Friday, October 16, 2009

Peace Prize Follow-Up

Wes Brown, over at the Journal of the American Bull Moose, wrote a good article about why President Obama does not deserve the Peace Prize. (Article found here.)  I stand by the conclusions of my previous post, but wanted to clarify a few things in light of Wes's article, and partially to respond.


In pointing out Obama's lack of demonstrable accomplishment, Wes points out, "The Guantanamo Bay detainment camp is still open.  The economy still sucks.  The war in Afghanistan is still going as is the war in Iraq."  This typifies the response I've noticed from Americans (including my own initial response).  First, let me ask what our economy has to do with world peace?  I mention it because it seems that people who think he has done nothing to further peace are really just frustrated that he has yet to accomplish much of what was promised to us, as Americans, during his campaign.  This sentiment that he hasn't done what he was supposed to do gets transferred to the Peace Prize.  Second, Obama started neither of those two wars, and pulling out all our troops on January 21, 2009 would have been indescribably disastrous.  So, while we might debate his actions to bring those wars to a close, it is demonstrably unfair to count against him -- within the context of the Nobel Prize -- the persistence of these wars.

Americans were promised a better economy and an end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; he hasn't yet delivered, so many Americans feel gyped.  "He hasn't done anything yet."  Translation:  "He hasn't done the things that caused me to vote for him."  Let's consider the crazy notion that the Nobel committee might have other criteria for awarding the prize.

Which brings me to my next point.  The Nobel Committee awarded Obama the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."  Not, you'll notice, for his magical ability to end wars and make whole the American economy.

Example:  the European missile shield.  I still don't understand why a bigger deal was not made of this, here, in the U.S., but elsewhere, (like Poland for instance), this was big news.  In short, the Bush Administration insisted on a missile defense system in eastern Europe, to protect against so-called rogue nations like Iran.  Understandably, Russia felt threatened.  The back-and-forth involved Russia issuing veiled threats of nuclear strikes in Europe, and conducting troop maneuvers in violation of some treaties.[1]  Obama has modified the missile shield proposal sufficiently to allow Russia to back down and eastern Europeans to sleep easier.

Example:  Reacting to the Bush administration's animosity, Hugo Chavez publicly courted Russia, suggesting that it station troops in Venezuela.  While Obama's relationship with Chavez is not exactly a Nick Nolte / Eddie Murphy buddy cop movie, our countries have reopened diplomatic discourse, and Chavez has made no further move toward bringing Russian troops to South America.  Also, agree with the move or not, we are all well aware of the gestures Obama has made toward Cuba, by way of Chavez.

Example:  Rather than calling it part of the Axis of Evil (seriously? Axis of Evil? Are they, like, sith lords or something?), Obama attempted a more moderated diplomacy with Iran.

Now, the effects and ultimate outcome of these examples remain to be seen, and their advisability may be legitimately debated.  And admittedly, much of Obama's actions in these cases occurred after the Nobel Committee nominated him (though, one should note, before they cast their final votes).  But that's not the point.  The point is that his administration has marked a hugely significant change in world diplomacy.

Remember how disastrous John Bolton was as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.?  I wouldn't blame you if you don't, seeing has how most Americans have been blissfully unaware of just how much damage he did.  He said, "There is no such thing as the United Nations.  There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."  He also famously wrote that "the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy."  Bolton was abrasive, to be sure, but he merely symbolized a dangerous course of American diplomacy, which Obama has steadily been correcting.  Let's also not forget that Obama did things before January 21st.  The last few years of his life have been, at least partially, dedicated to changing the American course.  If you want an accomplishment, one way to look at it is that he has been striving to change an overriding American mentality, and getting elected President roughly symbolized the achievement of that change.

And it has had an immediate effect on the world.  Further examples here, here, and here, of what Obama represents.

Which brings me to my last main argument, which is that the Nobel Peace Prize is not only awarded to an individual.  It's awarded to a pseudo-movement, a capital-E Effort.  Obama represents a movement in America to change what had been shaping the entire world's politics for the past eight years.  As such, he has already accomplished substantive changes, and, as usual with Peace Prize winners, still has a long row to hoe.  When Wes Brown argues that the Prize requires some sort of sacrifice, I think that (1) he underestimates the sacrifices that Obama and his family have made for the President's career, and (2) he misses part of the purpose of the award.  The Committee didn't award the Peace Prize to Mandela for sitting in prison for 27 years, likewise it didn't award Martin Luther King, Jr. the prize for being jailed.  It awarded these men the prize for spearheading movements that changed the world.  Personal sacrifice seems to often come attendant to such lives (Carl von Ossietzky for instance), but it is not an award criteria.  Wes, please review some of the other Prize Laureates, like Woodrow Wilson, Willy Brandt, Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles Gates Dawes, and Jimmy Carter, for example.

Many Americans seem to think the presidency is just a good gig, but it's worth remembering how heavy a yoke it is.  To attain the office, especially for the purpose of making the country and the world a better, more peaceful place, requires a life's dedication.  THAT is what the Committee awarded the Nobel Prize.

--------------------------

[1]  For a fuller discussion of the U.S.-Russia back-and-forth, hit up your Google.  Some examples of what went on:  Russia got miffed and rejected the idea of cooperating with us on the missile shield; it went from miffed to pissed, threatening to target European sites with its own missiles; hilarity ensues -- Russia actually warned about using its nukes on Poland; more warnings, followed by illegal troop exercises.  Bush wouldn't back down, and neither could Putin or Medvedev.  But of course, because it involved missiles over there, no one over here seemed to care all that much.

No comments:

Post a Comment