When I woke up this morning, I thought it was April Fool's Day.
. For what? Wishful thinking? The man has all the good intentions (and speeches) in the world but the plain fact of the matter is,
. Is he capable of it? Absolutely. But the Nobel should not be given out on the basis of "what we hope can be accomplished" but rather on the merit of "what has already been accomplished."
The Nobel Committee
had this to say about the choosing of President Obama:
“It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic but we cannot do that every year. We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik. It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world.”
Yeah, that worked REAL well in 1994 when the Nobel was "split" in thirds between
Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin. Yup, Israel and Palestine stopped fighting that day and are getting along like two lambs in a meadow filled with rainbows and sunshine and fairies.
Wait. No. Sorry. What ACTUALLY happened is that the death toll in the region climbed in 1994 over previous years and continues to climb to this day. The peace process fell apart and both sides argued vehemently that the Nobel was ill-deserved by the other. Though it may have made for a great photo op, the intentions of the Nobel committee to politicize the award blew up in their faces and became yet another thing to bicker over while innocents died on both sides.
And don't get me started about when Al Gore won the Nobel in 2007 for his work on Climate Change... don't get me wrong, fighting to save our planet (or at least our species) from environmental ruin is important work. But the Nobel PEACE prize should go to people or organizations that made great strides for peace. Al Gore is a great man who does great work and should be awarded. But with the appropriate awards - otherwise the award is cheapened.
The Nobel shouldn't be used as a political tool because it is not capable of being effective. Just look at all the furor around Obama's award. Not only is his opposition in the States (and many people who are pro-Obama or on the fence,
even former Nobel Peace Prize winners) criticizing the selection as premature but the very people that the Nobel committee hopes this award will enable us to forge a greater peace with, the Taliban and other anti-US factions in the Muslim world,
are livid that this award was given. "Well, who cares about the Taliban or the Muslim world?" some are saying. Well, the Nobel committee, for one. If their stated intent is to give the award to President Obama in order to help him engage the Muslim world in a peaceful manner then the Taliban reaction and the reaction of the rest of the Muslim world who doesn't already support us should be the most important to us.
Sure, regional leaders that we are already in bed with dropped some congratulatory soundbytes. But the opinions of the anti-US factions and, most importantly, the innocent people in these countries
has remained cool, to say the least. When Obama was elected, we had a surge of approval from the Muslim world (or at least anyone within it who was not 100% committed to hating the United States no matter what we do). But that approval has long passed and people are jaded again because our policies have not greatly changed, despite speeches and soundbytes to to contrary.
We elected a president with a partially Muslim background (and let me be clear because people are going to harp on this - Obama is NOT a Muslim, not that it should matter if he was because we are supposed to practice religious tolerance in the US so anyone of ANY religious background should be able to be president. However, his father and step-father were Muslim though they were not particularly religious. He also attended both Muslim and Christian schools, though none of the schools were very strictly religious. They were just the only types of schools in the region. Okay? So Obama isn't a Muslim but he is familiar with the religion and culture - which should be GREAT considering we are trying to make peace with the Muslim world! So shut up and get over it.)
Ahem... we elected a president with a partially Muslim background, which encouraged the Muslim world to believe the United States would take a much more unbiased and diplomatic stance towards international problems regarding them. Despite President Obama's wonderful speech in Cairo that addressed many concerns held by Muslims, it has only been lip service and no actual action has been taken to further the promises made in that speech. The US's pro-Isreali stance has continued unchanged. Obama backed down from the demand that Israeli halt all settlement activity on territory conquered in 1967. In fact, last week, the
US government leaned on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to stop action by the UN Security Council to act on a UN report that accused Israel (and Hamas) of
committing war crimes during this January's outbreak of fighting in Gaza.
Obama has made a lot of speeches and overtures to the Muslim world, which is great and should be both applauded and continued. But he has very little to show for it so far - and with good reason! It is still very, very early in the process and not even a superhero could have accomplished much more than President Obama in such a short span of time. However, that being said, I want to state again that the Nobel should be given as an affirmation of progress made, not as a 'quarter thrown into a wishing well' for progress only just begun. Obama has made some strides, to be sure, but the fact remains that Israel is openly resisting the President's attempts to restart final-status peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that his government "
won't negotiate" about key issues, such as the fate of Palestinian refugees, the borders of a Palestinian state, the sharing of Jerusalem. Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman,
said this week that no peace is possible in the coming years and that the focus should instead be on managing the conflict. Giving the award to Obama is eerily reminiscent of the 1994 Nobel, with similar ramifications. How can the Nobel committee give an award for peace when no hope for peace is in sight?
Then there is the fishy timing of the nominations. The deadline for Nobel nominations for 2009 was February 1st - Obama had been in office for less that two weeks. As
Josef Joffe said, "not a lot of time for saving world peace". He has called it Europe's revenge for George W Bush and that may be a fair assessment. But my concern is what this award may do to further fuel the flames of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. My concern
is for peace - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in every other nation where we are engaged in or may become engaged in a conflict. If President Obama was as concerned for peace as I am, he would return the award and say that he is humbled but he has not yet accomplished all of his goals towards peace. It would give him all the acclaim of having won a prize and go a long way towards addressing his "cult-of-personality problem" in the media both at home and abroad. Hell, Le Duc Tho did it in 1973 when he and Henry Kissenger were awarded the Nobel for "ending" the Vietnam War. (Proving that the Nobel committee does have a sense of humor, by the way.) Le Duc Tho
rejected the award, stating "peace has not yet been established." Kissenger himself offered to return the award two years later (but was rejected), when Communist forces toppled Saigon, and donated all of the money to charity. If that snake can do it, so can Obama.
