For more information concerning AfricaUpdate
Contact:
Prof. Gloria Emeagwali
CCSU History Dept.
1615 Stanley Street
New Britain, CT 06050
Tel: 860-832-2815 emeagwali@ccsu.edu
TheSeventh Annual Amistad Lecture by
Professor Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome:
The Relevance ofthe AMISTAD to the Ralph Bunche, Wangari
Maathai, & Barack Obama Nobels
Editorial
Barack Obama, the campaigner, shattered one of the
glass ceilings hovering over Blacks in the United States;challenged white supremacist thinking;proved his mettle on the campaign trail
by his tenacity, steadfastness and
sense of purpose;demonstrated his
commitment to human rights around the world, including the rights of prisoners
to have a free and fair trial; and criticized the notion of preemptive strike,
presumably both against civilians and countries. His tenacity, commitment andaudacity to hope for a better world,
thrust him in the tradition of the AMISTAD Africans .
But what of
Barack Obama, the President? Are they one
and the same, or are they different? How does he fare in the corridors of power? Did he deserve the 2009 Nobel
Prize for Peace? Was he as deserving as his predecessors? What distinguishes him
from RalpheBunche andWangariMaathai?
The Seventh recipient of the AMISTAD Award, ProfessorMobujaoluOkome, offered
valuable insights on some of these issues,
to packed audiences,at the Banquet held in honor ofthe heroes of the AMISTAD, February 10, 2010, and earlier in the day, at
the Torp Theater, Central Connecticut
State University. The Relevance ofthe AMISTAD
to the Ralph Bunche, Wangari Maathai, & Barack Obama Nobels was the title of
this year’s annual lecture.We have reproduced Professor Okome’s scholarly and
illuminating discourse, in this issue of Africa Update.
Public Lecture specially prepared for presentation
for the Seventh Amistad Lecture,Central Connecticut State University, New
Britain, Connecticut, February 23, 2010.
Mojúbàolú Olúfúnké Okome,
Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Women’s Studies Coordinator
Brooklyn College, CUNY
In 1901, Henry Dunant, founder of the
Red Cross and won the first Nobel Peace Prize.According to the organizers,
"The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded ninety times to one hundred and twenty
Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2009 – ninety seven times to individuals and
twenty three times to organizations."The names and the dates of the awards are
found here:http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.html
Introduction
What is the Amistad to me?The Amistad symbolizes in the first
place, the indomitable human spirit.
It is indicative of a spirit of resistance in the most difficult circumstances,
to oppression, captivity, abuse, inhumanity, slavery of body, spirit and consciousness.All these qualities and more can be found
in the historical events that occurred beginning in 1839 and continuing today,
as an inspiration to us all, to commit or re-dedicate our lives to resistance
against oppression as well as building the kinds of community and world where
racial and other kinds of discrimination and oppression are a thing of the past.
A BRIEF WORD ON THE AMISTAD
In the 19th Century, La
Amistad (Spanish: "Friendship") gained historical significance as the setting
for the determination of Africans to resist captivity.Seen in the light of today’s
transnationality, the ship was very interesting, as it had multiple
identities/origins/affiliations. This two-masted schooner was constructed in the
United States and was owned by a Spaniard resident in Cuba.It plied the high seas, and in the
incident that made it famous, it was transporting Sengbe Pieh, also known as
Joseph Cinqué and fifty six fellow Africans (52 adults and 4 children) from
Havana to Puerto Principe, Cuba. On July
1, 1839, Sengbe led a rebellion in which the Africans took control of the ship.The Africans seized the ship, killed the
captain and the cook, and ordered the planters to sail to Africa. On August 24,
1839, the Amistad was seized off Long Island, NY, by the U.S. brig Washington.
Unfortunately, they were tricked by Don Pedro Montez, the ship's navigator,
whose life they had spared, and whom they depended upon to help them get back
home, and instead, ended up at the eastern tip of Long Island, New York.On August 24, 1839, while some of the
former captives were negotiating with two men on the shore, still trying to get
back home, a United States Revenue Cutter Service ship, USS Washington saw the
schooner and took custody. The Africans were brought to Connecticut for sale
into slavery. In the legal wrangle that
ensued, La Amistad came to symbolize the abolitionist movement’s efforts. In an 1841 case that began in New Haven,
Connecticut, but went all the way to the US Supreme Court, a determination had
to be made about the status of the Africans, since the importation of slaves had
been banned in the US since 1808.
In order to perpetrate the fraud that
would enable them profit from selling the Africans, La Amistad’s owners said
that Sengbe and the 56 Africans were born in Cuba. In reality, the Africans had been captured in
Mende country in what is today’s Sierra Leone.They were then transported to Cuba on the slave ship Tecora.The court had to decide the status of the
Africans and 2 Spaniards.While the
Spaniards were freed, the Africans were kept in jail in New Haven, Connecticut.They were charged with murder.These charges were dismissed but the
following questions were considered important as well: were they “salvage and
the property of Naval officers who had taken custody of the ship?”Were they “the property of the Cuban
buyers or of Spain as Queen Isabella II of Spain claimed?” Or were they to be
considered free due to “the circumstances of their capture and transportation?”
President Van Buren was in favor of
extraditing the Africans to Cuba. However, abolitionists in the North opposed
extradition and raised money to defend the Africans. Claims to the Africans by
the planters, the government of Spain, and the captain of the brig led the case
to trial in the Federal District Court in Connecticut. The court ruled that the
case fell within Federal jurisdiction and that the claims to the Africans as
property were not legitimate because they were illegally held as slaves. The
case went to the Supreme Court in January 1841, and former President John Quincy
Adams argued the defendants' case. Adams defended the right of the accused to
fight to regain their freedom. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1841 that the
transportation and captivity of the Africans was illegal.It ordered their freedom.In 1842, the survivors, of this ordeal
(now only 35 people) returned to Africa.
The decision of the Supreme Court was
written and read by Senior Justice Joseph Story. The Court ruled in the first
place, that Cinque and the other Africans aboard the Amistad were free, since
they had been kidnapped and transported illegally, meaning that while they had
been treated as such, in truth, they were not slaves, and had never been.
As often happens with legal matters,
this too was a political decision.
Justice Story reportedly wrote before the Amistad ruling that ". . . it was the
ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to
apply force against ruinous injustice," but according to the opinion expressed
in this case, there was a very narrow support for the right of the Amistad
Africans to resist "unlawful" slavery.We should also bear in mind that at the same time, chattel slavery was a
fact of life for many Africans in America
(Archives.org n.d.).
Nine people of African descent have
been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Here are their names and the dates given,
We have Barack H. Obama as the latest
recipient and Ralph Bunche as the earliest.Although it would have been much more
interesting to apply this analysis to all nine, I chose in this article, to
focus on the first, last and only woman recipient.From Ralph Bunche to Barack Obama, each
and every person of African descent that has been honored with the Nobel Peace
Prize is connected to the Amistad Africans’ struggle for human dignity, freedom
and human rights.However, the
purity of these struggles can be clouded by reason of state—as is clear with the
Obama Nobel.Being the President of
the most powerful country in the world carries its challenges, since personal
conviction may conflict with perceived national interest.This is why Obama the candidate, is so radically different from Obama the
President, and why the Just War principle or the Obama doctrine cannot convince
his critics that he is deserving of the Nobel.However, we should probably give
President Obama a chance to demonstrate how the aspirational character of this
award motivates him to do better in supporting, promoting and defending world
peace.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, 2009
The announcement that President Barack Obama was the 2009 recipient of the 2009
Nobel Peace Prize attracted a lot of attention and raised a great deal of furor.
Many of the responses were negative, the rationale being that this was an
untested, even much too young man who presided over a country embroiled in two
wars.Many pundits actually advised that the
most honorable thing is for Obama to reject the Nobel.Some of them, like the late Howard Zinn,
are people whose opinion I respect.
