~ Aasa
The American president Barack Obama
receives the Nobel peace price of 2009.
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
~George W. Bush (From a speech at the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development in Wash. DC, 6/18/02.)
"The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace"
~ Barack Obama (10/11/09)
"The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace"
~ Barack Obama (10/11/09)
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
~ Albert Einstein
According to Nobel's will, the Peace 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."
The Nobel committees choice for this years peace price is again making a ridicule of the symbolism of the price itself, when president Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners. Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Ob
ama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war’s use and prevention. In his speeches, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that “I face the world as it is” and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history,” he claims. And continues; “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.”
The speeches held by Obama concerning the war in Afghanistan is strangely alike those held of Bush to justify the war in Iraq. Back then the general crowd was cheering and agreeing the logic of war being necessary for the means of peace. We see the exact same thing happening now - Obama was in mostly welcomed and celebrated in the streets of Oslo. It took most people several years with casualties and damages before turning and going against Bush and the war in Iraq. Do we really need to go through all that one more time to open up our eyes? An other interesting thing about Obamas Nobel peace price speech is that it is not about peace, but it is more or less a defense speech for the war he is leading now. By sending another 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan – on top of the 21,000 he dispatched last spring – this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will have tripled the American military presence there by the time the last of the reinforcements arrive in mid-2010.
While he has made some strides for international diplomacy, Obama was given the prize only a few weeks after his election. In awarding the prize to Obama, the Nobel panel cited his call for a world free of nuclear weapons, for a more engaged U.S. role in combating global warming, for his support of the United Nations and multilateral diplomacy, and for broadly capturing the attention of the world and giving its people “hope.” But the Nobel committee made its announcement in October when he wasn’t even nine months on the job, recognizing his aspirations more than some of the achievements he has done alter on.
So, maybe Barack Obama has a few achievements to show for so far, but if the price was presented to him after these deeds as well, would they be enough to overshadow two other important factors. One - the fact that Obama is in all his speeches justifying and now also escanning the war in Afghanistan with sending 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle.
And two - if we consider how many people who are working hard and has done so much for peace, it is an offense to give it to Barack Obama at this point. Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest symbol of peace and non-violence in the 20-th century, was carefully kept away from the Nobel Peace Prize till he died, despite decades of selfless hard work. In view of the length of time, the degree of suffering and the sheer bravery of the previous winners of this award, this is a terrible mistake. There are thousands of more worthy candidates out there, actually doing stuff, putting their life and well-being on the line. And they are also so much more needing of the attention the Nobels peace prize can give them to continue and uphold the efforts they are doing for peace. Obama is in no need of such attention, and it is very unlikely it will change his politics in any direction. The trouble is they're not a famous president.
What Obama gave to the world when he entered into office was hope. Hope for change in a world filled with war and injustice. He gave hope through words and speeches. To give promises of hope is all good and can give inspiration to many. But it does not qualify for a peace making politician. It is important to see the difference between words and action. Especially if the actions show themselves to be the opposite of some of these words. And so far, Obamas actions are not deserving of what this price symbolizes. So far it rather screams loud of clever propaganda.
According to Nobel's will, the Peace 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."
The Nobel committees choice for this years peace price is again making a ridicule of the symbolism of the price itself, when president Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners. Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Ob
ama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war’s use and prevention. In his speeches, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that “I face the world as it is” and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history,” he claims. And continues; “The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.”The speeches held by Obama concerning the war in Afghanistan is strangely alike those held of Bush to justify the war in Iraq. Back then the general crowd was cheering and agreeing the logic of war being necessary for the means of peace. We see the exact same thing happening now - Obama was in mostly welcomed and celebrated in the streets of Oslo. It took most people several years with casualties and damages before turning and going against Bush and the war in Iraq. Do we really need to go through all that one more time to open up our eyes? An other interesting thing about Obamas Nobel peace price speech is that it is not about peace, but it is more or less a defense speech for the war he is leading now. By sending another 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan – on top of the 21,000 he dispatched last spring – this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will have tripled the American military presence there by the time the last of the reinforcements arrive in mid-2010.
While he has made some strides for international diplomacy, Obama was given the prize only a few weeks after his election. In awarding the prize to Obama, the Nobel panel cited his call for a world free of nuclear weapons, for a more engaged U.S. role in combating global warming, for his support of the United Nations and multilateral diplomacy, and for broadly capturing the attention of the world and giving its people “hope.” But the Nobel committee made its announcement in October when he wasn’t even nine months on the job, recognizing his aspirations more than some of the achievements he has done alter on.
So, maybe Barack Obama has a few achievements to show for so far, but if the price was presented to him after these deeds as well, would they be enough to overshadow two other important factors. One - the fact that Obama is in all his speeches justifying and now also escanning the war in Afghanistan with sending 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle.
And two - if we consider how many people who are working hard and has done so much for peace, it is an offense to give it to Barack Obama at this point. Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest symbol of peace and non-violence in the 20-th century, was carefully kept away from the Nobel Peace Prize till he died, despite decades of selfless hard work. In view of the length of time, the degree of suffering and the sheer bravery of the previous winners of this award, this is a terrible mistake. There are thousands of more worthy candidates out there, actually doing stuff, putting their life and well-being on the line. And they are also so much more needing of the attention the Nobels peace prize can give them to continue and uphold the efforts they are doing for peace. Obama is in no need of such attention, and it is very unlikely it will change his politics in any direction. The trouble is they're not a famous president.
What Obama gave to the world when he entered into office was hope. Hope for change in a world filled with war and injustice. He gave hope through words and speeches. To give promises of hope is all good and can give inspiration to many. But it does not qualify for a peace making politician. It is important to see the difference between words and action. Especially if the actions show themselves to be the opposite of some of these words. And so far, Obamas actions are not deserving of what this price symbolizes. So far it rather screams loud of clever propaganda.
So, one can then wonder what the foundation of a Nobel peace price now is grounded upon. Has the true symbolism of the Nobel Peace Prize lost it´s value?
Prior leaders that has been given the Nobel peace price:
Mother Teresa (1979)
14th Dalai Lama (1989)
Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)
Nelson Mandela (1993)
Prior leaders that has been given the Nobel peace price:
Mother Teresa (1979)
14th Dalai Lama (1989)
Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)
Nelson Mandela (1993)
This really shows, more than anything, that the Nobel committee is reaching out to America to try to coax it into restraint. It's a dangerous game when one entity holds so much power that has such an enormous impact on so many. I fear the Noble committee may be deluded by idealism if they think giving Obama a Noble prize will change this, but I hope I'm wrong about that.
ReplyDeleteYes, they do. They have, the last years, used the prize in this way. I find it to be sad. It for one, shows that they are going away from what Nobel actually aimed for the price to be and the guidelines he wrote about it. To use it as a tactic means, I think, shows the nativity of the Norwegians, thinking we have the power to influence in this way. And the sad thing is, that used in its original way, the peace price has a much greater effect on the world than in this poorly manipulative attempt.
ReplyDelete