Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway
Aired December 10, 2009 - 07:44 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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's 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. In part, this is because I am at the beginning and not the end of my labors on the world stage compared to some of the giants of history who've 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 the 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 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 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, and 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 with 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-defense, 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 martial 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 heir 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 super powers, 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 cessationist 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 sewn. 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 needing 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 a hard truth. We will not eradicate violent conflict in our life times. 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 piece, 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 nonviolence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive 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 the threats to the American people. For, make no mistake, evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations could not 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 cost, and, at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military super power. Yet 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 Germany to Korea and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.
We have borne this 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 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 itself is never glorious and we must never trump it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable 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 the 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 America after the 9/11 attacks and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan because of horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need 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 don't, 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 extends beyond self defense, or defense 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 stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can invoke -- 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 clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waiver, but in the world in which threats 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 unstable 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 they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader 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. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries.
That's 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 as wagers of peace.
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 recognizes 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 interests 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 different 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 America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
We'll lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them, not when it's 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 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 belief 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 the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held be accountable, sanctions must exact a real prize, 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 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 America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles. But it's also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations, like Iran and North Korea, do not gain 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 armed themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate the international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma, there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement. Yes, there will be diplomacy. But there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with a choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings 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 America, there's long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interest or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
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 the opposite is true, and only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.
America never fought a war against democracy, and our closest friends are the governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interest nor the world's are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So, even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. 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. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history, they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be couple with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lack 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 meetings with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies.
Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.
Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union but empowers dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.
There is no simple formula, but we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
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 it.
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, and more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it's not merely scientists and environmental activist 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, and investments in development -- all these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. 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 reducible 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 are 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 families.
And yet, somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race and 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 Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that torn asunder by tribal lines.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 coarse struggle of human nature. For we are fallible, we make mistakes and fall victims 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 still be perfected. We don't 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 did dismiss it as silly or naive, 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 is-ness of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ought-ness that forever confronts him.
Let us reach for the world that ought to be, that spark of the divine that still steers within each of our souls. (APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Somewhere today in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he is out gunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today in this world a young protester 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 the depression 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)
KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: A standing ovation for American President Barack Obama as he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. Speech, almost 36 minutes in length, known as the Nobel lecture. And we bring in Suzanne Malveaux, who was listening as well. She is live in Oslo this morning. And, the president, as we know, Suzanne, faces a lot of criticism for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize while presiding over two wars. And he really seemed to tackle that criticism head-on. He talked about his awareness of the cost of armed conflict. He also acknowledged some of the difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Kiran, sorry I am having a difficult time hearing you. But a couple impressions I had from the speech, first covering President Bush for eight years. President Bush obviously someone who, his own presidency and legacy was defined by war. 9/11 really setting the agenda for him. It is very clear that for President Obama, he is a reluctant war president. He spent much of the speech talking about the idea, this idea of a just war that there are some occasions when war is necessary for sake of peace. But, still diplomacy and negotiations, very important in reaching out to world leaders around him. So, very much a contrast to President Bush.
The other thing that I noted as well, is that Barack Obama, President Obama has always been someone who has wanted to do big things on a big stage, and what we saw when he was first elected and he won back in Grant Park and you watched him change, he really went from somebody who -- when he won, the expectations were very high, became very serious, very grounded and very focused about the job ahead.
There was no sense of a big party that was happening in Grand Park that it was time to put his head down and get down to business. It's a very similar approach, very similar tone that you see today that once again you are talking about skyrocketed expectations of this president now on the world stage, and that is why the focus so much today on getting the work done, putting one foot in front of the next, acknowledging in a very humble way this award and at the same time, emphasizing that this is a community effort, a world effort, and that there is still so much work to be done, and that is the focus. Kiran.
CHETRY: All right. Suzanne Malveaux for us in Oslo, Norway. Thank you, Suzanne.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's turn once again to our political panel. CNN's chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, is here along with Senior Political Correspondent, Candy Crowley, and Senior Political Analyst, David Gergen.
You know, when you look at the other presidents that won the Nobel Peace Prize, Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 for the Treaty of Portsmith and in the Ruso-Japanese War, 1919. Woodrow Wilson, helping to win World War I, and create the League of Nations. Jimmy Carter for a lifetime of pursuit for peace, and here is President Obama dealing with the incongruity of receiving a peace prize at the same time, he's prosecuting two wars. And he kind of summed it up. In one line, in his very last paragraph, he said we can understand that there will be war and still strive for peace.
