I have read the President Barack Obama’s Nobel Lecture that he gave upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. In the Lecture, the President attempted to argue that warcraft can lead to peace. As I have argued before, war and peace are mutually exclusive. Further examination of the speech indicates that the President defines peace as adherence to U.S. values. The President’s performance indicates a peculiar definition of peace–follow the lead of the United States to avoid the wrath of sanctions or war from the United States.
The President made several points concerning his views of the righteousness of U.S. foreign policies (the U.S. had a gross domestic product (GDP) of $14 trillion–the largest economy in the world).
–War can make “peace” (peace is implicitly equal to adherence to U.S. policies).
–The United States cannot pursue its interests (deemed universal by the President) alone. Instead, the United States will pursue its interests with “international” (as gathered by the United States) support.
–Military action (or the threat of it) can be used to fulfill U.S. objectives.
–U.S. interests are equal to global security, which the United States underwrote with its soldiers’ blood and arms [The President’s statement begs a question–who asked the United States to perform this sacrifice?]
–Short of military action, social disturbance or destruction must be used or threatened to achieve U.S. objectives.
–The President defines “peace” as that which is based on the inherent rights and dignity of each person (which are human rights, the right to speak freely, worship as one pleases, choose their own leaders, assemble without fear, democracy, and economic security and opportunity [presumably the U.S’s rule of law beliefs].
As the reader can see, the President accomplished quite an accomplishment, convincing people that his speech was innocent, peaceful, and aspirational while it just brandished his iron fist policies.