The Nobles & Ignobles Prize
In awarding the Peace Price, the Nobel Committee has gotten it blatantly wrong in the past. Sometimes it failed by omission. Many times it failed to research the complete body of work of the person being honored. Sometimes hope triumphed. And in some small instances, the Prize actually went to all too deserving individuals.
The award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 to Barack Obama on Friday represented perhaps a combination of all these past failures. To understand this, one has to re-examine the body of work of President Obama so far, but also the history of the Prize itself and its past winners through the lens of peace and peace-making.
In 1938, the Prize was awarded to the International Office for Refugees. However the short list for that year included one Adolf Hitler. Now, while this seems bizarre today with over seventy years of hindsight, the German Fuhrer was greatly popular as an international figure in 1938. He was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938 and most of the horrendous crimes against humanity for which he is known today were yet to be committed. His desire for continental conquest was well known. So was his racism; Kritallnatch ended up taking place on November 9th of 1938. Yet the Committee somehow saw him as a peace-loving man worthy of their shortlist.
In 1973, the Peace prize was given to both Henry Kissinger & Le Duc Tho for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War, a war they escalated into Cambodia through Operation Menu and that ended up taking the lives of over 2 million Vietnamese people. Earlier in 1971, the NY Times published the Pentagon Papers that detailed the deception campaign of the Nixon/Kissinger cabal to keep the public uninformed about their war machinations. Whether this history was considered when the Nobel Committee decided on the Prize is anybody's guess. But as a double dose of irony, on September 11th 1973, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon and the CIA would concoct a coup to overthrow the democratically-elected President of Chile: Salvador Allende. And the co-winner of the Prize, Le Duc Tho would refuse it because he did not believe the end of the war meant peace for his country and continued fighting against the south Vietnamese until 1975.
In 1960 the Prize went to Albert Lutuli, the ANC President.
In 1964 the Prize went to Martin Luther King, jr.
However Mahatma Gandhi was short-listed five times in 1937, 1938 (alongside Hitler), 1939, 1947, 1948, but never won. Yet Yasser Arafat & Menachem Begin won The Prize.
In a final tidbit of historical WTF moments, George W. Bush & Tony Blair were both short-listed for The Prize in 2002. So was Hamid Karzai who the British-Pakistani writer Tariq Ali refers to (jokingly, I am sure) as "The Great Puppet of Kabul."
So this is the history that gave us this year's selection of Barack Obama. The Committee said it was for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." But the obvious reply based on the facts of the last 8 months would be: "He has done nothing of the sort!" In a Q&A that followed the announcement, the choice was clarified as a way of nudging Obama to continue the work he started on nuclear non-proliferation and re-including the US in the community of nations. Right. But if Obama is working so hard at worldwide peace-making, why was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs waffling this week trying to explain why Obama did not seem to want to meet...of all people...The Dalai Lama. Amnesty USA even reported that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has decided that China's human rights record will not top her China agenda. Could all of this dallying and dallying have less to do with peace between China and Tibet and more to do with the $1 trillion dollars the US owes China or the commercial relations that need to be maintained there?
But many would have pointed to the recent talks with Iran, the decision to scrap a European missile defense system and the fact that Obama chaired a UN Security Council meeting on nuclear Non-Proliferation. While those are worthy noises that are a breath of diplomatic fresh air when compared to the idiotic bombast of the previous occupant of the White House, they do not constitute anything worthy of an international prize. It is important to recognize that Iran has not stopped developing nuclear weapons as a result of anything Obama did. On the contrary, because of the recent threats and demands, Iran has actually developed new Uranium enrichment sites. There is also no indication that Russia has reduced its stockpiles of weapons or is prepared to do so in the near future because of any action Obama has undertaken.
The record of the US itself under Obama is still dismal if peace on earth is the goal. The United States is still occupying two sovereign countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. And one of the first orders Obama issued when his Afghanistan strategy was announced was to order the deployment of 21,000 new US troops to Afghanistan. And if he is to act on General Stanley McChrystal's recent request, many more thousands of US soldiers will be shipping out to Afghanistan in the coming weeks and months. Renditions are still taking place. Guantanamo is still open and may not close next year as Obama originally promised. But even if it does close later in the year, The Bagram Prison in Afghanistan will remain open. And on the same day the Nobel Committee was rewarding Obama, it was announced that the US is preparing a $15 billion military buildup in the Pacific island of Guam.
Some have indicated that Obama's overtures to the Muslim World have swayed the Nobel Committee. But while Obama has made two speeches in the capitals of two majority-Muslim countries (Turkey and Egypt), he has done nothing to act on any of what he spoke of in the speeches. Netanyahu is still expanding Israeli settlements into Palestinian territory without any fear of repercussions. Women still can't drive in Saudi Arabia, a strong US ally. Hamas is still being its violent self. And just as a way of extending more olive branches all around the Middle East, the US has used its position in the UN Human Rights Council to both undermine the Goldstone Commission Report on the Israeli assault on Gaza and force Mahmud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership to defer its adoption.
Finally, to those who say the Nobel Prize is a "down-payment on Obama", one can just as well say: sometimes down payments can be for purchases that turn out to be worthless.
Maybe one day President Barack Obama will do enough to deserve this prize. We all hope so, given his power as the leader of the so-called Free World. But so far, the amazing promise that drove thousands to fill Grant Park in Chicago on November 4th last year, has only translated into Bush-Lite policies and in the words of one former presidential candidate, "lipstick on a pig." The Nobel Committee should have spent more time examining the dirty spots on the pig before falling in love with the lipstick.
Many of us, myself included, are ambivalent about the award to Obama this early in his presidential career. I have no ambivalence, however, in concluding that he has already made some remarkable achievements for the short interval since his inauguration. I would have preferred for the award to wait in anticipation of further progress, but I'm gratified that the value of his presidency is already being recognized.
For details about his achievements to date, please see my comments in the thread at
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/09/obamas_unclenched_fist_won_the_prize/
October 11, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Fred,
I think my piece counters a few of the items you list as part of Obama's achievements
1. Nothing concrete has been done on Climate change. There is a climate bill that was passed by Congress but it will take some time to see if it has any effect at all.
2-Obama made one speech in Cairo. That's it. everything else in the Muslim world in terms of US poicies remains as it was when Bush was President. Yes Al Qeda was hysterical. But Al Qaeda is hsterical by definition. The number f terrorists atacks has not diminished as a resut fo that speech and nobody has any data on anything that improved as a direct result of Obama's speech.
3.Disarmement. Again as I mentionned in my piece he has accomplished nothing in this regard. He has spoken and led a meeting at the UN but that's it. There are still nuclear weapons all over the world's most dangerous nations and most importantly in the US itself.
4.MidEast peace: Netanyahu has almost been laughing in Obama's face. Everytime the US says something about halting settlements, almost the next day the Israelis issue a statement saying they're gonna continue building them. With sttelemen construction continuing, you're not gonna have a contiguus Palestinian state and therefore no real peace. So how does that constitute progress?
The Nobel Committee would have been wise to wait 10 or 15 years to assess the Obama legacy before honoring him.
October 11, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are nuclear inspectors headed to Iran. A year ago we were in the early stages of war footing with that country. Now, it's opened its nuclear secrets to UN inspection. With that accomplishment alone, Obama has saved the lives of thousands of American solders and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilians. I think the peace prize is too small a prize for that and isn't premature at all.
October 11, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
If I read you correctly, I think what you're saying is that because he did not start his presidency by wanting to go to war with Iran when the country was already engaged in 2 wars, the way...let's say a stupid president would have done, Obama deserves a Nobel Prize. That would be like rewarding a person for not trying to walk across a Los Angeles freeway in the middle of rush hour.
October 11, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In one breath you seem to suggest that the Nobel Prize is a great honor and Barack Obama doesn't deserve it, and then you go on to suggest that it's an "honor" just short of a joke, so who cares?
As a country, we care. Whether or not the honor is deserved, it sends a message to the world. We are a country moving toward peace, and Barack Obama is guiding us. Is it too soon for such an award? Maybe. Was it given as a repudiation against GWB and his murderous policies? Maybe. But it adds one more bit of prestige to a country bogged down for too many years with what amounted to a third-world dictatorship. Barack Obama struggled against some mighty, destructive forces to win the presidency and put us on this rocky road to peace.
Giving the prize to Obama was a political move, but the Peace Prize is often a political tool. Giving it to Arafat and Begin was purely political. How could they go on warring with a Peace Prize? It turned out they could, but the attempt was an honorable one. They had shown signs of peacemaking--a remarkable, unprecedented feat considering their backgrounds and their history--and for that they received the Prize.
I have to admit I was shocked to hear the news about Obama, but now I feel honored by it. We need this shot in the arm. And Obama will accept the prize humbly, knowing it places an even greater burden on his shoulders now. He has to live up to it. And so do we.
(BTW, Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" award is not necessarily an honor, though it most often is. It is given to the person who has impacted the world the most throughout a given year. In 1938 it most definitely was Hitler. Stalin received it twice, in 1939 and again in 1942.)
October 11, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona,
I think you read me wrong or I failed to make myself clear enough. In essence what I am saying is the Nobel is a great honor and Barack Obama doesn't deserve it. I am also saying that in awarding that great honor, the Nobel Committee has gotten it both wrong and right many times in the past.
Now, if you allow me to dissect your argument,...In your first paragraph you seem to suggest that Obama deserves the prize because he's not GWB and he worked hard to win the presidency. Well, is that all peopke need to do these days to win a Nobel? Ghandi did 1000 times that much and he still didn't get it.
In your next paragraph you say that the Prize is a political move, but then you provide the examples of Menachem Begin and Arafat that prove making a political move of it does not usually yield the right results. So what justifies this year's political choice if that's what it is?
On the Time Man of The Year Award, I agree with you. I am simply saying that Hitler was popular internationally in 1938 and I guess the Nobel Committee almost confused popularity with worthiness for the Peace Prize.
It seems they have not learned their lesson yet.
October 11, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
B08N, I have no idea why the Nobel committee chose Obama. I'm only repeating what others are saying about the reasons. I'm also not trying to justify it. Just suggesting possible reasons.
My point is that, whatever the reasons, we need to make the most of it. I'm proud of the fact that our president is the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, for whatever reasons, and I'm reasonably confident that he will consider it not just an honor but a challenge. It may just light a fire under him. It may just bring about the "change" he so often talked about while he was campaigning. It may make him a better president.
It certainly can't hurt.
October 11, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an unthinking thing to say. Of course it can hurt.
Sometimes when you bestow an award on someone too early, even when they are obviously gifted, they falter under the pressure or even crash and burn. Happens all the time.
The Nobel committee upped the pressure on Obama so far beyond reasonable it's into mythic proportions.
October 11, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Thanks.
Even though I didn't vote for George W. Bush, he was the president of my country and therefore his actions (torture, war, repealing of rights) were in my name. As an American, I do not feel absolved of responsibility for George Bush's actions in the world simply by electing Barack Obama. Awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize creates a disconnect between actions and responsibility for actions. I don't fault Obama, I fault the committee for its recklessness, its foolishness, it self-aggrandizement. To me, it's as if the committee wanted a relic of Obama, a piece of him to elevate themselves in the eyes of future generations. But Obama is not a saint, and they may well have rendered the award meaningless instead.
October 11, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. I'm going to list here what Naomi Klein said on Democracy Now since I think it's worth reading.
I find the level of obsequiousness that this site has demonstrated on this issue to be pretty revolting.
October 11, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have your opinion, I have mine. The prize has been awarded. Yes, there surely were others who were more worthy, but it was awarded to our president.
I repeat: It certainly can't hurt.
With this caveat: Unless we ourselves diminish it by continuing to diminish the man who received it.
Ready, you have no idea how Obama will handle it, yet you're making predictions based on. . .what?
If you don't fault Obama, then stop faulting him. This is an honor for the entire country--or should be. Yet suddenly the award might as well be something out of a damned Cracker Jack box, considering the alleged unworthiness of the recipient and considering the alleged irresponsibility of the Nobel Committee.
What a mess of viral HooDoo. But I can't say I'm surprised.
October 11, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't "make a prediction," Ramona.
I simply hate it when someone as smart as you makes a trite, throwaway comment like "It certainly can't hurt." Don't know why, I just expect more from you.
I generally like your old-school politics and often enjoy your writing (noticed you early on), but sometimes you let your brain off the hook and say something without thinking it through.
Your best work is when you engage both your brain and heart. If you had engaged your brain while reading my comment, you should have noticed I stated my views with some precision. Instead you engaged your knee and jerked over to a parallel universe that I don't inhabit.
The Peace Prize is not a guaranteed good thing. As I said above, it puts outrageous and unrealistic pressure on Obama to perform near-miracles. Sorry, but gifted as Obama may be, he can't perform miracles. Whatever he may want to accomplish on the global stage requires cooperation of many competing interests.
I seem to be more of a realist than you. I base some of my views on my own life experience, just like anybody else. That's not an inherently bad thing, Ramona, and you know exactly zip about me. But now I sort of regret giving you undeserved credit before you really earned it.