CANDY CROWLEY, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he walked that line. More than half his speech was about just war, about on humanitarian basis, and on the basis of the need for peace in the future that sometimes you have war to make peace.
And I, you know, he did what a lot of Republicans really wanted him to do in a paragraph talking about, hey, we have been over -- you know, we have promoted a lot of peace. Our blood and treasure have been spent. We have been the super power that has come to help other nations. That certainly will play well.
I think the whole idea of a just war is something that he really needed to do and something and something that he spent -- obviously he felt he needed to do, because he spent a good deal of time on it.
CHETRY: And David, one of the other things, and you have talked about this earlier though, is how he is -- what is he going to focus on, and where is he going to come down in his speech, and one of the things he said was the use of force is not only necessary but morally justified at times. Then he brought in Martin Luther King.
And he said that as Martin Luther King said when he received his prize, violence never brings permanent peace. And so he is acknowledging one, at the same time acknowledging another, the struggle between war and peace.
DAVID GERGEN, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Very much so. This address was, I think, the personal testament of Barack Obama about this is what I believe. And it takes you back to Rinho Nivor, who was a major theologian, in this country in the twentieth century.
He wrote about a moral man in a moral society and wrestling with the questions of doing what is right in very difficult situations where you are cross pressured. And so he spoke as the heir of Martin Luther King. But he is also sitting on the chair of Franklin Roosevelt and other American Presidents who have taken those awards.
And he is trying to reconcile those two traditions, idealism and realism, non-violence and violence. I thought it was a very thoughtful, philosophical speech, and it will stand the test of time, as his statement about who he is, what his belief system is, and then how the other things fit within that belief system. And for that purpose, it was -- to me it was one of the most interesting speeches he has given.
I don't think it was quite Philadelphia when he gave the racial speech, but it had many of the same qualities as a person who is wrestling with large questions. And you can almost feel the loneliness of the presidency, someone who is sitting here, alone at night, thinking about what his role in history is. What he should do.
I think Suzanne Malveaux is right, he is a reluctant warrior. But he is -- it's welcome that a president is trying to think about what is a just war, what is a just peace. And then to go in the end to what do we all owe one another, and talking about the rule of love. That's a high aspiration for a sitting president?
CHETRY: What did you make of the speech, Christiane?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I was fascinated by this exceptional attempt to justify this war using the word just war. And as one who has covered the last wars over the 20 years, he mentioned the Baulkans and I remember, obviously, that in Europe throughout the '90s, you had White Christians committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in what was then the former of Yugoslavia against White Muslims.
Eventually, the United States and its allies intervened, with aerial bombardment but to stop a genocide and to stop a slaughter. Went on to do the same thing in Kosovo, and it has led to a lasting peace. Obviously, there are some problems, but it has led to a lasting peace.
I also saw what happened when a just war or a just intervention did not happen. And that was in Rwanda when two different tribes, Hutus and Tutsis, the Hutus slaughtered in a matter of three months. 800,000 to 1 million men, women, and children in Africa. This is what happens when you don't commit a just war.
And in Afghanistan, he made the case for not just self defense but for a just war. I was interested again to see that he did not focus on the very real affects of what would happen if the Taliban came back. He had an opportunity, once again, to galvanize international public opinion, why it matters, why the Taliban is so atrocious, why the parasitic allies -- Al Qaeda, is so atrocious, not just because of global terrorism, because of the slaughter they commit against their own people, the men, the women, the children, the prevention of whole scale civil rights, the taking back of this nation to a medieval reality. And if, as he mentioned Ronald Reagan was instrumental in leading to the end of the totalitarianism that was the cold war in the Soviet Union, this is the time to explain that the fundamental struggle today is the totalitarianism of fanatical religion. Robert Gates, he said it, if they lose in Afghanistan, if they defeat another superpower, this will empower the very enemies of civilization.
ROBERTS: President Clinton, too, has talked about Rwanda and said one of his greatest regrets in foreign policy was not intervening in Rwanda, which is one of the reasons why he did go and intervene in Kosovo.
AMANPOUR: And, do you know what? I think it's really important at this point, do you want your president to spend the rest of his life atoning for something that he did not do, like not intervening in Rwanda. Or do you want your president to try at this historic juncture to make a go of it, to make it work in Afghanistan?
CHETRY: And I want -- and Candy, that's why I want to bring you in, because we are talking about the enormous moral issues. On the international level, how does it play here at home when we domestically are also dealing with major challenges, when people are saying I do care about that, but I also care that I no longer have a home or a job?
