PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOBEL SPEECH – HE DOESN’T GET IT…
I may be alone among conservatives in offering some criticism of President Obama’s Nobel speech. Sarah Palin liked it! So did Newt Gingrich? Who am I to argue with former Governor Palin or former Speaker Gingrich? (At least former UN Ambassador John Bolton did not like this speech!) Nevertheless, here I go…
In all due respect for the Presidency, my humble criticism. Let’s start here:
Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight.
I am not going there on the “Should President Obama have won?” question. When an American President wins the Peace Prize it is an historic event. But note some significant omissions among the four laureates cited: The 1983 winner: Lech Walesa. The 1989 winner: The 14th Dalai Lama. The 1975 winner: Andrei Sakharov. Even the 1990 winner: Mikhail Gorbachev. All of who fought against communism or tried to give it a human face. I think this was not an omission; I’ll demonstrate below:
Now, check out this passage:
The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
So far, so good. Cong. Ron Paul has said pretty much the same thing on the floor of Congress. But we then have this defense of unnecessary intervention from the President:
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
There was no business for us to attack Serbia in 1999. No national interest required it. I do not condone what either the Serbs did or the Albanians but it was not worth ONE American Soldier’s life. It was a feel good war. It was not declared as required by the Constitution. I want to repeat again what we did in Serbia: We attacked another sovereign nation that had not nor was about to attack the United States. This must never happen again.
The President says this about less violent intervention:
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
I contrast this to a former President who might have well won a Nobel Peace Prize if there were one in 1828: John Quincy Adams: “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” I believe as a follower of Christ, we may have a duty to act as private citizens, but our government needs to mind its own business and take care primarily of our own people and institutions. We have unfed children. We have bad schools. We have infrastructure needs. We have mountains of debt that is no being used by foreign nations to try to influence our domestic policy. We do not need to seek monsters to destroy abroad.
I promised you that the omission of Walesa, et al, was not unintentional. Here is what he said about another President who desered but did not get the Nobel: Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.
Mr. President, with all due respect, are you kidding me? Reagan was clear that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” (This was from the 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL; William Safire in his book “Lend Me Your Ears” cited Henry Steele Commager as saying this was the worst Presidential speech ever. Reagan should consider that a compliment!) and Reagan was clear from his 1987 Berlin speech what must be done:
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
It is to General Secretary Gorbachev’s credit that he did tear down this wall. But Reagan did not help liberate Eastern and Central Europe by embracing arms control and perestroika; he did by arming Europe with missiles, fighting the “nuclear freeze” movement, and embracing SDI. Gorbachev showed his hand when he proposed in Iceland in 1986 deep cuts in nuclear weapons if SDI stayed in the lab. Reagan also, with the assistance of US labor leaders, helped Solidarity in Poland when that nation was under martial law. He worked with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to keep the flame of liberty burning. Now, prise be to God, Eastern Europe is freer than it ever has been!
I am afraid President Obama does not get it. Here’s what he said about Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II:
Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.
The Pope engaged with Poland? He was Polish! This was poor wording at best. It demonstrates a weak understanding of the great victory the West won against communism. it was a miracle of God. Whitaker Chambers wrote in the great book that is a great read, Witness, that when he defected from the communist underground in 1937 he was leaving the winning world for the losing world. It may seem that way some times, but Jesus will come again and make all things right!
Let’s congratulate President Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize. But let’s realize that this speech, while masterfully written and executed, contains several serious flaws.
(I thank Reagan 2020 for research help on Reagan.)
