With the Norwegian-based Nobel Prize Committee giving its Peace Prize to President Obama, I have just one question: how many Norwegians will fight in Afghanistan? Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that earlier this year the Obama administration ESCALATED the level of U.S. fighting forces in Afghanistan by 32,000 troops (at a cost per annum of $32 billion). Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that the Obama administration had also extended the war to Pakistan and risked, in Sen. Feingold's opinion, the further destabilization of that country. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that Obama had selected Gen. McCrystal to head the U.S. forces in Afghanistan and that Gen. McCrystal is an arch-hawk. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that at this moment Gen. McCrystal has asked for a further 40,000 troops for Afghanistan and that most pundits believe Obama will give him those troops. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that Obama's Defense Secretary and most of his generals are carryovers from the Bush administration: hence, zero change.
Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that on October 6th Obama met with members of Congress to discuss Afghanistan and he made it clear that the US presence in Afghanistan would not be reduced (this despite all polls showing public support for the war waning in America). Perhaps news didn't make it to Norway that Obama has reneged to pull out troops from Iraq on the schedule he originally set. Only about 2 combat brigades will be withdrawn in 2009 and a "residual force" of at least 50,000 troops will remain (along with countless mercenaries).
Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that the Obama administration is continuing some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration--like illegal renditions, like funding and maintaining overseas bases where "terrorists" can be dumped without anyone knowing about it (hell holes in the Middle East, Asia and Africa where no one questions whether interrogation is harsh or not) and indefinite detention. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that the Obama administration is also lobbying to keep (and even extend) some of the worst features of the so-called Patriot Act. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that the Obama administration continues to come up with excuses for the closure of Gitmo. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that Obama reneged on promises to release photos showing detainee mistreatment at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that the Obama administration want to "look forward not backward" with respect to prosecuting major wrongdoings (like torture which is against our law and international law) under the Bush administration (and that a minor probe into such activities by AG Holder's office will only be aimed at low level employees). Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that Obama has surrounded himself with advisors who have backgrounds in torture and mistreatment of individuals. John Brennan, for instance, who had approved of "enhanced interrogation techniques" is Obama's counter-terrorism adviser. Dennis Blair is Obama's Director of National Intelligence. While in Indonesia, Blair's actions and inaction furthered the ends of atrocities being committed by Indonesian generals in East Timor that led to the death of thousands of people. Obama promoted George W. Bush's general, McCrystal even though McCrystal covered up Pat Tillman's death and even though McCrystal was head of a unit in Afghanistan involved in human rights abuses. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that President Obama and his administration have persistently been fighting efforts by the highly respected ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) over their lawsuit to get information about torture programs being conducted by the U.S. government. Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that in August, 2009, the Pentagon (nominally under the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief, Obama) had paid a private contractor (the Rendon Group) $1.5 million to evaluate how positive or negative a journalist’s work was on the war and to use that as a basis for whether the reporter would be allowed to be embedded with US forces.
Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that on October 2, 2009, the Washington Times reported that Obama had renewed a secret 40 year old accord (September 25, 1969) with Israel not to pressure it to give up its stockpile of some 200 nuclear weapons, sign the NPT, or submit to international inspections. The Obama administration contains a number of pro-Israeli hawks and neo-cons (like Rahm Emanuel who may well be in the service of Israel). Some of them favor a quick military strike against Iran even without U.N. sanctions.
Perhaps the news didn't make it to Norway that Obama is a "fierce advocate" of gay rights but really has done "jack" and "squat" with respect to those issues and to many others. Back in April, 2008 Candidate Obama supported the elimination of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell policy":
"I think there's increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy. We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe."
But President Obama has backtracked from Candidate Obama's promises and has no timetable at all to change this policy which would be unacceptable in every European Union country and Norway. Likewise, Candidate Obama promised to repeal DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). Not only has he broken that pledge, but his Justice Department lumped same-sex marriage in with incestuous and underage marriage. But such news must travel slowly to Norway.
