Download Title: Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize Teaser: Obama`s Nobel

Title:
Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize
Teaser:
Obama's Nobel Prize speech focused on the notion of the "just war"
and his administration's initiatives to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Pull Quote:
Obama's speech reflected the Augustinian notion of the just war.
U.S. President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in
Oslo, Norway on Thursday. Obama began his speech by
acknowledging previous Nobel Prize winners and citing his own lack
of achievements towards peace, taking credit only for his actions to
stop torture, close the Guantanamo Bay prison, and reaffirm
America's commitment to the Geneva Conventions. He also admitted
the irony of receiving the prize despite his role as the U.S.
Commander in Chief directing two wars, one of which -- Afghanistan - he has recently chosen to escalate.
More broadly, Obama's speech reflected the Augustinian notion of
the "just war." Touring the history of war and identifying it as a natural
human phenomenon, Obama addressed the 20th century's world
wars and the international institutions designed subsequently to
prevent relapses, pointing to the Cold War as evidence that these
institutions succeeded in preventing a third world war.
Yet when Obama spoke of the post-Cold War period, he focused on
one of his administration's foreign policy initiatives -- preventing
nuclear proliferation. Though he has said destroying all nuclear
weapons within his lifetime may not be possible, he argued that war
certainly could not be extinguished in such a timeframe and that both
bilateral and multilateral wars would continue to happen. Specifically
he focused on the American military's role in the international system,
saying that the U.S. military has been a force for peace and global
security since the end of World War II.
In other words, the bulk of Obama's acceptance speech concentrated
on the principle of just war and the view that American military
intervention historically has conformed to that principle.
At this point, Obama was clearly thinking of Iran. Tehran has rejected
international proposals to persuade it to open up its nuclear program.
Iran is pressing against the deadline -- at the end of 2009 -- to accept
a plan for verifying the program's civilian aims. The deadline has
already been pushed back several times by the United States.
Hence, in a few short weeks, Iran's delay will force the United States
to act on its promises to punish Tehran, namely through sanctions.
Obama addressed this when he said that there must be "alternatives
to violence that are tough enough to change behavior," and that
"sanctions must exact a real price." Obama then mentioned Iran by
name -- along with North Korea -- and called for international
cooperation, saying "those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as
nations arm themselves for nuclear war."
The speech was thus a quintessentially American argument. For over
a century, U.S. strategy has been to exercise military power abroad
when necessary to achieve its national interests. This behavior stems
from the country's geographic distance from its opponents, its naval
domination of the world's oceans, and its interest in intervening in
other countries to counterbalance regional powers and preventing
super-regional powers from emerging. No recent president has
shrunk from waging war, and only a precious few have done so in the
country's history. Often the result of American interventions is
criticism for failing to achieve anything, when in fact the purpose has
been merely to interrupt trends or patterns of power before they
become threatening.
Of course, it is already clear that the United States does not have the
support (namely from Russia) to make sanctions effectual. Israel has
long lost patience in the diplomatic effort and knows sanctions don't
stand a chance. In essence, then, Obama used his Nobel speech to
plan out the justification -- at least theoretically -- for U.S. military
action against Iran. While the venue may be ironic, the speech was
bipartisan, independent of his character or that of his administration,
and wholly consistent with American grand strategy.