A Nobel Endeavor

What America’s real challenge will be in the twenty-first century.

The announcement Friday morning that President Barack Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was both shocking and, yes, undeserved. For in the final analysis, the award was mostly symbolic, as the deadline for consideration came less than two weeks into his administration. And to be fair, some of the past recipients of the award have had checkered histories. What can you say when the virtues of a Mother Teresa and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. share the stage with the likes of a Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat? That so many people got so worked up was understandable but unnecessary. Because what so many people are missing here – particularly the Far Right – is that far from heralding a litany of accomplishments, the award represents the hope that America may be ready to finally assume the mantle of leadership the world so desperately needs. That hope was ushered in the moment Barack Obama took the oath of office on the steps of the Capital.

I have written at great length about the titanic battle between fundamentalism and pluralism, not just in America but within the world, and my hope that the latter would eventually win out. But an even greater battle is taking place between neo-conservativism and multiculturalism and the presidency of Barack Obama represents what many hope is a turning point in our history. For too often, the United States has operated on the world stage like it was its moral compass and police force. Direct engagement meant armed conflict. For most of the twentieth century, America arrogantly presumed it knew what was best not only for its own interests but for just about everybody else’s too. It behaved as though the rest of the world was too primitive and backward to understand what it was trying to do. Extending its hegemony throughout the globe may have been sold to gullible Americans as exporting democracy, but what was really going on behind the scenes resembled more a raping of indigenous cultural values and an instilling of a series of fraudulent regimes that owed their allegiance not to their respective citizenry but to Washington D.C. Over the last few decades that arrogant policy helped ignite a growing rage against the United States, which has witnessed a plethora of anti-American sentiment in the very nations it had co-opted. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a case study in how not to conduct a foreign policy. The Islamic revolution that took place in 1978 was brought about in large part due to U.S. intervention in the country in the first place. Decades of propping up a corrupt regime led to a build up of fundamentalist sentiment that culminated in the collapse of the Shah and the creation of the current government. To this day, many Iranians, even those who desire greater freedoms, are suspicious of American intentions. That President Obama decided not to interfere in the election controversy that occurred earlier this year is indicative of the new direction U.S. foreign policy seems to be taking.

Even during its isolationist periods before each of the World Wars, the U.S. acted more like the snob Ivy Leaguer thumbing his nose at the Community College graduate. It was not so much that America respected the sovereignty of the rest of the world; rather it was more like America was too big to concern itself with the world’s trivial conflicts. It was not until those trivial conflicts impacted its interests directly than its indifference gave way to a far more officious attitude. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 resulted not from any lack of military preparedness within the nation but from a lack of a thorough understanding of world politics and the nation’s proper place on its stage. In both instances, the U.S. believed that it was untouchable and that the global conflicts that were taking place were largely benign to it. In both instances it was rudely awakened.

For most of its 200 plus years America has pivoted between two seemingly extreme juxtapositions: isolationist detachment and imperialist nation building. Both have had dire consequences for its national image and its long-term interests. Whether one believes that Barack Obama is up to the challenge or not, it appears as though, for the first time since Jefferson, the nation has a president that isn’t willing to allow either world view to be its modus operandi. Constructive engagement need not lead to armed excursions resulting in the overthrow of legitimate, if odious, governments in order to be effective. Developing trusting and meaningful relationships with allies who have common interests and working with them to obtain mutually beneficial results can be far more effective and far less costly.

Much has been made of Theodore Roosevelt’s domestic policies, which helped put an end to much of the financial monopolization that was strangling the nation’s economy, but with respect to his foreign policy he was nothing less than an American imperialist, hell bent on global domination, and every president since has, one way or another, adopted Roosevelt’s mantra. The big stick, cowboy diplomacy that shaped so much of our history has run its course. The world isn’t buying it anymore; worse they’re demanding a refund of most of what they did buy in the past. There is only so much good will a pair of Air Jordans can get you in downtown Tehran.

Neo-conservatives worry about a loss of American prestige and respect, as though America had any prestige and respect left to lose. It cannot accept a world in which America doesn’t own Boardwalk and Park Place with at least two hotels a piece on them. The specter of an America that leads not by dominating the world, but by being a team player within its confines, frightens them to no end. They see multiculturalism as a threat to U.S. hegemony and all Western values and beliefs. What they fail to see is that those very same values and beliefs are already threatened by an overextended military presence that is resented and despised by most of the world, even in those parts who support our interests.

The real challenge for Barack Obama and the United States is to break free of the 200 year-old paradigm of foreign policy that has shaped our history and defined our existence as a nation. We must redefine what true leadership means as it pertains to global expansionism. Exporting democracy at the point of a gun or the barrel of a canon does not work anymore. The world needs an American presence that is proactive rather than provocative; that is respectful rather than condescending; that seeks to understand rather than to be understood; that upholds the very truths it declares to be self evident; that places principles before profits and honors all citizens of the world, even those who aren’t particularly fond of us.

This does not mean we lie down as a people and allow hostile nations and groups free reign to attack us. Pacifism is no substitute for imperialism. When legitimate threats are posed, we have the right to defend ourselves. Our mistake after 9/11 wasn’t that we weren’t outraged at the heinous act committed against us; it was our failure to seize the opportunity afforded us to go after those truly responsible and at the same time forge a partnership with moderate elements within the Muslim world to eradicate the nemesis once and for all. Because we went it alone, we alone incurred the wrath of a region. Why seek partnerships when being a cowboy had worked so well in the past. Not even John Wayne would’ve been so foolhardy.

Well the past is over and the future is at hand. It is time for the United States to join the twenty-first century and rise up out of the ashes of its imperialist past and join the human community. We do not lose our sovereignty by yielding to other nation’s sovereignty. The respect we gain by playing by the rules, instead of trying to dictate them, will gain us more cooperation in the long run, advance our causes, defeat the enemies of liberty that seek to destroy us, and lead to a far more secure planet for all to live.

The President was gracious in accepting the honor accorded him. "I will accept this award as a call to action," he said. "This award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity." It was refreshing to hear a president speak of justice and dignity in a macro setting and who looks to include others. If he can abandon all of the follies of his predecessor - and that means not just renouncing torture publicly, but prosecuting those who committed it, as well as respecting habeas corpus for all - he may yet deliver on the promise of the Nobel Committee. For our sake he had better not fail.