October 12, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scratch "undeserved." You deserve praise for many of your posts. I'm trying to say my expectations were too high.
October 12, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My strong suspicion is that this prize really does not put much pressure on Obama at all, despite the Nobel committee's hopes to the contrary. Rather than arguing about whether the effect of this prize on Obama's presidency will be for good or ill, as you and Ramona seem to be doing, I suggest considering whether his past actions justify the award.
October 12, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It goes without saying that Obama's past actions do not remotely qualify him for the award. Nobel's will stipulates that the award be given for achievement in the previous year. Obama was running for president throughout 2008. But Obama didn't bestow the award on himself.
I disagree that the committee "hoped" to put pressure on Obama, and I am not saying that their motives were even so noble. This is what I think about the committee's facile "decision-making."
Thanks for the Klein quote and for your comment about the obsequiousness here, btw.
October 12, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find revolting is this incredible rush to judgment, including Naomi Klein's. Normally I'm a big fan, but in this case I think she should have stuck with her original reservations: Don't comment until you've processed it all.
Yes, there were others who were more worthy. But President Obama is the recipient. So let's trash HIM, why don't we? Let's make a list of the reasons why our president shouldn't be accepting one of the most prestigious awards in the world. Let's make him feel really, really bad about it and maybe he won't disgrace us by going to Oslo in December.
Michael Moore wrote a trash post about the award when he was in the throes of anger and astonishment; now he's backing off. Publicly. He gets it. Good for him.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/get-obamas-back-second-thoughts-michael-moore
October 11, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not "a rush to judgment." You're being too protective, taking it too personally. Not even Obama feels he deserves the award. You're not his mother!
October 12, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, for every person that caves under the pressure of high expectations, there are at least two that meet and beat those expectations. Welcome to America.
Talk to the American worker about productivity and get back to me. I have found your objections to be gloomy at best, and disingenuous for sure.
I have, as many around me, learned to do several impossible things before breakfast. It's the old-fashioned "can-do" attitude that Obama transformed into the "Yes we Can" attitude that should be appreciated and acknowledged.
The NPP committee did just that.
Sometimes, the answer is actually simple. It's O.K. to feel proud for a moment, but then, for pete's sake, get back to work.
October 12, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a flying fuck what you find my comments, Bwak. I find your comments naive and sickeningly saturated with Kool-Aid. So fuck off!
October 13, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many, for the past couple days (yes, myself included), have grumbled, "What has he done to earn this prize?" How 'bout this:
The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.
And if all that wasn't enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression.
Amen, Ramona. Amen, Michael Moore. And AMEN to peace.
October 13, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops. The whole comment except for my "amens" was supposed to show up in block quotes.
Oh well.
October 13, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read a piece by a scientist who works here and Norway. Due to the population there and his work, he knows some of the committee members well. The points I thought were quite informative.
1) The Nobel Committee does not reveal the nominees, so any discussion of who was on the short list of prizes given in the past 50 years is pure speculation. When nominees were supposedly leaked in the past, the committee has refuted the claims. Those who can nominate for the prize are limited and also bound not to reveal their nominee. The 7 meetings that are held between the close of nominations and awards are carefully documented, and the documents sealed for 50 years.
2) The Committee makes it's decisions based on Alfred Nobel's directions and their goals. Or, as the writer put it, 'they don't give a flying f--k what you think.'
I think this looking a gift horse in the mouth is really absurd. The committee is made up of humans, mistakes will be made. Obama does have a significant record on working for nuclear disarmament, and as the committee states, they don't focus so much on what is done but what needs financial support and encouragement. They are also a lot more tuned in to how the rest of the world has responded to Obama's messages. We may consider them inadequate and be able to cite the people who aren't on board easily. The committee is intentionally looking at the world situation and trying to determine how to best advance the peace process. Timing is an issue. Some of us refer to it as the fierce urgency of now.
October 11, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comment, Ginny. This is the Peace Prize and there's a war starting over it--in our own country!
October 12, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no war over the prize. There's surprise.
Once again, you can see that there are litmus tests that the left likes to levy as much as the right.
If you traveled in the proper circles, you'd hear that politicians who campaigned for Obama are shocked by the awarding of the prize.
Even Obama is.
So it's okay to question, isn't it?
Fact is that George W. Bush awarded 3 prizes to the US:
1) Jimmy Carter got his prize for objecting to the Iraq War and the Committee wanted to send a message.
