OBAMA NOBEL PRIZE AWARD SPEECH
1- Listen to the speech and underline the issues mentioned in it:
nuclear danger nuclear power climate change education
famine violence gender ecology
health clean energy war conflicts economic crisis
justice freedom dignity obesity
2- Listen again and fill in the gaps:
Good morning.
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things _________________ (1) .
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership _______________ (2) of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a________________. (3)And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to ____________________ (4) to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their ___________________ (5) for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one ________________ (6) mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for -- the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to _________________ (7) as we know it today. I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies.
I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met _________________ (8) it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration -- it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who _________________ (9) justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometimes their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the ______________ (10) America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
Thank you very much
KEY:
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday!" And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up." So it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children -- sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.
We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.
And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.
We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for -- the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.
And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies.
I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.
Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration -- it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.
And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity -- for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometimes their lives for the cause of peace.
That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Oslo City Hall
Oslo, Norway
1:44 P.M. CET
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 honour with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award
that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty 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 the beginning, and not the end, of my labours on the world stage.
Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize --
Schweitzer and King;
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 did 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 I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of
young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will 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. 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 clerics 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-defence; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible,
civilians are 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. 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 it's hard to conceive of a
cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and 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 prevent 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 govern 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 dismantling 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 my 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 long 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, insurgencies, and failed states - all these things have
increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's 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 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
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 mindful 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. King's life work, I am
living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's 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 may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a
recognition 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
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 underwrite 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
So yes, the 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 soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of
glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war
itself 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 Kennedy 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 practical 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, international
standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around
Furthermore,
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action
extends beyond self-defence or the defence of one nation against an aggressor.
More and more, we all confront difficult 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 scarred by war. Inaction tears at
our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all
responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate
can play to keep the peace.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies,
demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in
Let me make one final point about the 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.
Where 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
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 tragic 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 behaviour -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of 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 to 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 will work towards disarmament. I am committed to
upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm
working with President Medvedev to reduce
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by
brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape
in
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For
peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on
the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized
that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to
uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow
Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development.
And within
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are
denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own
leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the
suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know
that the opposite is true. Only when
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries,
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation
alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that
engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.
But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without
discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive
regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao
appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must
encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom
from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it
is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access
to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to
survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or
a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from
within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate
their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the
world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific
dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more
mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this
reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift
and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who
understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights.
Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about
the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe
that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete
this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our
moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all
share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings
to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking
the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with
some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural levelling
of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what
they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and
perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to
conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the
murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion
of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are
not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are
amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For
if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no
need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or
the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view
of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe
it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies
at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have
them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature.
For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of
pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions
will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still
believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an
idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better
place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been
practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached --
their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star
that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce
it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose
what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral
compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said
at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the
final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that
the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching
up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that
still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees
he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this
world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the
courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still
takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to
send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has
a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be
with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of
depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that
there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is
the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this
moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END 2:20 P.M. CET
The Peace Prize for the Lord of the Wars. What a contradiction!
ReplyDelete