Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize and the Ghost of Orwell

It was certainly a sight to see last Thursday, when President Barack Obama arrived in Oslo to formally accept the Nobel Peace Prize awarded earlier this year.

When Obama was awarded the prize last October, most of the criticism of that decision came from the right, who asked what he had done to deserve it. In the two months since, not only the right but also many of the left began to raise criticisms of the chief executive of corporatist American capitalism receiving a prize for promoting peace.

The criticisms from the left only increased after Obama’s speech announcing the “surge” in Afghanistan on Dec. 1. Many were looking for Mr. Change to deliver a soaring and uplifting oratory reminiscent of his March 2008 “More Perfect Union” speech.

What they got instead was a speech that was so belligerent in tone and Orwellian in content that if you simply read the text and remove the contemporary information, it would very easily be mistaken for a speech made by George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

In the course of his speech, he not only defended the expanding occupation of Afghanistan and ongoing occupation of Iraq, but placed Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Darfur in the Sudan, the Congo, Zimbabwe and Burma all in the crosshairs of Washington.

In the speech, Obama presented his own revision of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive wars of conquest. His new twist is an inclusion of the European Great Power imperialist rivals in certain military actions — a revision that, in all reality, is the main reason why European capitalism has wholeheartedly backed Obama receiving the prize.

But the bulk of his speech was devoted to a vision of peace, and how it is achieved and maintained, that would make the most perverted Ministry of Truth functionary from George Orwell’s novel, 1984, blush.

“The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace,” said Obama with a straight face, and “all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.” Moreover, soldiers should be honored “not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace,” even when they torture detainees, massacre civilians and commit war crimes.

Obama admitted that millions around the world oppose Washington’s wars of conquest, noting that “there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence [sic!] of the broader public.”

However, as far as America’s new “war president” is concerned, public opposition is irrelevant: “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.”

Obama even dredged up the specter of the Second World War as a rationalization for open-ended war: “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.”

Perhaps most obscene, and most revealing, was Obama’s reference to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964: “As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence.... But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [King’s and Gandhi’s] examples alone.”

No. Of course not. As chief executive of American capitalism, Obama has a great number of other examples to choose from, including his immediate predecessor, whom he has emulated quite well over the last year.

Obama’s speech was hailed by all of the capitalist and “middle class” media. From the Wall Street Journal on the far right to the reptiles of The Nation on the liberal left, the mouthpieces of the exploiting and oppressing classes have given unanimous approval.

This expression of the corporatist consensus serves as a valuable lesson for working people. Many workers involved with the liberal wing of the Democrats look to The Nation and similar publications for political understanding. Their joining the consensus is another sign that workers can only rely on themselves to work out the way forward.