Open Thead: Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Open Thead: Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16486
Nonsense. He's done jack shit and is even thinking about escalating a war he's currently in.
What a now meaningless award.
I've always thought the award was a bit meaningless (or at least deeply ironic) given who Alfred Nobel was! Wasn't he just trying to relieve a bit of the guilt he felt for all the people his invention killed?
Not to mention the fact that they awarded it to Kissinger...
Edward Said, who worked for real, respectful peace in the Middle East, did not have a high regard for the NPP, because he did not see Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres & Yasser Arafat as deserving of it in the early 1990s. In fact, I think I remember that Said was awarded the NPP but turned it down, because of that, but I could be mistaken.
Said was certainly never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
She's thinking of Jean-Paul Sartre.
Henry Kissinger
had to share his Nobel with -
zoinks!- a communist!
Yeah, why would a Peace something want to recognize the end of Israeli wars with Egypt and Syria? Kissinger sure ruined a good thing there.
Kissinger had the blood of thousands in Indochina on his hands.
I'm almost certain that's not what his Nobel was for. It's not a Lifetime Achievement Award.
"...and is even thinking about escalating a war he's currently in..."
There's a difference between a "just peace" & just "peace" (as articulated by the 1st US Pres to win the NPP, Teddy Roosevelt). Living under the threat of mass destruction posed by Al Qaeda & the Taliban would be an unjust peace. Make no doubt about it there are people in this world who would kill us simply because we're not them.
Living in a world where everyone can work together to advance mutual freedom, liberty, prosperity, and safety is a Just Peace. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if we had settled for just peace, we never would've fought the Civil War.
And if you never fought the civil war then...?
You say it as if it's totally unimaginable. Then maybe a bunch of British and American people wouldn't have died, your tea would be more expensive and you would have become an independent country a bit later. Wow, that would have been unspeakably awful.
I think you're talking about what we in the US call the American Revolutionary War, and cattrack is talking about the American Civil War fought 1861-65.
mikearthur,
I think the reference was to the American Civil War, not the American Revolution.
-Jut
Even knowing that you mean the Revolutionary War, it's hilarious if you think that the schism between Britain and the colonies was caused or desired by the colonists. The leading citizens of the colonies were proud to be Englishmen and wanted their rights as such recognized. They wanted representation in the British government, not independence and Home Rule. It was the British parliament that insisted on treating the colonials as not-British.
Make no doubt about it there are people in this world who would kill us simply because we're not them.
But aren't we also killing them simply because they are not us?
well put.
Nope, otherwise we wouldn't have so many Afghans fighting alongside us. We wouldn't have the broad support of the people, and we wouldn't be attempting to improve the economic and social conditions of their country and helping them get back on their feet as a nation.
i smell an international relations student...
I presume it's because America hasn't invaded any countries THIS year.
but, seriously, what else has he done to promote peace?
Seems premature. I'm not sure he's accomplished enough. He hasn't ended either war. He hasn't closed Guantanimo. He hasn't accomplished anything in negotiations with the Muslim world.
The fact that the world likes him more than they did George W. Bush doesn't seem to me to be enough of an accomplishment -- and even then, his election is an accomplishment of the American electorate, not of President Obama.
There has to be someone out there that has more track record. Nominations closed in early February -- so President Obama was nominated after having been in office less than two weeks.
kbz
hmmm... do you think it's been awarded as a 'carrot'?
Not until he ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, closes Guantanamo Bay, and charges Cheney with war crimes.
Actually, I think what the Nobel Committee is honoring is the fact that BO has articulated a vision of multilateral diplomacy and peace through strength.
You can't very well have peace when terrorists & rogue states are plotting to acquire & detonate WMD. Nor, as GWB learned, can you have peace when you willy nilly attack countries without regard to diplomatic channels. BO talks about diplomacy & non-proliferation but he's not taking any steps to reduce our military capabilities.
I don't know why the Left has forgotten this. It was another NPP winner, Martin Luther King, who said, "A man who has nothing for which he's willing to die, has nothing for which to live." Unfortunately it sometimes takes the soldier's sacrifice for the rest of us to enjoy peace.
He hasn't done anything except, like, give a speech in Cario!
I'm worried that people will see this and use it to discredit him. i.e. "Oh those people just love him for who he is, not what he's done."
Gotta agree with all of the above. What are they trying to do, make that prize radioactive like our Presidential Medal of Freedom?
Looking at the article, the reasons the committee gave for Obama seem disproportionate to the previous two US presidents who won the award:
The committee praised Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" during his nine months in office and singled out for special recognition Obama's call for a world free of nuclear weapons, the subject of major speech April 5 in Prague.
