“I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. 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 nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events that surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.”
(Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. / An excerpt from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Oslo, Norway, 1964.)
The world mostly remembers Martin Luther King Jr. for his pivotal role in dismantling racial segregation and spearheading the civil rights movement within the United States. Yet, his influence transcended national boundaries, delving into international affairs. As a Baptist minister, King’s worldview was significantly shaped by his spiritual convictions, aligning closely with Christian tenets of justice, compassion, and hope. Central to his foreign policy stance was a profound vision for a globally equitable and peaceful world, with King passionately believing in America’s indispensable role in realizing this noble aspiration.
In his notable 1967 speech at Riverside Church, King spoke against the Vietnam War, denouncing its injustice and immorality. He criticized the prioritization of military spending over addressing domestic issues like poverty and racial inequality. King pointed out the irony of sending disadvantaged young black men to fight for freedoms abroad while facing discrimination and limited opportunities at home.
In King’s own words:
“Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so, we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on T.V. screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so, we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.”
It was not just a practical concern that drove him to oppose the Vietnam War but also his vision for a peaceful world. He believed that as a superpower, the United States bore a significant responsibility to champion peace and justice worldwide, setting a positive example for nations to emulate. In King’s eyes, engaging in a war he deemed unjust was a betrayal of these foundational values, eroding the moral standing of the U.S. on the world stage. Instead of military aggression, King ardently advocated for a revitalized focus on diplomacy and nonviolent means to address conflicts, fostering genuine collaboration among nations for a more peaceful and just world order.
For him, “world peace through nonviolent means [was] neither absurd nor unattainable.”
“All other methods have failed,” he said.
“Thus, we must begin anew… Those of us who believe in this method can be voices of reason, sanity, and understanding amid the voices of violence, hatred, and emotion. We can very well set a mood of peace out of which a system of peace can be built.” – Dreams of Brighter Tomorrows in Ebony Magazine, March 1965.
But for King, “True peace is not merely the absence of tensions; it is the presence of justice.”
For him, true peace extends beyond the absence of tensions—it necessitates the presence of justice. Merely putting conflicts on hold through ceasefires or truces fails to ensure lasting peace. To King, genuine, and enduring peace requires a robust foundation of fairness and justice. This involves confronting inequalities, safeguarding the rights of every individual, and establishing systems that guarantee fair and just treatment for all.
For King, the essence of peace lies in its inseparable connection with justice and fairness for everyone. Therefore, any agreement or approach aspiring for lasting and meaningful peace must have fairness and justice at its core.
Dr. King’s perspective on foreign policy diverges sharply from the notion that might determine what is right. Rather than endorsing outcomes dictated by sheer power, he emphasizes fairness and impartiality, especially in situations marked by significant power differentials. King highlights the less powerful party’s inherent risks, as they often suffer considerable losses and injustices without equitable treatment. His advocacy underscores the importance of reshaping foreign policy frameworks to ensure equity and fairness, irrespective of the prevailing power dynamics.
King urged powerful nations to approach interactions with less powerful states with compassion, encouraging them to empathize with and comprehend issues from an adversarial standpoint.
He believed that as a leading global superpower, the United States should take on a positive and constructive role when interacting with smaller, less influential nations to advance freedom and justice. The United States should take on a leadership role and act independently and impartially when negotiating agreements and shaping foreign policy.
Tragically, his assassination, followed by the fatal shooting of Senator Robert Kennedy, who was continuing in his footsteps, extinguished any prospects for the voices of reason and sanity to have prevailed.
With the emergence to power of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger as his top foreign and national security adviser, realpolitik, a policy that rested on the notion that human nature is inherently unchangeable and malevolent, and prioritized power, belittled small states, downplayed international law, and provided excuses for aggressors and human rights violators, gained even stronger momentum. As a result, the U.S. remained entangled in the Vietnam War for a prolonged period, became involved in other undesirable conflicts, destabilized democracies, and backed authoritarian regimes and human rights abusers.
Instead of reflecting the principles of justice and peace that Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned, the United States, during this period, became synonymous with militarism. Rather than serving as a beacon of hope, it inadvertently set a precedent for aggressors. Regrettably, our State Department witnessed the rise of a Secretary of State with a controversial legacy, and the nation found itself implicated in actions leading to immense loss of life, affecting millions.
King would have undoubtedly condemned the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and how our foreign and national security policymakers, influenced by realpolitik, dealt with it. The apparent absence of compassion and humanity evident in their discussions surrounding the Turkish invasion of this small island state would have deeply unsettled him.
The priorities of Kissinger and other government officials differed from how to halt the invasion of a tiny, independent state to save lives, prevent human suffering, and safeguard homes and properties. Instead, their concerns gravitated toward whether Turkey would succeed in seizing portions of the island to achieve its military aims. Their actions sharply deviated from the ethical and compassionate leadership that Martin Luther King Jr. would have championed and stood for.
In a book co-edited by Michael L. Clemons, Donathan L. Brown, and William H. L. Dorsey in 2017, Clemons suggested that King would have expressed profound concerns regarding our strategies in the war on terrorism and the activities at Guantánamo Bay. He would have been alarmed by America’s utilization of drones, which often result in the tragic deaths of innocent civilians.
In an imagined conversation with Martin Luther King Jr., as he celebrated his eightieth birthday, Professor Michael Eric Dyson (2008) inquired about King’s perspective on the war on terrorism. King partly explained:
“Since most Americans are ignorant of the tragic consequences of our foreign policy, the hatred we face as a nation comes as a surprise. But in fighting terror, we must also fight the impulse to be self-righteous and arrogant; we should practice a bit more humility, which might go a far longer distance in getting the sort of justice, balance, and security we need- and that we need to guarantee for others as well.”
King would have been profoundly distressed by the war in Ukraine, the tragic events in Gaza, including HAMAS’s reprehensible attacks on innocent civilians, as well as the significant loss of Palestinian lives, including women and children, because of the actions of Israeli forces. He would have been deeply troubled by the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in northern Syria and the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.
As highlighted earlier, King laid a blueprint for how the United States should approach and resolve international conflicts. This roadmap calls upon the United States to navigate international relations with fairness, compassion, and a genuine commitment to peace. Leaders must embrace these principles, ensuring King’s legacy of reason, sanity, and progress guides our global interactions.