And then there is the big, big, BIG issue that is at the heart of why people are so fucking pissed Obama got the Peace prize. He is in the middle of trying to push for an
expanded war in Afghanistan. Now, there are good arguments on either side for expanding or reducing that conflict - but that isn't the issue at hand. The crux of the matter is giving the Nobel
PEACE prize to a man trying to expand a
war. That is at the heart of why so many Muslims are so incredibly pissed about this award and why getting it is likely to blow up in Obama's face. Just this past week, US airstrikes
killed more civilians in Afghanistan which only serves to further inflame those we are fighting against and even the innocent people in the country who we are ostensibly fighting for. Giving Obama the Nobel now is like giving Bush the Nobel peace prize for the troop surge in Iraq. It may have been what was necessary to eventually end the conflict in the region (I won't even argue the pros and cons of
that) but it was still a broadening of the war. And unless we are in
1984 where 'War is Peace' then I'd think that would be antithetical to receiving an award for peace. In fact, giving this award to Obama is anthetical to what was stated in
Alfred Nobel's will; the prize should be awarded "to the person who shall 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." Afghanistan is certainly
an inherited conflict that Obama has the potential to end but he should get the Nobel on the if and when he does end the war, not on the day he expands it.
* The Cluster Munitions Coalition for playing a central role in getting nearly 100 countries to sign a treaty last year in Oslo banning cluster bombs
* Dr. Mukwege in the Congo, who is under constant personal threat because he is saving the lives of women every day who have been violently raped.
* Hu Jia, a Chinese human rights activist and an outspoken critic (some say dissident) of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to 3 1/2 years in prison for "inciting subversion of state power."
* Piedad Córdoba, who freed 16 poltical prisoners in Columbia and is working to end the internal conflict in her country.
* Dr. Sima Samar, the Chairperson of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) and, since 2005, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Sudan.
* Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Morgan Tsvangirai who has been threatened and imprisoned while trying to bring peace to his nation.
* Ingrid Betancourt, a hostage who consistently goes into war-torn areas seeking to promote peace.
All of these people and organizations have made tangible strides towards peace. And by giving any of these people the Nobel, it would help push the issues that they are fighting for into the forefront of international politics. Obama has made overtures but, so far,
nothing concrete has materialized. Despite his language about ending torture practices, in reality the message has been
muddled and government-sanctioned torture is
still occurring. The January 22nd closing date for Guantanamo is approaching but it is looking like
it will not be closed by then. Is it WONDERFUL that Obama has decreed that Guantanamo gets closed and that he is trying to end US-practiced torture? ABSOLUTELY! But GitMo still remains open and the US is still committing human rights abuses to this day and it is premature to praise Obama for something that may or may not ever get done. He should be praised for taking the first steps but instead of cheering, we should continue to put pressure on him to follow through with this action to ensure it actually occurs. Same with his promises in Cairo. Hell, same with other campaign promises like
repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell or
getting our troops out of Iraq by 2010. Even his climate change policies are coming under attack this week, as the climate change negotiations in Bangkok
are being derailed by the United States and the Obama administration. These are all things he can and hopefully will do. But, despite 'Hope' being his campaign slogan, we need to push for action.
As I have argued before,
Hope is not enough. I can hope until I'm blue in the face that I'll have be a millionaire by the end of the year. I can tell all my friends I'm going to be a millionaire. I can even go out and get a high paying job. But if I'm late to work because I'm too busy getting drunk to celebrate money I haven't yet made, don't do my duties, and end up getting fired then no one should applaud me for being a millionaire because all of that praise went to my head and I didn't do what it was I set out to accomplish.
Its the same thing with politicians - more so, because perception is reality in our society. If we all perceive Obama promising to bring peace as actually bringing peace, why would he bother doing the hard thing and actually bringing peace at all?
We must, must, MUST pressure ALL of our politicians to make good on their promises and actually affect change. From the White House to Congress to the lowliest town clerk, these people are there to work FOR us. But if we keep giving them praises for work only just barely begun, we will never see change. We need MORE out of this president! He is absolutely capable of giving us more, of being the great leader we need. But we must insist that he lead. If he only takes one step yet we give him the prize as if he finished the race, the race itself will never be run.
Someone said to me that Obama should be praised for winning a historic election and becoming our first minority president. He should not be praised for that - THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM SHOULD BE! He did not elect himself! The people who campaigned for him, who voted for him - those are the people who deserve that praise. And no amount of barrier breaking excuses him from doing work. He needs to earn the trust that all those who gave him their vote placed in him. He needs to earn the trust and acclaim of all those who did not.
I want us to have a president who is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. I want the rest of the world to look to us proudly and say "America is a beacon of hope. They take good care of their citizens and bring peace and prosperity to their neighbors in this world. They are fair and just." Obama can be that man. But he is not that man yet. Whether or not he should return the award is really secondary. What he should do - what he MUST do - is earn it.