Today President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize. Good for him; it is nice to see our President honored.
But now more than ever, the always noble effort to attempt nonviolent solutions should not be confused with appeasement, or the granting of tolerance, free reign, and even materials to evil, rogue regimes and actors.
With a vicious and determined enemy in the present leadership of Iran, which is working furiously to attain nuclear capability and could have it in the coming months, we must support President Obama in taking seriously his responsibility, as leader of the free world, to keep the peace. If he understands the potential nightmare facing the world, starting with the people of the middle east and radiating outward, should a rogue regime like the one in power in Iran obtain nuclear weapons, he will, if he is a man of peace and moral courage, do everything in his power to prevent that regime from attaining nuclear weapons.
Pacifism is a noble attitude, and one to honor in those called, for instance, to lives of religious worship or of humanitarian service. But it is a luxury that our President, as leader of the free world–leader of not an idealized world, but the world as it exists–cannot afford. It is a luxury that the free world, at this juncture, cannot afford.
In “The Gathering Storm,” his memoir of the years leading up to World War II, Winston Churchill made the point that, had the nations of the free world been united in containing Germany, a massive world war could have been averted. Instead, individuals including former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain chose the path of dialogue with Hitler, and emerged from negotiations with the assurance of “peace in our time.” How lovely the words and assurances, and how hollow. In the end, actions always speak louder than words. The world got not peace but the worst violent bloodshed humanity has known.
A great leader, and a man–or woman–of peace, governs with wisdom. Ideally he or she has the tools and influence to keep the peace through nonviolent means. But should force become necessary as a last resort, he or she will have the courage to employ it in service of the greater good. In the present case, should it become necessary, assembling an international force to disarm Iran’s nuclear program would be the greatest contribution to world peace that President Obama could make.
Let us ardently hope receiving this award bolsters our President’s standing to work with other nations in not only talking of peace but in taking the necessary action required to keep peace in our time and that of our children.
One Comment
It was encouraging to see Obama win the Nobel Peace prize, but for the fact that Barak Obama the man won it. Obama is the current commander in chief of the United States and our country’s most visible leader.
Obama winning the Nobel Prize was a statement about the United States itself.
Thus, the award of the Nobel prize to Obama was a compliment and a word of encouragement to the United States and its citizens as a whole.
The two prior US presidents who have won the Nobel Prize have had mixed results (from the LA Times):
Theodore Roosevelt won for his role in forging the Portsmouth Treaty, which ended the Russo-Japanese War but brought only a temporary cessation of animosity between those two countries.
Woodrow Wilson won for his promotion of the League of Nations, but he was unable to persuade even his own country to join, and the organization failed utterly after the rise of fascism.
Let’s hope Obama can do better.
In order to have a chance to effectively address threats present across the world in North Korea and Iran, which have been stewing for decades, Obama must forge broad international coalitions.
Winning the Nobel Peace Prize may play some role in helping him gain the credibility to allow him to do so.
In addition, we can be proud of fact that he won as Americans are proud of US athletes who win international competitions such as gold medals in the Olympics.
Post a Comment