It is a question of intentionality.

I say and say again that what we see, where we direct our attention, depends upon a fusion of past, present and future horizons.  We do not all share the same understanding of humanity’s past and present.  We do not all share the same vision for its future. Much of the initial reporting and commentary surrounding President Obama’s Nobel lecture focused on his explication of just war theory and read his remarks as a defense of his sending more warriors into Afghanistan.  This is understandable.  Just war theory is thousands of years old. The United States has been engaged in perpetual warfare since its birth.  A vast majority of people do not know just peace theory.

However,   these initial reports failed to note President Obama’s emphasis on just peace principles.  They failed to recognize his call for an expanded moral imagination.  They failed to acknowledge the logic of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in giving the honor to President Obama.  They failed to understand the character of the prize:  an instrument of peace intended to inspire us all.

First, the Presentation Speech.  Thorbjorn Jagland, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, reiterated the reasons for the committee’s decision to give the Peace Prize to President Obama.  He said when the president understood the prize as a call to action: “President Obama understood the Norwegian Nobel Committee perfectly.” In listing the reasons for presenting the prize to President Obama, Jagland spoke of “a more cooperative climate.” His list of President Obama’s accomplishments included:

• multi-lateral diplomacy with an emphasis on the United Nations and other international institutions
• the end of torture, efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo, a commitment to human rights and international law.
• chaired the Security Council when it gave unanimous support to ending nuclear weapons
• rethinking the deployment of anti-missile defenses in Eastern Europe and the consideration of other multi-lateral options for regional security
• has sent a signal that he supports a world without nuclear weapons in advance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference scheduled for 2010.
• willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiations
• an Afghanistan strategy that “rests on broad international foundations”
• willingness to work to address climate change
• cooperation with China

In sum, President Obama shares the ideals of the Peace Prize Committee.  Jagland 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.”

Jagland also defended the Committee’s decision pointing to other Nobel Laureates who received the prize before the world saw a final outcome.  President Woodrow Wilson received the prize for creating the League of Nations.  Secretary of State Cordell Hull received the prize for his contribution to establishing the United Nations.  At the time no one knew whether or not the organization would be successful.  He listed the names of some whose courage earned them the prize even though the concrete results or their work was small: Carl von Ossietzky, Andrej Sakharov, Lech Walesa, the Dalai Lama, Albert Lutuli, and Martin Luther King.

Jagland asked and answered the why 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 prize is intended to be “an instrument of peace in the world.”  He recognized the president as a community organizer both local and global.  He recognized that the president could not do his work without help:  “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!”

In his lecture accepting the prize, a community organizer now leader of a global community, President Obama stood the middle ground between just war theory and pacifism.  This is the space that just peace theory explains.  He acknowledged the just war requirements – last resort, self defense, proportional force, civilian immunity.  At the same time, he informed his audience that the principles of just war theory are rarely observed.  I say: the terrible character of war makes just war a fiction.  He spoke of warfare in our time.  He said:

“The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements; insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos.  In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.”

There is no glory in war itself.

He spoke of the “imperatives of a just peace.”  First, international cooperation to find alternatives for violence that will hold nations who break international law accountable is necessary.  He said: “And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.”

Second, a just peace requires human rights and a respect for human dignity.  Freedom of speech, of worship, of democratic elections and of assembly are foundational to just peacemaking.  He said:  “We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.”

Third, just peace cannot grow unless humankind meets the basic needs of all of humanity.  Economic security is vital.  Ecological sustainability is critical.  I say:  just peace means we work together for the good of all living things on the earth.  This means solving the problem of climate change, and President Obama spoke of this as important to peacemaking.  He said:

“There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine, and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades.  For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.”

President Obama also spoke of love, the love where faith takes us, the love lived by people such as Gandhi and King.  This is the radical love that helps us to see ourselves in the face or the Other.

It is this commonality that is the beating heart of President Obama’s call for “the continued expansion of our moral imagination.” I say our common security is linked to our common humanity.  An expanded moral imagination allows us to see a universal humanity.

The particularities of our human identities are important and cannot be, neither ought they be overlooked or minimized.  We can only know, appreciate and love the Other when we know, appreciate and love ourselves in all our glorious uniqueness.  We can only get to a universal sense of the human common good by going through our own particularity.  The trouble comes when we stay there.

It is far too easy for the particularities of ourselves to become a dead end rather than an avenue that will take us to life and flourishing, to sustenance and joy.  The danger is that this or that accidental aspect of who we are will stop us from searching for that essential part of us that we can know in the Other.  A tear.  A smile. Laughter.  A moan. A groan. All kinds of hunger.  A gentle touch. Fear. Bliss. A kiss.  When we see, feel and know these in ourselves and in the Other, we open the door to our compassion.

The Nobel Prize is an instrument of peace.  It is a way to allow the lives, work, and courage of flesh and blood human beings to inspire us to give our lives meaning through just peacemaking.  No one human being can bring world peace.  President Obama and all the leaders of every nation and every tribe will need each of us to do our part.

When all is said and done, the purpose of the peace work we do is to allow all of creation to live well.  If we can expand our moral imaginations, believe in the vision and work in our own communities to make it real, we will become living love and our living will not be in vain.