Heralding Obama as a transformative figure in U.S. and international diplomacy, the committee said: "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."
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president -- and the first in 90 years -- to win the coveted peace prize. His predecessors won during their second White House terms, however, and after significant diplomatic achievements. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treaty of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.
I guess in Obama's case, what strikes me is the lack of specificity compared to the actions that Wilson and Roosevelt were chosen for.
I think it's interesting that, from what I can tell, non-Americans were solely responsible for this. I'm not sure what to think about that, or what it says. We've been pretty critical of Obama for not going far enough to meet his campaign promises, but I'd never thought of what people outside the US thought of how he's been doing so far.
I swear, every time I try to enclose multiple paragraphs in italics on this site, it always seems to close up after the first one. Is there something wonky that I just don't understand?
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs in my above comment are taken from the link in the OP and should be in italics.
Um, non-Americans are always responsible for awarding Nobels; it's the way it was set up in Nobel's will.
"The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."
That's what I was thought, but I didn't know enough to speak definitively.
I'm an American myself, but I've been traveling around Europe for the past couple of months and almost every person I've encountered from every country has seemed over-the-moon about Obama and when I say that I, along with many Americans, are not happy with him right now, they assumed I was just a Republican.
I've been abroad for most of the last 8 years and the difference after Obama was elected was night and day.
Stole this off another message board, but it explains how I feel about it better than I might have been able to express it: "People who think it is undeserved don't understand how terrifying the rogue, bombastic, know nothing, torturing United States looked to the rest of the world."
Please read the text of the Nobel Committee's announcement. It makes perfect sense to me.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
"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. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
"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.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
But was all that true 2 weeks after his presidency started? That's when the nominations were. And if it was, was it anything HE did, or was it the US as a whole signalling a shift in what we wanted from our leadership? Can that be attributed to him?
Furthermore, have other people been awarded the prize for non-specific, abstract feelings of peace and fuzziness? So far I've only read about the 2 other US presidential recipients that I copied/pasted in my above comment about two other recipients, and they're listed as having received the award for very tangible, specific things.
right, that is when the NOMINATIONS were. Why wouldn't they consider things he was doing after he was merely nominated.
"People who think it is undeserved don't understand how terrifying the rogue, bombastic, know nothing, torturing United States looked to the rest of the world."
Has any of this actually changed? It seems to me we're kinda on the same track as we were before. And, if Obama doesn't start living up to the rhetoric, he may not stick for a second term. The American electorate already seems to be getting disillusioned, and polling seems to back this up. President Palin, anyone?
kbz
If McCain were in office instead of Obama I think that our current position on Iran would be different and that Europe is acknowledging this.
Also, they are saying that they are awarding him for his 'vision' of a world without nuclear weapons...when we have nuclear weapons ourselves and I don't recall hearing Obama saying anything about us getting rid of them. Or does that only apply to countries we feel don't 'deserve' them?
what a crock.
He did refuse to authorize new nukes, over the objections of some staffers, and he's negotiating a new START treaty with Russia to reduce current stockpiles. He has also said he would like to eventually see a nuke-free world.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/05/czech.republic.obama/index.html
A completely ignorant person who isn't even paying attention hasn't heard anything about Obama's nuclear reduction efforts? Shocking. Impeach Obama! Where's the birth certificate? Teleprompteralism!
Stop acting like your ignorance is someone else's fault.
A "World Free of Nuclear Weapons" is kind of a term of art in nuclear politics, and it is actually pretty meaningful, IMO. By saying that he wants a "World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Obama was telling the world that the position of the United States is that nuclear weapons are illegitimate and that they should ultimately be abolished. This is a significant change from the Bush administration, which not only considered our nuclear arsenal legitimate, but also considered a nuclear first strike by the United States legitimate. Bush had the rest of the world scared that we would actually start a nuclear war. Obama hasn't yet made any drastic changes in the structure of our arsenal or our declaratory policy, but START negotiations with the Russians are progressing well, and suddenly disarmament is back in the conversation. With Bush, it was all about deterrence and US dominance; with Obama, it's about protecting ourselves and our allies but engaging with others in the interests of collective security and reducing the overall risk of nuclear war. You'll see more of this coming out later in the year, as the debate over the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) heats up and the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) (where the administration will articulate Obama's nuclear doctrine). Maybe he doesn't deserve it yet, maybe they should wait until after US CTBT ratification finally happens or fails again and after the NPR makes the tenets of Obama's speeches the official policy of the US, but in nuclear policy sometimes words make a big difference, and a commitment to *eliminating* nuclear weapons as opposed to just *reducing* them seems to be substantially more progressive.
