Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
December 18, 2009
Even though President Barack Obama admitted that his accomplishments up until now have been “slight” and that he couldn’t argue with those who would have found others “far more deserving” of the Nobel Peace Prize than he was, his acceptance speech in Oslo on December 9 was certainly deserving of accolades.
With the world watching and listening, he sketched out that the path of peace is not something that can be achieved solely by aspiration and dialogue, international debating bodies and appeals to a common humanity. Because of the presence of evil in the world — a point that President Obama stressed repeatedly and particularized with references to Hitler and the Third Reich, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and the former communists in Poland and the Soviet Union — more is required of leaders to defend their people and, occasionally, to prevent the trampling of others.
If the same speech had been given by Presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy or Harry Truman — and, in many respects, it could have been — it probably would not have been so noteworthy. That, however, it was coming from President Obama in acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize given to him fundamentally because of hope and hype for a much more pacifistic form of American engagement in the world than had existed prior to his inauguration, made his words stand out all the more.
There are five reasons Catholic Americans should appreciate his discourse.
First, it confronted squarely the “hard truth” of the problem of evil in the world. “Make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism: it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” This led to a conclusion based on realism: “We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.” President Obama said we have to “face the world as it is.” Evil must exist in our lexicon.
Second, because of evil in the world, he said that peacemaking cannot be equated with non-violence. “There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” He then made his own the traditional teaching of the “just war,” which traces its roots to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and greatly advanced in the Catholic theological schools from the Renaissance to the present today. This involves both conditions morally to enter into war as well as conditions governing the moral exercise within a war. While he notes with many contemporary specialists in just war theory that we need to “think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace” in order to handle asymmetrical challenges from non-governmental malefactors like terrorists, just war principles are just as relevant today as ever.
Third, echoing Pope John Paul II’s emphasis during the Balkans conflict, the President declared that just war theory must embrace humanitarian interventions. “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’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”
Fourth, in contrast to his rhetoric in Cairo, France and other foreign trips that understated, undervalued and undermined the moral achievements of America, and seemed to agree with rather than challenge anti-Americanism, he was very clear in Oslo that the world would be far worse off today were it not for the “fortitude and foresight” of past American generations. “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.” He presented the commitment of those generations as a model for the world today: meeting today’s challenges, he said, “will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago.” American soldiers, he said, are not “makers of war” but “wagers of peace.”
Fifth, he expanded in three ways the scope of the “architecture of peace” — “the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, mechanisms governing waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons” — that we need to establish in order to avoid the contexts that can lead to war. These proposals are a challenge to world leaders today. He said that first we need sanctions “that exact a real price,” but that are never isolated from outreach and discussion. Next he insisted that there cannot be peace without recognition of the “inherent rights and dignity of every individual,” including the “right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.” Lastly, he said that there is a crucial economic component to peace. “True peace is not just freedom from fear but freedom from want.” There is a need for international help for just economic development of poorer countries to prevent the envy that can lead to war.
Not everything in his speech was good. He continued to show signs of an unmistakable messianic complex. “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war,” he said. That he thought he needed to clarify that he was not going to be able to solve a problem that has plagued the human race since the beginning is a window into his own exaggerated set of expectations.
He also demonstrated yet again a simplistic, and mistaken, view of religious motivation. In the context of comments on jihadism, he said, “no holy war can ever be a just war. … For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic or the Red Cross.” While he was right to criticize the jihadists’ “warped view of religion,” his extrapolation to all wars with religious motivation was itself warped. Every just war should be a holy war, because the pursuit of justice is the pursuit of holiness. When it truly is a holy war, then there will be an abundance of moral restraints, as we see in the just war tradition and in the integrity of multitudes of soldiers.
This also points out to his disturbing failure to appreciate the motivation of American involvement in past world conflicts. He cynically reduced it to “enlightened self-interest” in solicitation of a “better future for our children and grandchildren.” That was clearly part of the motivation for some, but the main motivation for the majority, especially when we look toward the great conflicts like World War II, was not “self-interest” but the heroic willingness to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of those who cannot defend themselves against evil.
Finally, despite the realism of most of his speech, he ended with a simplistic idealism, saying that the “North Star” of the “continued expansion of our moral imagination,” our “moral compass,” the “best about humanity” is our “fundamental faith in human progress.” As Pope Benedict has often said, truly human progress cannot be equated with scientific and technological advances, but rather with moral progress; for that reason, we should not have “faith” in human progress, because such moral progress is not a given — as we can easily see with terrorist attacks against the innocent or medical attacks against the unborn and the elderly. It’s precisely because we don’t have faith in human progress as a given that we need to commit ourselves to work hard to ensure progress through authentically moral training. It’s also why we still need just wars.