Barack Obama has now officially joined the very elite club of Nobel Peace Prize winners, almost as exclusive as the club he joined last year: United States Presidents. His speech can be read here. Many were watching to see how Obama would deal with two touchy issues: the fact that he was awarded the Prize with scant accomplishments to date, and the seeming incongruity of his receiving a peace award days after announcing he would send 30,000 more soldiers into a battle zone. Personally, I thought he did a good job on those points. Readers of this blog, however, are interested in how the speech, and its messages and ideals, can be interpreted for the Tibet issue. Tibet was not mentioned in the speech. This is not surprising. Unlike State of the Union addresses, this speech was not designed to be a laundry list of issues and programs to please certain constituencies. This was a Big Picture speech if there ever was one. The omission of His Holiness the Dalai Lama was curious, however. Not once, but twice, Obama cited Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King regarding the “moral force of non-violence.” It would have been quite appropriate to list the most notable living advocate for non-violence. (Unlike the Dalai Lama, Gandhi is not a fellow peace-prize laureate, although there may be no one more deserving.) Speculation will abound about whether the omission of His Holiness was related to the ongoing negotiations with China at the Copenhagen climate change conference. At the same time, President Obama’s speech was imbued with themes resonant to the Dalai Lama’s message (his 1989 Nobel Peace Prize speech can be read here). Obama sounded most like His Holiness when he said, “Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. 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 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 nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.” Of course, Obama’s was not a speech that the Dalai Lama would give. A good portion focused on “just war” and the rationales for military intervention that nations, and Obama as Commander-in-Chief, must contend with. But in doing so, Obama interjected a sense of real world pragmatism in a hall that is accustomed to orations on the ideals of peace. This is an approach that His Holiness, a fellow laureate and leader of his people, who must balance idealism with nasty geopolitical realities, can identify with. Perhaps when they get together early next year, Obama and the Dalai Lama can talk about the challenges of satisfying one’s political base when charting a pragmatic path. The last observation is not a minor one. As he did in Beijing, President Obama stressed the universality of human rights: “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.” This is in stark contrast to the mushy moral relativism from the Canadians in their joint statement with China: “Both sides acknowledged that differing histories and national conditions can create some distinct points of view on issues such as human rights.” And here’s the part that Chinese leaders should hear (emphases mine): “In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has 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 interests or an endless campaign to impose our values. “I reject this choice. 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 Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither Americas interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations. As ever, the challenge to Tibet supporters is to encourage the Obama Administration to put these words into a concrete policy initiative for Tibet. Perhaps, he can imagine Hu Jintao in that hall in Oslo, joining that elite club, as the Chinese leader who negotiated with the Dalai Lama a durable peace for Tibet. Photo Caption: In Oslo, Obama looks at a portrait of the Dalai Lama and other Nobel Peace Prize winners. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)