Tom Miller |
The President’s Corner
Obama’s Defense of a “Just” Peace
Dec. 16 – In President Obama’s speech accepting the Nobel Prize last week, he attempted to justify continued US involvement in Afghanistan. Using World War II and Hitler’s scourge as one prime example of fighting a “just” war, Obama told the Nobel Academy audience in Norway that though the US is scaling up the fight in Afghanistan, it is at the same time striving for peace. The principles of a “just” war have been widely neglected in the domestic arena of foreign policy until now. But the president reminded us that force can be acceptable when it is used in self-defense, as a last resort or proportionally to prevent excessive harm to civilian individuals and properties. The president also expanded this somewhat traditional definition to include genocide. Though he did not mention the term “responsibility to protect,” a relatively new UN doctrine governing the use of force based on humanitarian grounds, it is logical that force can be justified “to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government,” as he said. For the United States, a busily occupied military superpower, the responsibility to protect remains more a question of ability and practicality than legality. 
Pakistani peacekeeping troops working in Liberia for the UN. UN Photo. |
The president’s Oslo speech also made a case for pursuing a “just” peace at the end of a conflict. Permanent peace is not merely the absence of war, as “only a just peace,” Obama noted, “based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.” These words reinforce UNA-USA’s longstanding position that peace without justice does not endure. UNA emphasized this stance after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir earlier this year. Since then, many called on the UN Security Council to block the execution of the warrant, saying it could undermine the fragile peace negotiations by angering the Sudanese leader. UNA insisted, however, that peace that was bought with impunity for Bashir would be fragile and temporary. (Read UNA-USA’s earlier statement on the ICC prosecutor’s action on Darfur)
America’s Leading Role for Peace
President Obama also reminded the Nobel audience that the US has historically led the pack in setting up institutions and norms to prevent conflicts. After the destruction of two world wars and the birth of the nuclear age, he said, “it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war.” Nuclear nonproliferation is one area that UNA hopes the president can follow through in his quest for peace. Efforts to rewrite the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are under way, but its ratification cannot be taken for granted. The president singled out Iran and North Korea as countries that should not “game the system.” Unfortunately, part of the system that he is referring to is the nuclear nonproliferation regime, which is overseen by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. Next year’s treaty review conference on nonproliferation offers a crucial opportunity to address the system’s shortcomings. Some of Obama’s other remarks reinforced not only America’s role in promoting peace but also the UN’s role. He said: “A quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.” It is gratifying that Obama acknowledged the role – the undeniable, unremitting role – of the UN in protecting individuals’ rights based on the tenets of the Declaration of Human Rights, one of the founding documents of the UN. This is a powerful endorsement from the US presidency that the UN, an institution that the US was instrumental in setting up, remains a vital element in the never-ending journey to peace. It’s valuable to recall Wilson’s foresight in creating the League of Nations. Many scoffed at his ideas -- upholding the rights of women, disarmament, diplomacy and other high-falutin aspirations. Alas, the league was repelled by our own Senate and could not rally the support it needed to stall Hitler and got swallowed up by the rage of Nazism. We at UNA and surely at the UN appreciated hearing President Obama also emphasized that: “Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable.” “That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries,” he added. To strengthen the UN, I add to this, we need to improve the UN’s peacekeeping missions, which need many, many resources. I close this last column of 2009 confident that the US and the UN will not abandon the people in countries that hang on the precipice. The League of Nations died, but the UN, inspired by the League’s spirit and taught some strong lessons by its demise, has endured for more than 50 years. To share your views, send your e-mail to yourviewsmatter@unausa.org.
|