By Eric Anschutz, October 28, 2009
Your Excellencies and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:
Because the Nobel Committee’s decision to grant me the 2009 Peace Prize was undertaken mere days after I took office on January 20 of this year, it is evident that you meant the award to give momentum to the promise of deeds yet to be done, not as a prize for prior accomplishments.
In that spirit, I accept the award, and the honor it brings, not for myself, but for my country and for people across the world that share our aspirations for global peace and justice. As I have said before, I view this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to unite in an effort to confront the common challenges of our time.
The fact that man’s search for enduring peace has proven elusive, and that war/peace issues have been the subject of endless discussion for eons, gives us a sense of humility as we consider them yet again. Yet, the very persistence of these issues tells us of their enduring importance – their unavoidability. Issues of war and peace are at the center of the human condition. To not deal with them would be to shirk our humanity.
No leader is more aware than I of the tragic waste of lives and resources brought by military conflict. Yet, I stand before you today as at once the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and as President of a nation involved in two wars. I am both mindful of the irony implicit in this, and aware of my responsibilities, both as President of the United States and as Nobel Laureate.
I see these twin responsibilities as complementary. My primary responsibility is of course to the office I hold as President of the United States. As President, I am sworn to secure the well being of my country. But, the best interests of my country are inextricably bound to the global good. No country is truly secure unless all are secure.
Thus, the Nobel Award serves to bring into sharper focus all that needs to be done to move my country and the world closer to the goals of worldwide peace and dignity, and toward enhanced economic and environmental health. The Nobel Committee’s clarion call to action is meant not only for my country and me; it has meaning only if nations and people across the globe hear the call and join in a global effort to bring peace and justice to all.
No one nation, and certainly no one leader can alone possess the key to peace. Even collective efforts among wise and well-meaning people have failed. Yet, because violence is so costly, and because peace is so productive, we must redouble our efforts to find and implement ways to resolve conflicts by non-violent means. Among relevant factors, those that most merit study and trial are well known: multilateralism, dignity, tolerance, empathy, human rights, the emerging importance of “soft power,†and far more patient and determined use of international mechanisms are among the more important. Let’s briefly consider some of them.
• While no nation can surrender the right to act in its own self-interest, decisions made unilaterally are by definition guided by a narrower set of considerations than those undertaken on a multilateral basis. When many parties are involved in determination of foreign policy and/or military action, the multilateral process is ponderous compared to the simplicity of unilateral policy development. But the very “sluggishness†of the multilateral process, the need to explain a point of view to other involved parties, and the requirement to win consensus for proposed actions, can generally be expected to yield deeper, richer and less parochial analysis of the issues at hand. Multilateralism can also slow a rush to war.
• Dignity, tolerance and empathy are essential qualities if tensions are to be resolved non-violently. Confrontation between antagonistic parties too often leads to “demonization†of the adversary. There are of course instances where evil is unambiguous, and where systemic malevolence must be condemned and dealt with harshly. But, more often than not, both sides can legitimately assert what seems to them a valid claim to the moral high ground. Because cultures differ, because different histories lead to different and often clashing world-views, efforts must be made by all affected parties to bridge the cultural divide, to seek to understand the basis for an adversary’s concerns, and always to deal with others in ways that honors their dignity.
• Freedom of individual action is a human right deemed important and inviolate to many. To others, unlimited freedom is seen as an invitation to chaos, and even to immorality. Those of us who cherish freedom and the fullest panoply of human rights must seek to be tolerant of opposing views on these matters. By the same token, those to whom restrictions on the rights of individuals is seen as essential to maintenance of order must honor and seek to understand the virtues of an open and free society, and the stimulus it brings to a fullest blossoming of innovation and creativity.
• “Soft power†has in some ways become at least as important as military power in today’s world where military conflict between great nations is highly unlikely. The threat of violence today is more likely to come from small states or from non-state actors against which superpower arsenals have proven to be of little or no value. Soft power encompasses diplomacy, but is centered on such things as aid to education and agriculture and business and infrastructure. Soft power includes greater involvement than heretofore of the mechanisms of the United Nations.
I want to express once again the importance I attach to the opportunity this award provides to address vital issues of peace and justice, and for the Nobel Committee’s call for renewed attention to resolution of conflicts by peaceful means.