Homepage Feature

President Obama’s peace prize

Audio: Play | Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3
President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace. He also said his accomplishments were slight compared to previous laureates. Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Marco Werman talks with political philosopher Michael Walzer about the President’s approach to war and peace.

• BBC coverage
• Jeb Sharp put the President’s award into historical perspective (Oct 9)
• Text of the President’s acceptance speech
• The award ceremony in pictures

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  As we mentioned earlier, President Obama’s speech today in Oslo examined the idea of “a just war.”  We’re going to talk about that with political philosopher, Michael Walzer.  He’s Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.  Thanks very much for being with us.

MICHAEL WALZER:  Thank you for having me.

WERMAN:  Now, what I heard today, Professor, was a talk about the relationship between war and peace; and that war is sometimes the way you get to peace.  Let’s first listen to Mr. Obama’s central theme:  “I do not bring with me, today, a definitive solution to the problems of way.  What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago.  And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.  We must begin by acknowledging a hard truth:  ‘We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of force not only necessary, but morally justified.’”  Professor Walzer, you have spent a lot of time considering the justifications for war.  How do you respond to Mr. Obama’s comments in Oslo about “just war,” and peace in the world today?

WALZER:  Well, he’s certainly right to say that sometimes (this is obvious to anyone who grew-up as I did, during World War II); sometimes, the way to a just peace is through a terrible war.  I think his defense of the use of force, within a lot of constraints which he talked about, is especially important in Europe, where even more than in the United States, there is a growing reluctance to use force at all—even in cases like Bosnia or Kosovo or Darfur, where it would seem, to me, obviously necessary.

WERMAN:  I mean, the notion that we cannot eradicate violent conflicts (those were his words) in our lifetimes.  I mean, that was something that really struck me.  I mean, a lot of history is, as you know, is “history repeating itself;” and I guess I’d want to know, “Why isn’t it possible to see violent conflict end in our lifetimes?”

WALZER: That’s not an easy question, but there have been many, many lifetimes in which it wasn’t possible to end violent conflict.  We are not “the first lifetime” in which that possibility doesn’t exist.  There are people in the world ready to use force on behalf of religious crusades or ideological crusades or imperial ambition, and those people have to be opposed if there is ever to be a [SOUNDS LIKE] decent peace; and that need just repeats itself, and is likely to go on repeating itself.

WERMAN:  Well that dovetails nicely into another clip from Mr. Obama’s speech, Michal Walzer.  Let’s listen to it:  “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.  For make no mistake, evil does exist in the world.  A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.  Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary, is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man; and the limits of reason.  I raise this point …  I begin with this point, because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today—no matter what the cost; and at times, this is joined by a [SOUNDS LIKE] reflex of suspicion of America, the world’s sole, military superpower.”  So, Michael Walzer, I mean you were alluding to this earlier.  Mr. Obama is speaking about when military action is justified; and two things come to mind–the current fight in Afghanistan, for which Mr. Obama committed 30,000 more troops last week; and I also think of Rwanda in 1994, when the U. S., and a lot of the world did not show-up to help.  It feels like this speech is trying to kind-of set a benchmark for what is justified; but how do you determine when military action is justified or not?

WALZER:  Well, the primary determination is one of self defense.  The first example of “just war” that comes to everyone’s mind is self defense, and it’s modeled on domestic analogy.  If somebody attacks me on the street, and I fight back defending myself, that is a miniature version of a just war.  And I think Afghanistan fits that model.  But one of the occasions that President Obama was referring to (and that you just referred to, as the example of Rwanda), is the case of when people are being massacred—when mass murder is occurring inside the borders of a country—we are not defending ourselves, we are defending other human beings who are at risk.  And that’s a new doctrine—the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention, which implies that sovereignty does not extend, as I think it obviously should not extend, to mass murder.

WERMAN:  How strange is it, do you think, that this is a person; a man receiving a peace prize, and he’s making a speech talking about the moral justifications for war?

WALZER:  Well he had to do that, since he had just announced the extension of a military effort.  But it’s also the right thing to do, and I think especially-so in Europe today, to tell people that if you want peace in the Balkans or peace in East Africa or Southeast Asia, you may have to use force to get there.”

WERMAN:  So you don’t think it was just a coincidence that he was in Oslo?  This was really intended for European ears?

WALZER:  I think the speech he made (in fact, he said so explicitly when he talks about the aversion to the use of force), it’s intended for those European countries whom he is also asking to send more troops to Afghanistan.

WERMAN:  Political Philosopher, Michael Walzer, is Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.  He’s also the Co-Editor of the quarterly, Dissent, and the author of Just and Unjust Wars, among other books.  Thanks very much for speaking with us.

WALZER:  Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.