Tweet
Rewarding Hope: Why Barack Obama Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
Huffington Post
Posted: October 14, 2009 06:41 AM
By Menachem Rosensaft
Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish
Holocaust Survivors
On April 12, 2007, at a Washington, D.C. breakfast briefing, Senator Barack
Obama discussed the "genocide that did take place against the Armenian
people," and the fact that "the constant denial on the part of the Turkish
government and others that this occurred has become a sore spot
diplomatically." The then long-shot Democratic presidential candidate was
referring to the deliberate and systematic massacre of between 500,000 and a
million and a half Armenians by Ottoman government authorities between 1915
and 1918. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama also told Armenian
Americans that as president, "I will promote Armenian security by seeking an
end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting
and durable settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict [between Armenia and
Azerbaijan] that is agreeable to all parties."
The Turkish government, an important ally of the United States, has been
vehemently opposed for decades to any characterization of the atrocities
committed against Armenians in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire as
genocide. During the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, George W.
Bush pledged that "If elected President, I would ensure that our nation
properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people." He never
honored this promise. On the contrary, in 2006, the U.S. Ambassador to
Armenia was recalled from his post after he had referred to the massacre of
Armenians as "genocide" at an Armenian American community function. And the
following year, under pressure from Turkey, the Bush Administration strongly
opposed a House of Representatives resolution that classified the mass
killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide.
In contrast, President Obama, rather than pandering to either side, used his
moral authority, his bully pulpit as it were, to honor his campaign pledge
and help bring about an Armenian-Turkish reconciliation. On April 6, 2009,
President Obama told the Turkish Parliament in Ankara that: "Human endeavor
is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can
be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning
with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there's strong views
in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there's been a
good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish
and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the
Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a
way that is honest, open and constructive. We've already seen historic and
courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold
out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and
Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve
both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly
supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It
is a cause worth working toward."
President Obama's efforts to promote an Armenian-Turkish dialogue predicated
on, and within the context of, memory are consistent with his overall
geo-political philosophy. "It's perhaps the most difficult work of all," he
declared at Strasbourg, France, three days before his Ankara speech, " to
resolve age-old conflicts, to heal ancient hatreds, to dissolve the lines of
suspicion between religions and cultures, and people who may not look like
us, or have the same faith that we do, or come from the same place. But just
because it's difficult does not make the work any less important. It does
not absolve us from trying."
On October 10, 2009, six months after President Obama's Ankara speech and
one day after he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the foreign
ministers of Turkey and Armenia signed an historic accord normalizing
relations between their two countries.
President Obama's words in Ankara were far more than rhetoric. By
encouraging and urging both Turks and Armenians to reach beyond, but without
losing sight of, their divisive past, he enabled a genuine process of
reconciliation to take root.
The media pundits and Republican Party hacks who complain that President
Obama has not earned the Nobel Peace Prize, that he has not yet accomplished
anything of consequence in the international arena, are wrong.
In less than nine months since taking office, President Obama has changed
the image the international community has of the United States, not just
through televised speeches from the White House, but by speaking directly to
the peoples of the world at the United Nations General Assembly and in
England, Turkey, the Czech Republic, France, Trinidad and Tobago, Egypt,
Germany, Ghana, and Russia.
The President has traveled thousands of miles to tell men, women and
children across the globe, national leaders and average citizens alike, that
after eight years of xenophobia and jingoism the United States has returned
to its historical role as a unifying catalyst of humankind. He has reached
out to rich and poor, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Jews, to reassure
them that the nation he leads and represents has once again become, for them
as well, to borrow Ronald Reagan's phrase, a "shining city on the hill."
The pundits are wrong when they say that speeches do not matter. On the
contrary, words by definition are the clearest expression of one's
intentions, of one's hopes. My teacher and mentor, Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Elie Wiesel, once observed that "Words can sometimes, in moments of
grace, attain the quality of deeds." The words President Obama has spoken
across the globe since his inauguration are evidence of what the Norwegian
Nobel Committee called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
At a press conference in London on April 2, 2009, following the economic
G-20 summit, President Obama said: "Ultimately, the challenges of the 21st
century can't be met without collective action. Agreement will almost never
be easy, and results won't always come quickly. But I am committed to
respecting different points of view, and to forging a consensus instead of
dictating our terms. . . . There are going to be tough negotiations, and
sometimes we're going to have to walk away from those negotiations if we
can't arrive at a common accord. There are going to be real dangers that
can't always be talked through and have to be addressed. But at least we can
start with the notion that we're prepared to listen and to work
cooperatively with countries around the world."
