is the 1st U.S. President to win the award in his first year in office, and the 1st U.S. President to win with a unanimous vote.
What the Committee Said
The committee said President Obama was awarded the prize, and I quote: “for his EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” We should pause to think about what this statement means. We know how statesmen wage war …. But, how do “statesmen” wage peace?
The answer is they do it by fostering cooperation, identifying and building on areas of consensus rather than disagreement. Statesmen go places where they are not necessarily welcome as a show of good will. They often extend the hand of friendship FIRST. They seek to build trust rather than confrontation. And, IF CONFLICT IS PRESENT they are typically motivated to RESOLVE it, rather than “WIN” it.
This is may be why President Obama made the decision to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program; why he has taken diplomatic steps to reinvigorate US efforts in the Israel-Palestinian peacemaking process; why he delivered a speech in Cairo, Egypt to help the Muslim world understand America’s predicament, and also help American’s understand that we cannot allow fears and stereotypes to dictate our foreign policy; why he has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay detention facility (and it will close); AND why he canceled a planned missile-shield defense system in Eastern Europe. I could go on and talk about his many effort, but I only have about 20 minutes to speak….
But, the key is the outcome. What is the outcome of all of this?
Just like the vibrancy of the U.S. economy is based on a sentiment measure, called the consumer confidence index, THE VIBRANCY AND POTENTIAL FOR OUR WORLD PARTNERS TO SUPPORT OUR GLOBAL INTERESTS depends on how others view us politically. Over the past 7 years the world came to disapprove of America’s foreign policy positions, and the leadership breeding those decisions.
So, when the 2009 Nation Brands Index survey reported that, FOR THE FIRST TIME in the survey’s history, the UNITED STATES topped the list as the most admired and appreciated nation around the world, it showed that something was different.
Results from Pew’s Global Attitudes Project suggest President Obama has something to do with this turnaround. In every region in the world, people
1. Have more confidence in President Obama’s foreign policy judgments than they had in the former administration’s judgments.
2. They believe Obama will be more multi-lateral, seeking partnership over “going it alone.”
2. They have increased confidence that Obama and the United States will do the “right thing” in world affairs.
3. People in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, and Nigeria have more confidence in President Obama than they have in Osama Bin Laden. Only 1 year ago, these numbers were reverse, and confidence in Bin Laden’s was significantly higher than confidence in President Bush
Thus, the Norwegian committee did not award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize because he is popular, or because he is simply the U.S. President; they awarded him the prize because through his efforts (which obviously include his campaign activities and promises) he has CHANGED THE DIRECTION of the United States and arguably the world. And, that my friends, is NO SMALL FEAT….. and according to the Norwegian Committee, it’s more than enough for the prize.
While some may disagree with my assessment, NO ONE can ARGUE the President hasn’t met the standards for the award. Those who claim “it’s too early to tell” or that the “president’s resume is not long enough,” have simply not done their homework on the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Purpose of the Nobel Prize
According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Nobel prizes were to be awarded [quote] to "those who, during the PRECEDING YEAR, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
However, the Nobel committees rarely used “time-oriented” criteria. In many cases, the awards are given to individuals for their life-long or decades of work, rather than their efforts in a preceding year.
Thus, the committee has never actually been bound by a period of time, as originally conceived by Nobel.
The Prize for Peace
The PEACE Prize SPECIFICALLY is to be awarded to persons who had been working for [quote] "FRATERNITY between nations, for the abolition or REDUCTION OF STANDING ARMIES and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Nobel gave no other criterion or guidance other than the award would be decided by members of a Norwegian committee appointed by the country’s parliament.
1. The award does not specify an “amount” of work one must accomplish
2. It does not specify a “position” that one must hold, or not hold
3. There are no specific “actions” or “causes” that nominees must undertake
4. And, nowhere in the rules does it say that people have to AGREE with the Norweigan Committee
Thus, Peace Prize winners have included:
1) A socialist (Henri La Fontaine)
2) A Secretary of War/State (Elihu Root)
3) A Church Leader (Lars Olof Nathan Söderblom)
4) An Agricultural Scientist (Lord John Boyd Orr of Brechin)
5) A Creator of a Soviet Hydrogen Bomb (Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov), and …
6) An “interpreter” of the Holocaust (Elie Wessel)
Thus, while some with both genuine, and with sinister, curiosity ask WHY Barack Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I easily say, WHY NOT?
