Obama’s Nobel speech through a Tibet lens
Barack Obama has now officially joined the very elite club of Nobel Peace Prize winners, almost as exclusive as the club he joined last year: United States Presidents. His speech can be read here.
Many were watching to see how Obama would deal with two touchy issues: the fact that he was awarded the Prize with scant accomplishments to date, and the seeming incongruity of his receiving a peace award days after announcing he would send 30,000 more soldiers into a battle zone. Personally, I thought he did a good job on those points.
Readers of this blog, however, are interested in how the speech, and its messages and ideals, can be interpreted for the Tibet issue.
Tibet was not mentioned in the speech. This is not surprising. Unlike State of the Union addresses, this speech was not designed to be a laundry list of issues and programs to please certain constituencies. This was a Big Picture speech if there ever was one.
The omission of His Holiness the Dalai Lama was curious, however. Not once, but twice, Obama cited Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King regarding the “moral force of non-violence.” It would have been quite appropriate to list the most notable living advocate for non-violence. (Unlike the Dalai Lama, Gandhi is not a fellow peace-prize laureate, although there may be no one more deserving.) Speculation will abound about whether the omission of His Holiness was related to the ongoing negotiations with China at the Copenhagen climate change conference.
At the same time, President Obama’s speech was imbued with themes resonant to the Dalai Lama’s message (his 1989 Nobel Peace Prize speech can be read here). Obama sounded most like His Holiness when he said,
“Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
“But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.”
Of course, Obama’s was not a speech that the Dalai Lama would give. A good portion focused on “just war” and the rationales for military intervention that nations, and Obama as Commander-in-Chief, must contend with. But in doing so, Obama interjected a sense of real world pragmatism in a hall that is accustomed to orations on the ideals of peace. This is an approach that His Holiness, a fellow laureate and leader of his people, who must balance idealism with nasty geopolitical realities, can identify with. Perhaps when they get together early next year, Obama and the Dalai Lama can talk about the challenges of satisfying one’s political base when charting a pragmatic path.
The last observation is not a minor one. As he did in Beijing, President Obama stressed the universality of human rights: “So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.” This is in stark contrast to the mushy moral relativism from the Canadians in their joint statement with China: “Both sides acknowledged that differing histories and national conditions can create some distinct points of view on issues such as human rights.”
And here’s the part that Chinese leaders should hear (emphases mine):
“In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
“I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither Americas interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.
As ever, the challenge to Tibet supporters is to encourage the Obama Administration to put these words into a concrete policy initiative for Tibet. Perhaps, he can imagine Hu Jintao in that hall in Oslo, joining that elite club, as the Chinese leader who negotiated with the Dalai Lama a durable peace for Tibet.
Photo Caption: In Oslo, Obama looks at a portrait of the Dalai Lama and other Nobel Peace Prize winners. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)
4 Responses to “Obama’s Nobel speech through a Tibet lens”
Leave a Reply
Visit ICT's website to find out more about Tibet and Tibetan issues.
I am extremely disappointed in Obama’s stance with the Chinese on Tibet. He is a liar and a weak individual who only does what he is ordered to do. He is yet another world “leader” who stands for absolutely nothing. Genocide has been taking place for almost 60 years and no nation will stand up to them. People who can actually make some difference for Tibet do nothing but cowtail to them with their head down in submission. I was lead to believe change was in order. By making the statements he has, Obama may have well signed a death certificate for every Man, Women and Child born inside Tibet. I regret I even voted. Let us all hope and pray for a FREE TIBET!!!
To say that the Dalai Lama should have been quoted in Obama’s speech is pure wishful thinking. Yes, Obama is quoting the main advocates of nonviolence in our era. The difference between Gandhi, King and HHDL is that Gandhi and King were successful in their struggles while the Dalai Lama has been an abject failure.
It is also wishful thinking to say that Obama would intentionally not mention His Holiness because of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. In truth, I don’t believe Obama really thinks very much at all about the Dalai Lama except in so far as how to placate a potential problem when dealing with the Chinese.
Lastly, to compare Obama’s rationale for waging war to HHDL’s dilemma does not make any sense whatsoever. HHDL is a proponent of nonviolence and would never include war as part of a “pragmatic” approach to dealing with his political base.
Obama’s acceptance speech in Oslo was a great one, albeit delivered in absolutely the wrong venue. Why a supporter of Tibet would use the president’s speech to justify war while accepting the Nobel Peace prize as a lens for examining the Dalai Lama’s approach to his own problems in Tibet is a lame attempt to interject Tibet into a place where it has no business.
Todd,
This is a very insightful evaluation and I agree. I do think Obama is “between a rock and a hard place” in the situation of U.S. indebtedness to China, but he has made the strong points of freedom and human values, positive ideologies.
I believe he has supported troupes to Afghanistan because while we are there, the Taliban will not take over, and they are now hand in hand with Al-Qaeda. For that reason we may have a “partnership” with Afghanistan for a long time, as that is such a very complicated situation with tribal factions, profits from poppies, etc. It will be hard to help them build an economy on anything that would equal the poppy crop and that is a terrible evil in the world. But I believe in the over all he has a strong sense of values that he will continue to support.
He can indeed activate a more concrete policy for Tibet as he has stated clearly his ideals.
Now, if he would just open the gates to permitting a large number of Tibetan to immigrate to the U.S. and aid them in creating new communities where they can pursue traditional religious activities as well as moving into the modern world with knowledge of technology that would give them an economic base (e.g., computer and electronic work which can be done from any location) to support the ancient spiritual path, then I would really be delighted. I see no reason such a community couldn’t be developed. There are many Tibetan enclaves in North America and the Dharma is continuing, but I think it would be great if more Tibetans could come here to live and grow in a (relatively) free environment.
Anyway, good letter.
Best wishes,
Neville
Obama suggests a US president can not do things like Martin Luther King or Gandhi. This type of “pragmatism” can be much better described as a type of nihilist idealism.