STAR/TRIBUNE
OSLO, NORWAY - President Obama delivered an impassioned rationale for war in accepting the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace on Thursday, a paradox that he acknowledged even as he defended America's record abroad in promoting human rights, individual freedom and global security.
Obama's remarks offered a lofty, ideological justification for his decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his audience reached beyond the vaulted ceilings of Oslo City Hall to electorates in the United States and Europe, where many believe the war is no longer worth fighting.
While the president invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and called himself "living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence," Obama also recalled the advance of Adolf Hitler's army during World War II to argue that, sometimes, only force can resolve injustice and protect civilian lives.
Obama also used the speech to acknowledge the criticism that, less than a year into his presidency, he is undeserving of a prize that has been given to "Schweitzer and King, Marshall and Mandela." After receiving the award with "great gratitude and great humility," Obama reminded the audience that he is "at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage" and cited rights activists around the world who "have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice."
Obama spoke candidly to an audience full of officials representing countries deeply opposed to the Afghan conflict. He did not receive applause until more than halfway through his speech -- and even then not for his defense of "just war" but for his decision to close the military brig at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and prohibit torture.
Obama also explained that if there is a just war, there must also be a just peace. That, too, requires rules. "First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something," he said.
The Nobel Prize for Peace consists of a diploma and a gold medal bearing the etched face of Alfred Nobel, the wealthy chemist and inventor of dynamite who endowed the prize more than a century ago. It carries a $1.4 million cash award, which the White House has said Obama will donate to charity. First Lady Michelle Obama listened to her husband's words and showed tears by the end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I dont think he should have been given the nobel Peace Prize because, what did he solve, what did he do to create peace in some part of the world. Well he might have made a good decision by sending 30,000 troops into Afganistan but i dont think he will send any troops back untill, like 2014 but you never know what he will do? so i think he should not have been given that award because he didn't do anything yet to deserve it, and the big embassedors thought he had a good speach and i believe them but that doesn't mean he should get an award for it.
ReplyDeleteWell, the good thing is we have proof that the Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely nothing anymore. First Jimmy Carter, than Al Gore, and now Barack Obama. In order to win the Nobel Peace Prize you have to be very liberal; forget about peace. I wonder if the president knows he doesn't have to accept the award; he easily could have allowed someone who worked hard for it to have a chance. The funny thing is, Obama was nominated for the award just days after he took office. He hasn't done anything good for the country now (although sending the troops to Afghanistan was a little better) and he didn't do anything for the country back then.
ReplyDeletei dont see how in the world obama got this. he just got elcted and isnt even through his first year yet. he couldnt have done stuff that deserving of that award. and his speech was very hypocritical. which doesnt seem to bright on his part. i mean your saying your living proof of peace and then go off about adolf hitler's ways are sometimes the way to solve the problem? adolf hitler didnt seem to peaceful to me. i could see maybe getting it in 2 or 3 years after he has done something but not yet.
ReplyDeleteI can't see anything that Obama has done that would qualify as deserving the peace prize. The only thing I can think of that would be a reason for him winning the prize, is becoming the first black president of the U.S. and that's not good enough to justify him winning. He wasn't even trying to create peace in the world as far as I know, he just wanted to become president - and so did alot of other people. It is a big step for America, but the more we drag it on, the more obvious the 'difference' will be between people of different races. Everybody is equal, and hopefully all presidents try equally hard to improve our country and in some cases, the world.
ReplyDeleteLAST COMMENT
ReplyDelete