CROWLEY: I think probably what will play well here at home is the defensive war part. I think that was very important for him to get out there.
I think he does domestically run into some tricky territory when you talk about humanitarian wars because there are a lot of places that could use some intervention. Who's going to pick which war or which people you're going to go defend?
I'm not talking about this war in particular, but there are other places. Iran certainly was murdering its people on the streets...
AMANPOUR: But the president is not talking about war in Iran.
CHETRY: Exactly.
CROWLEY: I understand that. But what are the -- somebody has to make a statement about when to go in. There are a lot of people that say, look, if it's in the U.S. strategic interest, we go. Otherwise we can't save everybody.
So I think that's an interesting concept he talked about, justified war for humanitarian purposes as well as for peace purposes. And I think that's an interesting philosophical question that he brings up.
ROBERTS: Quickly, and then we're going to cut short.
GERGEN: In terms of how it plays as home, he put Iraq into the category of the unjust war. But in contrast what he has been doing sometimes overseas, which is almost apologizing for the United States, in this speech he stood up proudly for the United States record for World War II, and he said I speak with pride, and I think that will be welcome here at home.
ROBERTS: We have to pay some bills here, if you don't mind. A program note from a Senate hot seat to ours. General Stanley McChrystal says he knows how to succeed in Afghanistan. He sits down with Christiane Amanpour to lay out his plan.
CHETRY: And also, President Obama was in the unusual position as we were talking about to accept the highest honor for peace just a week after ordering 30,000 more troops to war. Our Barbara Starr is in Kandahar, Afghanistan, were troops are waiting for the reinforcements, and also hoping that the end is near.
We are going to check in with here as well. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: John, Kiran, while President Obama is accepting the Nobel Peace prize in Oslo, here in Afghanistan President Obama's war goes on.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has now assured the Afghans that the U.S. remains committed to this war. While the White House hopes to begin withdrawing troops in 2011, Secretary Gates is telling the Afghans the U.S. will stay if that's what it takes.
So what about morale? Well, a young soldier told me earlier today morale is good. But the number one issue for the troops, not surprising -- they all want to know when they can go home. He said we support the surge if that's going to get us home faster.
Here on Kandahar air base, another reminder last night, though, that this is a war zone. The base was rocketed. No reported injuries. The soldiers take it in stride -- John, Kiran.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: Barbara Starr for us this morning. Barbara, thanks.
"Time" columnist Joe Klein had a lot to say about how the president should handle the Peace Prize back when they announced the award. He's traveling with the president right now. He's in Oslo and will weigh in on the speech when he join us in just a couple of minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHETRY: It's 36 minutes past the hour, time to look at our other stories new this morning.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in Baghdad meeting with U.S. troops and Iraqi leaders. He said the U.S. will remain -- maintain a presence there despite plans to begin a troop pullout in July of 2011.
ROBERTS: The Taliban reportedly threatening South Korea for its decision to send troops back in Afghanistan. South Korea says it will send 350 troops next year to protect its civilian aid workers.
South Korea pulled its forces out in 2007 after the Taliban killed two of its troops. The Taliban claims South Korea is going back on a vow that it would not send troops back in Afghanistan again, but South Korea denies that.
CHETRY: And also developing this morning, another possible case of homegrown extremism. Give Americans are arrested in Pakistan, all believed to be students who vanished from the D.C. area last month.
An Islamic group in Washington says they left behind a, quote, "farewell video" that shows American casualties. They are being investigated for ties to a terror group.
ROBERTS: And the state department of environmental conservation says about 46,000 gallons of a water-oil mixture spilled before the source of the leak was identified on Monday. BP owns the pipeline. It's believed that ice plugged it, causing the rupture.
CHETRY: A dangerous cold is spreading over the nation much of the nation this morning. Temperatures are in single digits in many places. The wind chill feeling more like negative 25 in parts of the Midwest right now.
ROBERTS: Roads are covered in ice. Hundreds of schools have been shut down and lots of flights canceled.
(WEATHER BREAK)
CHETRY: Speaking of getting into the spirit of the season, how about the students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. They organized a gigantic snowball flight to celebrate classes being cancelled for the first time in 19 years.
Well, how about this -- 3,500 students showed up, and they were able to break -- they were trying to actually break the Guinness Book of World Records. They fell 200 students short. They needed 200 more students to get out there.
ROBERTS: NASA has some really interesting new stuff online that shows you really the state of our atmosphere. And talking about global warming and climate change at the Copenhagen conference this week, NASA's research is coming under scrutiny. Could it be another "Climategate"? Our Jim Acosta is reporting on all of that.
And Joe Klein, how President Obama should handle his Nobel Prize. Joe Klein is there in Oslo with the president. He'll be joining us in just a couple of minutes with his thoughts on all of this.
It's 42 minutes now after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: A little bit of sun in New York City this morning, much nicer than yesterday. It's fair and 38 degrees. Later today, partly cloudy, but it will be very windy with a high of 40 degrees. Could be a lot of flight delays at the airports around New York.
Welcome back to the Most News in the Morning, as we keep an eye on the debate going on over climate change in Copenhagen today. High, high above the Earth, a dozen NASA satellites are tracking global warming as we speak.
CHETRY: And the information the satellites collected is landing NASA in a Climategate of its own. Jim Acosta has our "AM Original" today.
What is going on with this, Jim?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, skeptics are hoping for a Climategate of their own over at NASA, but those British scientists whose e-mails were hacked, those are the ones we're talking about. They have gotten a lot of airtime this week. They are not the only climate experts studying global warming. Take NASA, over at the Godard Space Flight Center, scientists are collecting data from these satellites that you can see orbiting the Earth right now. And the data, according to NASA, shows the Earth is getting hotter and changing fast.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA (voice-over): NASA, the same agency that put the shuttle in space and man on the moon, also has roughly a dozen satellites in orbit all on a mission to show how the Earth is warming.
THORSTEN MARKUS, NASA SCIENTIST: The Arctic is not a frozen lake. It's very dynamic.
ACOSTA: Thorsten Markus, the head of NASA's Cryospheric (ph) Sciences branch, uses those satellites to keep a close eye on the stunning loss of ice in the Arctic. He's traveled to Greenland to confirm his findings on the ground.
(on camera): If current trends continue within the next 10 to 20 years, we're going to see what in the Arctic?
MARKUS: We may very well see an ice-free summer in the Arctic.
ACOSTA (voice-over): This animation demonstrates why it's happening so fast. As the ice melts, all that's left to soak up the sun's rays in the ocean.
MARKUS: Solar radiation is mostly reflected from the ice where it is absorbed by the ocean.
ACOSTA (on camera): And this accelerates the melting of the ice?
MARKUS: Exactly.
ACOSTA (voice-over): Markus, like many scientists at NASA, blames the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
MARKUS: There is no doubt that there is global warming. ACOSTA: But that doesn't convince skeptics who have seized on the global warming e-mail controversy known as Climategate and have now taken aim at NASA. An attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receives funding from Exxon Mobil, is threatening to sue NASA if it doesn't turn over its e-mails on global temperature readings.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I am asking for is what the taxpayer owns, and I frankly -- the law doesn't require me to have a reason for it. We want transparency, we want to see how they did what, we want to see why.
ACOSTA: NASA is no stranger to climate controversy. James Hansen, one of NASA's top scientists and a fixture at global warming protests, accused the Bush administration of suppressing climate data. That accusation led to this inspector general report which found NASA PR officials had marginalized and mischaracterized climate change information.
JAMES HANSEN, NASA SCIENTIST: If we push the climate system hard enough, it can obtain a momentum. It can pass tipping points such that climate change continues out of our control.
ACOSTA: For Thorsten Markus, climate measurements are the Earth's vital signs, much like our own.
MARKUS: If you go to a doctor, the doctor says, cholesterol is high, your blood pressure is high and you may have a stroke, and the doctor suggests, well, maybe you should be more careful with what you are eating, do you change your diet?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ACOSTA: That is the question. And NASA has never had as many satellites measuring the Earth's climate data as it does right now. But some of these eyes on the Earth are reaching their lifespan, and without new funding, NASA scientists worry those satellites won't be replaced.
And John and Kyra, and if you're looking for a killer app, I know we've been talking about it during the show, but just Google NASA climate change, and you'll find this program, "Eyes on the Earth." It gives you a three-dimensional look at all of these satellites orbiting the Earth. You can pinpoint them individually and see what each of those satellites are doing at this very moment. It's fascinating stuff. Killer app.
ROBERTS: Yes, it's great. You can see CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, carbon monoxide concentrations. You can see where all the hot spots are. It's fascinating stuff.
CHETRY: Yes, we were playing around with it a little bit earlier. And also the ozone feature, you can see the parts where the ozone is thinnest and where it's the thickest and where there is a big hole. Very fascinating.
All right, Jim Acosta, for us this morning, thanks.
ROBERTS: Coming up next, "Time" magazine columnist Joe Klein on how President Obama should handle the prize now that he's been given the Nobel.
