Peace Prize to President Obama

[dirac]

The best line I've heard so far came from David Brooks, who before saying that Obama should have declined the prize, said he should have won them all this year, having spoken on physics, economics and biology as well. (What about literature?)

There was another good one from Ezra Klein (Obama supporter), who said that Obama should get the Nobel Prize in chemistry - 'he's got so much.'

I feel sorry for Obama, because he didn't ask for this, I doubt he welcomes it, and the last thing he needs right now is international highlighting of the thinness of his C.V. But turning it down would probably have created more problems and I understand they've already confirmed he's going to Oslo. Well, to echo what carbro said, let's hope the committee winds up pointing with pride, as opposed to having egg on its face.

[leonid17]

He has indeed done all those good things, Leonid, but he has not yet brought peace anywhere.

How could he possibly? What do you do with an enemy that is sworn to destroy the west. He has been in power less than a year. What is wanted is a some kind of stability in the region as an absolute secure peace will probably not be gained because of the nature of the fanaticism of the insurgents who are related to the terroist groups that we all fear in the west. The region is not Europe, nor is its terrain like the Second World War was fought on.

What Obama can only do is promote peace and this he has said he is committed to this.

The Prize reflects on the moral standing of the U.S.

When announcing the prize the former prime minister of Norway, Thorbjoern Jagland, said: "Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. ... Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

What is it that the critical Americans don't get.

[kfw]

Leonid, I'm not suggesting that Obama could have accomplished more, just that the prize should go to someone or some group that has accomplished something concrete, or has fought long and hard for it, or is risking freedom or even life for it. (Brooks suggested the Iranian movement for democracy). It's not that Obama shouldn't be lauded for his efforts. Of course he should be. It's that absent real accomplishment, or at least sacrifice, the prize is just political.

[leonid17]

Leonid, I'm not suggesting that Obama could have accomplished more, just that the prize should go to someone or some group that has accomplished something concrete, or has fought long and hard for it, or is risking freedom or even life for it. (Brooks suggested the Iranian movement for democracy). It's not that Obama shouldn't be lauded for his efforts. Of course he should be. It's that absent real accomplishment, or at least sacrifice, the prize is just political.

With respect, how does anyone outside those secret meetings of heads of governments and their senior advisors know what his accomplishments have been.

I have never read anything in our press how our Prime Minister carried the day at a meeting or President Obama likewise because it is not fully reported.

It seems to me that it his diplomacy that has gained him support and I do not know how many years you have to wait to read the official papers of Heads of State and Senior Diplomat meetings.

As I am sure you are aware there is much government business that is not aired in public.

I think it is unfair to undermine the nomination process and the deliberations of the Nobel Prize committee who I am sure know much more of President Obama's real worth than do others.

[Mel Johnson]

Just FYI, a brief excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel, setting forth the criteria for the Peace prize:

to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

So the standard is EITHER quantitative OR qualitative.

[dirac]

Thanks, Mel. Obama's claim is shaky under either standard. However, his speech today was admirably modest, which is not always this President's strong suit, and I think if he handles this going forward as well as he has so far he'll come out of it all right.

It's that absent real accomplishment, or at least sacrifice, the prize is just political.

Well said.

[SanderO]

Of course, Obama knew he was nominated and had to have contemplated that he might win and what the reaction might be. I would think he could have asked to have his name withdrawn from consideration in contemplation of the firestorm of conflicting opinions which would undoubtedly result.

Personally, Obama has a lot going for him. He's well educated, well spoken, well read and has authored a couple of books. It's refreshing to have a man of his intellect in the oval office. He made some stunning promises in his campaign which inspired so many people to come out and vote. He had an awful lot of support and a very deep hole to dig the USA out of.

Unfortunately, he has yet to make any significant contributions to world peace except removing the missles from Poland. The USA still spends $800 billion on its war machine and floods the world with weapons which are used in regional conflicts. I wouldn't be worried about "sworn threats" to destroy the west from a bunch of disgruntled fanatics. That's a threat not to take seriously and go to war over.

Obama seems to be taking advice from the same people that always seem to have access to the seat of power. That does not bode well for the significant policy change he promised. Seems like more of the status quo.

Let's wait and see what he does. It's early in his term.

[Helene]

I'm surprised it didn't go to Bill Clinton for his foundation work and for his occasional forays into various diplomatic missions, because that would be as much of a slap to Bush Administration and to the US media that amplified the Lewinsky affair, something that many, many European commentators thought was a a non-starter, a waste of energy, and which paved the way for a Bush victory.

[Mel Johnson]

Yes, "wait and see" is good policy here.

But on a further note, a point of order.

While the awarding and presentation (when it happens) of the Nobel involves a sort of performance, I believe that Peace as a whole is outside the purview of this board as constituted. I respectfully request that the administrators close this thread. Not take it down, but close it, as some of our discourse is ranging over into politics, which has been forbidden since Ballet Talk's earliest days.

[papeetepatrick]

I wouldn't be worried about "sworn threats" to destroy the west from a bunch of disgruntled fanatics. That's a threat not to take seriously and go to war over.