2) Al Gore got his prize as a show to pressure the Bush administration into the Kyoto agreements.
3) Obama got his "I'm not Bush" prize.
In all cases, the idea was to try to influence and/or back US politicians from the "international" community.
Seriously: thanks to George W. Bush for the Americans who recently received all these 3 prizes.
October 12, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ginny,
While I assume your scientist friend is a good person, allow me to say his facts are a bit wrong:
1)The Nobel committee cannot reveal names for the people nominated. But humans being humans it has happened. And as I mentionned in my piece, the nomination of George W. Bush & Tony Blair was widely reported.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/07/usa.comment) According to the Nobel website, they cannot reveal the names of the individuals nominated or short-listed for 50 years. So anything after 1959 is still a closed book. Which is why we all now know about Hitler. Again see their Website (http://www.nobelprize.org).
2) As far as following Alfred Nobel's instructions, sure. Absolutely. After all the arms dealer and dynamite inventor left them his fortune for a reason. Which is why the choice of Obama while preposterous to some of us, may be just what Alfred Nobel would have wanted.
October 12, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Ginny,
While I assume your scientist friend is a good person, allow me to say his facts are a bit wrong:
1)The Nobel committee cannot reveal names for the people nominated. But humans being humans it has happened. And as I mentionned in my piece, the nomination of George W. Bush & Tony Blair was widely reported.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/07/usa.comment) According to the Nobel website, they cannot reveal the names of the individuals nominated or short-listed for 50 years. So anything after 1959 is still a closed book. Which is why we all now know about Hitler. Again see their Website (http://www.nobelprize.org).
2) As far as following Alfred Nobel's instructions, sure. Absolutely. After all the arms dealer and dynamite inventor left them his fortune for a reason. Which is why the choice of Obama while preposterous to some of us, may be just what Alfred Nobel would have wanted.
October 12, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ginny talks about "some scientist".
Well, that scientist doesn't know much about the prizes then. Nobel explicitly states (emphasis mine):
With few exceptions, you will find that work in the preceding year has not been in the criterion for handing out nearly every one of the prizes.
Now it turns out that, at very least, Obama's prize does happen for (whatever work) he's done in the preceding year. But "the previous year" criteria actually applying has been the tiny exception and not the rule for nearly all the prizes.
For the peace prize explicitly:
Obama has yet to reduce standing armies, nor held summits between waring sides.
Indeed, isn't this exactly the agenda that the left has been complaining about Obama not doing?
Really what you have is a European nation (Norway) pushing Obama to reduce tensions in the Middle East. Indeed, the awarding of the prize itself, forces Obama's hands. Even Cornell West, left of the left, has said as much.
Lastly, I did notice something quite odd in the comments from the Norwegian Committee:
Why would it be too late? Is this a concern about Obama's safety? How else could we read that? If Obama is successful, how would it be too late 3 years from now?
I'm surprised no one has commented yet on this odd comment (at least that I've seen).
October 12, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's biggest contribution to peace, and it is an important one, occurred before his inauguration: he persuaded the American Voter to take the levers to the greatest war machine this planet has ever seen out of the hands of the Republicans.
I'll take Bush light over Bush heavy any day.
October 12, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read a piece by a scientist who works here and Norway. Due to the population there and his work, he knows some of the committee members well. The points I thought were quite informative.
1) The Nobel Committee does not reveal the nominees, so any discussion of who was on the short list of prizes given in the past 50 years is pure speculation. When nominees were supposedly leaked in the past, the committee has refuted the claims. Those who can nominate for the prize are limited and also bound not to reveal their nominee. The 7 meetings that are held between the close of nominations and awards are carefully documented, and the documents sealed for 50 years.
2) The Committee makes it's decisions based on Alfred Nobel's directions and their goals. Or, as the writer put it, 'they don't give a flying f--k what you think.'
I think this looking a gift horse in the mouth is really absurd. The committee is made up of humans, mistakes will be made. Obama does have a significant record on working for nuclear disarmament, and as the committee states, they don't focus so much on what is done but what needs financial support and encouragement. They are also a lot more tuned in to how the rest of the world has responded to Obama's messages. We may consider them inadequate and be able to cite the people who aren't on board easily. The committee is intentionally looking at the world situation and trying to determine how to best advance the peace process. Timing is an issue. Some of us refer to it as the fierce urgency of now.
October 12, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink