War and Peace- Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech
As a 9th grader, I made a demonstration of a Gaussian gun at my district science fair. It was not much but I made a good case with all my elaborate diagrams and by being really descriptive of what the use-cases could be (mostly in the military).
Seeing my model and hearing the potential use-cases of my project, one of my teachers said that the world needed something which contributed to peace, not destruction. As a young, naiive, 14-yr old, I was quick to retort, “What about all those terrorists who came and attacked Mumbai (referring to the 26/11 attacks), you need something for those kind of people. You can’t go around convincing them. For those kinds of people, the world does need guns”. My teacher mumbled a few words and walked away.
Since then, I have often asked myself this question- “Can the ENTIRE world be ever really peaceful and happy at a moment?” Poets often talk about how, only if man could curb his greed this world would be a better place. But was there a possibility or was it mere wishful thinking?
A few days back, I happened to stumble upon Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech through the wonderful account of Michael Lewis’ time with Obama staying in White House titled Obama’s way.
The announcement of Barack Obama as the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner was a surprise to many. Most of all, to Obama himself. He had just joined office and had hardly secured a win of consequence. He himself knew that. However, the award made him crystallize his views on peace and war and he wanted to convey his vision to the world through the acceptance speech.
The acceptance speech is a beautiful, thought-provoking account of what justifies war and what we can learn from history to strive towards becoming a peaceful world. As mentioned by Michael Lewis, Obama personally put a lot of thought and time into what he wanted to say in his acceptance speech and the effect it would have on America’s allies.
I would recommend that you watch the entire speech here.
He hits home the necessity of force by the following:
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.
He clearly recognises the fact that as humans and the society that we live in, there will always be elements who are beyond reason. History has demonstrated this far and again.
Each one exists today as part of a nation. As Benedict Anderson, a renowned political scientist, explained that our ability to shape narratives and stories is what keeps the nation alive. It’s the shared rituals and stories that bind a nation and create the notion of nationality. The same gift of story-telling that humans are endowed with, also sets the stage for a ‘us’ vs ‘them’. There exists no ‘us’ until there is a ‘them’. War and discontent lies at the root of this notion. To expect peace all across the globe is a pipe-dream.
But there is always hope. He vividly paints the picture of hope
As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”
Let us reach for the world that ought to be
I’d like to believe that perhaps, that was what my teacher wanted to mention. Yes, we know there will be wars. And yes, we will always need weapons. Yet let’s try to create things that rekindle our hope for peace especially during the darkest of times.
We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
