Those who are against the President, politically and philosophically, have had the predictable reactions of disgust, degradation and maligning the Nobel committee. Those who support him are ecstatic, some to the point of nearly reaching some hyperbolic Nirvana. Neither of these groups’ reactions really interests me, though I will address a few on the detractor’s side. What are interesting are those who have taken the stance of questioning the choice because they cannot honestly understand what President Obama has done to deserve the honor. It is to this last group’s question I want to spend most of this dairy entry addressing.
First, some historical frame of reference, according to Alfred 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…..”
I think the most important thing to keep in mind when looking at President Obama’s selection is that the Nobel Prize is an INTERNATIONAL award. The reason I stress this is because all too often we, as Americans, get caught up in either believing the world thinks like we do, should think like we do and/or we have no idea how other countries view a particular situation. Keep in mind that the U.S. is only 5% of the world’s population. So for every one American there are twenty other people around the world who probably have a different world view about a particular issue.
So, keeping these things in mind, I’d like to answer the question; “What has President Obama done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.”
I’d like to start with his stance against the Iraq War while still a state senator from Illinois. A position he maintained all throughout the campaign last year.
Then there is the speech on race he gave on in March of 2008. While some might think this speech was not the hellfire and brimstone speech of someone like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it was unprecedented for a political candidate, running for the presidency, to give a speech on such a touchy subject. That he went out on this politically fragile limb in the middle of a presidential run was one thing, but the really important aspects were the details of the speech itself. No one, let alone a candidate for president, has given this type of speech on race since the Civil Rights era.
Even before the election he traveled abroad to the Middle East and Europe to meet with our Allies and heads of states. By just his willingness to do this prior to being elected it showed these leaders, and the world, that he was willing to sit down and discuss policies with them instead of taking the previous, American tactic of telling the world what we were going to do, whether they liked it or not.
Then there was the speech he gave in Cairo on June 4th. While most Americans might not have either heard the speech or understood its implications, it was a huge step at repairing American relationships with the Muslim world, especially those who live in the Middle East. It not only started the mending process between American and Muslims it also sent a message to Israel that they cannot continue their current policies without some culpability. No sitting president has ever taken this step with either the Muslim countries in the Middle East or with Israel.
The importance of this speech should not go unnoticed or diminished. From the world’s point-of-view, the U.S. has been at odds with and attacked countries in the Middle East in large part because they are Muslim. To have the current President not simplify the relationship into simplistic terms like ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘Christian’ or ‘Muslim’ but talk to them as equals for the first time was a big event and deal to the majority of Muslims.
During the past eight years, around the world, America’s stature and image took a hit like none I’ve seen in my 48 years. Maybe during the height of the Vietnam War our image abroad was as bad or worse, but I don’t remember that being the case. Whether they agree with us on specific issues or support our decisions, most people around the world still hold the U.S. up as the paradigm of many positive aspects; democracy, economy, law, humanity, etc. The Bush administration didn’t just tarnish but laid waste to all of these in a few short years.
It has been Obama’s positions regarding issues like torture, Gitmo, the world recession, etc. along with his perceived willingness to entertain other points of views and opinions that has energized the world community and made it believe that there is indeed hope that the U.S. will once again be the example of all that they admired about us.
To show you what I mean, here is an article from an expatriate who lives in Europe explaining Obama’s popularity there:
http://avuncularamerican.typepad.com...
Notice the graph in the middle of the article. Here is an enlarged view:
http://avuncularamerican.typepad.com...
See how little George Bush (the symbol of America), had in Europe last year. His European approval average was 21%. Obama’s is 77%. This kind of difference is unheard of and means much more than just a reaction against George Bush. It is a belief in Obama’s approach and his vision.
One of the biggest criticisms of the Bush administration was its abject failure to put together any meaningful coalition to address international issues. They couldn’t because they didn’t seem willing to do so and because they didn’t have any political capital with anyone other than the U.K. Currently, Obama seems to have not only the political capital with many of the world’s leaders but, more importantly, the recognition that coalitions are important and the willingness to put them together to achieve a desired end.
