《奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言-英文.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《奥巴马诺贝尔奖获奖感言-英文.doc（9页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、.THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world: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
2、and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at t
3、he beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history whove received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in th
4、e 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. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they
5、 help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America di
6、d not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.Still, we are at war, and Im responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some wi
7、ll be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man.
8、At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and cleri
9、cs and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are
10、 spared from violence.Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.
11、 Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while its hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich a
12、nd the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to p
13、revent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to gove
14、rn the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantli
15、ng a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of 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 m
16、y own country is rightfully proud.And yet, a decade into a new century, 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 lon
17、g been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgenc
18、ies, and failed states - all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In todays wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.I do not bring
19、 with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and
20、the imperatives of a just peace.We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: 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.I make this statement min
21、dful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. Kings life work, I am living testimony to the mor
22、al force of non-violence. I know theres nothing weak - nothing passive - nothing na?ve - 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
23、 threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitlers armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaedas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a rec
24、ognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the worlds
25、 sole military superpower.But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwri
26、te global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne th
27、is 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.So yes, the
28、instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldiers courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itse
29、lf is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such. So part of our challenge is reconciling 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 Ken
30、nedy 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.What might this evolution look like? What might these practica
31、l steps be?To begin with, I believe that 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, internat
32、ional standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who dont.The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, th
33、e world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.Furthermore, America - in fact, no nation - can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we
34、 dont, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extendsbeyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront di
35、fficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarre
36、d by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. Thats why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.Americas commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats
37、are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstabl
38、e regions for years to come.The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage theyve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the br
39、oader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. Thats why NATO continues to be indispensable. Thats why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeepin
40、g, and not leave the task to a few countries. Thats why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers - but as wagers of peace.Let me make one final point about the
41、use of force. 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.Wh
42、ere force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us diff
43、erent from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed Americas commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideal
44、s that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor - we honor those ideals by upholding them not when its easy, but when it is hard.I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such trag
45、ic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of
46、 the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.One urgent example is the effort t
47、o prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons
48、 will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And Im working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russias nuclear stockpiles.But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not g
49、ame the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own peo