Alfred Nobel, the person who invented dynamite, set up the Nobel Peace Prize.
On Thursday, Barack Obama received the Peace Prize. The reason given was: for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
The American right-wing, with spokespeople Hannity and Limbaugh front and forward, argue that he did not deserve the prize.
Let’s assume he didn’t for moment. What should he have done? Not accepted it? It’s ludicrous for us to blame Obama for the award, as if he had done it for himself. The fact is, a panel in Norway made the decision. It’s not an American decision, and it’s not an American choice.
This award shows that the international community sees a positive change in American policy after 8 years of jingoism. The jingoists may not like it, but the Norwegians get to express their opinion, and that’s what they did. And whether we like it or not, Obama is joining an exclusive list of names, including
- Woodrow Wilson
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Martin Luther King
- Nelson Mandela
- George Marshall
- Willy Brandt
- Andrei Sakharov
- Mother Teresa
- Lech Walesa
- Elie Wiesel
- Mikhail Gorbachev
- Jimmy Carter
- Al Gore
We may not agree with the panel’s decision, but as a nation we should be proud that our president won this honor. His acceptance speech was humble and appropriate.
“Humble and appropriate”? Wouldn’t you say that his speech was less of an acceptance for him winning the prize and more of a justification for his decisions to fuel the War? And War being the act of something I would argue is opposite of an act of peace, it seems inappropriate to me to give the peace prize to someone who is fueling current war, future war, and explaining the authoritative jurisdictions of the promotions of Bush’s past war.
There is just so much wrong here. If he is receiving the award because of his “strengthening cooperation between peoples”, I would say he is further dividing the cooperation between peoples because he is further dividing the economically and politically segregated people in this country by breaking his promises of ending the war, and doing just the opposite. Just read michael moore’s opinion here: http://obrag.org/?p=15314
But even if you do agree with me, I guess that you could argue that he could have humbly and appropriately justified himself.
Well, somebody in a position of leadership of a country does not have the luxury of taking one isolated instance and acting completely consistent in all other areas on responsibility. There is Afghanistan, which cannot just be ignored at this point. It’s still there, and it’s a very dangerous place for all involved.
However, he is systematically creating an image of a United States that tries to work with the international community in a constructive manner — which cannot be said for the previous administration. For every example of war activity, there are probably ten examples of peace activities.
I am sure it’s not as simple as it seems for us sitting on the outside looking in.