Quite so, Sander0, and there are many who have clearly figured out how not to be worried. After all, they never carried out any of their threats. There's a Mr. Ruppert who has written up how Al Qaeda has never bombed anything, maybe his belief that Bush/Cheney oversaw the blowing up of the buildings ought to be rewarded. That way we could learn how CAPITALISM was the cause of 'so-called terrorist acts' eh?

[papeetepatrick]

Yes, I think this ought to be closed too, good idea, Mel. These kinds of threads are beginning to become rhizomatic.

[dirac]

I had considered that, Mel, but when I logged on today a number of people had already posted to the thread contributing their comments, including yourself and as Pamela did not intend to create a political debate but only to announce a piece of interesting news, I decided not to close it. (Not too long ago someone posted a notice of the death of Walter Cronkite, also not a personality noted for his contribution to the arts.)

As long as the discussion remains civil I don't have a problem with it continuing. It was inevitable that politics would arise, unfortunately, and as Mel notes correctly our general rule of thumb on BT is to avoid political discussions except as they relate to dance and the arts.

I would suggest, however, that the range of opinions on the matter is already well represented here and that people post accordingly. If you've had your say, 'nuff said.

[SanderO]

I wouldn't be worried about "sworn threats" to destroy the west from a bunch of disgruntled fanatics. That's a threat not to take seriously and go to war over.

Quite so, Sander0, and there are many who have clearly figured out how not to be worried. After all, they never carried out any of their threats. There's a Mr. Ruppert who has written up how Al Qaeda has never bombed anything, maybe his belief that Bush/Cheney oversaw the blowing up of the buildings ought to be rewarded. That way we could learn how CAPITALISM was the cause of 'so-called terrorist acts' eh?

There have been disgruntled groups since the beginning of time and they have carried out all sorts of mischief. Waging the kind of wars that the USA has done on Iraq who clearly has no involvement in 9/11 and Afghanistan which likewise did not attack the USA is a disproportional response directed at the wrong parties. One million innocent women and children have died in Iraq, and over 5,000 USA servicemen and women, 4 million Iraqis have been displaced to camps in Jordan because someone attacked the USA on 9/11. And the supposed leader of that operation is not on the FBIs most wanted list for the crime of the century. By the way the Taliban has offered to turn Bin Laden over to the USA shortly after 9/11 if the USA presented a extradition case with evidence of his complicity. The USA refused and proceeded to attack.

None of this was Obama's creation, but he needs to get the USA out of those area. And his statement today was not encouraging as far as AfPak is concerned.

Meanwhile we need to get some of our constitutional rights back including the 4th amendment.

[dirac]

SanderO, I think I just posted that if you've had your say, that's sufficient unto the day. You (and Patrick) have both made your views amply clear and you are veering way off topic. Thanks to all.

[Quiggin]

I don't know if it's been posted here but I read somewhere that Willy Brandt got his Nobel fairly early on and Gorbachev did too. I think it helps nudge the President to his best side and give him some backup.

Here is a tuber of a link, hopefully not too controversial, by Gary Wills, on how President Obama is somewhat a prisoner of history --

But the momentum of accumulating powers in the executive [since World War II] is not easily reversed, checked, or even slowed. It was not created by the Bush administration ...

A president is greatly pressured to keep all the empire's secrets. He feels he must avoid embarrassing the hordes of agents, military personnel, and diplomatic instruments whose loyalty he must command. Keeping up morale in this vast, shady enterprise is something impressed on him by all manner of commitments. He becomes the prisoner of his own power. As President Truman could not not use the bomb, a modern president cannot not use the huge powers at his disposal ... He is a self-entangling giant.

New York Review article

[carbro]

Of course, Obama knew he was nominated ... I would think he could have asked to have his name withdrawn from consideration in contemplation of the firestorm of conflicting opinions which would undoubtedly result.

Apparently he did not know, at least according to Nightline. Anyone can nominate a person for the Nobel (I've had a candidate in mind for some time; maybe 2010 will be the year I submit the nomination) and not necessarily tell the person, or maybe the message wouldn't get through layers of staff to the nominee.

To refuse it after he's been announced as the winner would be ungracious, although I'm sure he would have done so in eloquent and gracious language. Plus, he gets to do good by donating the cash award to charity.

[SanderO]

I would think that any person nominated should be notified by the committee that there name is up for consideration with respect to any public award. I don't see the point of not notifying them. Has the committee offered an explanation for this practice?

But even if they get lots of suggestions perhaps they don't have to notify all of them, but surely at some point in the process there is a weeding out and there are a few contenders. At that point, at least these people should be notified I would think.

I agree to refuse such an honor is a non starter. If one feels that they don't deserve it, accepting it graciously and donating the prize to a worthy cause and using the opportunity to speak about peace works for me. I think that's more or less what Mr Obama did and he handled this well.

Obviously, someone in his position had a lot of influence on issues of war and peace in the world, perhaps more than any other person alive. Accepting the award by the POTUS will hopefully inform some of his decision making process going forward. That can't be a bad thing. A world turns it's lonely eyes to you Mr President. Please give us all the peace you can. We need it.

