1st peace Nobel laureate to send more troops to war?
Obama, 1st peace Nobel laureate to celebrate his Prize by sending more troops to war?
Today POTUS {aka the PresidentOfTheUS} has received the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
Today NASA is also bombing the moon, in a totally peaceful manner.
The internet has gone loco to celebrate both achievements.
A few points regarding the first terrestrial matter:
The extent of what Barack Obama has achieved in a few months is somehow difficult to appreciate to its true measure. By any standard it is simply awesome. Once the hype and the media frenzy have calmed down, historians will remind us what a mountain he has started to climb; that Bobby Kennedy was not even given the chance to have a decent go at it; that dispersing the neo-conservative fog which has been the major characteristic of the US political climate for decades would in itself warrant a special award on behalf of the people of planet Earth.
So to be clear, unequivocal support is de rigueur.
However, in this sea of enthusiasm and praise it would good to show some temperance so that compliments carry a bit of weight and substance. A few questions and observations that might help bring some perspective:
- Obama is the incumbent President. During the 4 years of his mandate he is ‘the function’. Whatever he says or does has to be read in the context of what the US will do as a Nation. He is not in the same position as Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, who have been awarded in their own name for their personal extra-contributions to the public agenda after they had vacated elected political positions.
- The USA [the Nation] are still militarily occupying 2 other countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) where peace in not in sight. Palestine is far from being pacified either.
- In the past, political leaders have been rewarded AFTER negotiations, which concluded a conflict or were an obviously lead to resolution (Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Thô* in 1973 after the Vietnam war; Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat after the The Oslo Accords in 1993). The Cairo Speech “A New Beginning” articulating Obama’s vision for the Middle East, challenging the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who justified, the Sept. 11 attacks was a very promising preliminary (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05fri1.html); but still a preliminary.
- It is even ironic to think that an intense lobbying is going on in Washington regarding a military surge in Afghanistan.
Will Obama be the 1st peace Nobel laureate to celebrate his Prize by sending more troops to war?
Obama’s personality commends respect and admiration. The number of issues ranging from the Financial Crisis to Nuclear proliferations, Climate change and Health Care reform – to name a few – make a super charged agenda that could overwhelm the most seasoned leaders. He is standing firm and will probably deliver the most remarkable term.
The questions raised in the media are probably more regarding the Nobel Committee who says it awarded the Prize to Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
- Has the Nobel Academy agreed on a “pre-emptive Nobelization” to give him a political boost on the domestic front (Health Care) in order to maximise the chances of international success in return?
- Has it agreed to send a political message to prevent a future conflict with Iran (difficult to start a war now…)
- Or has it simply agreed that the break-away from the W-years was enough of an historical milestone?
A controversy?
As the www.theatlanticwire.com points out “The award comes as a shock; past recipients, such as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, have often had long careers of dramatic international involvement.”
“Reaction in the U.S. has been swift and sharp, with many liberals celebratory and conservatives dour. But there exists a small but vocal — and bipartisan — contingent saying that Obama should turn down the Nobel Peace Prize.”
- Turn The Nobel Down: Some of the most vocal calls for Obama to refuse to prize are coming from the Left. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg: “It might be smart for Obama to turn this prize down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere.”
- The Liberal arguments: (American Prospect – http://www.prospect.org Adam Server, http://twitter.com/AdamSerwer ) “You do have to do something to win this prize. Obama is not in the same league as Mandela or Rabin, [yet - added by lfo]. Obama should turn the Nobel peace prize down until he’s finished with his two wars. To be clear, this is embarrassing for the committee, not the recipient. There are lots of mommies and daddies in [Afghanistan]/Iraq who would disagree [with] Nobel [committee]. Because no one should have to ask why you won the Nobel peace prize.”
- The conservative arguments ( Slate, http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/10/09/what-obama-should-do-with-his-nobel-peace-prize.aspx ): “Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he’s honored but he hasn’t had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory–and helps solve his narcissism problem”
Has there been any precedent for a refusal?
Jean-Paul Sartre turned the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1964. He explained that he did not wish to be “transformed” by such an award, and did not want to take sides in an East vs. West cultural struggle by accepting an award from a prominent Western cultural institution.
A poisoned gift?
One thing is for sure: this is a charged item that could turn into a poisoned gift.
Obama has had to spent months convincing his constituency that he is more that a good speech deliverer, that the criticisms of all-hype-little-substance are unfounded. Such an early prize may actually put even more pressure on his shoulders to deliver tangible results.
- laissezfaireovr
—
*: Le Duc Thô declined the Peace Prize in 1973 on grounds that his country was still not at peace.
.