The following day, in Strasbourg, he described the sense of distrust and
mutual antagonism that had come to define U.S.-European relations over the
past eight years. "In America," he said, "there's a failure to appreciate
Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic
union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have
been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even
derisive." At the same time, he continued, "in Europe, there is an
anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead
of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have
been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.
On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. .
. . They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both
more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America
cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot
confront them without America."
On April 4, in Prague, President Obama declared: "Just as we stood for
freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people
everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. And as nuclear power
- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear
weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot
succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. So
today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This
goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take
patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell
us that the world cannot change."
On April 6 he told the Turkish Parliament in Ankara that "our two
democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges: An
economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the
killing of innocent men and women and children; strains on our energy supply
and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons;
and the persistence of tragic conflict. . . . This much is certain: No one
nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in
overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common
ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above
our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
Words matter. Speeches matter. President Obama recognizes that our form of
government and our way of life should be an inspiration but may not be the
template for every other country in the world. "I feel very strongly," he
said at a press conference in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on April
19, "that when we are at our best, the United States represents a set of
universal values and ideals - the idea of democratic practices, the idea of
freedom of speech and religion, the idea of a civil society where people are
free to pursue their dreams and not be imposed upon constantly by their
government. So we've got a set of ideas that I think have broad
applicability. But what I also believe is that other countries have
different cultures, different perspectives, and are coming out of different
histories, and that we do our best to promote our ideals and our values by
our example."
Along the same lines, he told the Ghanaian Parliament on July 11 that:
"America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other
nation. The essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its
own destiny. But what America will do is increase assistance for responsible
individuals and responsible institutions, with a focus on supporting good
governance - on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that
opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal
administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get
involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting
and automating services, strengthening hotlines, protecting whistle-blowers
to advance transparency and accountability."
He also understands that American foreign policy must not be rooted in
expedient self-interest alone, but requires an appreciation and
understanding of history. "This place teaches us that we must be ever
vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the
false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem and commit ourselves
to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests,"
he said on June 5 at the site of the Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald,
standing alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Holocaust survivor
and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel.
The following day, at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial near Omaha
Beach, he explained that while war is never to be undertaken lightly, there
are times when war is essential. "Nazi ideology," he said, "sought to
subjugate and humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive
scale, fueled by a hatred of those who were deemed different and therefore
inferior. It was evil. The nations that joined together to defeat Hitler's
Reich were not perfect. . . But whatever God we prayed to, whatever our
differences, we knew that the evil we faced had to be stopped. Citizens of
all faiths and of no faith came to believe that we could not remain as
bystanders to the savage perpetration of death and destruction. And so we
joined and sent our sons to fight and often die so that men and women they
never met might know what it is to be free."
Words matter. Speeches matter. In Moscow on July 7, President Obama set a
new course for American-Russian relations. Instead of continued mistrust, he
called for cooperation. Instead of looking for ways to repeat the Cold War
strategies and rhetoric of the past, he looked toward a different, far more
constructive interaction. "There is," he said, "the 20th century view that
the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a
strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition
to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie
for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs
to balance one another. Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power
does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days
when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are
over. As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence, any world order that
tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably
fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game - progress must be
shared."
Throughout the first nine months of his presidency, President Obama has
sought to improve American-Muslim relations, a much needed change from eight
years of virtually non-stop xenophobia on the part of the Bush-Cheney
Administration. In Ankara, the President said that: "We seek broader
engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen
carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground.
We will be respectful, even when we do not agree." And two months later, at
Cairo University, he declared: "So long as our relationship is defined by
our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace,
those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of
our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and
discord must end."
Expanding on this theme, he emphasized that "I consider it part of my
responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative
stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must
apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude
stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.
. . . We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have
shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -
within our borders, and around the world."
President Obama has also charted a new direction in trying to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Cairo, he reaffirmed his and the U.S.
Government's unwavering support for Israel and, speaking to the Muslim
world, denounced Holocaust denial in the most categorical terms.
"Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about
Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis
this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of
this region deserve." At the same time, he recognized that, "The situation
for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our
backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and
a state of their own." He simultaneously demanded that the Palestinians end
terrorist attacks against Israel, and that Israel curb its settlement policy
on the West Bank. "America will align our policies with those who pursue
peace," he said, "and we will say in public what we say in private to
Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately,
many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis
recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what
everyone knows to be true."
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process still has a long way, possibly years
to go. Far too many obstacles remain, mostly on the Palestinian side. While
the settlements are at worst a political irritant, Hamas suicide bombers
threaten the very viability of any Israeli flexibility or willingness to
compromise. However, President Obama has reclaimed the role of an honest
broker for the United States. Israelis have always known that the road to
any peace must be through Washington. Now, Palestinians and other Arabs have
once again begun to believe so as well. That in and of itself is a
considerable achievement.
"All of us," he declared in his address to the United Nations General
Assembly on September 23, "not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but
all of us - must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we
will only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle
of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would
acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail
to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that
Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And
nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose
vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize
Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security."
President Obama's restoration of the United States to a position of
international moral leadership, not just among its allies but within the
world community as a whole, deserves respect and praise from all who seek to
avoid interminable rounds of fear, bloodshed and misery. One year ago, it
was virtually inconceivable that Russia might cooperate with the United
States in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Words matter. Speeches matter. But, as President Obama acknowledged in
Cairo, "recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task.
Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met
only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the
challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us
all."
Still, forging such a future requires a call to arms. In Normandy, President
Obama explained that "our future is not shaped by mere chance or
circumstance. Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made
and the actions taken by each individual man and woman. It has always been
up to us."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee understood that the words Barack Obama spoke
this past year in Moscow, Cairo, London, Ankara, Port of Spain, Strasbourg,
Prague, Accra, and Normandy, at Buchenwald, and at the United Nations form
the foundation for a new, constructive dynamic in international relations.
By awarding President Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee
recognized that the beginning of any comprehensive effort to repair and heal
our troubled world is as important, requires as much vision and moral
leadership, and can be as dauntingly complex as its eventual realization.
Menachem Z. Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School.
Huffington Post
Posted: October 14, 2009 06:41 AM
By Menachem Rosensaft
Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish
Holocaust Survivors
On April 12, 2007, at a Washington, D.C. breakfast briefing, Senator Barack
Obama discussed the "genocide that did take place against the Armenian
people," and the fact that "the constant denial on the part of the Turkish
government and others that this occurred has become a sore spot
diplomatically." The then long-shot Democratic presidential candidate was
referring to the deliberate and systematic massacre of between 500,000 and a
million and a half Armenians by Ottoman government authorities between 1915
and 1918. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama also told Armenian
Americans that as president, "I will promote Armenian security by seeking an
end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting
and durable settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict [between Armenia and
Azerbaijan] that is agreeable to all parties."
The Turkish government, an important ally of the United States, has been
vehemently opposed for decades to any characterization of the atrocities
committed against Armenians in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire as
genocide. During the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, George W.
Bush pledged that "If elected President, I would ensure that our nation
properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people." He never
honored this promise. On the contrary, in 2006, the U.S. Ambassador to
Armenia was recalled from his post after he had referred to the massacre of
Armenians as "genocide" at an Armenian American community function. And the
following year, under pressure from Turkey, the Bush Administration strongly
opposed a House of Representatives resolution that classified the mass
killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide.
In contrast, President Obama, rather than pandering to either side, used his
moral authority, his bully pulpit as it were, to honor his campaign pledge
and help bring about an Armenian-Turkish reconciliation. On April 6, 2009,
President Obama told the Turkish Parliament in Ankara that: "Human endeavor
is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can
be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning
with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there's strong views
in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there's been a
good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish
and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the
Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a
way that is honest, open and constructive. We've already seen historic and
courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold
out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and
Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve
both of your nations. So I want you to know that the United States strongly
supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. It
is a cause worth working toward."
President Obama's efforts to promote an Armenian-Turkish dialogue predicated
on, and within the context of, memory are consistent with his overall
geo-political philosophy. "It's perhaps the most difficult work of all," he
declared at Strasbourg, France, three days before his Ankara speech, " to
resolve age-old conflicts, to heal ancient hatreds, to dissolve the lines of
suspicion between religions and cultures, and people who may not look like
us, or have the same faith that we do, or come from the same place. But just
because it's difficult does not make the work any less important. It does
not absolve us from trying."