[Petra]

My first response: Ludicrous. My second: Perhaps eventually he'll do something to earn it.

These were my thoughts exactly. No-one doubts President Obama's credentials as a 'good guy', but I don't think the Nobel Peace Prize is given in order to encourage people, but in order to reward them for past action. In my part of the globe - not a very peaceful part - Obama has not yet achieved anything, nor, as importantly if not more so, has he risked anything in the political sense (he seems to be at greater personal risk than any previous president since Reagan, but those threats are primarily domestic) in order to promote world peace.

Edited to add: I have just been reading MLK Jr's Nobel Prize acceptance speech where he talks of "an audacious faith in the future of mankind". I do think that Obama has done much to advance this faith, but it hasn't been in the international arena yet.

Bill Clinton would have been a much better choice if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee wanted to honour the United States (or the the US Democratic Party). They might also have considered honouring the Obama Administration as a whole, since so far much of the diplomatic legwork has been carried out by others - Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, George Mitchell, etc.

[dirac]

I agree to refuse such an honor is a non starter. If one feels that they don't deserve it, accepting it graciously and donating the prize to a worthy cause and using the opportunity to speak about peace works for me. I think that's more or less what Mr Obama did and he handled this well.

Agreed. There's no way he could say no without introducing further complications. He took a smart and reasonable line in his speech, accepting the award on behalf of the country and not himself.

[Petra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/world/eu...armenia.html?hp

This article from the NYT highlighting US involvement in the Turkey-Armenia negotiations is especially interesting today.

[Pamela Moberg]

Thank you so much for that, Dirac.

Under no circumstances whatever did I have the desire to provoke a political debate with the pros and the cons or the for or the antis. Personally I am pretty disinterested in politics, I merely like to keep up with the news of what is happening in this world. By this I want to say that I have a genuine interest in world affairs, but little interest in local affairs. If the neighbour's outdoor loo burns down to the ground I couldnt care less. Hope you see my point.

But, it must be said, I feel rather delighted that my initial post provoked such an avalanche of posts. Good, it shows that people are concerned about their lives and wellbeing and that is just fine. isn't it?

The outcome of all this will be fine, I am sure, and on a lighter note I would like to offer some advice to the First Lady. I know she is fond of dressing well.

Early December in Norway will be cold and possibly snowy, but not excessively so, indoor temperatures will be comfortable. so she neednt bring any outfits

for arctic conditions. I think fun will be had by everyone and the welcome by the Norwegian people will be great

[leonid17]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/world/eu...armenia.html?hp

This article from the NYT highlighting US involvement in the Turkey-Armenia negotiations is especially interesting today.

Thanks GWTW for posting this.

It is the kind of diplomacy which must have been going on for some months and confirms what I said earlier, which was the general public do not know what efforts are being made by President Obama to further world peace.

The America Secretary of States high profile visits to many countries promoting closer links and understanding through mutual trade, the Ambassadors and the Diplomatic corps and the current deployment of American peace keeping troops around the world all emphasis the building of relationshi[s with once belligerent nations.

Currently, " Home to a volatile mix of ethnic Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, northern Iraq is a key battleground between Baghdad's Arab-led government and leaders of the largely autonomous Kurdistan region, who claim bits of the oil-producing north along its border as their ancestral homeland. Defusing such tensions is crucial as U.S. troops, who have mediated between Kurdish and Arab leaders over the past year, prepare to withdraw from Iraq by 2012.

The Unites States Institute for Peace reports, "... the first face to face meeting between U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke and Iran's deputy foreign minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhoondzadeh on Tuesday at an international conference on Afghanistan? "

On September 23, 2009 "...President Obama's meeting today with the top troop contributing countries to UN Peacekeeping. "

President Obama personally has been vigorously attempting to bring peace in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

The real war will never get in the books said Walt Whitman nor I suspect does the efforts for real peace.

I am sure there are many more Americans of good heart who pray sincerely for peace and support President Obama's efforts than those that have responded cynically to the award of the Nobel Prize.

[kfw]

I am sure there are many more Americans of good heart who pray sincerely for peace and support President Obama's efforts than those that have responded cynically to the award of the Nobel Prize.

Leonid, respectfully (to use your own fine phrasing), many of us fall into both groups.

[dirac]

I am sure there are many more Americans of good heart who pray sincerely for peace and support President Obama's efforts than those that have responded cynically to the award of the Nobel Prize.

Judging from the general reaction it seems there are those from all parts of the political spectrum who think that ideally someone should make peace of some sort before being awarded a peace prize. All US presidents conduct a number of initiatives for peace or improved relations in various areas of the world, many of them below the radar, including presidents at war.

But, it must be said, I feel rather delighted that my initial post provoked such an avalanche of posts. Good, it shows that people are concerned about their lives and wellbeing and that is just fine. isn't it?

I agree, Pamela.

[Mashinka]

So this award is given for intentions rather than actual deeds. Why then is it so out of step with the other Nobel prizes where the recipients actually have some (usually substantial) achievements under their belts?

I intend to write a piece of major literature some day, so may I have a Nobel Prize too please?