But then as I look through the list of men and woman awarded the Nobel in the
past, I don’t think one could justify Barack Obama’s exclusion.More than that, if considered in light of
practical human responses to being awarded a distinguished prize such as the
Nobel, the everyday aphorism:“never
look a gift horse in the mouth” becomes even more relevant.My point is that most people who are
selected for an award, particularly one like the Nobel would probably feel
deserving of it, particularly people who are socially conscious, dedicated to
the cause of making a better world, and committed to struggling for equity,
justice, as well as peace.As a practical matter, it would probably not
occur to most such people that there might be people more deserving of the
award, than they.Contrary to such
tendencies, Barack Obama reflected upon the award in his speech, “A Just and
lasting peace,” said:“I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility.
It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty
and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions
matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.”
In any case, why did The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose Barack
Obama for this award?According to
Thorbjørn Jagland in his presentation speech:
his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between peoples… vision of and work for a world
without nuclear weapons…[with] “a new climate in international politics [where]
Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the
role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.
Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the
most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear
arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks
to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in
meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and
human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as
Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better
future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the
world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the
majority of the world's population Oslo, October 9, 2009 (Nobel Peace Prize 2009).
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has
sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for
which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses
Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of
responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
As reported by
Thorbjørn Jagland, and as we all probably remember, President Obama humbly claimed that there were others more deserving,
others more courageous, others more transformative.But as well, one could consider the Prize
as making "a call to action".According
to Thorbjørn Jagland,President Obama has understood the Norwegian
Nobel Committee perfectly. We congratulate him on this year's Nobel Peace Prize! (Jagland 2009)
The Nobel was also awarded because of the
contemporary world situation where there is:
great tension, numerous wars, unresolved conflicts
and confrontation on many fronts ... the imminent danger of the spread of
nuclear weapons, degradation of the environment and global warming. In fact,
Time Magazine recently described the decade that is coming to an end as the
worst since the end of World War II.
From the very first moment of his
presidency, President Obama has been trying to create a more cooperative climate
which can help reverse the present trend. He has already "lowered the
temperature in the world", in the words of former Peace Prize Laureate Desmond
Tutu.
The Committee always takes
Alfred Nobel's will as its frame of reference. We are to award the Nobel Peace
Prize to the person who, during the "preceding year", meaning in this case since
the previous award in December 2008, shall have done the most or the best work
"for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing
armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" –
to quote from the will (Jagland 2009).
The question was actually quite simple. Who has done
most for peace in the past year? If the question is put in Nobel's terms, the
answer is relatively easy to find: it had to be U.S. President Barack Obama.
Only rarely does one person dominate international politics to the same extent
as Obama, or in such a short space of time initiate so many and such major
changes as Obama has done. The question for the Committee was rather whether it
would be bold enough to single out the most powerful man in the world, with the
responsibility and the obligations that come with the office of the President of
the United States (Jagland 2009).
The Committee decided to encourage Obama’s political
leadership as an attempt to “get the world on a safer track” given that humanity
does not have the luxury of time.While there have been critiques that the award came too early, the
committee points to historical evidence of “lost opportunities” to embrace good
ideas and good leaders.It sees its
decision as “the opportunity to support President Obama's ideas as well as “a
call to action to all of us”.Encouraging us to “weigh his ideals against what he really does,” it also
cautions against seeing life and the choices required to ethical and socially
conscious as a choice between being true to one’s ideals in a strict, unbending
manner not to have ideals at all, since doing this would stymie dreams and
visions of a better tomorrow, as well as interject pure cynicism and realpolitik
into politics (Jagland 2009).
Contrary to much of the sound and fury about whether
or not Obama deserves the award, the committee commends him for having excelled
in multilateral diplomacy…given the acknowledgment of the importance of the
United Nations and other international institutions expressed for example,
through the following steps:“The
U.S.A. is now paying its bills to the U.N. It is joining various committees, and
acceding to important conventions. International standards are again respected.
Torture is forbidden; the President is doing what he can to close Guantanamo.
Human rights and international law are guiding principles”. These measures have not only been noticed by
other world leaders, they have been praised as the dawn of a new day and the
creation of new opportunities for peace to reign in the world, at least to the
extent possible, given the specter of nuclear war, and the urgent need for
non-proliferation.Obama has worked
assiduously for disarmament and arms control negotiations through leadership in
the U.N. Security Council, to push” its unanimous support to the vision of a
world without nuclear weapons; rethinking of US plans for “deployment in Eastern
Europe of the planned anti-missile defences [and its consideration of] other
multilateral options to secure the region. As a consequence, given that nuclear powers’
unwillingness to disarm will spur on a new arms race, under President Obama,
strategic nuclear weapons negotiations between the U.S. and Russia Federation
have improved, and the world’s expectation of a new agreement between both
nations “is encouraging even the smaller nuclear powers to make cuts,” while
also signalingthat the
Non-Proliferation Treaty is still an important part of global architecture for
peace and collective security in our world
(Jagland 2009).
The US now favors dialogue and negotiations as the
ideal tools for conflict resolution,
including intractable international problems like nuclear nonproliferation and
where the prospects that negotiations will succeed seem at best remote, but
under the Obama administration the US has decided to put its efforts into these
negotiations, hopeful that they will succeed. The
US is also engaged in coalition building and desirous of making alliances. There are many trouble spots, including Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Iran, and while ultimately, these countries’ problems can only
be solved by their own peoples, the Obama Administration wants to lead
multilateral efforts to engage these problems.
The struggle against climate change also is an issue
area where the US has abandoned unilateralism in favor of “concrete proposals,”
thus articulating U.S intentions of fostering very soon. The People’s Republic of China’s rise into
prominence as an important actor in the international political economy and its
complex economic linkages with the US means that the US must make great effort
to work toward close cooperation with China on many fronts—the environment,
where both of them are the greatest polluter thus far (the U.S), and the
greatest potential polluter of future (China). For IR scholars, the decline of one hegemon and
rise of another is a very troubling time because of the prospect of “war and
conflict”. The Obama administration's attitude and behavior thus far shows that
it is more interested in cooperation that conflict, and this is also somewhat
comforting.
The committee applauded Obama's diplomacy for its
foundation on the principle “that whoever is to lead the world must do so on the
basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s
population.” This principle for the committee, connects Obama with past American
presidents “who, above all others, were seen as world leaders also outside the
United States: Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and
Ronald Reagan.” It also to their mind
connects the ideals of the US with those of the world, as well as American
hearts and minds with the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world.The committee said: “Obama's ideals
coincide to a large extent with the ideals that have underpinned the activities
of the Norwegian Nobel Committee throughout our 108-year history: to strengthen
international institutions as much as possible; to advance democracy and human
rights; to reduce the importance of arms and preferably do away with nuclear
arms altogether; to promote dialogue and negotiations; and, in the last few
years, to adopt effective measures to meet the climate threat.”
That the award could be considered “aspirational” was
not a problem for the committee, after all, while some of those honored with the
prize were:
persons or institutions that have achieved
fundamental agreements or other results which have stood the test of history… at
least as many awards… have gone to those who tried to bring about fundamental
changes in international politics, but where the results were still unclear at
the time when they received their awards. Woodrow Wilson's prize came when he
was at his weakest both politically and personally, after suffering a stroke. He
had created the League of Nations, but the United States would not join. Wilson
was a hero to the world, but not in the U.S.A. The American Secretary of State
Cordell Hull received the award after the establishment of the United Nations,
but so early that no one could be sure how significant the U.N. would be.
Many have been awarded the Peace Prize for their
courage, even when the results for a long time seemed modest: Carl von
Ossietzky, Andrej Sakharov, Lech Walesa and the Dalai Lama, to name a few. When
Albert Lutuli received his Peace Prize, the struggle against apartheid was in
its infancy: there were few results to point to. When Martin Luther King, Jr.,
received his award, he had proclaimed his dream that "my four little children
will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of
their skin but by the content of their character," but there was still a long
way to go from dream to reality
(Jagland 2009).
