While the world’s socio-political leaders and the so inclined individuals debate about his credentials, US President Barrack Obama has graciously accepted the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace on December 10. The debates focus on whether Obama, who has been leading two wars after assuming presidency, was eligible for the world’s most respected Peace award. Especially, since it’s been only days after he had escalated the war in Afghanistan agreeing that many will die based on his decisions.
Whatever side one may take in the debate, Obama himself has acknowledged the controversy in his acceptance speech saying his ‘accomplishments (were) slight’ and that there were men and women who were ‘far more deserving’ of the honor than him.
That should end the controversy, though the question turns to ‘Did the Nobel committee get it right in the first place? Well, we quite know how the award committees work…the prize is overtly political, many think so…
Whatsoever, his speech after receiving the award about the possibility of world peace is quite intriguing and points to the reality of things to come--
First, he has most courteously defended the wars, claiming that there is such a thing as a ‘just war', and that ‘instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.’
Reasonable as it is quite apparent!
But his statement, ‘We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified,’ quite realistically sets aside the chance of world peace and suggests the possibility of continuing war.
As any of us, Obama does acknowledge the moral force of nonviolence propounded by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi as a means to achieve world peace. He quotes Luther King who said in the same ceremony years ago: ‘Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones,’ and added: ‘I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naïve, in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.’
But he soon changed the tone of his speech, saying that he had to ‘face the world as it is’, and asserting the presence of evil in the world, he said: ‘But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their (Gandhi and Dr King) examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.’
So he is committed to protecting his people than what the award calls for. Is that fully justified? May be, may be not…
Whatever side one may take in the debate, Obama himself has acknowledged the controversy in his acceptance speech saying his ‘accomplishments (were) slight’ and that there were men and women who were ‘far more deserving’ of the honor than him.
That should end the controversy, though the question turns to ‘Did the Nobel committee get it right in the first place? Well, we quite know how the award committees work…the prize is overtly political, many think so…
Whatsoever, his speech after receiving the award about the possibility of world peace is quite intriguing and points to the reality of things to come--
First, he has most courteously defended the wars, claiming that there is such a thing as a ‘just war', and that ‘instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.’
Reasonable as it is quite apparent!
But his statement, ‘We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified,’ quite realistically sets aside the chance of world peace and suggests the possibility of continuing war.
As any of us, Obama does acknowledge the moral force of nonviolence propounded by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi as a means to achieve world peace. He quotes Luther King who said in the same ceremony years ago: ‘Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones,’ and added: ‘I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naïve, in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.’
But he soon changed the tone of his speech, saying that he had to ‘face the world as it is’, and asserting the presence of evil in the world, he said: ‘But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their (Gandhi and Dr King) examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.’
So he is committed to protecting his people than what the award calls for. Is that fully justified? May be, may be not…
But that raises a doubt- didn’t King and Gandhiji see the world as it was? Okay, perhaps they weren’t so successful and the world today needs strategies and strategists, not philosophies and philosophers.
So it’s almost settling when he sates as strategic leader: ‘Let us focus on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.’
Yes, sounds workable in the long run. While he goes on to explore the likely concerted actions for achieving world peace and implications thereof, one clearly gets the intent- a knowledge that has been around since the time of the first man on earth:
That the way to world peace is just not known…
And, force and war may be here to say at the national and international level….
Perhaps they may war more peacefully in the coming times!
But Obama continues to interest with his idea on the nature of the peace that the world seeks, turning the focus from nations to individuals. ‘Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting,’ he asserts. And one can’t agree more.
But his view also points to Nobel Laureate Albert Einstein’s observation on war, human spirit, and perhaps the impossibility of peace, than its possibility -- ‘The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is not a problem of physics but of ethics. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil from the spirit of man.’
So in a way, the problem of war, and hence peace, lies on the individual level.
Then, most significantly, the solution too lies on the individual level!
May Peace Be With You, All!
************
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/12/2711565.htm
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment