Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize to honor those who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, [for] the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” This has always been a controversial award, as it measures something far more subjective than achievement in the sciences.
This year’s award was no different, its recipient being the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The organization is most notable for pushing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the first legally binding international accord to ban these weapons. This is a seemingly lofty and noble goal.
At the time I am writing this, the treaty has been signed by 53 nations — none of which are nuclear powers. At this point, the document represents wishful thinking rather than concrete policy changes. But its ineffectiveness is not all that makes it unworthy of the coveted Peace Prize. Disarmament generally, no matter the weapon in question, will not lead to a better, more peaceful planet.
There are monsters in the world we live in, men and women whose goals are not the betterment of our species, but the betterment of themselves. Some of these people control entire nations. Some of those nations have nuclear weapons, and are unlikely to give them up. Kim Jong-un, for instance, believes the only way he can prevent U.S. interference in North Korea is maintaining a nuclear stockpile. He is absolutely correct.
We cannot risk military action against North Korea for fear of another sun rising over Tokyo. There is a reason Russia has not steamrolled through Eastern Europe — it is because NATO has sworn that an attack against any member nation is an attack on all members. It is not out of the decency of Vladimir Putin’s heart.
There are no easy solutions to bad people with big guns. Our experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other nations have shown that imparting democracy by force is unlikely to be successful. But we cannot allow ourselves to deny some universal truths. Our way of life is better than fascism and totalitarianism. Living under President Donald Trump, as horrifying as it has been and no doubt will be, is better than living under a supreme leader. We can’t allow guilt to let us forget this. Democracy must be protected, and voluntarily making ourselves weaker by giving up our most powerful tool is not a credible method of achieving this end.
Pacifism, long assumed to be one of the most moral positions a person can hold, does not lead to peace. U.S. armed forces have done more for global peace than pacifism. While of course we must check our most hawkish impulses, our desire to be the world’s policeman — going too far in the opposite direction is arguably more harmful to the world. Too often, when faced with an opposing power, the liberal impulse is excessive relativism and optimism, when a more pragmatic approach is often the one required. I consider myself to be a liberal in almost all matters, but I think the attitude that the International Campaign embodies is deeply problematic.
In 1928, the U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand put forth an international agreement, the Kellogg-Briand pact. Signatories promised to forego the use of war in foreign policy disagreements. The United States, Britain, Canada and France signed the pact. But when the most unimaginable evil rose up a decade later, thankfully, the treaty was forgotten. The world is a messy place, and in order to preserve the bit of order we have, it pays to carry a big stick.