The committee also saw
Obama’s Presidency as vindicating its choice of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1964,
a time when it seemed that his dream ephemeral.The decision to nurture a dream in the case of Rev. Dr. MLK is similar to
the decision to honor Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin in 1978, for contributions
to peace in the Middle East, even though the region experienced many wars, and
much conflict and tensions subsequently.As the Committee asked and answered a key
question:
Why does the Nobel Committee not wait until final
peace agreements have been concluded? Nothing is final in history. It always
moves on. Peace must be built again and again. The Norwegian Nobel Committee can
not award a Peace Prize where nothing has been achieved. If the principles are
important enough, however, and the struggle over them is vital to the future of
the world, the Committee can not wait until we are certain that the principles
have won on all fronts. That would make the Prize a rather belated stamp of
approval and not an instrument for peace in the world.
This must surely be Nobel's "fraternity between
nations” (Jagland 2009).
With hindsight, we all take it for granted that past
Nobels reflect incontrovertible evidence that those selected were revered and
applauded, but if one considers President Woodrow Wilson for example, his
progressive actions on the world stage were not matched by his perspectives on
race at home, which were quite unprogressive, to say the least.Regardless, as a world leader, Wilson
worked assiduously to build international cooperation and democracy, and he only
had modest success in both respects.
We all probably know that US support for democracy abroad did not match its
treatment of people of African descent at home, and that the promotion of
democracy abroad is an enterprise that is fraught with rhetorical good
intentions but many problematic alliances, for example, with right wing
dictators and sundry authoritarian leaders.
Obama’s internationalism was connected by the
committee to the legacy of Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry
Truman, particularly in light of US contributions to founding and funding the
UN. Similarly, Obama’s speech in Berlin
in July 2008 is taken as an indication of his fundamental belief in removing all
barriers to human progress, development and equality: “The walls between old
allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the
countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between
races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot
stand. These now are the walls we must tear down” (Jagland 2009).
The Nobel Peace Award was unequivocal in its belief
that Obama is the right choice. For them: “President Obama is a political leader
who understands that even the mightiest are vulnerable when they stand alone. He
is a man who believes in the strength of a community, be it the local community
where he started his career many years ago or the global community which he
leads today. Obama has the audacity to hope and the tenacity to make these hopes
come true.
This is what makes him so important. By his own
behavior and leadership he is demanding that we all "take our share of
responsibility for a global response to global challenges". We congratulate this
year's Laureate, President Barack H. Obama, on what he has already achieved, and
wish him every possible success in his continuing efforts for a more peaceful
world. May you receive the help you truly deserve!” (Jagland 2009).
In order to understand how Barack H.
Obama understands, rationalizes and attempts to explicate the contradictions of
receiving a Peace award while he is in continuing two wars begun by his
predecessor, although he promised to end one very soon and the other later, we
should consider his speech at the Award.
Barack Obama was remarkable in both his recognition of the questions raised
about the committee’s choice, since he was a relative newcomer both to being top
executive in the US and to international politics, where he must represent US
national interest.Given the youth
of his administration, Obama felt that his “accomplishments are slight [when]
compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize –
Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela.” So, too, in light of the sacrifices
of “the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the
pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve
suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion
inspire even the most hardened cynics.” Obama
also was frank in his assessment of the incongruity of being “the
Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.”He tried to justify America’s involvement
in these wars thus:“One of these
wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in
which we are joined by forty two other countries – including Norway – in an
effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.” (Obama 2009)
But he did not dismiss the concerns
that these wars were destructive and destabilizing to world peace.According to him, the U.S. is engaged in
war, and he bears the responsibility for the deploying “thousands of young
Americans to battle in a distant land.” He
also recognized that armed conflict is destructive in terms of its effects on
the combatants, their families, their countries, and even more so for those
innocents caught in the throes of war due to no fault of their own.As a student of international politics, I
agree with Obama’s assessment, that questions about the relationship between war
and peace have troubled our consciousness for as long as humanity has reasoned
in a purposeful manner about the fundamental meaning of life.
Obama’s “just war” principle draws
upon, in the first place, the thought of
Augustine of Hippo, who is as we all know, African.While human beings were not initially
concerned with whether or not war was morally justified, eventually, the desire
to control violence through law, extended
to philosophical and ecclesiastical considerations of how to regulate war and
the destruction that it lets loose. Essentially,
these were inquiries into whether or not there are circumstances under which war
could possibly be justified.The
consensus was that if war is a last resort or for self-defense; if proportional
force is used; and if to the extent possible, non-combatants are spared from
violence, war is justified.
Obama was honest because he confirmed
what we all know, human beings have never truly lived true to the injunctions of
the "just war" principle, whether due to cruelty, or religious intolerance, or
for reasons of inability to discern who’s a combatant and who the civilians are.
Very few would argue that the war against Hitler’s Third Reich and the Axis
powers during World War II was not just.The efforts made to guarantee collective
security following both this and the First World War—the UN and its predecessor,
the League of Nations, “an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize”
were presented by Obama as American leadership of global efforts to put muscles
behind the phrase: “never again.” The Marshall Plan, human rights treaties and
those against genocide, and the laws of war are all attempts to curtail the
destruction from war.Some of these
efforts he saw as responsible for the fact that we have not had a Third World
War.They also mean that in spite of The Cold War and many other low intensity
but terribly destructive wars, the efflorescence of commerce the consequent
creation of wealth have reduced the numbers of those beaten down by poverty. In
addition, values like “liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of
law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of
generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully
proud.” (Obama 2009).
It is also to his credit that Obama
acknowledged the tremendous strain and potential problems presented by new
challenges to global peace “this old architecture is buckling under the weight
of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between
two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.
Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men
with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.” Compounding the problem is the growing
incidence of civil wars arising out of ethnic and religious, conflicts;
secessionist attempts, insurgencies, and weak, ineffectual states that cause
more civilian deaths and make wars intractable economies “wrecked, civil
societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred” (Obama 2009).
While acknowledging that he had no
“definitive solution to the problems of war,” he recommends being rededicated to
“the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so
boldly decades ago [a]nd ….. think[ing] in new ways about the notions of just
war and the imperatives of a just peace. Even
while making a nod toward Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s. Nobel Award speech when
he said: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it
merely creates new and more complicated ones."And while linking himself to “Dr. King's
life work, [as a] living testimony to the moral force of non-violence, and while
clearly stating that “there's nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve –
in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King,” Obama still said: “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” (Obama 2009).
In what appeared to some pundits as
though he was channeling Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, Obama
spoke of his responsibility as American “head of state sworn to protect and
defend my nation,” and the imperative of being realistic and practical in
responding to “threats to the American people… 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”
(Obama 2009).
Obama also chided the world for the
general and “deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the
cause... and … a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military
superpower.” He reminded the world of US efforts to
“underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our
citizens and the strength of our arms… not simply international institutions –
not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War
II world.” He also lauded the US for its
efforts to export democracy “in places like the Balkans… claiming that the US
carried “this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out
of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children
and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others'
children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity” (Obama 2009).
At the same time, he recognized the
tragedy of war, the sacrifices that it demands of combatants, and that “war
itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such”. He could see
the contradiction, and sought to address it.How does a rational human being reconcile “these two seemingly
inreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level
is an expression of human folly…Concretely, we must direct our effort to the
task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a
more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human
nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions. A gradual evolution of
human institutions.” He also attempted to describe this evolution and practical
steps:
“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, international
standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't…I
believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the
Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our
conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all
responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate
can play to keep the peace.”He also
recommends multilateralism in conflict resolution and peacekeeping,
Obama tried to reflect on the
historicity of his Nobel when he said:
“Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think
clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in
awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red
Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.”Thus, torture must be prohibited as an instrument of war, the prison at
Guantanamo Bay would be closed and America would obey international laws of war
as encompassed by the Geneva Conventions.
