Criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize being rewarded to President Barack Obama has come from all political corners, not just Republicans and middle east extremists as Democrats, and many on sites like this, are trying to frame this. Criticism from those committed to peace and justice, not extremism, are starting to come in. I've included reactions from Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Moore, and Mairead Corrigan Maguire.
Upside Down World: Warmonger Wins Peace Prize - Paul Craig Roberts looks at this from the 1984 perspective:
"War is Peace" is now the position of the formerly antiwar organization, Code Pink. Code Pink has decided that women’s rights are worth a war in Afghanistan.
When justifications for war become almost endless--oil, hegemony, women’s rights, democracy, revenge for 9/11, denying bases to al Qaeda and protecting against terrorists--war becomes the path to peace.
His argument is that the prize is being rewarded for expressing peaceful rhetoric despite nothing matching the rhetoric is actually occurring, which is quite Orwellian.
In response to The Nobel committee stating Obama, has created "a new climate in international politics":
Tell that to the 2 million displaced Pakistanis and the unknown numbers of dead ones that Obama has racked up in his few months in office. Tell that to the Afghans where civilian deaths continue to mount as Obama’s "war of necessity" drones on indeterminably.
No Bush policy has changed. Iraq is still occupied. The Guantanamo torture prison is still functioning. Rendition and assassinations are still occurring. Spying on Americans without warrants is still the order of the day. Civil liberties are continuing to be violated in the name of Oceania’s "war on terror."
Okay, well, what about the argument that this prize is being rewarded to encourage Obama to make the US behave more peacefully? Here's Naomi Klein's reaction to that on Democracy now:
And even just listening to the rationale that, 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.
Watch the speech below and see for yourself. (Actually, I can't embed that video on here, sorry. Please watch the video on their site!). He does use that rationale in justifying their decision to a reporter who questioned the decision.
In response to the Israel and Palestinian situation, she has a lot to say. I'll highlight where she discusses the Goldstone report:
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 contributed to it in many ways. So this is a moment where Palestinians more and more are saying, "OK, you raised our hopes, and now you’re dashing them."
Naomi also discusses how the US is derailing climate negotiations in Bangkok before the major meeting in Copenhagen. Of course this is a matter of peace as well as climate change could lead to major problems in many countries resulting in unnecessary deaths, displacement, and political instability. "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."
She concludes with this strong statement:
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.
Glenn Greenwald - Obama's Nobel Peace Prize:
People who live in regions that have long been devastated by American weaponry don't have the luxury of being dazzled by pretty words and speeches. They apparently -- and rationally -- won't believe that America will actually change from a war-making nation into a peace-making one until there are tangible signs that this is happening. It's because that has so plainly not yet occurred that the Nobel Committee has made a mockery out of their own award.
That was from a May airstrike in which over 100 Afghan civilians were killed by American jets -- one of many similar incidents this year, including one only a week ago that killed 9 Afghan civilians. How can someone responsible for that, and who has only escalated that war, possibly be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the very same year that he did that?
He goes on to discuss our continued presence in Iraq (yes, he's said he wants to leave, but as of right now we're still there), our continued overwhelming favoritism towards Israel after his Cairo speech, our continued confrontational attitude towards Iran, breaking treaty obligations to investigate war crimes committed under the Bush administration, and the under-the-radar new Guantanamo Bay, Bagram.
Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends combined. The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales. We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace.
He gives Obama the benefit of the doubt in the sense he has inherited these problems, but under this situation with no true evidence of change other than rhetoric in speeches given to a global audience, Glenn does not think he deserves this prize, at least not yet.
I don't really expect criticism from former prize winners, even if they truly question the decision. They have a variety of reasons to not express disapproval. That said, 1976 Nobel Prize winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire disapproved, stating that she was "very sad."
"President Obama has yet to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues.
"The Nobel committee is not meeting the conditions of Alfred Nobel's will, because he stipulated that the award is to be given to people who end militarism and war and are for disarmament."
More mildly, even someone as supportive as Michael Moore has expressed Obama doesn't quite deserve it based on what he has or hasn't done thus far, but this is his chance to earn it.
The Reuters article sighting the worst of the worst as Obama's main critics is a disservice to those rightfully questioning this decision. As we have seen on this site, and others, the frame, thanks in part to that article, is critics share something in common with crazy Republicans and Islamic extremists. Glenn has addressed this now as well:
Apparently, according to the DNC [and from many here as well, including front pagers], if you criticize this Prize, then you're an unpatriotic America-hater -- just like the Terrorists, because they're also criticizing the award. Karl Rove should be proud.