Recognizing the severity of John McCain’s issues with violence and its appropriate use, the Nobel Committee awarded Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize primarily just for beating him. Oh sure, they are very inspired by Obama’s leadership on nuclear disarmament and his new focus on seeking diplomatic solutions to the world’s problems. But you don’t give out such prestigious awards for potential alone. You award accomplishments. And Obama’s main accomplishment in the area of peace is that he denied the Gods of War their choice of president.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
47 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 43: The #TrumpRussia Conspiracy Goes Mainstream At Last
- Day 40: Republicans Contemplate Giving Up On Deficit Control Forever
- Progress Pondcast Episode 22 With Bill Hangley Jr, on DOGE and U.S. Alliance With Russia
- Day 37: The Last Bulwarks Protecting the Merit-Based Civil Service
- Day 36: German Conservatives Win, Denounce American Conservatives
Well here’s the criteria for that award.
-peace maker or rights activist engaged in a current conflict whose influence would benefit greatly from winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
To the international community, he’s on his way to doing good things and they see the potential.
My two cents…
I believe I said just a day ago, that the International Community sees President Obama differently than us. And maybe they see something that we don’t see.
I find interesting is that so many of the right wing blow-hards were already pronouncing his presidency a fat failure, with a culture of corruption, etc etc. It seems to me if they(right and the left) get to judge him a failure after only nine months, isn’t it fair that someone else gets to judge him a resounding success after only nine months?
Just sayin’.
It’s not someone else.
It’s 130,000,000 v. 6,000,000,000
From what I’m reading in the global press, the award seems primarily for his reaching out to Muslims and de-demonizing them for Americans. That IS a significant achievement in itself. I still think the award was premature, but then, I’m not a Muslim, either. Maybe I’d understand the importance of what he did far more viscerally if I were.
Peace maker? Are you talking about the guy who, hours after taking the oath of office signed off on bombings in Pakistan that killed tens of civilians, including a number of children? Are you talking about the guy whose solution to violence in Afghanistan is to escalate U.S. violence there, leading, of course, to a major increase in overall violence, death, destruction, and misery; the guy who refuses to acknowledge the Goldstone Report, and whose administration helped Israel pressure the PA to give up efforts to have it taken seriously; the guy who caved completely to Israel on the issue of Israel’s illegal colonization of occupied territory; the guy who is playing a shell game in Iraq where U.S. combat troops are still patrolling the cities they supposedly pulled out of; the guy who whippped up a hysterical frenzy by maximally hyping the “secret” Qum nuclear facility that Iran had already reported to the IAEA, and demanded that Iran allow inspectors in “or else” AFTER Iran had invited IAEA to send inspectors; the Commander in Chief under whom the Pentagon, according to recent mainstream reports, has an active plan to bomb Iran? Yeah, some peacemaker.
Rights activist? Really? Has anyone talked to the Palestinians about that? The Afghans? The Pakistanis? The Iraqis? The Iranis? They might have a slightly different take on that.
The prestige would be even greater if he declines it. And I think he should decline it. It is way premature. And I say that as an admirer of the president.
I think declining it would remove some of the added international political capital that it provides.
It also appears that the punditry and wingnuts want him to refuse it — so, apparently they are put out by the fact that he won it, and will do whatever they can to disparage it. On that basis alone, I think he should display it prominently in the WH and donate the $$ to a charitable (progressive) cause.
My thinking was based on the idea that winning it and refusing it are not symmetrical opposites. If you graciously decline to accept it, it doesn’t take away from the fact that you did win it, that the committee believed you were worthy of it, if you see what I mean; and it adds the modesty that you don’t really think you deserve it yet. As far as the wingnuts, they may have SAID he should refuse it, but in reality, if he did, that would take away all their talking points. Now they have their talking points for ever.
Anyway, it’s academic now; he did accept it, and I think he did it in the most gracious way possible: “I will accept this award as a call to action.”
The wingnuts would then say (rightly) that Obama spit in the face of the Nobel Committee – “Who does that uppity (n-word) think he is?”
The best part of the speech was when he admitted he doesn’t deserve it. As for the “call to action”, OK, let’s see some – and let it be in the right direction this time.
.
To some extent, Obama has been sending out the right message:
Obama has reversed Bush policy on foreign matters and domestic issues. He has raised hope by citizens of other nations as polls indicate, quite a swing in positive attitude. I would like to see results forthcoming. I have not seen improvement on human rights issues, domestic and foreign.
[Posted earlier in my diary here – Oui]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."That’s the thing. He’s WORKING on this stuff.
Good for him.
But you’d think the committee would hold off until he accomplished something profound.
But at least it’s driving the right wingers out of their collective minds. I’m all for that.
“To shut down Guantanamo Bay“
And leave open and operational countless other houses of horrors such as Bagram and othe Afghan hell holes, American prisons in Iraq, and an unknown number of “black sites” on land and sea throughout the world.
