Friday, October 09, 2009

Obama Wins the Nobel Prize for (Wishful Thinking and Good Intentions in the Cause of) Peace

Seriously? The decision by the Nobel Prize committee to award Barack Obama with the 2009 Peace Prize is perhaps the most absurd decision by a committee that has long reveled in absurdity. Obama has, since coming to the office in January, accomplished exactly nothing in his foreign policy. His "negotiate first" approach to dealings with Russia, Iran, and North Korea have not borne fruit; he has, to appease his domestic constituencies, initiated a trade war over an idiotic tire issue; he has continued the withdrawal from Iraq started by President Bush; he has done nothing to deal with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan; he's made absolutely no progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israel problem.

But wait, you say...it's too early to judge these outcomes. His decision to terminate the ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic may yet work out, especially if it gets Russia to bear down on Iran; he's still deciding what to do in Afghanistan and it will surely be several years before we know the outcome there; the trade war with China won't develop as China realizes that domestic protection is just part of normal politics. But that's exactly the point. It's far too early to determine that Obama deserves a peace prize. And everyone knows it.

It's even possible the Nobel will complicate Obama's efforts. Obama is not the president or leader of the world; he is the president of the United States and acts in the interests of the US, not the world. Sometimes those interests are aligned, but sometimes they aren't. But now his policies have the imprimatur of the international community: What's good for the US is good for the world. How will that affect negotiations with Iran or North Korea or Russia or the Palestinians?

So, if Obama hasn't actually done anything to deserve it, then he must have been given the award on one of two (or possibly both) criteria: What he plans/hopes to accomplish in his presidency or that Nobel committee likes him and is especially glad that he's not George Bush. Officially, the award was given for Obama's work to create a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament.

But look at the recent list of winners. 2001: The UN and Kofi Annan. 2002: Jimmy Carter. 2005: The International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei. 2007: Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A laundry list of hopers, wishers, and dreamers who have actually accomplished little.

The problem with the committee awarding the prize to those striving towards peace, rather than those who's work has actually accomplished anything is the overt politicization that has emerged with the prize. Yes, the committee has given the prize to many truly deserving people: Martti Ahtisaari, Wangari Muta Maathai, and Muhammad Yunus among the recent winners. And these are exactly the kind of people who should be winning the award. Activists, not politicians.

Additionally, who knows what will happen? Maybe Obama will be forced to attack Iran, or allow Israel to do it. Maybe at some point in his administration, as most US presidents do at some point in their administrations, Obama will decide to use force to advance US interests at the expense of international opinion. Awarding the prize on intentions and wishes is exceedingly dangerous given the volatile and complicated nature of running the most powerful country in the world.

Could the committee not have found someone more deserving? Like Morgan Tsvangirai (OK, he's a politician, but he is literally struggling day and night to transform Zimbabwe and end the reign of one of the world's worst dictators), like someone in Iran leading the protests against the regime, like someone in Iraq working to reconcile Sunnis and Shia, like someone in Afghanistan risking reprisals from the Taliban to educate Afghani girls? Like a Chinese human rights activist?

Obama's best move would be to turn down the prize, and ask the committee to reconsider him once he's succeeded in his policy initiatives. But that's not going to happen.

This is an embarrassment that taints the prize beyond repair.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great knee-jerk reaction, Professor. Could your language be more sophomoric: "absurd" and "absurdity", "idiotic tire issue", "laundry list of hopers, wishers, and dreamers" and such? If you cannot surpass Fox News, why bother?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33249779

Realtor Toronto said...

I also belong to those who don't consider Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize as a deserved evaluation. And maybe it just symbolises the hope and expectations put into him, but as you correctly said, once he is the U.S. president, he should pursue goals of his country. And now there is a pressure put on him towards solving world's issues such as disarmament, improving international relations and solving global warming problems. He is not impartial, he has some aims he would like to reach for his country and as he hasn't accomplished any of them yet it cannot be decided whether he is worthwhile obtaining this prize or not. Julie

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Professor Weinberger, for saying it like it is... President Obama's award is little more than a slap againt George Bush... Even the NYT, hardly the bastion of conservativism of which "Anonymous" is accusing you, decreed that the award is little more than the NPFNBGWB (Nobel Prize For Not Being GWB)

Anonymous said...

板橋法拍屋 大台北法拍屋 原裝進口燈飾 流行燈飾 水晶燈 進口燈飾 吊燈 led燈 燈飾 燈具 照明 磁鐵 消毒 抽水肥 抽化糞池 化糞池 通馬桶 馬桶不通 通水管 水管不通 水管不通 化糞池清理 洗水塔 加盟創業 創業 加盟 早餐店加盟 創業加盟 pe膜 冬令營 冬令營 冬令營</a