So I'm wondering, how many Norwegians will fight in Afghanistan? Let's see the sons and the daughters of the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee volunteer to go to the front lines so that they can understand the difference between war and peace.
UPDATE #1: Norway will send NO more troops to Afghanistan.
The Norway Post reports (on 9 October 2009) that Norway has 575 troops in Afghanistan and that it will send NO MORE:
The Government has no plans for sending more Norwegian troops to Afghanistan. Neither has it received any concrete requests from NATO to do so, according to Defence Minister Anne-Grete Stroem-Erichsen.
The decision comes after the US has announced an increase of 17,000 men to Afghanistan, expecting its allies to also contribute more.
...Defence Chief Sverre Diesen confirms that Norway is unable to contribute more men beyond the 575 deployed in Afghanisatn today. He says there is a possibility that a temporary strengthening of the Norwegian presence may be possible in connection with the elections in August, but no permanent increase.
SOURCE:
http://www.norwaypost.no/...
Why send troops when you can put a peace prize in the mail instead?
UPDATE #2: Nobel Peace Prize: Norway? Sweden?
The Norwegian parliament appoints the Norwegian Nobel Committee which selects the laureate for the peace prize. It, in turn, has a complex and long historical relationship between the Nobel Foundation (which funds the prizes) and is centered in Sweden. The chair of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, made the announcement in the Norwegian capital of Oslo. Here's his announcement as reported at Democracynoworg:
JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months after taking office. The chair of the Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, made the announcement today in the Norwegian capital of Oslo.
THORBJORN JAGLAND: [translated] The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
SOURCES: http://www.democracynow.org/...
On the Nobel Peace Prize, see also:
1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
- http://nobelprize.org/
UPDATE #3: Naomi Klein: Prize to Obama cheapens Nobel peace prize.
From Democracynow, Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine and No Logo, says:
"...my raw reaction is really that this represents—it’s very significant and disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize. And, you know, it’s been cheapened before, and it will cheapen again—be cheapened again, but I think there’s something really striking here. ...despite overwhelming evidence, they’re giving this prize in the hopes that it will change Obama’s mind or encourage him to do things he hasn’t done—this is a candidate that ran a campaign that was much more based on hope and wishful thinking than it was on concrete policy. So we have hopes being piled on hope and wishful thinking.
This is supposed to be a prize that rewards concrete behavior, concrete action. And there are many people out there in the world who were under consideration for this prize, who every day perform acts that are taken at enormous risk for concrete benefit. I mean, I think that one of the people—one of the names under consideration this year was Dr. Mukwege in the Congo, in the DRC. This is somebody who is under personal threat because he is saving the lives of women every day who have been violently raped. And giving the prize to Dr. Mukwege—and I’m just giving one example—would have been such a concrete victory and encouragement for that action. It would have put pressure on the United States to take action, on the international community to take action, for the women of the Congo. And instead of that, we have this very, very political decision, and in many ways it’s like a pat on the head for good behavior or the hope of good behavior, because actually we’ve seen a lot of bad behavior. And we can come back to this.
But what I’m working on right now is a piece for Rolling Stone about the climate negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. And one of the things that the Obama administration is being rewarded for with this prize or what Barack Obama is personally being rewarded for in this prize is his supposed breakthroughs on international relations. What we’re actually seeing, as we speak, in Bangkok—this is the final day of two weeks of climate negotiations—has been extraordinarily destructive behavior on the part of the United States government, on the part of the Obama administration, absolutely derailing the climate negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen. Developing countries are absolutely shocked by what US climate negotiators have done. They have gone into these talks saying, you know, "We’re back. We want to reengage with the world." What they’ve actually done is made a series of demands that would destroy the Kyoto Protocol and the binding emission architecture that was set up under Kyoto. So, to reward the Nobel Prize in the context of destroying the climate, where the US is destroying the climate negotiations, or threatening to, to me, is just shocking.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Naomi, the Nobel Committee specifically cited Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world. And I’d like you to comment, especially in light of the fact that right now the President is considering a dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan and also the US government’s criticism of the Goldstone report on the Israeli war in Gaza.
NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I’ll start with the second point, because this is something else that is so strange about the timing. I think the moment of just rewarding Obama for awakening hope and optimism has clearly passed. And we certainly see this in the context of Israel-Palestine, where there was a huge amount of hope that was awakened and inspired by Obama’s rhetoric, by his historic Cairo speech. But now we’re past that moment. He didn’t just give that speech yesterday. And now is the moment when we’re seeing his actual commitment to change. And it has been one disappointment after the next.
First, an extremely half-hearted attempt to get tough with the Netanyahu government when it comes to settlement expansion. I say "half-hearted," because demands were made, but they weren’t followed through with any kind of muscle. As we know, the US has more than moral suasion to use with the Netanyahu government, if it’s really opposed to settlement expansion. There are billions of military aid that, of course, is never put on the table. And after a little bit of moral suasion failed, we see the same defeatism setting in.
And then the Goldstone report. You know, one of the supposed victories of the US reengagement with multilateralism has been the US taking a seat on the Human Rights Council. But what we see, as in the context of the climate negotiations, is the US is reengaging, but in an extremely destructive way, using their status, their seat at the table, to undermine international law. That’s happening in the context of the climate negotiations, and now it’s happened in the context of the Goldstone report, where, rather than strengthening international law, the US pressure on Abbas and also their own words and actions undermine a crucial report, which should have been a breakthrough.
And the Obama administration wasted absolutely no time in selling out Judge Richard Goldstone with no basis of fact whatsoever. The report was extremely balanced. The Obama administration could have stepped back and allowed it to work its way through the UN system, really kind of hid behind the UN on this one. Here you have a judge with an extraordinary international reputation for his belief in international law and his commitment to the reality of the—of "never again," whether in the context of Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. And this is somebody who’s really, really been committed to that idea. And the US has allowed his reputation to be destroyed... .
And then, in the middle of all this, the Nobel Prize Committee awards their top honors to Obama. And I think it’s quite insulting. I don’t know what kind of political game they’re playing, but I don’t think that the committee has ever been as political as this or as delusional as this, frankly.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Naomi Klein, I’d like to thank you for joining us...
But we did manage, just before the program, to reach journalist and activist Tariq Ali. He has written over a dozen books and is on the editorial board of the New Left Review. Democracy Now! producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous asked Tariq Ali for his reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
TARIQ ALI: ...So the choice of Barack Obama, the only thing one can say is that they should have possibly waited; a decent interval might have been better, if they had waited ’til next year, because at the present moment US troops are occupying two countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. For all the talk, US soldiers remain in Iraq, and their bases are likely to stay there for some time. And the war in Afghanistan continues unabated, with President Obama actually sending in more troops. More people are being killed, both Afghans and NATO soldiers. The war has been expanded into Pakistan. So this is a sort of odd, though not surprising, choice by the Nobel Prize Committee.
They tend to take rhetoric very seriously. And though they deny it, we know that in 1938 they couldn’t decide whether to give the prize to Hitler or to Gandhi. And finally, they gave it to the Nansen International Office of Refugees, which was a much better choice.
It would be worth their while thinking that perhaps they should have a self-denying ordinance. They shouldn’t give the prize to serving heads of state. People still in power [inaudible] people making war.
I mean, I could have given them two candidates who are very deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize this year. One is, of course, Noam Chomsky, who has fought for peace all his life. And the other is Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been peacefully sitting in prison, waiting for justice for the last twenty-five years. Now, that would have given people something to think about.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And what about the Nobel Committee’s citing Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world? Your reaction?
TARIQ ALI: Well, Obama made a speech in Cairo, where he spoke to the Muslim world, as US presidents have done in the past. In contrast to Bush, of course, that appears very dramatic. And it was welcome, in a way, that he said, "You’re not our enemies." But, you know, actions always speak louder than words.
There has been no progress whatsoever on the Israel-Palestine talks. The administration is incapable of dealing with Netanyahu and the extreme right in Israel, which is now in power. And there has been no development in terms of getting out of Iraq completely. There are constant pressures being put on Tehran and war in Afghanistan. So talking to the Muslim world is fine, but one should always base one’s judgment on what politicians do, not on what they say.
SOURCE: http://www.democracynow.org/...
UPDATE #4: Reaction in Kabul to Obama's Peace Prize.
For the crowd gathered for a second day of festivities at one of the Afghan capital's garish wedding halls this afternoon there was widespread cynicism at the news of Barack Obama's Nobel peace prize.
"I don't know how he can get this prize," said Najeeb, a 30-year-old shopkeeper attending a friend's wedding party. "Maybe it's been awarded for all the houses they are bombing, or perhaps it's for all his soldiers that are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Next to him a local staff member of a western NGO called Elyas wondered whether Obama will ever be able to bring peace to Afghanistan. "Obama and his favourite president [Karzai] haven't been able to do anything here. We used to be able to drive to Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif [two northern cities considered safe until recently] but now we can't because fighters are coming to the roads and looting people."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
UPDATE #5: Glenn Greenwald on Obama win.
there is something unquestionably bizarre about awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a leader who did not merely "inherit," but is advocating, actively prosecuting and escalating, a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop, while at the same time building prisons to house people who will have no due process.
http://www.salon.com/...
UPDATE #6: Norway Post reports overwhelmingly NEGATIVE reaction to Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
A sense of exasperation emanates from Bergen, Norway's The Norway Post which is reporting an overwhelmingly negative reaction to Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It seems that the newspaper in the first day after the announcement received no letters or emails supporting the Norway committee that gave Obama the peace prize. Now, sentiment is running 5-1 against the award (NOTE: the Norway Post says it has received some emails in support of the Obama selection but I have been unable in two days of looking at their website to even find their email address. It is not listed under "contact" or anywhere else I can see. Maybe they've been eating too much Lutefisk?). From the Norway Post:
Letters from our readers with comments and reactions to President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is still coming in on Sunday morning. And while the majority are negative, we have now received a few positive e-mails as well.
However, for every positive reaction there are more than five negative ones, at last count.
When we wrote the first article on this subject we had only received negative reactions, and one reader wrote: - I'm very disappointed to read on this website the negative slant regarding Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Why did you only report the negative reactions? Have you no positive emails to report on?
The answer is, as we also wrote in the article, there were none. It took nearly 24 hours for the fiirst positive letter to arrive, and one of them read:
- I am ashamed that you have received negative emails from us here in the United States. I grew up in Norway and I am very proud of what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee did was to give the awarded to President Obama. I was distressed when President Bush said that "either you are with us or against us". I am very proud of Norway and I apologize for these awful remarks of the Americans.
http://www.norwaypost.no/...
AND this:
The Norway Post has received a number of letters from readers who have reacted strongly to the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Obama.
The e-mails received so far all have two things in common: They are all strongly negative, and they all come from readers in the United States.
Here are excerpts from a few of them at random:
- Why don't you change the name of the prize to the "Neville Chamberlain Award", it would be a more appropriate award for Obama. Shame on you for giving it to him, shame on us for tolerating same.
- I cannot believe you chose Pres. Obama! He has done NOTHING for the United States or around the world. He is all talk!!!
Our economy is in complete despair and his agenda is less to be desired. What a mistake!
A very disappointed United States Citizen.
- I just want to let you know that when they decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize, they did not do any American or the world a favor. Aside from the very liberal newspapers here, most of the American people are so against Obama, we wish we could get rid of him now. He has done nothing to deserve this prize. In fact, he has done nothing for America except to bring us to near bankruptcy.
- My father was born in Northern Norway and emigrated to the United States as a young man.
For the first time in my life I am ashamed of my heritage.
The Nobel committee is an embarrassment to Norway.
- Naming Obama as Peace Prize winner is a slap in the face of other nominees who are much more worthy and have actually accomplished something. All Obama has done is give speeches that pander to the left leaning socialists and appeasers of the Islamists. All of Norway, and any sensible person, ought to be embarrassed.
(The Norway Post)
http://www.norwaypost.no/...