Post by Honeylioness on Oct 12, 2009 9:48:50 GMT -5
12 October 2009
It was announced last week that President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the approximate $1.4 million dollars that goes with it.
Like many people across this country and the world my first reaction was "Excuse me? ..... For WHAT?
?" And it is not just Republican opponents who are scratching their heads, I have read articles from news sources in India, Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe and South America all questioning this decision. Even in the room when the announcement was made in Oslo there was an audible gasp of disbelief from those assembled. A collective voicing of "WTF?".
So let's take a look at not only the stated intention of Mr. Nobel's idea, but how Obama might meet the Committee's stated criteria. But first a bit of background.
Alfred Nobel's Will
In 1895 Alfred Bernhard Nobel drew up a will according to which his wealth was to be devoted to the annual award of five prizes "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." It further states that the Nobel Peace Prize Criteria - “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,”.
When you search through the Nobel web site you find additional elucidation on some of the criteria which are used by the Nobel Committee when deciding on a winner:
So how does Obama rate in this category? Well, he might be considered contributing to the "fraternity between nations" - because after all, did he not visit Europe as a candidate and presume to represent the U.S. Government and get rock star treatment and adulation? So perhaps yes, he united nations in their infatuation with the image he and Michelle present. And yes, his kids are cute as is his dog. I can see where that would bring people from different countries together in a groupie type of way.
Hmmmmm, in Obama's own words describing his Community Organizing work in Chicago he said:
Okayyyyyyy - and this may promote peace in even a small global area such as Chicago how??? Because the committee must have considered his work there 20 years ago as I have not seen any such "movement" or organization from him in the last nine months.
What peace negotiation specifically could the Committee have been looking at if this criteria was predominate in their minds? Actually, what peace negotiations has Obama even participated in? In his speech to the United Nations on September 23, 2009 he said:
So??? What U.S. President in the last 50 years has NOT said the same thing with only the names of the parties changed.
Considering how divisive his election and presidency has been in his own country I cannot even begin to imagine this criteria applying. Not to mention this statement from Obama himself regarding the methods he was trained to use during his time in Chicago:
It just screams of reconciliation to me ...*RME*
Once again - how does this apply? Sure over the weekend he announced his intention of eliminating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the military towards homosexuals in uniform - but this was AFTER the prize had been announced.
And doesn't THAT bring up an interesting little fact. Nomination forms are sent out in September of the prior year (in this case 2008) and final nominations must be postmarked to the Committee February 1st. So ... Obama had been in office a whopping TWELVE DAYS and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize? What the hell can you do in twelve days, I bet he was still trying to figure out the intercom system and locate all the bathrooms.
This is how Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee has described President Barrack Obama’s achievements for world peace, “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.”
Can anyone explain to me just HOW he is supposed to have done this is less than two weeks? In his speech to the U.N. he touted his own horn in closing Gitmo and restating that the U.S. will work with the U.N. to rout out al Qaeda. The first I disagree with - but am not too surprised that a man who never served his country in uniform has no idea of how certain things really work. The second garnered from me a big "Duhhhh" What else is any reasonable country going to publicly state to the General Assembly: "You dudes, we be all for the Qaeda brothers and look forward to helping bin Laden keep away from your troops"?
Yes, he has appointed envoys, representatives, is for nuclear disarmament, censures North Korea and Iraq blah blah blah. So does Great Britain's PM, and Canada's, and Japan. Even the PRC is not all that keen on the idea of Crazy Man Jong Il having a button to push. So why were none of them receiving the prize?
To further dull any prestige I may have still seen in the Nobel Peace Prize, here is a list of people who were nominated, some more than once, who never won:
How much integrity is there then in an "award" that passes over Gandhi and places Obama in the same ranks as Mother Teresa? Not much in my opinion. It seems to have become a political statement for Norway rather than a true recognition for work benefiting mankind.
Not at all I think what Alfred had in mind.
References:
It was announced last week that President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the approximate $1.4 million dollars that goes with it.
Like many people across this country and the world my first reaction was "Excuse me? ..... For WHAT?
?" And it is not just Republican opponents who are scratching their heads, I have read articles from news sources in India, Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe and South America all questioning this decision. Even in the room when the announcement was made in Oslo there was an audible gasp of disbelief from those assembled. A collective voicing of "WTF?". So let's take a look at not only the stated intention of Mr. Nobel's idea, but how Obama might meet the Committee's stated criteria. But first a bit of background.