For Obama, having to wage war may be
a necessary evil, but there is still a need to “build a just and lasting peace.”
He suggests three things:
i.Curtailing countries that do not
observe and respect international law by developing “alternatives to violence
that are tough enough to actually change behavior.” Compelling accountability in international
relations through effective sanctions and pressure from a united international
community. He expressed his commitment to upholding the nuclear non
proliferation treaty as a centerpiece of his foreign policy. While negotiating reduction in America and
Russia's nuclear stockpiles, he also wants the whole world, [and not just the
US] to ensure that Iran and North Korea respect international law against
nuclear proliferation.
Similarly,
international humanitarian law that forbids governments from “brutalizing their
own people” must also be enforced. This
covers genocide (Darfur), the use of rape as an instrument of war (Congo),
repression (Burma) – through engagement; diplomacy and sanctions (consequences)
imposed by the entire world.
ii.What kind of peace is desirable?
“Not merely the absence of visible conflict [but] …a just peace based on the
inherent rights and dignity of every individual” as endorsed by the drafters of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights… [who] recognized that if human rights
are not protected, peace is a hollow promise. And human rights are not just
Western principles, nor are they dependent on a country’s stage of development,
nor on “the tension between realism or idealism – or the “stark choice between
the narrow pursuit of interests [realism] or an endless campaign to impose our
values around the world [idealism]. Instead, for Obama, “peace is unstable” in
the absence of human rights and “neither America's interests – nor the world's –
are served by the denial of human aspirations.”
a.In addition, human rights must be
promoted through “exhortation… painstaking diplomacy” even in the case of
repressive regimes because “sanctions without outreach – condemnation without
discussion – can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime
can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”
b.Examples:during the Cultural Revolution Nixon met
with Mao. “Pope John Paul's engagement
with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor
leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of
perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered
dissidents throughout Eastern Europe... we must try as best we can to balance
isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and
dignity are advanced over time.”
iii.Just peace means guarantees of “civil
and political rights [as well as] economic security and opportunity. For true
peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.”
a.For there to be development, there
must be security; for there to be security, people’s basic needs must be met,
and this includes education, access to jobs, hope for a better tomorrow, food,
medical care, and helping give access to such things “is not mere charity.”
b.In addition, “the world must come
together to confront climate change... if we do nothing, we will face more
drought, more famine, more mass displacement – all of which will fuel more
conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and
environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action – it's military
leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in
the balance (Obama 2009).
So, a just and peaceful world
requires “Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human
rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing
about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not
believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to
complete this work without something more – and that's the continued expansion
of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that
we all share” (Obama 2009).
As Obama sees it, globalization and
the supposedly smaller world has not meant that “human beings… recognize how
similar we are; …understand that we're all basically seeking the same things;
that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of
happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.Paradoxically, probably due to the
“dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity… people fear
the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities”… race, ethnicity,
and religion, sometimes causing conflict. Religion
in particular has been used as justification for attacks against innocent
civilians, as done in the name of Islam, by attackers from Afghanistan. Unlike
superficial analysis that lays all such violence exclusively at the feet of
Muslims, Obama reminds us that there are examples like “the cruelties of the
Crusades” which indicate that it is impossible for a Holy War to be a just war,
since those who act from the conviction that they are doing God’s work tend to
be uncompromising and relentless.
But this is a distortion that makes it impossible to live in peace, and the
injunction central to all religions—“that we do unto others as we would have
them do unto us” (Obama 2009).
Waxing religious and pious, Obama
also enjoins us to “obey the law of love as an intrinsic part of the “struggle
of human nature”. We should also realize
that we are not perfect.We are
proud, seek power, sometimes do evil, But we can still seek perfection by
working to make the world a better place. Gandhi and King’s non-violence “…may
not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that
they preached – their fundamental faith in human progress – that must always be
the North Star that guides us on our journey… For if we lose that faith – if we
dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make
on issues of war and peace – then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose
our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass. Again invoking Dr. King at the Nobel, Obama said, "I refuse to accept
despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept
the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally
incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts
him.”
Obama ended his address thus:
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's
outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a
young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to
march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the
time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that
child to school – because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for
that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be
with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of
depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that
there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the
story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of
challenge, that must be our work here on Earth
(Obama 2009).
WANGARI MUTA MAATHAI, 2004
In 2004, Dr. (Mama) Wangari Muta
Maathai was awarded the Peace Prize "for her contribution to sustainable
development, democracy and peace" (The Nobel
Peace Prize 2004 Wangari Muta Maathai).She was the first woman of African
descent to win the Peace Prize as well as the first Sub Saharan African woman to
win a Nobel.On April 1, 1940, she
was born in Ihithe village, Tetu Division, Nyeri District in Kenya.She has the distinction of being the
first woman to earn a doctoral degree from East and Central Africa. Her tertiary education began at Mount St.
Scholastica College in Atchison, Kansas, from which she graduated with a
Bachelor’s degree in Biological Sciences in 1964. She went on to the University of Pittsburgh and graduated with an M.Sc.
in 1966. Her Ph.D. training began in Germany and was
concluded at the University of Nairobi in 1971.
Mama Maathai’s teaching career
commenced at the University of Nairobi as a Lecturer in veterinary anatomy, and
later, Chair of the Department and Associate professor.She was also the first woman in each
instance to rise to these positions. Wangari
Maathai is a social and political activist.She was a member of the National Council of Women of Kenya from 1976-87,
and despite government intrigues to subvert her, became its chairman from
1981-87.
Mama Wangari Maathai was an
environmental activist long before the idea became popular.As with many of her activities, she was a
pioneer. Her tree planting idea began in 1976, a response to soil erosion,
increased scarcity of fuelwood and deforestation, all of which put increased
pressure on women who sought to guarantee family food security and survival.She working primarily with women to
encourage and support as well as advocate and implement the planting of trees
for environmental conservation and subsistence and income generation.Her work in this area created the Green
Belt Movement (GBM), which by the date of the Nobel, had spread to other African
countries to form the Pan African Green Belt Network. Members came from
Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and other African
countries.As a result of the work
of the Network, women throughout the continent were motivated to plant more than
20 million trees.
Mama Wangari’s activism continued in
her involvement with the Jubilee 2000 Coalition, and she co-chaired the Jubilee
2000 Africa Campaign from September 1998.The campaign worked for the cancellation of the heavy debts owed by
African countries to the rich industrialized countries like the US and its
European allies by the year 2000. She
also had active interest in Kenyan politics where she campaigned against land
grabbing and the enclosure of the commons by rich and powerful cronies of the
political elite through allotments of forest land without concern for the
environmental effects or the interests of the majority of Kenyans.
Mama Maathai’s activist politics in
promotion and defense of democracy, and environmental integrity as well as her
public leadership of protests and demonstrations, sometimes using indigenous
women’s methods of resistance to oppression such as stripping naked, led to
physical assault, jail terms and vilification inflicted upon her the Kenyan
state under theDaniel arap Moi
administration.She did not give up.In 1977, her husband left her, and the
separation became permanent with a public and painful divorce in 1979.Her public responses in an interview to
the patriarchal decision of the court led to the judge sentencing her to a
six-month prison term.She sued and
was freed after serving three days.
Maathai was broke from the divorce expenses, and pushed into further economic
insecurity by the Moi government, which found her activism in defense of women’s
and environmental rights and democracy distasteful. However, while also looking,
Maathai continued her international activism on women’s rights, social,
economic, and political justice, environmental integrity and human rights
continued to gain prominence and recognition.
She was honored with numerous awards, as well as honorary doctoral degrees.
