If you read the text of Barack Obama’s Nobel prize acceptance speech, a 4,000-word text that he apparently wrote much of himself, you can see what our president thinks about using force to defeat fascism. And I have to say, I’m not very relieved by what I read. The basis for international action is international law and international consensus, according to this speech. Obama pays lip service to American unilateral action, but it seems insincere in light of the fact that he spends many more words defining the world’s responsibilities to defeat fascists (note he doesn’t say anything about ending tyranny).
For instance:
To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
That’s obviously a reference to Iraq. Earlier in the speech, he said this:
One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek;
It’s yet another stop on the Obama apology tour of the Blame Bush Administration. But it’s just a one-off in the context of the rest of the speech. This is the part that disturbs me:
To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.
Is this is a call for a (doubtless) UN-sponsored, legally binding, international set of laws regarding the use of force? Something mor than the Geneva Conventions? This is what the rest of the world wants—a one-size-fits-all law on the use of force that they can then use to isolate, oh, say, Israel, using support documents like the Goldstone report. If this is not what Obama intends, this is how it would be used. Witness:
The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
The concept of “proportionate force” is what the world is using to accuse Israel of war crimes, but it isn’t used in a legal sense. The Goldstone report didn’t use it in a legal sense. It is used, generally, to say that Israel cannot respond to constant rocket fire by invading the area from which the rockets are fired and trying to destroy the rockets and the rocketeers.
But the problem is that in this modern-day world, the enemies are not abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Obama acknowledges it in his speech, but turns immediately away from the subject and starts the non-violence portion of his remarks:
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 change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. 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.
Yeah, this would sound a lot better if he actually stood by his deadlines and words regarding sanctions on Iran. September was a deadline. So was October. And November. And December. Obama has done nothing but talk, and Iran continues its relentless drive for a nuclear weapon.
One last part about his speech was yet another slap at Israel.
… it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
He makes the problem with Israel about Arab tribalism, and Jewish religion. He does not call it a conflict between Muslims and Jews, which is not just more truthful, but a better description, as Iranians are not Arabs. He calls it a conflict between Arabs and Jews. When he does mention Islam, it’s all about al Qaeda, not about Hamas, whose charter calls for the supremacy of Islam and the end of Jews and quotes the Koranic section about the trees calling for Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them. He doesn’t mention the many references to Muslims refusing to have a Jewish nation in the Muslim “waqf.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”
In short, the speech is all Obama: Internationalist, naive, ignorant of any inconvenient facts of the issues discussed, and ultimately, toothless and impotent. There will be no follow-through with sanctions on Iran. The Russians and Chinese have already indicated they won’t be joining, and have instead signed new multi-billion dollar gas and oil deals with Iran. There will be a Lebanese seat on the UN Security Council, thus ensuring a Hezbullah say on anything regarding its Iranian masters. And the world will continue to attack Israel for settlements and turn a blind eye to the nuclear bomb being built by a nation with the power to shut the Straits of Hormuz.
Barack Obama: He’s like Jimmy Carter on steroids, but not in a good way.
Thank you for your breakdown of the Obama’s speech. I feel you’re right. It seems as if he is going country to country in hopes of breaking the middle east. How long do you think it will be until America invades Israel?
Tim, uh: Never. I don’t think that’s what the speech said at all. I just tend to notice his references to Israel because that’s one of my issues.
Actually, I don’t think that he would actually invade anyone. Notice what has happened with Honduras. He pressured, blustered, and threatened. When Honduras refused to back down, he pretended that he had won (after all, they did have an election and hold a vote in Congress on putting Zelaya back in power).
This is one passage that jumps out at me:
“… because of the horror of those senseless attacks…”
The 9/11 attacks were only senseless to those who ignore the history of radical Islam’s attacks on the West. They were no more senseless that that of a criminal who uses violence against those who refuse to pay for “protection.” They were aimed to break our spirit, to intimidate us, and to advance to war against us. That Obama has not grasped that almost guarantees that any response he makes is likely to be inadequate.