It's 50 minutes after the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Seven minutes now to the top of the hour, we're back with the Most News in the Morning.
There were a lot of surprised people when Obama was announced as the Nobel Peace Prize winner this year. Minutes ago, when he accepted it, even he acknowledge that he is the commander in chief of a country fighting two wars.
So how did he do in his acceptance speech, in his lecture? "Time" columnist Joe Klein is traveling with the president in Oslo and wrote about how he should handle receiving the prize back in October.
So Joe, what did you think about the speech? It was not your typical Nobel Peace Prize lecture.
JOE KLEIN, COLUMNIST, "TIME" MAGAZINE: No, John, this was a really great speech. One of the best I have ever heard him deliver. And he did several really important things. It was a very balanced speech.
The first half of the speech was most important, though, on this continent, which really has become a continent of peaceniks. He explained the case for war. He even cited Martin Luther King. He said that Martin Luther King's peaceful legions could not have stopped Hitler's armies. I think that that was a really important message for Europeans to hear and for the rest of the world to hear, especially as we're trying to deal with Afghanistan.
The second half of the speech was a bit more traditional, ways we could work to improve the world and move towards peace, but it was done in a straightforward clear and balanced way. I was in the room, the atmosphere was electric. There was a kind of hush in the room that you only hear when an audience is completely wrapped up in a speaker's words.
ROBERTS: You know, Joe, a recent column you wrote about President Obama winning the award, you said, quote, "The Nobel Peace Prize, presented prospectively -- a triumph of hope over inexperience -- threatens to become a central metaphor of Barack Obama's turbocharged career... He seems fated to be feted for who he is not (George W. Bush) and who is might turn out to be, but not for the things he has actually done."
So now that he has accepted the award, what in your mind does he have to do to go out there and prove that he was in fact worthy of this? KLEIN: Well he has to prove that diplomacy can work, in addition to successfully prosecuting the war in Afghanistan in a way that is, as he said today, humane. I think that that's the essence of the new counterinsurgency strategy that the U.S. Army is trying to use there, to protect the population, to bring them services, to stop aerial bombardment. I think that if he does those things, you know, four or five or maybe even eight years from now, he will be looked at as a worthy recipient.
ROBERTS: Now the last time that you were on with us, you said that President Obama has an opportunity to earn the Nobel by settling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Speaking of Brzezinski, the former national security adviser for Jimmy Carter said recently, quote, "So far the Obama team has shown neither tactical skill nor the strategic firmness needed to move the peace process forward... It could be hoped that the president will seize the moment offered by the Oslo ceremony to give more substance to the Middle East initiative."
Many people feel that he has undercut Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with his statement on settlements there, has he squandered an opportunity here in the Israeli-Palestinian process?
KLEIN: Well, he had a very bad year and the peace process was really mismanaged. I was in Jerusalem when Hillary Clinton congratulated President Netanyahu -- Prime Minister Netanyahu on an unprecedented settlement offer, but the settlement did not include halting settlements in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians consider their capital. I think that that effort has to be restarted. And I think that Dr. Brzezinski has a really good idea, the president probably should layout what he thinks and what the world thinks an appropriate settlement would be at this point.
ROBERTS: Joe Klein, it's always great to catch up with you. Thanks so much for taking the time. Appreciate it.
KLEIN: My pleasure.
ROBERTS: All right, coming up now on three minutes to the top of the hour.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHETRY: Just about coming up to the top of the hour right now, and welcome back to the Most News in the Morning.
President Obama has just been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, we saw the live coverage play out here on AMERICAN MORNING. He accepted the honor in Oslo, Norway in the last hour and in his speech afterward, he was quick to address critics who claim that he did not deserve the medal while presiding over two wars.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize, Schweitzer and King, Marshall and Mandela, my accomplishments are slight. But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the commander in chief of a military, of a nation in the midst of two wars.
And so I come here with the 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHETRY: The president attends a Nobel committee banquet this afternoon. He'll give another speech and then head back to Washington tomorrow morning. As we said, not as much of the pomp and circumstance surrounding this -- Obama keeping it a lot more low key than past recipients.
ROBERTS: Yes, not attending a lunch that King Harold is putting on and a children's concert -- or children's parade and concert as well.
Continue the conversation on today's story. Just go to our blog at CNN.com/amfix. That's going to wrap it up for us. Thanks so much for joining us, we'll see you back here again bright and early tomorrow.
CHETRY: And the news continues right now, here's "CNN NEWSROOM" with Heidi Collins.