In December 2002, Mama Wangari
Maathai secured 98% of the vote as an elected member of the Kenyan national
parliament, representing Tetu constituency in Nyeri district.She was later appointed Assistant
Minister for Environment, Natural Resources and Wildlife
(Tore Frängsmyr 2005 ).Mama
Maathai rejected the appointment after the Mwai Kibaki-led government lost a
constitutional referendum in 2005 (Nobel Laureate
- Wangari Maathai May Lose In Elections 2007). In August 2006, she met
Senator Barack Obama, who was visiting Kenya.Obama’s father was a Kenyan that was also
a beneficiary of the same scholarship that enabled Mama Maathai to study in the
US.In 2007, she ran to represent
her constituency and lost. Her GBM work
has continued.
Professor Ole Danbolt Mjøs, Chairman
of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, justified its selection of Mama Maathai in the
Presentation Speech on December 10, 2004 by making a linkage between peace and
the environment thus:
Peace on earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment. Maathai
stands at the front of the fight to promote ecologically viable social, economic
and cultural development in Kenya and in Africa. She has taken a holistic
approach to sustainable development that embraces democracy, human rights and
women's rights in particular. She thinks globally and acts locally…. You have
shown what it means to be a true African mother and a true African woman. Kenya
admires you! Africa admires you! The world admires you! May your unceasing fight
for the right always remain a source of inspiration for mankind.
Mjøs anticipated Obama’s aspirational
characterization of his Nobel when he said about Maathai’s:
Your name will figure prominently in the history of the Peace Prize, together
with the other African Peace Prize Laureates: Albert Lutuli, Anwar Sadat,
Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Fredrik Willem de Klerk and Kofi Annan. We hope
the Peace Prize may be an inspiration for positive change in your beloved Kenya,
in Africa, and in the many countries in the world that need to hear your voice.
Your goal is to protect God's creation "so that this earth can become the Garden
of Eden that God created". From 1950 to 2000, Kenya lost 90 per cent of its
forests. You founded the Green Belt Movement, in which over a period of nearly
thirty years you have mobilised poor women to plant thirty million trees. Your
methods have also been adopted in other countries. We are all witnesses to how
deforestation and forest loss have led to desertification in Africa and
threatened many other regions of the world – also in Europe. Protecting forests
to stop desertification is a major step towards strengthening our common global
environment. Through education, family planning, nutrition, and the fight
against corruption, the Green Belt Movement is creating conditions for
development at grass-root level.
The paths to peace are multiple and
varied. The Nobel Committee has always
given a broad conceptual definition of peace, as affirmed by the wide variety of
individuals and organizations selected for the Nobel Peace Prize, including
Statesmen and politicians…at the international, the regional and the national
level…. Major humanitarian organizations, and individuals engaged in
humanitarian work…. promoting the "fraternity between nations" of which Alfred
Nobel speaks in his will…. those who have worked for disarmament or arms control
[whose work] relate directly to the "abolition or reduction of standing armies"
that Nobel also mentions. In recent decades, the Nobel Committee has made human
rights a central element of the definition of peace. There were many warnings
against such a broadening of the concept of peace. Today there are few things
peace researchers and other scholars are readier to agree on than precisely that
democracy and human rights advance peace. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has
believed so for over forty years, if not indeed much longer.
While the incongruity of the Obama
Nobel seemed clear to observers and pundits, Maathai’s Nobel also generated some
puzzlement, and the Committee sought to explain why someone whose activism had
been predominantly in the area of environmental activism could be said to have
contributed to world peace.It was
clear that the Committee “evidently broadened its definition of peace still
further. Environmental protection has become yet another path to peace.” Although Mama Wangari Maathai had also made
noteworthy efforts to democracy, human rights, and women's rights, she was by no
means a household name to all and sundry worldwide. Neither were some earlier Laureates.
The Nobel Committee was emphatic in
its insistence that peace and the environment are connected.There is evidence that such a
relationship exists where conflicts on access to scarce resources like oil,
water, minerals or timber erupt and persist. It gave the example of the Middle
East, Africa, Indonesia and Brazil, arguing that ecological issues can also
cause conflict, as with Darfur, where the desert increasingly encroaches on the
grazing lands for Arab nomads. The
conflict between nomads and farmers is as much driven by this phenomenon as by
any other cause. The Philippines, Chiapas, Mexico, Haiti,
Amazonas, and the Himalayas have all experienced the deleterious effects of
environmental degradation, causing tension between people, groups and nations.
According to Mama Maathai,
inequitable access to the world’s resources contributes to tensions and
conflicts locally, nationally and globally.
While at the time of her Nobel, the world was not convinced that she was right,
the Nobel Committee agreed with her and expressed confidence that …within a few
decades, when researchers have developed more comprehensive analyses of many of
the world's conflicts, the relation between the environment, resources and
conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human
rights, democracy and peace.”As
well, international cooperation is necessary for the resolution of environmental
problems.The planting of trees is a
concrete expression of commitment to peace, and the involvement of African women
is a continuation of their contribution to development.
The Committee also expressed the hope
that Wangari Maathai would lead the struggle to combat HIV/AIDS, educational
disparities that favor boys over girls, and foster optimism that the continent’s
problems can be solved (The Nobel Peace Prize 2004 Wangari Muta
Maathai 2004;Tore Frängsmyr 2005).
Mama Waathai’s speech like Obama’s,
recognized that many people who work the hardest get neither acknowledgment nor
affirmation.She also acknowledged
the debt owed to the people of Kenya who maintained the stubborn hope that
democracy and environmental integrity are possible, and were ready to fight for
them, in addition to “African Peace laureates, Presidents Nelson Mandela and
F.W. de Klerk, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the late Chief Albert Luthuli, the late
Anwar el-Sadat and the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.” According to her:
Although this prize comes to me, it acknowledges the work of
countless individuals and groups across the globe. They work quietly and often
without recognition to protect the environment, promote democracy, defend human
rights and ensure equality between women and men. By so doing, they plant seeds
of peace. I know they, too, are proud today. To all who feel represented by this
prize I say use it to advance your mission and meet the high expectations the
world will place on us.
Echoing the Nobel Committee’s
assessment that linkage between the environment, democracy and peace has not yet
been recognized by the world, she lauded their “visionary action”, hoping that
the world would recognize “that sustainable development, democracy and peace are
indivisible” and the world should engage the reduction of conflicts and poverty
and consequent improvements in the quality of life of ordinary people as serious
challenges. Democratic governance, human
rights and environmental integrity are crucial and can be addressed by ordinary
people.
The power of Mama Maathai’s childhood
socialization and experiences as well as her formal education inspired her
interest in nature.She also
questioned the destructive practices of mainstream development initiatives that
replaced peasant farms with agribusiness and replaced food production with the
production of exports in a manner that “destroyed local biodiversity and the
capacity of the forests to conserve water.”Mama Maathai was also moved to establish the Green Belt Movement in 1977
to respond “to needs identified by rural women, namely lack of firewood, clean
drinking water, balanced diets, shelter and income.”According to her, the world could learn
much from rural women who in the course of fulfilling their family
responsibilities and meeting basic needs, like canaries in the mine, give
advance warning of “environmental damage as resources become scarce and
incapable of sustaining their families. The terms of trade are also skewed against
Africa, affecting poor peasant farmers who are denied a just income and human
dignity.Worse still, “when the
environment is destroyed, plundered or mismanaged, we undermine our quality of
life and that of future generations.”
Planting trees has a practical impact
because it allows women to meet the basic needs they identify. It is a simple, exercise that can be
accomplished by anyone, and which can produce speedy results. Trees “provide fuel, food, shelter, and income…
employment and improve[ment in] soils and watersheds.” Women are also able to take charge of their
lives, with positive impacts on their socioeconomic situation and family
well-being. Wangari Maathai’s work in
leading the GBM is even more transformational because it inspired poor African
women to recognize that they have “knowledge and skills” to solve their problems
instead of looking to the outside world. She was also able to demonstrate that
environmental well-being is connected to the basic needs of people being met,
peace, security and sustainable development.