Re-reading that, I feel the need to clarify: when I said "a commitment to *eliminating* nuclear weapons as opposed to just *reducing* them seems to be substantially more progressive." I mean that specifically in the context of whether or not the US considers total disarm (ie, the complete elimination of nuclear weapons) the ultimate goal of disarmament, not that Obama's actually going to get rid of the nuclear arsenal. Also, my original sentence seems upon re-reading it to imply Bush was down with reducing our nuclear arsenal, which is not the case. In fact, he increased the role of US nuclear weapons and supported the development of new weapons technologies. We didn't just go from moderate to progressive, we went from reactionary to progressive.
Sadly, it makes it sound like "not being George W. Bush" is the bar set for the Nobel Peace Prize. If this is the case, can I get one of those prizes too? They REALLY should have waited. They gave it to him on a basis of HOPE for peace and how much the world loves him (at least that's what NPR was going on about this morning and again it kinda smacks of "he's just not George W. Bush") but I think if they had just waited they could have given it to him on actual ACTION for peace, not just HOPE. At least, I'm really hoping he's gonna start doing some action soon... *crosses fingers*
This is correct in all regards.
They should have given it to Greg Morgenstern, the guy who builds schools in Pakistan and Afganistan. You know, the guy featured in the book Three Cups of Tea?
I met him.. What he does is awesome and deserving of a Noble Prize, but damn if I've ever met someone more into themselves...
Oh, I don't doubt you on that....his wife must be a saint!
I got that feeling from Three Cups but didn't know whether to blame Greg or the writer. Thanks for settling that.
I'm still scratching my head over this irony:
CNN radio news this morning (paraphrased):
President Obama gets a surprise this morning after learning he wins a Nobel Peace Prize.
Later today, President Obama will be meeting with more advisors on the WAR in Afghanistan.
Peace Prize, War. I'm confused.
Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.
More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.
I'm one of those people living outside the U.S. (or as somebody above said, "the rest of the world") and although I agree with the skepticism, I think it's important not to forget that the Nobel Peace Prize is very much symbolic.
Take this comment by one of the Nobel committee's speakers: "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do."
In my opinion, the last sentence is key.
The Nobel Peace Prize isn't dependent on having brought about peace. How could it be? People have been awarded the price for campaigning for human rights and against climate change (and that's obviously important especially if the goal remains unachieved); for founding microcredit banks; for signing peace treaties that didn't bring peace.
I'm sure that, every year, there are deserving nominees that don't win. And I'm sure there are reasons to be skeptical about Barack Obama being awarded the prize. But I don't think the main criticism can be "but he hasn't ended a war".
Good for him, like his speech I see it as a call to action and push for ideals.
Surely there are more deserving people who aren't in the spotlight like Obama...
I think it also depends on what people define as what would be an effort towards peace. Many people are saying "We're still in two wars" which is true but not the whole story.
We are currently pulling out of Iraq and a quicker than projected pace and willl most likely have all soliders out in a year. We have stopped the missle defense base which has done wonders to rebuild relations with Russia and lead the way to the START program. Our relations with China have improved which has led to them also putting pressure on North Korea to return to the table about talks and they are considering it. We have Iran agreeing to allow inspectors in, even though it's considered a symoblic gesture. We also have him encouraging Isreal to talk with Palestine in a way that hasn't happened before as well as offering money to Pakistan to help quell terrorism. There has been minimal movement on Guatanomo but more than under Bush and his level of engagement with the Muslim world is strong for an American President.
I don't think it's fair to say he's done nothing. He just hasn't done what most people want/expect in America, but this isn't based on America's views.
And if you never fought the civil war then...?
You say it as if it's totally unimaginable. Then maybe a bunch of British and American people wouldn't have died, your tea would be more expensive and you would have become an independent country a bit later. Wow, that would have been unspeakably awful.
This was meant to be a reply higher up.
I guess it was also meant to be completely ignorant of history.
As for the Revolutionary War, it founded the United States as a completely separate entity and was one of the first true anti-colonialist rebellions, along with Haiti. All independence doesn't come about equally.
Dude, the Civil War != the war for Independence from Britain. You know, Lincoln? Slavery? North and South? Union and Confederacy?
I'm pretty sure, in British history, the Revolutionary War IS called the Civil War (the British were fighting against their own colony). But I could be wrong?
Yes, I'm British and apologies for the cock-up! Whoopsie...
No. First of all, Britain fought wars with many rebelling colonies (South Africa, the North American Colonies, Ireland, Scotland, etc.) Second, the British Civil War was the 17th century conflict between Cromwell's Parliamentarians and Charles' monarchists, and continued by their successors.
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/
I believe this thought has been stated on this thread but it bears repeating given all the negativity surrounding this pick.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded to somebody who has accomplished peace, but to those who are actively working on the creation of peace.
Al Gore was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. The factors that contribute to global warming have only increased. He didn't solve the global warming problem.
Martin Luther King, Jr. won the award for his effort in ending racial discrimination. Racial discrimination continues.
And the examples can go on. Recipients tend to receive the prize after demonstrating the desire to work for peace. The award is more a positive reinforcement. Good job, keep up the work, and do greater things.
Unlike the other Nobel prizes, which seem to focus on particular achievements, the peace prize has always been a bit more abstract, since, well, peace is a goal that one should always strive for but is rarely achieved in any single lifetime.
Honestly, I think the awarding the prize to Obama was a brilliant move. The Nobel committee has set the bar incredibly high, and Obama will have to work incredibly hard to carry its burden. And I really think at this moment Obama probably feels more overwhelmed than other joyed by this.
Dear Nobel Committee:
Thanks a lot for dragging your fucking feet on this announcement.
Yours,
Chicago 2016 Olympic Committee
LOL!!! Love this!!!
Let's remember that Obama didn't nominate himself for this award. Even if you think it is undeserved, it doesn't reflect badly on him that he was awarded it.
yeah, many of these comments are really mean and discount a lot of his promise and the hope he gives to so many. plus, like drfantastic said, he did not ask for it. why can't we all be happy for him? it would be such an encouraging award to receive--like keep on keepin' on!
i think Naomi Klein says it perfectly (no surprise there):
"it’s very significant and disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize. And, you know, it’s been cheapened before, and it will cheapen again—be cheapened again, but... they’re giving this prize in the hopes that it will change Obama’s mind or encourage him to do things he hasn’t done—this is a candidate that ran a campaign that was much more based on hope and wishful thinking than it was on concrete policy."
full interviews with Klein & Tariq Ali here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/9/as_us_continues_afghan_iraq_occupations
I'm holding both of these thoughts in my mind. I do think it would have been better for him had this award come in a few years. It's premature adulation but also a message to the US about how relieved the world is to have a global citizen as the leader of the free world. Here's my take:
http://www.gloriafeldt.com/heartfeldt-politics-blog/2009/10/9/obamas-nobel-premature-adulation.html
It has very little to do with Obama (who at this point has potential but few accomplishments) and everything to do with Bush.
I think it was premature. I am not a big Obama fan at all but think he will do things to deserve this award for the reasons stated. However, seeing as how I feel (hopefully) that the best in regards to diplomacy is yet to come from him, I think giving him this award now insuniates that the highlight of his presidential career has already happened just from him being president. I really think they should have waited until he had actually delivered on more, not that change in diplomacy isn't a big deal, but honestly, I should hope that with all the people doing amazing things that "talk first, talk openly" isn't in and of itself basis for a Nobel Peace Prize. Though, given the past 8 yrs and the U.S.'s role in foreign policy I can get the reasoning. Still, I think given it this early is kinda cheaping and makes it look like a petty attack on the Bush administration which takes away from Obama's accomplishment. I think it's problematic a lot of people and sources are alreasy talking about how it was a snub at Bush instead of focusing solely on Obama, and it detracts from the reality that Obama probably will do things to deserve this with regards to the reasons the committee listed as giving it to him.
This is his response and I think it kicks ass. Damn if the man can't respond to damn near everyhting perfectly.
"This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.
This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.
So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama"
What has he actually done? Really, what? Made some neat speeches? Wow!
Now what has Morgan Tsvangirai done? Oh, just risked his fucking life and stuff for freedom. No biggie.
The whole prize is a just a joke. Am I the only European liberal who isn't in love with Obama?
and what has morgan done himself? taken money from the west to ferment an opposition with no popular support in zim? plz!
John McCain:
"I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I'm sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we're proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."
Mike Steele:
"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o
Rachel Maddow sums up how I feel.
I definitely feel that the winning of the Nobel for Obama was pretty premature. I'm not going to lie on that one. He is a very inspiring man and I see what he's attempting to do with foreign policy and whatnot, but he hasn't even been in office long enough to do stuff. It's stated that Obama was selected to receive the prize because of his "vision" and inspiring "hope" at the beginning of his Presidency (CNN). I just don't think that's enough of a reason for him to win this, as inspiring as he may be.
Yeah! Silly Nobel Peace Prize Committee clearly doesn't know the criteria for selecting a NPP Laureate.