Last year on Martin Luther King weekend I preached a sermon about President Obama’s inauguration. I said it marked the fulfillment of at least a portion of Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream of a nation where people are judged not by “the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”1 I still believe that.
But let us be clear: Barack Obama never claimed to be another King. He never promised to prioritize nonviolence as a guiding principle in the conduct of United States foreign policy. While his decisions to announce a time-table for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and his proclamations that the United States will not use torture all signal to me a welcome change in the direction of United States foreign policy, they do not signal a revolution in that policy. They do not suggest that the United States will finally transform its military-industrial complex into some more peaceful system. They signal perhaps a more cautious, sensitive, and principled approach to war-making and the use of state-sponsored violence when compared to previous administrations; but they don’t fundamentally replace war-making and the use of state-sponsored violence as a central element of United States foreign policy. In fact, President Obama’s decision in December to escalate troop levels in Afghanistan—as measured, thoughtful and careful as it appears to have been—demonstrates the ongoing centrality of war-making and state-sponsored violence in the conduct of our foreign policy.
It was very challenging for me when the announcement came that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. I understand it is likely the Nobel Committee wanted to encourage the young administration in its demonstrated willingness to engage historic adversaries in dialogue, to pursue a range of diplomatic approaches to international conflicts, and to work in partnership with other nations. But the Peace Prize seemed to require something more: the achievement of some tangible, measurable peace somewhere in the world. President Obama had not achieved such peace.
The week the President accepted the prize was also the week he announced his decision to escalate in Afghanistan, an immensely complicated, difficult and painful decision, but ultimately a decision not for peace, but for war. As he said in his Nobel Lecture on December 10th, “we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed.” 2
He also said something I simply didn’t expect to hear him say. When I heard it I felt like I’d been slugged in the stomach. I felt dazed. He said we must acknowledge “the hard truth that 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.”3
Hear me when I say I know this statement is true. We will likely not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. We will not eradicate war, poverty or racism. I get it. But when the President of the United States accepts the Nobel Peace Prize and simultaneously proposes a doctrine for the justification of war, it begs the question, “what are we doing to create the foundations upon which our descendents might be able to eradicate war in their lifetimes?” Maybe war is necessary. But prepare for war, no matter how morally justified, and we will get war. If we must prepare for war, let us also agree that we must prepare for peace.
The President talked about Martin Luther King. He said he was mindful of what King said in his own Nobel Peace Prize Lecture in 1964: “‘Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.’”4 He praised King saying his own life is a “living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.”5 He said “I know there is nothing weak—nothing passive—nothing naïve—in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism—it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”6
I think Barack Obama is brilliant. ‘To face the world as it is’—to be realistic—is certainly a path to sound governance and to wisdom. I deeply respect his realism. I deeply respect the reasoning behind his justification for war. It is thoughtful, honest and fair. It is bold where boldness is required. It is humble where humility is required. It is sensitive. It is principled and consistent. It is respectful. And if the goal is peace, it will not get us there precisely because, as the President said, quoting King., “violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problems: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” We may agree war is necessary. We may agree on a moral justification for war. But war, especially in these times, cannot guarantee peace.
I believe with all my heart, body and soul that nonviolence is, in the end, a more realistic path than violence. Remember satyagraha. Remember soul force. Millions upon millions of Indian people wanted to see an end to British rule, yet never believed it would end in their lifetimes. They kept struggling nonviolently, and they won. Remember the American civil rights movement. Millions of Americans wanted to see an end to racial segregation, yet never believed they would see it in their lifetimes. They kept struggling nonviolently, and they won. Remember Poland’s Solidarity trade union, Czechoslovakia’s Velvet revolution, the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Millions of Europeans wanted to see the Iron Curtain fall, yet they never believed it would happen in their lifetimes. They kept struggling nonviolently, and the wall came down. Know that even today there is a nonviolent movement for peace between Israel and Palestine made up of people who may not believe they will see peace in their lifetimes, yet who continue to struggle nonviolently. And bear witness to Iran. There are millions of Iranians struggling nonviolently today to bring about transformation of their government and society.
Are these nonviolent movements not part of the world as it is? And have not such movements succeeded where violence has failed? Perhaps it is true that a head of state cannot be solely guided by the examples of Gandhi and King. And perhaps President Obama inherited impossible situations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia and North Korea. But a moral justification for war will appease no enemy and assure further violence. My heart will sing when we wrap our foreign policy around a moral justification for peace; when we prioritize and approach the world with the soul-force of nonviolence; when we believe as a nation that peace is possible and worthy of our highest commitment; when we believe that peace is not simply the goal, but the starting point of all our endeavors.
Amen and Blessed be.
1 King, Jr., Martin Luther, “I Have A Dream,” delivered at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC, August 28, 1963.
2 The full text to Barack Obama’s 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house/page/2/.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
