That said, I must object. I'm not at all clear as to how many different types of Nobel Prizes there are and if there was one for leadership I would probably be in full agreement with the committee for handing one to Obama for that. However I am unable to square away the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama.
Maybe it's my memory of another Peace Prize winner: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a man, who though I disagreed with his stand on non-violence, I had to respect for being true to his pacifist roots in the face of what had to have been serious pressure by others for him to drop that kind of language and action. A man who gets stabbed, beat, jailed, spit upon and simply kept it moving is deserving of a Peace Prize. In my mind I have felt that Dr. King represents the GOLD STANDARD of what a Peace Prize ought to represent. And I'm sorry, Obama does not live up to that standard.
I think in some cases this has to do with the total low standard by which American politics and general leadership has fallen. By the precedent of Bush, Obama is a demi-god. Seriously. But if we are to keep it real, there is no way, in a country that should have had high standards for leadership, that George Bush should have even gotten past the New Hampshire primary, much less a re-election to the highest office of the land. If anything Obama ought not be seen as special or anything, his primary attributes as cited by the Nobel committee ought to have been standard operating procedure for any candidate for high office. Forget that; ANY office.
This is why I'm largely disgusted with US politics and so called leadership. I'll give another example: Mike Bloomberg the current Mayor of NYC made much ado about honoring the term limits passed by referendum by New Yorkers. Then when his time was up, he went and had term limits overturned. A clear back track on a promise a clear ego move (only he's qualified to run the city) and New Yorkers apparently have no problem with this (in general). Low expectations and little follow through. but I digress. Let me get to the point of why I disagree with the Nobel Committee.
I don't think any Peace Prize nominee much less winner ought to be authorizing drones to do extra-judicial killings of so called terrorists who are fighting an occupying power of their country. I have a problem with that. This is in the same category as Dr. King jr., Desmond Tutu, Mandela? Really?
I don't think any Peace Prize nominee much less a winner ought to be authorizing deadly force against Somali pirates whom have never killed anyone in their custody. I have a problem with that. Oh it may have been inconvenient. Oh it may have involved negotiations. But killing over property? Really? Peace Prize material?
I find the Nobel Prize committee's reasoning regarding Obama's supposed wish to "eliminate nuclear arms" to be total bullshit. Total. I'm going to go into this on a different post, but the hypocracy of the US telling Iran or Korea for that matter what they can and cannot produce, while publicly talking about the military options that are on the table, is simply not worthy of a Peace Prize held by Dr. King Jr. Seriously. Can you imagine the Dalai-lama actually discussing how to bomb the Chinese for occupying Tibet?
Obama's name was submitted a mere 10 days into his presidency. Before that he was a one term (not even done) Senator. I'm sorry folks but that nomination was based on the historic election of Americas first African-American president. That was a popularity contest and not a real what are you doing and what have you done vote. I know, much of the world, and the US is still riding Obama's penis but seriously folks enough with the celebrity endorsements. I say this because there is one person, well two whom I can list of the top of my head who have done more for world peace and ending wars than Obama. Cindy Sheehan and Cynthia McKinney. I'm going to focus on McKinney here.
Here's someone who braved the Israeli illegal blockade to deliver much needed materials to Palestinians. Here is someone who while in office, worked to expose the underbelly of the Bush regime while people left right and center called her crazy. She has been world wide speaking on peace, environmental issues. etc. Just because the press has been ignoring her work is no excuse for the Nobel committee to overlook them. And I would also fault those who simply decided that she wasn't worthy of nomination.
On the international scene I could mention Hugo Chavez. Seriously. Did he not get in front of the world and speak dead on truth regarding Bush? Did he not attempt to change the world dialog? Has he not taken the oil wealth of his country and provided services to the poor and neglected there? And our tax dollars went where? to whom? What about Chavez' outreach to his neighbors to bring unity among South American states? Is that not worthy of a Peace Prize? Or is the Peace Prize only to go to those of a particular political leaning? or only to those with causes popular with certain European sensibilities and objectives?
Obama's presidency is young. There are a lot of things that will happen in the next 3 years and while I'm sure that a part of the reasoning for awarding the prize is to encourage more "peaceful" actions, I believe that the committee erred and ought to have waited a few years when Obama's full plans bear fruit and there's a good amount of history to back up the nomination and the future work assumed to be in the offering.
Apparently Obama agrees:
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.