Alfred Nobel's Will
In 1895 Alfred Bernhard Nobel drew up a will according to which his wealth was to be devoted to the annual award of five prizes "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." It further states that the Nobel Peace Prize Criteria - “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,”.
When you search through the Nobel web site you find additional elucidation on some of the criteria which are used by the Nobel Committee when deciding on a winner:
Humanitarian Work
The mention in the will of the "abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the holding and promotion of peace congresses" reflects the period in which the will was written. The approach today is to see it as pointing to general disarmament and the dissemination of the concept of peace. The most important provision, however, is contained in the term "fraternity between nations." This general and open provision has provided a basis for the wide definition of peace-related work which the committee has applied right from the start. The first Peace Prize, awarded in 1901, was accordingly shared between the Swiss founder of the Red Cross, Henry Dunant, and the French peace activist Frédéric Passy, one of the founders of the Interparliamentary Union. The inclusion of humanitarian work was promptly criticized as irrelevant to peace, inter alia by representatives of the peace movement. It has nevertheless remained an important criterion right up to the present. Several of the awards which have been most favourably received have been given precisely in honour of humanitarian work.
This is true of the award to Mother Teresa in 1979 no less than of the prize given to Fridtjof Nansen in 1922 for his work as High Commissioner for Refugees under the League of Nations. The UN High Commissioner descends in a direct line from what Nansen built up. The peace Nobel envisaged when he founded the Peace Prize is the peace which is rooted in people's hearts and minds. The humanitarian aid worker is the human face seen by the individual victim of war, the manifestation of respect for that individual's human dignity, and thereby the embodiment of the best hope of peace and reconciliation. This gets to the roots of the absolutely fundamental prerequisites for peace. The decision to award the first Peace Prize for humanitarian work was one of the most important decisions in the history of the Peace Prize. Today, "humanitarian intervention" (with or without military support) is one of the most important factors in international peace work. The last century's last prize, to Médecins Sans Frontières , was also first and foremost a prize for humanitarian work.
The mention in the will of the "abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the holding and promotion of peace congresses" reflects the period in which the will was written. The approach today is to see it as pointing to general disarmament and the dissemination of the concept of peace. The most important provision, however, is contained in the term "fraternity between nations." This general and open provision has provided a basis for the wide definition of peace-related work which the committee has applied right from the start. The first Peace Prize, awarded in 1901, was accordingly shared between the Swiss founder of the Red Cross, Henry Dunant, and the French peace activist Frédéric Passy, one of the founders of the Interparliamentary Union. The inclusion of humanitarian work was promptly criticized as irrelevant to peace, inter alia by representatives of the peace movement. It has nevertheless remained an important criterion right up to the present. Several of the awards which have been most favourably received have been given precisely in honour of humanitarian work.
This is true of the award to Mother Teresa in 1979 no less than of the prize given to Fridtjof Nansen in 1922 for his work as High Commissioner for Refugees under the League of Nations. The UN High Commissioner descends in a direct line from what Nansen built up. The peace Nobel envisaged when he founded the Peace Prize is the peace which is rooted in people's hearts and minds. The humanitarian aid worker is the human face seen by the individual victim of war, the manifestation of respect for that individual's human dignity, and thereby the embodiment of the best hope of peace and reconciliation. This gets to the roots of the absolutely fundamental prerequisites for peace. The decision to award the first Peace Prize for humanitarian work was one of the most important decisions in the history of the Peace Prize. Today, "humanitarian intervention" (with or without military support) is one of the most important factors in international peace work. The last century's last prize, to Médecins Sans Frontières , was also first and foremost a prize for humanitarian work.
So how does Obama rate in this category? Well, he might be considered contributing to the "fraternity between nations" - because after all, did he not visit Europe as a candidate and presume to represent the U.S. Government and get rock star treatment and adulation? So perhaps yes, he united nations in their infatuation with the image he and Michelle present. And yes, his kids are cute as is his dog. I can see where that would bring people from different countries together in a groupie type of way.
Organized Peace Movements
The broad range of criteria applied from the start has not prevented changes over time. In the period up to the first World War, prizes to the organized peace movement predominated. That tradition has been maintained, if not on the same scale. The 1995 award to Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs was in that mould and, let me add, very much in the spirit of Nobel's will.
The broad range of criteria applied from the start has not prevented changes over time. In the period up to the first World War, prizes to the organized peace movement predominated. That tradition has been maintained, if not on the same scale. The 1995 award to Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs was in that mould and, let me add, very much in the spirit of Nobel's will.
Hmmmmm, in Obama's own words describing his Community Organizing work in Chicago he said:
In theory, community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership — and not one or two charismatic leaders — can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions.
Okayyyyyyy - and this may promote peace in even a small global area such as Chicago how??? Because the committee must have considered his work there 20 years ago as I have not seen any such "movement" or organization from him in the last nine months.
Peace Negotiations
The most controversial choices have been active politicians or statesmen, often selected on the grounds of a particular act, or an intervention in a particular situation, rather than because of a lifelong effort for peace.
The most controversial choices have been active politicians or statesmen, often selected on the grounds of a particular act, or an intervention in a particular situation, rather than because of a lifelong effort for peace.
What peace negotiation specifically could the Committee have been looking at if this criteria was predominate in their minds? Actually, what peace negotiations has Obama even participated in? In his speech to the United Nations on September 23, 2009 he said:
I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. (Applause.) We will continue to work on that issue. Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.)
So??? What U.S. President in the last 50 years has NOT said the same thing with only the names of the parties changed.
Policy of Reconciliation
The Peace Prize has on some occasions been awarded to representatives of two parties to a conflict who have agreed to break out of the vicious circle of violence in order to move towards peace and reconciliation. The prize awarded to Kissinger and Duc Tho has been mentioned, and we could add those to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in 1978, to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, to Frederik Willem de Klerk and Nelson Mandela in 1993, and to John Hume and David Trimble in 1998. The problem with these awards has been that some of the Laureates have been partly responsible for the war, violence or repression that preceded the decision to break out of the vicious circle.
However, only the first of the awards mentioned met with more criticism than support (assuming this can be measured). So it looks as if the committee's policy of honouring what can be interpreted as real conversions to a peace strategy is being met with understanding and support.
The Peace Prize has on some occasions been awarded to representatives of two parties to a conflict who have agreed to break out of the vicious circle of violence in order to move towards peace and reconciliation. The prize awarded to Kissinger and Duc Tho has been mentioned, and we could add those to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in 1978, to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, to Frederik Willem de Klerk and Nelson Mandela in 1993, and to John Hume and David Trimble in 1998. The problem with these awards has been that some of the Laureates have been partly responsible for the war, violence or repression that preceded the decision to break out of the vicious circle.
However, only the first of the awards mentioned met with more criticism than support (assuming this can be measured). So it looks as if the committee's policy of honouring what can be interpreted as real conversions to a peace strategy is being met with understanding and support.
Considering how divisive his election and presidency has been in his own country I cannot even begin to imagine this criteria applying. Not to mention this statement from Obama himself regarding the methods he was trained to use during his time in Chicago:
Obama was trained to work in the Alinsky method of community organizing.
Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicago-trained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of “agitation”–making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”
Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicago-trained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of “agitation”–making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”
It just screams of reconciliation to me ...*RME*
Struggle for Human Rights
It is striking that although the committee based its work right from the start in 1901 on a broad range of criteria for what is relevant to peace, the struggle for human rights was for a long time not among those criteria. The first real human rights prize went to the South African chieftain Albert Lutuli in 1960. Since then, the list of prominent human rights campaigners among the Laureates has become a long one: Martin Luther King (1964), René Cassin (1968), Seán Mac Bride (1974), Andrei Sakharov (1975), Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (1980), Lech Walesa (1983), Desmond Tutu (1984), Elie Wiesel (1986), Dalai Lama (1989), Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), Rigoberta Menchú Tum (1992), and Carlos Belo and José Ramos-Horta (1996). Some won the prize for their non-violent struggle against racial discrimination (Lutuli, Luther King and Tutu), and some for their efforts to establish international human rights organizations (Cassin, Mac Bride, Amnesty International (1977)), but most were given the award for peaceful but effective struggles for civil and political rights in their own countries.
