War and Peace, Obama Style
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 10 December 2009
by Pierre Rousselin (link to original)
It’s rare that the Nobel Peace Prize receives distinction for making itself an advocate of “just war” as a step in defending world peace. Seeing as this selection has attracted so much controversy—which began even before the results were known—Barack Obama wasn’t able to rest easy knowing he had universal thanks.
A double trap awaited him: first, he had to accept his recognition by the prestigious jury gracefully without becoming too invested in it, and without seeming to enjoy more popularity abroad than at home in the United States. Then, he had to distance himself from the pacifistic aspirations of the Nobel institution, so as not to feed the critical fire of those who judge his consensus-based approach to international affairs too naïve.
Barack Obama used the soapbox offered to him to give one of the seminal speeches that are his trademark. He explained that resorting to force can be “not only necessary but morally justified” because “evil does exist in the world,” responding to those who find his vision of the world overly idealistic.
There remained the objective of making a clear distinction between Obama and his predecessor, in giving his response to the doctrine of “preventative war” applied so recklessly in Iraq by George W. Bush. According to Obama, war should be carried out in accordance with “rules of conduct,” which “[make] us different from those whom we fight” and allow the West to defend its values; hence, his decision to forbid torture and to close Guantánamo.
There was also a warning for Iran in the speech, albeit without anything too aggressive. “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price,” Obama said, while recognizing that international pressure cannot be effective unless the whole world is truly united.
The awarding of the Nobel peace prize, under these controversial circumstances, has allowed Barack Obama to clarify his thoughts on such an important subject as war and peace. Once again, and without fail, his comments are destined to satisfy everyone at least a little, from human rights advocates to national security wonks. But after the time for speeches has passed, it is by his actions that Obama will be judged.
A double trap awaited him: first, he had to accept his recognition by the prestigious jury gracefully without becoming too invested in it, and without seeming to enjoy more popularity abroad than at home in the United States. Then, he had to distance himself from the pacifistic aspirations of the Nobel institution, so as not to feed the critical fire of those who judge his consensus-based approach to international affairs too naïve.
Barack Obama used the soapbox offered to him to give one of the seminal speeches that are his trademark. He explained that resorting to force can be “not only necessary but morally justified” because “evil does exist in the world,” responding to those who find his vision of the world overly idealistic.
There remained the objective of making a clear distinction between Obama and his predecessor, in giving his response to the doctrine of “preventative war” applied so recklessly in Iraq by George W. Bush. According to Obama, war should be carried out in accordance with “rules of conduct,” which “[make] us different from those whom we fight” and allow the West to defend its values; hence, his decision to forbid torture and to close Guantánamo.
There was also a warning for Iran in the speech, albeit without anything too aggressive. “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price,” Obama said, while recognizing that international pressure cannot be effective unless the whole world is truly united.
The awarding of the Nobel peace prize, under these controversial circumstances, has allowed Barack Obama to clarify his thoughts on such an important subject as war and peace. Once again, and without fail, his comments are destined to satisfy everyone at least a little, from human rights advocates to national security wonks. But after the time for speeches has passed, it is by his actions that Obama will be judged.
Next article![]( "Obama: Imperfect Deal is Better than Nothing")
