I watched a short clip today in which the Secretary of the Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, explained that the reason Obama was selected as the 2009 Laureate is because "he has produced a new international climate, [with emphases on] multilateral institutions, dialogue and negotiations, arms control and disarmament, a new climate agreement, and democracy and human rights."
In his acceptance speech, commonly known as the Nobel Lecture, President Obama touched on all of these points, but spent the majority of his time (a) discussing the philosophical justifications for armed conflict and (b) exploring ways in which we can build and sustain long-term world peace. With regards to this second point, he outlined three critical steps:
- Developing effective alternatives to violence, including the leveraging of international institutions and established frameworks to hold other nations accountable for less-than-desirable actions
- Defining what "peace" should entail in a particular context, for "only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting"
- Acknowledging and promoting the value of economics in securing peace, meaning significant investment in economic and social development
Dr. Ira Helfand at the IPPNW blog makes a good conjecture: perhaps this precise speech was the one that Obama needed to deliver at this precise time and from this precise pulpit. I cannot argue with that.
But I do feel that, considering the backlash the President has received for being awarded the Nobel Prize barely nine months into office, he should have focused more of his time on the goal of Global Zero and why that objective is in direct correlation with the will and ambitions of Alfred Nobel. I think that would have helped the world to understand why he is so deserving of the 2009 Peace Prize. He most certainly has brought about a change in the international climate, and his hard work in restoring America's tarnished image abroad must be lauded. But I believe his initial Nobel nomination came largely as a result of his immediate steps, upon taking office, to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Making that foreign policy objective a cornerstone of his Nobel Lecture would have garnered from the international disarmament community, including this writer, a much louder round of applause.
2 comments:
I think your critique for Obama's "failure" to adequately address proliferation issues is bit misplaced. The topic certainly was worth mentioning, as you noted he did, but I found he covered the topic just fine for the nature of the speech.
I'm not sure of your justification for the statement that the prize came "largely as a result of his immediate steps, upon taking office, to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons." I've read the Nobel committee's statements on why they selected him, and to be honest I don't remember their statement ever mentioning this topic. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, as he did takes a few important steps upon entering office, but it seems a stretch to say that this topic was the crux of his nomination/prize.
I applaud the topic; it's always good to have people pointing out proliferation issues where the US and the President can improve in content. But as a point of analysis, I find that this post takes that critique a bit too far. Best Regards, Clayton
I assume this is now-in-Boston Clayton? Good to see you're reading, and thank you for the remarks. I respectfully disagree with you, and I encourage you to go back and read the Nobel Press Release. I'll include the link below.
While you're right in that the Nobel committee's official statement certainly encompasses more than nuclear arms non-proliferation and disarmament, it very specifically mention's Obama's focus on this particular matter as a driving force behind their decision. Here is the very first paragraph of the statement:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Simply put, there is no larger threat to human security worldwide than the existence and potential use of nuclear weapons, and never before in our country's history has a President tackled the issue with such moving rhetoric and backed it up with such determined action. His efforts to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons certainly make him deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Post a Comment