On October 10, 2009, six months after President Obama's Ankara speech and
one day after he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the foreign
ministers of Turkey and Armenia signed an historic accord normalizing
relations between their two countries.
President Obama's words in Ankara were far more than rhetoric. By
encouraging and urging both Turks and Armenians to reach beyond, but without
losing sight of, their divisive past, he enabled a genuine process of
reconciliation to take root.
The media pundits and Republican Party hacks who complain that President
Obama has not earned the Nobel Peace Prize, that he has not yet accomplished
anything of consequence in the international arena, are wrong.
In less than nine months since taking office, President Obama has changed
the image the international community has of the United States, not just
through televised speeches from the White House, but by speaking directly to
the peoples of the world at the United Nations General Assembly and in
England, Turkey, the Czech Republic, France, Trinidad and Tobago, Egypt,
Germany, Ghana, and Russia.
The President has traveled thousands of miles to tell men, women and
children across the globe, national leaders and average citizens alike, that
after eight years of xenophobia and jingoism the United States has returned
to its historical role as a unifying catalyst of humankind. He has reached
out to rich and poor, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Jews, to reassure
them that the nation he leads and represents has once again become, for them
as well, to borrow Ronald Reagan's phrase, a "shining city on the hill."
The pundits are wrong when they say that speeches do not matter. On the
contrary, words by definition are the clearest expression of one's
intentions, of one's hopes. My teacher and mentor, Nobel Peace Prize
laureate Elie Wiesel, once observed that "Words can sometimes, in moments of
grace, attain the quality of deeds." The words President Obama has spoken
across the globe since his inauguration are evidence of what the Norwegian
Nobel Committee called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
At a press conference in London on April 2, 2009, following the economic
G-20 summit, President Obama said: "Ultimately, the challenges of the 21st
century can't be met without collective action. Agreement will almost never
be easy, and results won't always come quickly. But I am committed to
respecting different points of view, and to forging a consensus instead of
dictating our terms. . . . There are going to be tough negotiations, and
sometimes we're going to have to walk away from those negotiations if we
can't arrive at a common accord. There are going to be real dangers that
can't always be talked through and have to be addressed. But at least we can
start with the notion that we're prepared to listen and to work
cooperatively with countries around the world."
The following day, in Strasbourg, he described the sense of distrust and
mutual antagonism that had come to define U.S.-European relations over the
past eight years. "In America," he said, "there's a failure to appreciate
Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic
union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have
been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even
derisive." At the same time, he continued, "in Europe, there is an
anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead
of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have
been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.
On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. .
. . They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both
more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America
cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot
confront them without America."
On April 4, in Prague, President Obama declared: "Just as we stood for
freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people
everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. And as nuclear power
- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear
weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot
succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. So
today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This
goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take
patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell
us that the world cannot change."
On April 6 he told the Turkish Parliament in Ankara that "our two
democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges: An
economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the
killing of innocent men and women and children; strains on our energy supply
and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons;
and the persistence of tragic conflict. . . . This much is certain: No one
nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in
overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common
ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above
our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
Words matter. Speeches matter. President Obama recognizes that our form of
government and our way of life should be an inspiration but may not be the
template for every other country in the world. "I feel very strongly," he
said at a press conference in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on April
19, "that when we are at our best, the United States represents a set of
universal values and ideals - the idea of democratic practices, the idea of
freedom of speech and religion, the idea of a civil society where people are
free to pursue their dreams and not be imposed upon constantly by their
government. So we've got a set of ideas that I think have broad
applicability. But what I also believe is that other countries have
different cultures, different perspectives, and are coming out of different
histories, and that we do our best to promote our ideals and our values by
our example."
Along the same lines, he told the Ghanaian Parliament on July 11 that:
"America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other
nation. The essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its
own destiny. But what America will do is increase assistance for responsible
individuals and responsible institutions, with a focus on supporting good
governance - on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that
opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal
administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get
involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting
and automating services, strengthening hotlines, protecting whistle-blowers
to advance transparency and accountability."