The GBM’s work also includes citizen
education to help
people identify their problems, the causes and possible
solutions… make connections between their own personal actions and the problems
they witness in the environment and in society… learn that our world is
confronted with a litany of woes: corruption, violence against women and
children, disruption and breakdown of families, and disintegration of cultures
and communities…. identify the abuse of drugs and chemical substances,
especially among young people….devastating diseases that are defying cures or occurring in epidemic
proportions. Of particular concern are HIV/AIDS, malaria and diseases associated
with malnutrition.
People are also able to take action
to help themselves as well as insist on accountability from their governments.In their personal relationships, they are
also encouraged to “exemplify the leadership values they wish to see in their
own leaders, namely justice, integrity and trust”.The GBM also saw the connection between
democracy, peace, and “responsible governance of the environment.” Connecting with Kikuyu and other African
customs that consider trees symbols of peace, GBM began mobilizing Kenyans to
plant peace trees to push for peaceful democratic transition, respect for human
rights, good governance and environmental integrity. Thus,
in Nairobi's Uhuru Park, at Freedom Corner, and in many parts
of the country, trees of peace were planted to demand the release of prisoners
of conscience and a peaceful transition to democracy… the tree also became a
symbol for peace and conflict resolution, especially during ethnic conflicts in
Kenya when the Green Belt Movement used peace trees to reconcile disputing
communities. During the ongoing re-writing of the Kenyan constitution, similar
trees of peace were planted in many parts of the country to promote a culture of
peace.
For Maathai and the GBM, cultural
heritage such as that found among the Kikuyu and other Africans can motivate
people to engage in conservation and peacebuilding, but if cultures are driven
to extinction by the imposition or indiscriminate adoption of “new values, local
biodiversity is no longer valued or protected and as a result, it is quickly
degraded and disappears. For this reason, The Green Belt Movement explores the
concept of cultural biodiversity, especially with respect to indigenous seeds
and medicinal plants.”
In 2002, Kenya had a peaceful
transition to a democracy, but the struggle continues. Humanity as a whole must
develop “a new level of consciousness, …reach a higher moral ground….shed our
fear and give hope to each other.
The challenge for Africa is to recognize the urgency of the need to nurture
democratic government, expand “democratic and peaceful space”, as well as
guarantee environmental integrity and sustainable development.
Education, skills, power and
experience are privileges that should be used to influence positive change and
mentor succeeding generations to be better leaders.Culture, being central to politics,
economy and social well being, is also
dynamic can be a force for positive change. “Africans,
especially, should re-discover positive aspects of their culture. In accepting
them, they would give themselves a sense of belonging, identity and
self-confidence.”
Civil society and grassroots
movements should become catalysts to change. Governments should recognize their role in
fostering the development of responsible citizenship that demands and works for
checks and balances in society.
Citizens should struggle for their rights as well as embrace their
responsibilities.
Socially conscious investment should
be embraced by owners of capital and industry.Global institutions should foster “economic justice, equity and
ecological integrity” and realize that they are more valuable than “profits at
any cost.”
The world should also fight against
“extreme global inequities” including consumption patterns that “continue at the
expense of the environment and peaceful co-existence.”
The youth should dare to dream and
work to actualize their vision for a better world that is committed to
sustainable, holistic development in “a world of beauty and wonder” (Maathai 2004).
The commitment to peace is clearly a
thread that runs through the Obama and Maathai visions of the world.This is also demonstrated in the Bunche
perspective and contributions.
However, the involvement of the Obama administration in the Afghanistan and
Iraqi conflicts contradict the administration’s professed commitment to peace,
necessitating the tortuous explications on the nature of just war and its
relevance to the situation which was not created by President Obama, but was
inherited from a previous administration.
Obama the candidate condemned these wars and vowed to end them.Obama the President is forced to succumb
to national interest defined in purely hegemonic terms, to impose the US will on
the world.The Nobel award to the
first person of African descent to win the Nobel, Ralph Bunche, was not
controversial.However, the struggle
for a world without war continues.
RALPH BUNCHE , 1950
On December 10,
1950, the 50th Anniversary of the Nobel Foundation, and the
establishment of the Nobel prizes, Ralph Bunche became the first person of
African descent to be honored with the Nobel Peace Prize (Bio
page:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1950/index.html).He was
born in Detroit, Michigan in 1904, and died in 1971.At 46,
he was younger than Obama when he got the award, having the distinction of being
one of the youngest recipients at the time of his award.He died a full 20 years after receiving
the Nobel, which means that his award could also have been considered
“aspirational,” if the measure of this characterization is derived from the
youth of the person on whom the award is conferred.He was also a
Professor, although he was a Professor of Politics at Harvard University
Cambridge, MA, while Obama was a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago,
IL.Prior to this, Bunche was the Director of
the Division of Trusteeship at the United Nations and Acting Mediator in
Palestine, 1948.His distinguished
stewardship in both capacities makes it impossible to doubt that he deserved the
award (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1950/index.html).
As with Obama, it is necessary to inquire into why the Nobel Committee selected Bunche.The Presentation Speech by Gunnar Jahn,
Chairman of the Committee gives some idea of the public justification offered.While Ralph was a relatively young man at
the time, he had worked assiduously for world peace.His contributions to the fledgling United
Nations, and the administration of the trusteeship system that the new
organization established are incontrovertible.For the Committee, this evidenced Bunche’s contributions to “man's
ability to live in peace, harmony, and mutual understanding with his fellows.”
One would have to dispute the Committee’s overly global statement that “The life
story of Dr. Bunche is like that of many another American youth.”The statement would only be accurate if
we qualify the American with African, and acknowledge that the reason why Bunche
was born into poverty, why he had to endure child labor, “becoming an errand boy
at seven, and at twelve working long hours in a bakery, often until eleven or
twelve o'clock at night” was because he was not just American but was a person
of African descent. Bunche also faced the
dreadful tragedy of losing both his parents when he was not even a teenager, but
he was lucky to have his grandmother seamlessly step in as many an African
American grandmother does in times of family distress.She was affectionately called Nana by
Bunche and his siblings.She took
them home with her to Los Angeles. Even
there, Ralph, like many African Americans, had to combine school with work.As a matter of fact, while a college
student at the University of California, he shared this in common with most
other American youth, but hard work was embraced by Bunche as vital to building
character and preparing one for the challenges of life.
In a manner that would characterize his modus operandi (MO), Bunche both
graduated from the University of
Califomia in 1927, became a Harvard graduate student.
In 1934, he earned a doctoral degree in Political Science. Bunche began his professional career at Howard
University, Washington, DC an instructor in 1928, and was promoted to professor
in 1938.He served in this capacity
until 1941.Bunche connected his
scholarship with a drive to understand local and global inequality and relations
of power, focusing his research on the study of both colonialism and racism. It is also a mark of his superior intellect and diligence that he
secured a grant from the Social Science Research Council in 1936 to study
colonialism and its effects on non-white South Africans.
Bunche’s research on institutionalized racism in the US led
to his collaboration with Gunnar Myrdal in a groundbreaking research on the American
Negro1. In 1941, the
US government appointed Bunche as an expert in colonial affairs in the Office of
Strategic Services, and in 1944, the State Department appointed him a
territorial specialist in colonial affairs.Almost immediately, in 1945, he rose to the head of this division. This was a period of Jim Crow racism and
segregation, and it was crystal clear that Bunche was the first Negro to be
given the opportunity by the US government to apply intellect and education to
addressing these serious problems.
By any measure, Ralph Bunche was extraordinary.He was the official representative of the US in numerous international
conferences that were to shape the emergent liberal post World War II
international system, since he represented the country at the following:
1944: Dumbarton Oaks
1945: International Labor Conference in Philadelphia
1945: the Constituent Assembly of the United Nations in San
Francisco in
1945 & 1946: United Nations conference in London
1946: International Labor Conference in Paris.
In 1946, Bunche was appointed the director of the Trusteeship
Department of the United Nations Secretariat.
Bunche, attributes his success to the influence of his grandmother.In spite of grueling poverty and the
indignities of Jim Crow, Nana, who “had been born into slavery” inspired,
mentored, encouraged pushed her extended family to succeed.She was the matriarchal center and
driving force in a multigenerational household including “with her four adult
children”, their spouses and their offspring. To
say that life was extraordinarily difficult is to make an understatement.According to Bunche,
life was no
idyll…I was learning what it meant to be a Negro, even in an enlightened
Northern city…I wasn't embittered by such experiences, for Nana had taught me to
fight without rancor. She taught all of us to stand up for our rights, to suffer
no indignity, but to harbor no bitterness toward anyone, as this would only warp
our personalities. Deeply religious, she instilled in us a sense of personal
pride strong enough to sustain all external shocks, but she also taught us
understanding and tolerance.2
Bunche also
passed on this legacy to his children.As he said,
In rearing my children I have passed on the philosophy that Nana taught me as a
youngster... The right to be treated as an equal by all other men, she said, is
man's birthright. Never permit anyone to treat you otherwise. Who, indeed, is a
better American, a better protector of the American heritage, than he who
demands the fullest measure of respect for those cardinal principles on which
our society is reared? Nana told us that there would be many and great obstacles
in our paths and that this was the way of life. But only weaklings give up in
the face of obstacles. Be honest and frank with yourself and the world at all
times, she said. Never compromise what you know to be the right. Never pick a
fight, but never run from one if your principles are at stake. Go out into the
world with your head high, and keep it high at all times.»3
Bunche’s early career and his focus on the study of racism
and colonialism yielded significant contributions to scholarship.His
1936 book, A World View of Race, debunked myths and unscientific analysis
that was peddled as top-notch science at the time about race and white
superiority.As well, he critiqued
French and British colonial policies, as different but intrinsically committed
to inequitable exploitation that denied colonized peoples self-actualization.Racism for him is conjoined with class
into an oppressive system that pushed American society toward class war. Anticipating later analysis on the deleterious
effects of global inequality, and arguing against a mainstream that derided his
work as “an oversimplification,” Bunche contended that that material inequality,
characterized by the wealth of the developed countries and poverty in the
underdeveloped countries created anxieties and potential conflicts that could
threaten world peace.His 1947
essay, “Human Relations in a Modern
World,” he said:
there is
nothing in man's nature which makes it impossible for him to live in peace with
his fellowmen. Most of us, I believe, would be quite tractable if the pressures
exerted by groups or by society would give us the chance. But relations between
people are never governed by individuals, for the individual is to a great
extent a product of the group to which he belongs and is subordinated to the
group in all important questions. The individual in the mass is but a reflection
of this group. And so the relations between groups and countries constitute one
of the most critical problems of our time.
Obama’s advocacy for global unity of purpose draws from
Bunche’s earlier recommendation of unity of purpose in order that humanity can
achieve all the laudable ideals that world leaders rhetorically committed to. However, economic instability is a threat to
world peace.For Bunche, humanity
should ensure that it is not:
forced to
take part in ruthless and harmful competition in order to survive, and they must
be free from the constant threat of being obliterated in a future war. But it is
more important still that men be able to shape their ideals free from the
influence of petty and narrow-minded men who still in many countries exploit
these ideals to further their own ends... But an indolent, complacent, and
uninformed people can never feel secure or free.
Bunche approached international diplomacy with the same
spirit of dedication and commitment to excellence that he applied to scholarship
and intellectual pursuits.On May
20, 1948, collaboration began between Ralph Bunche and Folke Bernadotte, a man
from an aristocratic background, since he was the grandson of King Oscar II of
Sweden and nephew of Sweden's reigning monarch at the time, became the United
Nations mediator in the conflict in Palestine. Bunche, whom as we know grew up
“dirt poor”, worked closely with Bernadotte until September 17 when tragically,
he was assassinated. Bunche succeeded
Bernadotte and until August 1949 was the UN mediator in Palestine.This ceased the collaborative work
between Bernadotte, who confessed to very superficial understanding of the
Palestinian situation and only brief engagement with international crisis, with
Bunche, who came into the job with considerable international experience,
training and education.
As Bunche said in his recommendations on requisite qualities of mediators:
They should
be biased against war and for peace. They should have a bias which would lead
them to believe in the essential goodness of their fellowman and that no problem
of human relations is insoluble.They should be biased against suspicion, intolerance, hate, religious and
racial bigotry.
The ending of the British mandate over Palestine on May 15,
1948, and the attempt to create a Jewish state led to the outbreak of war
between the Arab states and Jews.
Despite formidable challenges, Bernadotte and Bunche succeeded in negotiating a
month-long truce from June 11 to July 9, 1948.War resumed on July 11 and by July 16 Bernadotte succeeded in persuading
the Security Council to make history by declaring a cease-fire and an extension
of the truce July 18, the first time this was ever done.On September 17, Bernadotte's
assassination was instantly followed by the Security Council decision to choose
Bunche as his successor.When the
truce was broken in mid-October Bunche made many groundbreaking recommendations,
the first occurring when he advised that the Security Council order a ceasefire
during which the parties to the conflict would agree on a truce as a prelude a
final resolution of the conflict.On
November 16, the Security Council granted its approval.
Bunche
patiently but tenaciously engineered eleven months of complex, tortuous
negotiations between the Arab States and Palestine on one side, and the Jews on
the other.Much of the negotiations
were not face-to-face.There was
significant mutual distrust and distrust and the Arabs and Jews were determined
not to sit together to negotiate anything.
Given that an armistice is taken in International relations to be a prelude to
peace, Bunche succeeded in doing what was considered impossible. Bunche had to
draft agreements signed by each and every one of the seven Arab States as well
as the Jews (Bunche 1949).
According to Bunche, his heritage and life experiences as well as professional
training combined to develop in him an allergy to prejudice, incurable optimism,
tolerance, “militancy in fighting for rights but not bitterness…coolness of
temper, an attitude of objectivity when dealing with human sensitivities and
irrationalities.” All these qualities stood him in good stead and ensured his
success as UN mediator (Ross 1950). This resonates with the Amistad Africans’ determination to be optimistic
in the face of a system that sought to marginalize, oppress and brutalize them.As with the Amistad case where slavery
continued in spite of challenges against it, Ralph Bunche’s mediation did not
end the injustices that he worked so hard to challenge. (Haberman 1972)[i] As Obama
rightly said, war still remains a challenge that humanity must find ways to
surmount.Like Bunche and the
Amistad Africans, Obama remains hopeful that there are solutions and they can be
apprehended and implemented.
Casting our minds back to the Amistad and all people of
African descent who have had their contributions to world peace acknowledged—the
Amistad Africans, Ralph Bunche, Albert Lutuli, Anwar Sadat, Reverend Dr. Martin
Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan, and Wangari
Maathai—Barack Obama has been motivated by hope, faith, and a belief that
nothing is impossible.The Amistad
Africans believed in the possibility of freedom even though their situation
seemed hopeless.Bunche believed
world peace and the end to inequality as well as man’s inhumanity to man was
possible.Lutuli was oppressed by
Apartheid but he remained unbowed, uncompromised in his resistance and in the
leadership of a movement to end Apartheid.Sadat worked assiduously for an end to the Middle East crisis.King advocated non-violence as a weapon
against institutionalized racism in the United States, Mandela took the baton in
the resistance against Apartheid.He
led a resistance movement that faced a hegemonic force, and spent the better
part of his life in jail.The
triumph against this evil system did not come immediately.But one of the first steps toward
redressing the scourge came in his lifetime—a democratic South Africa, with a
Human Rights driven constitution. Desmond Tutu also contributed the better part
of his life to the struggle against Apartheid.