Even prizes of this kind have been controversial. For one thing, they tend to arouse displeasure in the countries affected, as we saw in Indonesia in 1996 when Belo and Ramos-Horta from East Timor won the Prize. Some, like Sakharov, Walesa, and Suu Kyi, have been unable to come to Oslo to receive the Prize. But human rights awards have also been criticised as irrelevant to peace. Sometimes it has been claimed that they have aggravated conflicts instead of leading to peace. And in some cases the prize has in fact provoked conflict in the short term. The point, however, has lain in the symbolic effect of the adoption of a courageous stance for human rights, on the fundamental assumption that a lasting peace must be based on respect for the human rights of the individual.
It is striking that although the committee based its work right from the start in 1901 on a broad range of criteria for what is relevant to peace, the struggle for human rights was for a long time not among those criteria. The first real human rights prize went to the South African chieftain Albert Lutuli in 1960. Since then, the list of prominent human rights campaigners among the Laureates has become a long one: Martin Luther King (1964), René Cassin (1968), Seán Mac Bride (1974), Andrei Sakharov (1975), Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (1980), Lech Walesa (1983), Desmond Tutu (1984), Elie Wiesel (1986), Dalai Lama (1989), Aung San Suu Kyi (1991), Rigoberta Menchú Tum (1992), and Carlos Belo and José Ramos-Horta (1996). Some won the prize for their non-violent struggle against racial discrimination (Lutuli, Luther King and Tutu), and some for their efforts to establish international human rights organizations (Cassin, Mac Bride, Amnesty International (1977)), but most were given the award for peaceful but effective struggles for civil and political rights in their own countries.
Even prizes of this kind have been controversial. For one thing, they tend to arouse displeasure in the countries affected, as we saw in Indonesia in 1996 when Belo and Ramos-Horta from East Timor won the Prize. Some, like Sakharov, Walesa, and Suu Kyi, have been unable to come to Oslo to receive the Prize. But human rights awards have also been criticised as irrelevant to peace. Sometimes it has been claimed that they have aggravated conflicts instead of leading to peace. And in some cases the prize has in fact provoked conflict in the short term. The point, however, has lain in the symbolic effect of the adoption of a courageous stance for human rights, on the fundamental assumption that a lasting peace must be based on respect for the human rights of the individual.
Once again - how does this apply? Sure over the weekend he announced his intention of eliminating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the military towards homosexuals in uniform - but this was AFTER the prize had been announced.
And doesn't THAT bring up an interesting little fact. Nomination forms are sent out in September of the prior year (in this case 2008) and final nominations must be postmarked to the Committee February 1st. So ... Obama had been in office a whopping TWELVE DAYS and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize? What the hell can you do in twelve days, I bet he was still trying to figure out the intercom system and locate all the bathrooms.
This is how Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee has described President Barrack Obama’s achievements for world peace, “For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.”
Can anyone explain to me just HOW he is supposed to have done this is less than two weeks? In his speech to the U.N. he touted his own horn in closing Gitmo and restating that the U.S. will work with the U.N. to rout out al Qaeda. The first I disagree with - but am not too surprised that a man who never served his country in uniform has no idea of how certain things really work. The second garnered from me a big "Duhhhh" What else is any reasonable country going to publicly state to the General Assembly: "You dudes, we be all for the Qaeda brothers and look forward to helping bin Laden keep away from your troops"?
Yes, he has appointed envoys, representatives, is for nuclear disarmament, censures North Korea and Iraq blah blah blah. So does Great Britain's PM, and Canada's, and Japan. Even the PRC is not all that keen on the idea of Crazy Man Jong Il having a button to push. So why were none of them receiving the prize?
To further dull any prestige I may have still seen in the Nobel Peace Prize, here is a list of people who were nominated, some more than once, who never won:
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Winston Churchill
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Harry S. Truman
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Herbert Hoover
- Jawaharlal Nehru
- Lord Baden-Powell (Lieutenant-General in the British Army, writer, founder of the Scout Movement)
How much integrity is there then in an "award" that passes over Gandhi and places Obama in the same ranks as Mother Teresa? Not much in my opinion. It seems to have become a political statement for Norway rather than a true recognition for work benefiting mankind.
Not at all I think what Alfred had in mind.
References:
- nobelprize.org/index.html
- nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/sejersted/index.html
- www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27407&Itemid=57
- www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly/
- nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
- www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
- riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/obama-the-community-organizer/