Monday, October 12, 2009
The announcement of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama Friday caused a three-day stir. It is now Monday, and things seem to have died down, aside from a few commentators stirring the embers, either restating what has been said or commenting on comments, usually to call the original writer an idiot.
Rewind to Friday evening, and after a full day of reading and discussing around the office, here was my take:
First, an American should always be proud when an American is awarded a Nobel prize. Folks can claim there were more worthy nominees on the Nobel committee's list, but reality is that any American president is far and away in a better position to impact the world based on goals advanced by the Nobel prize.
President Obama in his first year has made numerous comments and changes in attitude that square with the ideas of compromise and working out the interests of the U.S. with other countries. Among these is openness to international agreements to address global warming, which is always of interest to Europeans. Obama also made a ground-breaking commitment to world-wide nuclear disarmament. Even if that is only lip service at this juncture, it is a proposal that is surely of interest to civilized, non-militarized countries around the world, among which one might count Norway, the awarders of the Peace Prize.
However, I do have issues with awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama this year. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, some of the other nominees have actual accomplishments.
Sometimes, these are a one off, like Sarkozy's mediating the land/seaport dispute between Russia and Georgia to prevent what could have become a hot war and required Europe and the U.S. to try to isolate Russia. Sarkozy's involvement probably avoided a difficult East-West split that could have resulted in a lost decade in relations. You might recall this was a blip of an issue during the U.S. election; both Obama and McCain had muddled positions that tried to split the baby.
Sometimes, these are a lifetime of work toward the sorts of ideals the Nobel Peace Prize represents, as for Greg Mortenson or Sima Samar.
Obama is probably a better candidate for a Peace Prize than Sarkozy in the long run, although there is a possibility Sarkozy will trump Obama in the handling of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Sarkozy, however, is French in the best tradition of French presidents, who universally embody both the principles of President Theodore Roosevelt to speak softly and carry a big stick, and the principles of Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of the UK, that nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.
Also, Sarkozy held the EU presidency from July to December of 2008, and giving the award to Sarkozy this year might seem parochial.
The award to Obama this year in preference to Mortenson or Samar recognizes the difference in impact of the U.S. Presidency. This does not denigrate their individual efforts, which are the sort that are sometimes recognized by the Nobel Peace Prize, and may yet be recognized by an award.
On the question of how Obama should handle the award, there is no question in my mind that he should accept it gracefully. He did not seek the honor, and he could hardly have sought to avoid the honor either. To withdraw his name from consideration after he was nominated by an unnamed source in February would be to imply he believed he might win, which I sincerely doubt. To reject the prize would be an affront to the committee and would probably result in blacklisting from future consideration, no matter how well deserved.
I do believe it is correct to criticize the Nobel Peace Prize committee, however. They have clearly jumped the gun in awarding the prize this year to President Obama. If they believe his words are sincere, they should have had the patience to wait for the actions, or even the results, and recognize those. Speeches about international cooperation or nuclear disarmament are hardly unique to President Obama. To give the award to Obama in preference to other international leaders of similar bent is to give Obama the place of first among equals. Perhaps as an American I should be grateful that Norway still recognizes that decisions made in America have more impact world wide than those made in France, but I think some truths are best left unspoken.
By jumping the gun, the prize committee cheapens what could have been a more meaningful award to Obama later. I understand it is now customary to give all participants in child sports awards; however, these awards, no matter how trivialized, are awarded at the conclusion of the sports season. Giving Obama the award at this juncture is akin to giving out awards to children when they sign up.
I suspect the committee members' motivations. I don't believe for a minute that this is a slap at Bush. It may simply be a thank you to the leader of a powerful nation for changing direction, which itself would be an abuse of the prize, but I can see three possible reasons why they felt the urge to jump the gun.
First, Obama is a huge star, and to have his name associated with the Nobel Peace Prize guarantees more coverage and makes it seem more important. Ironically, this theory would imply that the Norwegian committee members have taken a different measure of the stature of the prize and of President Obama than I do.
Second, it is possible that by awarding the prize to Obama, the committee hopes to attract a richer and more powerful crowd to the award ceremony. This too raises the stature of the prize, as well as providing the committee members the opportunity to hobnob with some very important international and European dignataries, which may turn out to be good for their individual future prospects.
Third, they may hope to improve their own esteem by recognizing a likely future candidate before his accomplishments. This would make them appear to be perspicacious, and would also make the award appear to be influential in driving the awardee along the path of peace.
Contrary to some bloggers, Obama has not yet compromised U.S. interests for international stature, unless you believe his "apology tours" lessen American stature to an extent that actually affects our ability to pursue our interests. I don't believe that.
I also don't believe that being awarded this prize will influence him one iota to try to be worthy of it. He will be spending the next three years trying to be worthy of the American voters, specifically, the ones that will show up in 2012.
One concern I have about the award, is that while I don't believe Obama is weak enough to allow it to influence him, I do believe other world leaders are petty enough that this unearned award will get under their skins. Imagine being Sarkozy, who by some accounts has already taken the measure of Obama and found him wanting. To see Obama peremptorily awarded the Nobel Peace Prize honor, after Sarkozy has been on the national stage for five years with no personal recognition I believe will grate on him and may cause him to throw a monkey wrench in U.S. negotiations (not that, being French, he wouldn't be doing that for spite anyway).
I also must mention, my third thought upon hearing Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, after "For what?", and "Three in one decade! America is officially the most peaceful nation on Earth!", was "I wonder what Bill Clinton is feeling right now." Some folks have asserted he spent eight years in office with his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, pushing initiatives in Ireland and Israel/Palestine, and spending at least one year after his presidency allegedly involved in a whisper campaign to get the award. For all that, he has nothing to show, and probably no future prospects.
Ironically, his wife may be in the running in future years, for her own work and in recognition of the Obama administration's direction. On the day she wins, he may die.
Rewind to Friday evening, and after a full day of reading and discussing around the office, here was my take:
First, an American should always be proud when an American is awarded a Nobel prize. Folks can claim there were more worthy nominees on the Nobel committee's list, but reality is that any American president is far and away in a better position to impact the world based on goals advanced by the Nobel prize.
President Obama in his first year has made numerous comments and changes in attitude that square with the ideas of compromise and working out the interests of the U.S. with other countries. Among these is openness to international agreements to address global warming, which is always of interest to Europeans. Obama also made a ground-breaking commitment to world-wide nuclear disarmament. Even if that is only lip service at this juncture, it is a proposal that is surely of interest to civilized, non-militarized countries around the world, among which one might count Norway, the awarders of the Peace Prize.
However, I do have issues with awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama this year. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, some of the other nominees have actual accomplishments.
Sometimes, these are a one off, like Sarkozy's mediating the land/seaport dispute between Russia and Georgia to prevent what could have become a hot war and required Europe and the U.S. to try to isolate Russia. Sarkozy's involvement probably avoided a difficult East-West split that could have resulted in a lost decade in relations. You might recall this was a blip of an issue during the U.S. election; both Obama and McCain had muddled positions that tried to split the baby.
Sometimes, these are a lifetime of work toward the sorts of ideals the Nobel Peace Prize represents, as for Greg Mortenson or Sima Samar.
Obama is probably a better candidate for a Peace Prize than Sarkozy in the long run, although there is a possibility Sarkozy will trump Obama in the handling of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Sarkozy, however, is French in the best tradition of French presidents, who universally embody both the principles of President Theodore Roosevelt to speak softly and carry a big stick, and the principles of Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of the UK, that nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.
Also, Sarkozy held the EU presidency from July to December of 2008, and giving the award to Sarkozy this year might seem parochial.
The award to Obama this year in preference to Mortenson or Samar recognizes the difference in impact of the U.S. Presidency. This does not denigrate their individual efforts, which are the sort that are sometimes recognized by the Nobel Peace Prize, and may yet be recognized by an award.
On the question of how Obama should handle the award, there is no question in my mind that he should accept it gracefully. He did not seek the honor, and he could hardly have sought to avoid the honor either. To withdraw his name from consideration after he was nominated by an unnamed source in February would be to imply he believed he might win, which I sincerely doubt. To reject the prize would be an affront to the committee and would probably result in blacklisting from future consideration, no matter how well deserved.
I do believe it is correct to criticize the Nobel Peace Prize committee, however. They have clearly jumped the gun in awarding the prize this year to President Obama. If they believe his words are sincere, they should have had the patience to wait for the actions, or even the results, and recognize those. Speeches about international cooperation or nuclear disarmament are hardly unique to President Obama. To give the award to Obama in preference to other international leaders of similar bent is to give Obama the place of first among equals. Perhaps as an American I should be grateful that Norway still recognizes that decisions made in America have more impact world wide than those made in France, but I think some truths are best left unspoken.
By jumping the gun, the prize committee cheapens what could have been a more meaningful award to Obama later. I understand it is now customary to give all participants in child sports awards; however, these awards, no matter how trivialized, are awarded at the conclusion of the sports season. Giving Obama the award at this juncture is akin to giving out awards to children when they sign up.
I suspect the committee members' motivations. I don't believe for a minute that this is a slap at Bush. It may simply be a thank you to the leader of a powerful nation for changing direction, which itself would be an abuse of the prize, but I can see three possible reasons why they felt the urge to jump the gun.
First, Obama is a huge star, and to have his name associated with the Nobel Peace Prize guarantees more coverage and makes it seem more important. Ironically, this theory would imply that the Norwegian committee members have taken a different measure of the stature of the prize and of President Obama than I do.
Second, it is possible that by awarding the prize to Obama, the committee hopes to attract a richer and more powerful crowd to the award ceremony. This too raises the stature of the prize, as well as providing the committee members the opportunity to hobnob with some very important international and European dignataries, which may turn out to be good for their individual future prospects.
Third, they may hope to improve their own esteem by recognizing a likely future candidate before his accomplishments. This would make them appear to be perspicacious, and would also make the award appear to be influential in driving the awardee along the path of peace.
Contrary to some bloggers, Obama has not yet compromised U.S. interests for international stature, unless you believe his "apology tours" lessen American stature to an extent that actually affects our ability to pursue our interests. I don't believe that.
I also don't believe that being awarded this prize will influence him one iota to try to be worthy of it. He will be spending the next three years trying to be worthy of the American voters, specifically, the ones that will show up in 2012.
One concern I have about the award, is that while I don't believe Obama is weak enough to allow it to influence him, I do believe other world leaders are petty enough that this unearned award will get under their skins. Imagine being Sarkozy, who by some accounts has already taken the measure of Obama and found him wanting. To see Obama peremptorily awarded the Nobel Peace Prize honor, after Sarkozy has been on the national stage for five years with no personal recognition I believe will grate on him and may cause him to throw a monkey wrench in U.S. negotiations (not that, being French, he wouldn't be doing that for spite anyway).
I also must mention, my third thought upon hearing Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, after "For what?", and "Three in one decade! America is officially the most peaceful nation on Earth!", was "I wonder what Bill Clinton is feeling right now." Some folks have asserted he spent eight years in office with his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, pushing initiatives in Ireland and Israel/Palestine, and spending at least one year after his presidency allegedly involved in a whisper campaign to get the award. For all that, he has nothing to show, and probably no future prospects.
Ironically, his wife may be in the running in future years, for her own work and in recognition of the Obama administration's direction. On the day she wins, he may die.