I fully realize that the speech in Cairo, the approach of wiliness to listen to other’s opinions, etc. are not the end product. They are just the first step in a long journey. But these steps are gigantic leaps from where we were and they are coming from the leader of the country that most people still hold as the “Beacon on the Hill”.
So, if someone asked me if President Obama meets the first criterion of the Peace Prize as someone who has “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations…..” I’d say absolutely. In fact, I cannot think of anyone else the past year that has done more in this regard. There is still a long way to go and there will be a lot of obstacles but the Prize is not for the end product (there are still a lot of people suffering in poverty in the slums of Calcutta even though Mother Theresa won the award in 1979), it is for the actions in a particular frame of time.
OBJECTIONS:
1-Europeans and the world are in a love fest with Obama and this just proves it.
Interesting, since I’ve been hearing for a week that Chicago not getting the 2016 Summer Olympic Games was a beat down snubbing of Obama by the world community. You can’t have it both ways. The world cannot dislike Obama so much it punks his Olympic bid one day then spreads its legs for him the next. (Rio was the natural, obvious choice. The U.S. has hosted two Summer Games since 1984. Asia just hosted the last one in Beijing so Tokyo was a long shot. Spain hosted them in Barcelona in 1992 so Madrid was a huge stretch. These factors added to the fact that South America has NEVER hosted an Olympics made Rio the natural choice. I cannot wait to see the soccer venue in Rio during the Olympics).
2-The award’s prestige has been diminished with this selection.
Why? This is not a comparison between one year’s winner with another. No one should be comparing Obama’s award with Mother Theresa’s or Nelson Mandela’s. Nor should they be comparing it to Arafat’s win or Le Duc Tho’s. Each award takes place in a particular timeframe and should be judged on in that timeframe. I don’t know who, besides President Obama, was being considered for this year’s award. I’ve been trying to think of who else would deserve it based on actions the past year. I’m sure there were some well deserving candidate but I cannot think of anyone who has had as big an international impact as Obama.
3-This will hurt him getting with his agenda. He should turn it down.
WTF? Are you kidding me? This has to be the stupidest (and this is saying something), objection I’ve heard. I fail to see the correlation between getting a Nobel Prize and getting things done. Teddy Roosevelt received the award while in office and it was seen as controversial due to his role in the suppression of a revolt in the Philippines. Yet, it didn’t seem to stop him from getting things done the next four years of his presidency. There is no good reason why the President should turn down the award. I think the reason why some want him to is because it would be a slap at the world community and a signal of isolationism. But these go completely against what Obama stands for and campaigned on.
4-Who cares what Europeans, or for that matter, the rest of the world thinks of our President?
This is the epitome of American arrogance and hubris. All the world should bow down to us and screw their opinions because we are the big, bad U.S. of A. It is this very attitude that has cost us allies and needed coalitions the past eight years. I don’t find it a compelling argument that the best way to correct a problem is by repeating the stupidity that got you into the mess in the first place. I blame this mentality on the fact that too many people’s frontal lobes are underdeveloped or severely damaged from banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall. Whatever the reasons, children whose frontal lobes are not yet developed behave this way when something new is introduced into their environment. But we are supposed to be adults, with fully functioning brains and frontal lobes. This “it’s our sandbox and we don’t care what you say” mentality is nothing more than childish. Just because an adult exhibits these behaviors does not make them okay or elevate them to the level of mature. It just makes them pathetic adults who never have grown up, mentally.
5-Liberals would be having the same negative reaction if George Bush won the award.
I call this the "Unicorns were better than dragons" argument. Throw out a non-existent scenario and argue backwards from its conclusions. George Bush didn't win the award so you don't know how liberals would react. He won't win the award so your hypothesis is untestable making it invalid. The only way this argument would ever be valid is if Bush won a Nobel Peace Prize and liberals reacted as childish as many conservatives have towards Obama's selection. If you believe this would be the case and are willing to wait to see if you are correct, be my guest. I'll wait with you........................