“Cairo speech to Muslim world“
Which has been followed up by escalating the violence in Afghanistan, continuing the bombing and killing of civilians and children in Pakistan, upping the hype and threats against Iran, scuttling the Goldstone report, caving to Israel on its continued creation of facts on the ground in the Occupied Territories, doing exactly nothing about the starvation of the people in Gaza. Muslims are very impressed by nice rhetoric, but when the actions belie the rhetoric sooner or later they do catch on as a great many already have. And the second time they aren’t as likely to buy it so easily.
“Drive for I/P peace settlement“
Driving in reverse counts as an accomplishment?
“Strong U.N. non-proliferation statement“
Yes, he made a strong U.N. non-proliferation statement, and the very next day came an announcement that the U.S. is in the process of a significant proliferation itself. Am I the only one who picked up on that?
“Bringing hope to African continent“
Hope is wonderful. What has he actually DONE?
“Building alliances worldwide“
What is exceptional about that?
I think Obama won the Peace Prize for one simple reason – he is not Bush.
.
I take it the Norwegian view is quite contrary to your own. Their measurement of change brought about by the new Obama administration has been profound. Certainly, when his actions and rhetoric are compared with his predecessor, what’s his name. You are not alone in the simple argument: “reaction to Bush era.”
However, in terms of the Nobel Peace Prize your vision is quite narrow and you don’t give Obama much credit. He is clearly doing preparatory work and hopes to reap the benefits in the near future. Don’t expect a saint, they are usually martyred and take an early flight to heaven.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“when his actions and rhetoric are compared with his predecessor“
When his rhetoric is compared to his actions, the difference is stark.
Here’s the real headline of the day:
MAN SPEAKS TRUTH IN CONGRESS
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/791245/-Grayson-EXPLODES-on-GOP:-America-doesnt-CARE-about-y
our-feelings-Man-On-Fire!
Wow! That was one great speech. Clear points with no gray area for anyone to not understand. Thanks for providing the link!
And here’s a great montage of what transpired a couple of weeks ago (speech, ‘apology’ and pundits):
Nothing left to say.
Incredible.
Good news, it is a good thing that Obama became our president, but…
Lately the drumbeat for war seems to be overwhelming our urge toward peace. I keep being reminded of watching past presidents struggle with inherited wars. Maybe it is all about hope, but if we see any more of Gen. McChrystal despair will surely rule. It is a terrible struggle.
I’m speechless – astounded. [now to reground myself must look around the blogosphere for all the posts that point out that Obama hasn’t done anything yet except kill a fly – and is that peace related? think about Gandhi in that situation. would he have killed that fly? Dr. Schweitzer?]
does this mean we progress from 11 dimensional chess to 15 dimensional chess?
For all of those scratching their heads, go look at a list of the previous recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize and why the Nobel committee awarded it.
Theodore Roosevelt – for referring the Russo-Japanese war to the Hague for arbitration
Woodrow Wilson – for proposing the League of Nations that the US never joined
Henry Kissinger/Le Duc Tho – for negotiating a ceasefire and withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam (incidentally, two years before the fall of Saigon)
Lech Welesa – for advocating for human rights (at the beginning of the Gdansk strike)
Mikhail Gorbachev – for contributions to peace (three years before the breakup of the Soviet Union)
And the International Peace Bureau, which received several prizes before World War I
Also note the larger than average number of Scandanavians receiving the prize and their accomplishments.
Obama received the prize (didn’t win it; it is not won) because (1) he changed the tone of international dialog, (2) he restarted discussions on dealing with climate change, (3) he successfully negotiated a stronger non-proliferation framework through the UN Security Council and then used that to open dialog with Russia, Iran, and North Korea on reduction of nuclear weapons. Let’s hope he fares better than the International Peace Bureau.
recently Al Gore, Wangari Maathai (Kenya, Greenbelt movement) – international environmentalism as a component of peace; Barack turned back the McCain warmonger tide and coordinates usa international role as dialog partner with sustainable energy (and usa energy independence). I’d guess that’s a part of the committee’s decision
Actually the voters did that, by rejecting the McCain-neo-con continuation of the Bush policies last fall in the voting booth. Obama said he was against them, we the voters actually were the ones who rejected the policies of the last eight years.
Give credit where it is actually due.
So if the Nobel people really wanted to hand out credit, give it to the people who voted out those policies.
true, and all the work we did for the election. maybe we should nominate ourselves for next time
Indirectly, they did.
.
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as “support and a commitment for Obama.”
“And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament,” she told The Associated Press in a rare interview. Members of the Nobel peace committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama’s efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners’. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
“He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate,” Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. “Some people say, and I understand it, isn’t it premature? Too early? Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.”
After the prize was announced, Jagland compared the decision to give it to Obama to the prize was given to German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 for his “Ostpolitik” policy of trying to find common ground with Eastern Europe, which was under Communist sway.
He said the same thing was true when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev got the prize in 1990 after he had launched perestroika and glasnost, and allowed Eastern Europe to emerge from Kremlin control.
The selection to some extent reflects a trans-Atlantic divergence on Obama. In Europe and much of the world he is lionized for bringing the United States closer to mainstream global thinking on issues like climate change and multilateralism.
≈ Cross-posted from my diary — Congrats! Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize [Updated] ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Very well put, Booman!