He also understands that American foreign policy must not be rooted in
expedient self-interest alone, but requires an appreciation and
understanding of history. "This place teaches us that we must be ever
vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the
false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem and commit ourselves
to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests,"
he said on June 5 at the site of the Nazi concentration camp of Buchenwald,
standing alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Holocaust survivor
and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel.
The following day, at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial near Omaha
Beach, he explained that while war is never to be undertaken lightly, there
are times when war is essential. "Nazi ideology," he said, "sought to
subjugate and humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive
scale, fueled by a hatred of those who were deemed different and therefore
inferior. It was evil. The nations that joined together to defeat Hitler's
Reich were not perfect. . . But whatever God we prayed to, whatever our
differences, we knew that the evil we faced had to be stopped. Citizens of
all faiths and of no faith came to believe that we could not remain as
bystanders to the savage perpetration of death and destruction. And so we
joined and sent our sons to fight and often die so that men and women they
never met might know what it is to be free."
Words matter. Speeches matter. In Moscow on July 7, President Obama set a
new course for American-Russian relations. Instead of continued mistrust, he
called for cooperation. Instead of looking for ways to repeat the Cold War
strategies and rhetoric of the past, he looked toward a different, far more
constructive interaction. "There is," he said, "the 20th century view that
the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a
strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition
to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie
for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs
to balance one another. Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power
does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days
when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are
over. As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence, any world order that
tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably
fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game - progress must be
shared."
Throughout the first nine months of his presidency, President Obama has
sought to improve American-Muslim relations, a much needed change from eight
years of virtually non-stop xenophobia on the part of the Bush-Cheney
Administration. In Ankara, the President said that: "We seek broader
engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen
carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground.
We will be respectful, even when we do not agree." And two months later, at
Cairo University, he declared: "So long as our relationship is defined by
our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace,
those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of
our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and
discord must end."
Expanding on this theme, he emphasized that "I consider it part of my
responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative
stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must
apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude
stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.
. . . We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have
shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -
within our borders, and around the world."
President Obama has also charted a new direction in trying to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Cairo, he reaffirmed his and the U.S.
Government's unwavering support for Israel and, speaking to the Muslim
world, denounced Holocaust denial in the most categorical terms.
"Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about
Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis
this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of
this region deserve." At the same time, he recognized that, "The situation
for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our
backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and
a state of their own." He simultaneously demanded that the Palestinians end
terrorist attacks against Israel, and that Israel curb its settlement policy
on the West Bank. "America will align our policies with those who pursue
peace," he said, "and we will say in public what we say in private to
Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately,
many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis
recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what
everyone knows to be true."
The Israeli-Palestinian peace process still has a long way, possibly years
to go. Far too many obstacles remain, mostly on the Palestinian side. While
the settlements are at worst a political irritant, Hamas suicide bombers
threaten the very viability of any Israeli flexibility or willingness to
compromise. However, President Obama has reclaimed the role of an honest
broker for the United States. Israelis have always known that the road to
any peace must be through Washington. Now, Palestinians and other Arabs have
once again begun to believe so as well. That in and of itself is a
considerable achievement.
"All of us," he declared in his address to the United Nations General
Assembly on September 23, "not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but
all of us - must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we
will only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle
of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would
acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail
to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that
Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And
nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose
vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize
Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security."
President Obama's restoration of the United States to a position of
international moral leadership, not just among its allies but within the
world community as a whole, deserves respect and praise from all who seek to
avoid interminable rounds of fear, bloodshed and misery. One year ago, it
was virtually inconceivable that Russia might cooperate with the United
States in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Words matter. Speeches matter. But, as President Obama acknowledged in
Cairo, "recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task.
Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met
only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the
challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us
all."
Still, forging such a future requires a call to arms. In Normandy, President
Obama explained that "our future is not shaped by mere chance or
circumstance. Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made
and the actions taken by each individual man and woman. It has always been
up to us."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee understood that the words Barack Obama spoke
this past year in Moscow, Cairo, London, Ankara, Port of Spain, Strasbourg,
Prague, Accra, and Normandy, at Buchenwald, and at the United Nations form
the foundation for a new, constructive dynamic in international relations.
By awarding President Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee
recognized that the beginning of any comprehensive effort to repair and heal
our troubled world is as important, requires as much vision and moral
leadership, and can be as dauntingly complex as its eventual realization.
Menachem Z. Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School.