A man of the cloth, he decided to stand on the side of the oppressed and preach
the gospel of liberation from the oppression of Apartheid, at great cost to
himself and his family.Kofi Annan,
as Secretary General of the United Nations also contributed his quota to the
service of humanity in the quest for peace.
Mama Maathai, the only woman of African descent thus far to
be honored with the Peace Prize, was uncompromising and fierce in her opposition
to domestic, and state injustice and oppression in Kenya.She saw the need to respond to the
challenge of environmental degradation and took it on, inspiring others to join
the Greenbelt Movement.She also
fought against the human rights abuses and injustices perpetrated by the Kenyan
State, demonstrating and being arrested, physically assaulted and jailed
frequently. Unlike most women who succumb to the pressure of keeping spousal
abuse under wraps, Mama Maathai publicly declared that she was a battered woman,
and had the courage to divorce her abusive husband.
Obama’s Presidential election campaign mantra: “Yes we can!”
expressed hope and the dream that even in the United States, a person of African
descent could become President.That he succeeded and has now taken on the mantle of leadership, and that
the Nobel Peace laureates accomplished all they did is not to say that all the
problems they confronted are solved, but that they contributed, each in a little
way to the building block of making a better world.These are not perfect people.No human being is.Obama drew our attention to the fact that
he is not the most deserving of the prize.I think we should broaden this to include all prize recipients.There are always people out there that
are more deserving, but many do not get noticed.Sometimes it takes connections and belonging in the right networks to be
selected for awards.Sometimes the
award of prizes is indicative of high level political decision making, sometimes
even, undeserving people win awards.Sometimes, awards are aspirational.However, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the contributions
of these people of African descent to world peace.Peace is still an intractable process.The waging of war still continues to be
connected to the expectation that peace would be generated thereby, especially
by powerful countries. Barack Obama is not the first person to declare this.
He would not be the last.Does the world want peace?Does the Nobel Peace Prize contribute to
the achievement of this seemingly ephemeral condition?I cannot engage these questions in this
paper.I leave the questions to
posterity and to others who should consider these fundamental questions.
Obama’s just war principle as
articulated in his Nobel speech should be considered in light of the Amistad
Africans’ struggle, Ralph Bunche’s negotiations in the interest of world peace
Wangari Maathai’s GBM, and US foreign policy.To the extent that the just war is defined as a war to rid the world of
injustice, a war to redress wrongs inflicted by an aggressor on the weak and
powerless, a war to challenge the oppression of the powerful vis a vis the weak
and defenseless, it might be acceptable to use violence in the cause of
liberation.This is the Amistad
story.Sengbe Pieh and his fellow captives
struck out for their freedom but had to kill the captain and most of the crew of
the slave ship in order to gain their freedom. The GBM is a peaceful but
determined effort to interject the voices of the weak and marginalized into the
discourse of politics and power in Kenya through the planting of trees, in the
first place, for reasons of ecological, economic and environmental balance and
integrity; and later to make a statement about the need for peace in Kenyan
politics, and finally to express hope in a better future.
Obama’s just war principle then
appears to be a mere justification of the use of violence by the world’s most
powerful state to beat its perceived enemies into submission.In the process, states like Iraq and
Afghanistan are conflated with their people. Organizations like Al Qaeda are attacked and
innocent non-combatants who lose their lives are considered “collateral damage”;
the use of unmanned drones in a high tech war that more resembles a video game
and inflicts sporadic but devastating casualties on noncombatants cannot be
ignored as merely bringing the war to enemies of peace.At the very least, this would keep the
spiral of violence going because those who lose family members may not accept
the rationale that this is in the interest of world peace.Thoughtful analysis also raises questions
about the extent to which the US operates from purely altruistic and defensive
motives.
How can peace be achieved in this
turbulent world?Neither Obama’s
just war principle nor the Nobel Peace Prize can guarantee world peace.Neither would persuade skeptics that
there is genuine interest in fostering a peace where swords are beaten into
ploughshares and humanity would commit itself to warring no more.Until then, human beings would continue
to find justifications for the use of violence. Perceived aggressors would be
attacked by those who label them as such.The lesson from the Amistad is that posterity sometimes vindicates those
who struggle for their freedom.
Ralph Bunche as a diplomat for the UN
participated in a multilateral effort to broker peace in the Middle East.
That conflict remains today, taking on new forms and manifestations, but Ralph
Bunche’s contributions cannot be denied.
Wangari Maathai was persona non grata in Kenya for much of the period that she
led in the founding of the GBM, and while she assiduously struggled for
democratization in Kenya.That struggle also continues, as does the
struggle to respect and nurture the environment in stewardship for future
generations.Barack Obama has an
uphill task to convince the world that he as leader of the US is committed to
world peace.Would US national
interest as a hegemonic power allow him to make such a mark?It remains to be seen if this is possible.
In realist terms, where states are
portrayed as rational maximizers that constantly plot and plan to survive and
dominate, the interest of a powerful nation differs radically from that of weak
nations (Morgenthau 1948), and the
structuralist realists (Waltz 1979) tell
us that the system dynamics drive much of the action that we observe.Thus, the US is acting on the world stage
as it should.Weak countries cannot
do otherwise than take the abuse they do on the world stage because they do not
have power (military and/or economic) within the system. (Mearsheimer 2001).However, Obama the candidate’s message of hope also included the notion
that another world is possible.We
see flashes of this still in his Nobel Acceptance Speech.We must all believe that we can strive
for a better world.We must all dare
to contribute to its actualization.
Within the limits of their capabilities, the Amistad Africans and Nobelists
Peace laureates of African descent have attempted to grapple with these
challenges.As for Obama, we have to
watch and see if the aspirations that he espouses are met in his actions as the
leader of the world’s most powerful country in this first decade of the 21st
century.This is the standard that
he asks us to apply and we should do so without fear or favor.
Thank you.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archives.gov.
Amistad.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/amistad/ (accessed December 5, 2009).
—. Amistad Supreme
Court Opinion.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/amistad/supreme-court-opinion.html
(accessed December 5, 2009).
Barber, John W.
Sketches of the Amistad Captives. 1840.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/AMI_SLAV.HTM (accessed
December 5, 2009).
Bunche, Ralph. "Colgate
Lectures in Human Relations." Lecture, 1949.
Haberman, Frederick W.,
Editor. Nobel Lectures, Peace 1926-1950, . Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing
Company, 1972.
Maathai, Wangari.
Peace Laureates Maathai Lecture. December 10, 2004.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2004/maathai-lecture-text.html
(accessed January 10 , 2010).
"Nobel Laureate -
Wangari Maathai May Lose In Elections ." AfricaNews.com. October 13, 2007
.
http://www.africanews.com/site/NOBEL_LAUREATE_WANGARI_MAATHAI_MAY_LOSE_IN_ELECTIONS/list_messages/12196
(accessed January 10, 2010).
Nobel Peace Prize.
Nobel Peace Laureates. 12 10, 2009.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html 2/20/2010
4:05:00 PM (accessed 2 20, 2010).
Obama, Barack. Nobel
Lecture. December 10, 2009.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-lecture_en.html
(accessed November 1, 2009).
Ross, Irwin. "What
America Means to Me (as told to Irwin Ross)." The American Magazine,
February 1950: 19; 122-126.
"The Nobel Peace Prize
2004 Wangari Muta Maathai." December 2004.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2004/index.html (accessed
December 1, 2009).
Tore Frängsmyr, Editor.
"From Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 2004 , [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, ."
Nobel Peace Prize 2004. 2005 .
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2004/index.html (accessed 10
2010, January ).
