Obama uses Nobel speech to explain his foreign policy doctrine

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

In just over 35 minutes, President Obama laid out his very personal vision of how the world works and his very public vision of foreign affairs that includes fighting just wars to win a just peace.

The president used his Nobel Peace Prize lecture as a forum to explain the Obama doctrine of foreign policy, one flexible enough to allow him to escalate the war in Afghanistan while calling for greater global cooperation in fighting poverty, global warming and advocating human rights around the world. It was part political science lesson, part sermon and part pure politics, designed to answer domestic and international critics.

Foreign policy thinking has generally been dominated by two camps, the realists and utopians, or idealists. Realists would argue that nations operate out of self-interest in a world in which military or economic force is the way nations impose their will on each other. The idealists world argues that cooperation between nations is possible, indeed, preferable, and that there are goals that can be won that go beyond self-interest.

“There has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world,” Obama said today. “I reject these choices.”

Though not mentioned by name, that rejection is a dig at Republican conservatives, led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who have argued for an American exceptionalism; that the United States is unique in its development, standing and ultimately moral and political culture, and that it can -- and should -- impose its will on the rest of the world in the name of self-interest.

But Obama is not rejecting realism and idealism so much as he is trying to bridge them, taking what the former community organizer sees as the best of each argument and combining it into his own doctrine. That leads him to embrace an old historical and religious idea: that mankind is inherently violent, so there is a need to define what is a just war.

“War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man,” Obama argued. “At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

“And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence,” he said.

It is that idea of just war to which Obama turns to explain his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan and to fight Al Qaeda.

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world,” Obama said. “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.”

If just war is morally right, Obama said, then morality must also cover how war is waged. He then explained that was why he argued to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay and why he ordered an end to torture of terrorist suspects.

But just wars also include fighting battles that may not be immediately in the United States’ self-interest, humanitarian wars like the one in the Balkans in the 1990s. “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice,” he said.

But if there is a just war, there must also be a just peace, Obama said. That too requires rules.
“First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something,” he said.

And with nuclear issues involving Iran and North Korea in mind, he added: “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”

The same principles must apply to human rights, the president said, when dealing with genocide in Darfur, rape in Congo and repression in Burma.

But what is peace? “Peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting,” he said, reading from the idealist playbook.

“A just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want,” the president said.
Can such an agenda be achieved, fighting just wars to win a just peace? Obama, who often ends his speeches with optimism, insisted it could.

“We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected,” he said. “We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place.”

-- Michael Muskal
Twitter.com/LATimesmuskal

RELATED:

Kudos for Obama’s peace prize speech on ‘just war’