Wow. I thought it was an Onion article at first.
I fear the Europeans fell even harder for the hope hype than American liberals.
Maybe they want to “make him do it.”
As Qui has pointed out Obama has set expectations exceedingly high . . . all the more likely this hope will be dashed on the ugly shoals of reality.
I have to say my first reaction is similar to Chris Floyd:
I posted about it here:
http://southofheaven.typepad.com/south_of_heaven/2009/10/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize.html
It’s a sort of wishful thinking peace prize. As opposed to Kissinger’s “I hit myself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop” peace prize. By comparison it’s incrementally better; but on that basis I should have won one of those MacArthur grants for my lifetime achievements in the field of doodling. Maybe next year. Or maybe I get the peace prize. I haven’t started a bar fight in years.
Just saying.
One doesn’t undo a war machine in 9 months, especially when one has to work through the current Congress. And explain oneself to the current media.
What Europeans noticed that was not well covered in the US was what has been done to frame the issues with Iran and North Korea. And to get efforts going again to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And those accomplishments are substantial. Canceling the Bush installation of an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and the Czech Republican that was unworkable and had become a barrier to further build-down of US and Russian nuclear arsenals. Leading the heads of state on the UN Security Council to vote in a framework for further nonproliferation efforts and build-downs of nuclear weapons. And then taking that agreement to start talks with Iran and restart them with North Korea, completely undercutting the neo-con drumbeat for war with both of these. That’s pretty substantial.
On Iraq, he has reaffirmed the status of forces agreement in the face of General Odierno wanting to renege on it. And in Afghanistan, he is rethinking the entire strategy there an not giving knee-jerk approval to Gen. McChrystal’s request for more troops. In the current political climate of personal threats and determined Congressional opposition, the moves in Iraq and Afghanistan to shut down the military war-boosters are more substantial than most lefties give Obama credit for. And it’s pretty clear that what has given him the room to make some of these changes is that even the military is aware how they’ve screwed up in Iraq and Afghanistan. McChrystal knows this; he just doesn’t want to end his career looking like William Westmoreland. Ironically, his request for more troops makes him look exactly like William Westmoreland.
And in fact, the Nobel Committee has a habit of awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in order to “make him do it”. Think of the one awarded Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the ceasefire and troop withdrawal agreement that neither followed. Or think of the one awarded Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasar Arafat for the Middle East peace that never came.
And Gorbachev:
/He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.
“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,” it said.
/
This is really outrageous. Leadership in nuclear disarmament when the very day after he gave an eloquent speech about ridding the world of nuclear weapons the Pentagon announced a new project to increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal? The kindest term that comes to mind is bloody hypocrite.
I missed that announced new project to increase the US nuclear arsenal. What was it? Link?
Not disagreeing, just would like the link.
.
The Bush administration has developed a $150 billion plan to rebuild the nation’s nuclear weapons capabilities and to develop the first new nuclear warhead in over two decades. This new plan, called “Complex 2030” for the date by which the program would be completed, is a reversal of the goals of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Will Congress ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Complex 2030 doesn’t seem to be part of the Obama policy.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thanks Oui. Pretty discouraging, isn’t it?
Oui’s linked pdf states that they [the Bush administration] developed the plan [by 07] and were seeking funds for FY08- what is it’s current status? I couldn’t find any 09 mentions of it, nor what happened with the requested 08 funding.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted my reply to him, but I really did hear it on the radio the day after he made that great speech about ridding the world of nuclear weapons. It really hit me hard. I have never been an Obama fan, nor have I been an Obama hater. You could say I am an Obama skeptic, particularly in the area of foreign and military policy. It was ABC, and I think it was on the ABC news, not the news from the local affiliate I was listening to. It may be that the project has been funded and they are going ahead with it. I will check into it further and see what I can find.
I heard it on the radio – mainstream. Needless to say it hit me very strongly as I would love to believe that Obama is more than just an exceptionally eloquent and engaging politician. I will try to find it, but don’t have a lot of time today, so might need a day or two.
I love the idea of wingnut heads exploding over this.
they have indeed…and quite the spectacle it is.
the DNC has a response:
zing! is that a spine l see?
And that’s not all: Barbara Boxer was on teevee this afternoon, making precisely the same point. The dumbass talking heads were apoplectic that a Dem dared compare the Reougs to the Taliban. Comedy.
if the prez really wanted to send them over the edge, he could donate the prize money to ACORN…they’d stroke out.
Great summary, BooMan.
Thank you.
(I’ve now seen it quoted in a comment at ePluribus Media, on DailyKos and on DelphiForums.)
Richard Kim put it most succinctly in The Nation:
“It’s as if the Nobel Committee gave Obama the award for behaving like a normal American president, instead of like a clueless corrupt cowboy.“
I guess Boo’s theory is the only one that fits, but for once I have to agree with the “centrists” that the prize seems premature. It kind of diminishes the honor for it to have come so easily. As some have suggested, I think the prize committee saw it as a way of encouraging the US to keep on the path away from the last 8 (or 30) years. Maybe it will help make Obama do what I still believe he wants to do.
oh.