GW Discourse

Complain about the award if you must, but President Obama, in receiving his Nobel Prize, spoke as effectively as a man in his position could. He acknowledged the greatest obstacle to his worthiness, and those are the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Obama could have written off, but it is already cliché to call Afghanistan “Obama’s War.” In the discourse that follows, Obama comes as close to explaining his political philosophy as we should expect. Of course, IR theorists have already begun dissecting the speech in their ongoing effort to categorize Obama’s politics. The biggest thing to note is a confluence of theories, suggesting pragmatism – but there’s more going on here.

The first thing to point out is that Obama is not a “realist” in the introductory IR course sense. Realists tend not to expound the virtues of just war theory, democratic peace theory, and pine for a day when international institutions and norms converge to help build a more permanent peace. More accurately, Obama is not a utopian, but a sober idealist. He acknowledges we inhabit a “realist” world but believes there is a way out of the Hobbesian trap, and that building it is a worthwhile effort. Like many liberals, progress animates his history; yet he does not believe nations, institutions, or ideologies can instigate a revolution in human affairs. Expect the word “Niebuhrian” to continue proliferating in discussions of Obama’s worldview, though mind that there is no single interpretation of Niebuhr’s legacy. Overall, Obama delivered a healthy dose of skepticism and humility to a utopian forum. While realists might welcome this message, it is devoid of their pessimism.

Two other quick thoughts:

• “As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.”  Hobbes, of course, would note that equality of ability, hopes, and common desires are sources of conflict, rather than sources of conflict resolution.
• On Burma (yes, Burma), Congo, and Darfur: “Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.” Obama justified humanitarian interventions in Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Balkans, so in rhetoric at least, America’s interventionist legacy is not over. Keep in mind Obama said this while receiving a Nobel Prize – Oslo is no place for appeasing hawks. Obama’s stated that if negotiations fail, we can choose intervention or complicity. Will anyone bother holding him to that if they do?