Nobel Prize Simply a Political Statement
by: Kenneth Simon ‘11Award an affirmation of Obama’s rhetorical ability, not of accomplishments
The story missing in the latest political saga surrounding President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize victory are the thank you notes for former President George W. Bush. It seems very clear that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in the same way he won the White House: by not being George W. Bush and by rhetoric superseding deeds. The Norwegian Nobel Committee released a press statement regarding the victory contending, “Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.” In laymen terms the Committee gave President Obama an award for not being, albeit a misguided perception, President Bush. I find it terribly difficult to comprehend giving a peace award to a war time President. The irony of President Obama leaving his Peace Prize press conference to go to briefings on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan speaks volumes about how much he actually deserves the award.
About President Obama the committee notes, “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.” One must only assume that this concept of the world has freedom, as a fundamental right for all citizens of the world, not being one of those values and attitudes “shared by the majority of the world’s population.” I find the aforementioned attitude and value to be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, but I guess President George W. Bush was just too much of a cowboy diplomat to receive such a refined award. The Nobel Committee used this award of substance and history to make a shallow political statement. The world is no more peaceful since the election of President Obama.
Furthermore, I doubt the Nobel Committee endorses the Afghanistan war being a “war of necessity,” but their choice for the Nobel Peace Prize certainly endorses the idea of the Afghan war being one of necessity. Again, so much for the President’s policy being directed by the “majority of the world’s population.” Trying to get half of our country to agree on the necessity of the Afghanistan war is hard enough. The White House does not even consider leaving Afghanistan to be an option. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asserted, “We are not leaving Afghanistan. This discussion is about next steps forward and the President has some momentous decisions to make.” I have never thought of myself as much of an intellectual, but my guess is that this Nobel Peace Prize is not meant to award individuals who engage in wars of necessity. While I support the President’s steadfastness in regards to the Afghanistan war, this example exemplifies the real reasons for this award being given to a President who has continued many of the policies of the his unpopular predecessor. President Obama received this award, in large part, because his words, not his actions, were unlike those of President George W. Bush.
There is nothing wrong with being a great orator, but President Obama has benefited from oratory superseding deeds. During the presidential campaign President Obama often spoke about changing Washington by making bi-partisanship the rule rather than the exception. On the other hand his Republican opponent Senator John McCain actually had experience in creating bi-partisanship and was famous, sometimes even infamous, for reaching out to his Democratic colleagues on major issues such as Campaign Finance Reform. However, it was the soaring rhetoric that lifted Senator Obama to the Presidency over the substantive experience of his opponent. Now, the same soaring rhetoric has lifted President Obama, a war time president, to the Nobel Peace Prize. The difference in the policies of President Obama and his predecessor is not one of substance, but instead the difference is merely the number of speeches the President has dedicated to pushing his war policy which for all intents and purposes is the same as President Bush’s.
I am always happy when the United States wins, but winning is not the bottom line. I can claim no joy in seeing our nation lose the Olympics a few weeks ago and neither can I claim any joy in seeing our President being given an award that even he feels is unwarranted. President Obama responsibly notes, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.” President Obama should turn down the award and commit himself to actually bringing about the world he “envisions.”
The next Nobel Peace Prize award goes out in three years and this would be a more responsible time to decide whether or not the President should receive this award.
Related posts:
Loading ...