The Peace Prize is a nudge
Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are given for a lifetime of generally indisputable high achievement in areas like physics, chemistry, economics, and literature, the PEACE PRIZE has often been awarded more in “hope than hindsight” and with an eye toward MOVING ALONG IMPORTANT WORLD EVENTS.
A former Nobel Peace Prize committee chair, Aase Lionæs (Usa Ly-O-naws), explained the history and reasoning behind some of the more controversial award recipients. These were primarily statesmen who were leaders of militaries during times of war, or who had been at one time associated with violent causes. She said,
[quote] "... the Nobel Peace Prize has …. been awarded to persons exercising political responsibility and heavily committed to the puzzling and chaotic forces of events. These persons were awarded the Peace Prize BECAUSE in the course of their activities they had indicated the road that should be followed. These persons were awarded the Peace Prize because, within the framework of the politically possible, they championed a peace which, though it might not be perfect, was nevertheless a step along this road."
The Chosen Few
President Obama is an unconventional selection for the Nobel prize, and therefore controversial. But, this is mainly because he won the award so soon in his presidency.
Yet, when placed in the proper historical and political context it makes almost perfect sense that he is the winner. The Nobel Peace Prize is typically not awarded to the faint of heart. Those who win the award have to go against a norm, a norm that says
1. Maintain and keep POWER,
2. Conform to tradition and history,
3. FIGHT and WIN at all costs;
4. Be “self-interested,” and
5. DO NOT appear WEAK.
It takes great effort and courage to go against this norm, particularly in light of September 2001. And typically, those who do go against the norm are not “rewarded” for it…. They are criticized as hurting America, and embolden-ing its enemies.
Dove vs. Hawk Ideology
Recently, in a speech to a lobbying group, former presidential candidate, and Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney said the following about Iran:
“The Iranian leadership is the greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany…”
He characterized the Iranian regime is “evil, run by people who are at the same time ruthless and fanatical."
In reference to President Obama’s foreign policy approach toward Iran, Romney said.
"Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence."
Indeed, individuals who wage PEACE must have altruistic motivations. Thus, in proper perspective, the Nobel Peace Prize is a BURDEN of sorts. It is a BURDEN handed out to the CHOSEN FEW who have the unique ability to go against this norm.
The Nobel Peace Prize is like the little white angel sitting on the shoulder fighting the little red devil. It keeps the recipient of the award on the right path, NOT because it’s simply the right thing to do, but because the recipient is the one WHO PEOPLE LOOK TO for the courage to do it. Thus, in a sense the Nobel Peace Prize, particularly when awarded to statesmen, is an inherently prospective award, rather than a retrospective award. We should not necessarily look to what President Obama has done in the PAST, but HOPE that he will continue undertake those “EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS” to wage PEACE in the future.
The Political Winner
So, there is little doubt that President Obama’s honor is in many ways “political;” …. Perhaps if he had NOT won the presidency he would not have been selected.
But, perhaps HE WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE because he did win. And, he didn’t just win the popular vote; he won the battle of IDEAS and PRINCIPLES.
The American public and most of the people around the globe were moved by what Obama stood for: empathy, unity, patriotism, values of hard work, civility, and peace. His message of HOPE asked each of us to find STRENGTH and UNITY in our HIGHER ideas and values, rather than see DIFFERENCES through fears and stereotypes.
Of course, today, with all the media coverage of negativity, it’s difficult to recall the jubilation and awe that followed Obama’s campaign. The hundreds of thousands of individuals who volunteered, who stood in line for hours to hear his message of hope, who braved freezing temperatures to watch his inauguration. It was monumental in terms of what it meant for America. It showed that one individual can inspire millions across the globe to believe in an idea: HOPE.
And, the winning idea of HOPE was in part, a statement about the character of our democracy. Obama’s election says something about democracy’s potential to yield profoundly edifying and legendary moments.
The Stamp of Approval
In my opinion the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is a wake-up call to those Americans who waver about the leadership direction of the President’s. The Prize is a stamp of approval of sorts.
You see….Sometimes when we are looking at a project for too long we forget about why we started the project, why we were passionate about it in the first place. Others start to tell us it won’t come out right, or that we should change something here or there. We begin to question whether we should continue to put all of our efforts into the project, and before long, we actually think about dropping the project all together.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee said to President Obama, DO NOT STOP your project, WE BELIEVE IN YOU and in your IDEAS. More importantly they are saying, WE BELIEVE IN YOUR DEMOCRACY.
So, please join me in a symbolic gesture of thanks to the president of the United States for having the AUDACITY to wage PEACE.