Nobel Peace Prize for War President: Is That OK?
Posted: Thursday, December 10, 2009
by Mogama
http://www.mogama.info
The world expected it when Mahatma
Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Nelson Mandela, received the Nobel
Peace Prize. Each of the recipients was devoted to nonviolent change
as opposed to using war and bloodshed to effect change.
We cannot say the same of President
Barack Obama, who hugged his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009,
after authorizing an additional 30,000 warriors in the now
unnecessary war in Afghanistan.
If the choice of Mr. Obama by the
Norwegian Nobel Committee in October 2009 was shocking, then what is
now even more shocking is President Obama's audacity to actually take
delivery of the Peace Prize after proudly owning the title of War
President.
Upon first hearing the news that he had
been chosen to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize, the President
said he was "surprised and deeply humbled". He then described the
Nobel Committee's decision as "a call to action."
But action for what? Since the award is
called the Peace Prize, should we not assume that the recipient's
action has to be one of peace, the use of nonviolent means to resolve
conflicts? Or is possible in this age of fluid diction that one can
now accept a peace prize while he proudly wears the mantle of War
President? How under heaven can President Obama escalate the
unnecessary war in Afghanistan, then fly over to Norway to possess an
award whose objective is nonviolence, the opposite of war?
Back in October I was one of those who
thought it was OK for Mr. Obama to accept the Peace Prize. But after
his war talk and war action, I have joined the ranks of those who are
now asking, "What meaning is left of the Nobel Peace Prize?"
It is true that President Obama says he
will promote the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, but that is
not enough. He is not really a man of peace if he decries nuclear
weapons while he willingly orders his military to step up the war in
Afghanistan.
That Mr. Obama had done nothing to
deserve the prize at the time it was awarded is no longer the main
point. The bigger point is that he had the audacity to escalate the
Afghanistan war on his way to taking delivery of his peace prize.
Even more mind-bugling is that President Obama seems to blindly
disregard the blatant contraction of this duplicity. Man O' Peace and
Man O' War should not be the same man.
Does anyone on the Nobel Committee
believe that America's war in Afghanistan is still necessary as it
was eight years ago, back in 2001 in the aftermath of 911? If they
believe that Mr. Obama's escalation of violence by war is definitely
not the action they called for in awarding him the Peace Prize, why
weren't they courageous enough to have rescinded their decision?
Both the Nobel Committee and President
Obama had their opportunity to spare the world another parade of
hypocrisy, but they chose not to. The committee could have kept its
Prize after it learned that the President was to authorize a troop
increase in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama should have changed his his
decision about receiving the Prize once he knew he would step up the
war in Afghanistan.
Hi Mogama,I have been considering the same issues with President Obama. Although it is true that President Obama inherited these wars, it is now up to him to bring them to a resolution. I cannot help but think that the Industrial War machine has a great amount of influence on the president's decision making.Good article.MarkThanks, Mark, for commenting. I am surprised how quickly the war machine has been able to transform Mr. Obama into a pro-war president. ~mogama~
Hi Mogama. Eloquent piece and it explained the hypocrisy. "Man O' Peace and Man O' War should not be the same man." I agree. Thank you for sharing this point of view with us. Excellent article. Happy holidays. NenitaHi, Nenita. I appreciate your kind words. ~mogama~
Mogama,I found President Obama's speech honest and sincere. I think he did what he had to do both in adding 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and in accepting the peace prize. (The additional troops, however, should be conditional upon his desire to win the war and not have another Vietnam!)The blame lies in the committee selecting Obama in the 1st place when, indeed, there was no reason for it -- which he so eloquently admitted. Not that it shouldn't be awarded to him further down the road when he might deserve such recognition. But then again, it was awarded to Al Gore because of his 'work' in global warming. Now that was a bit hasty as well, n'est ce pas? (It is 20 degrees here in New Jersey and winter has yet to arrive!)You're right, Nancy, in saying that the Nobel Committee is to blame. I think they were shocked by President Obama's Peace Prize speech, where he sounded very much like Mr. G.W. Bush, in defending the need for war. But it's too late now for them to take back their Prize, I think. ~mogama~
Very well done. We all know Mr. Obama was selected based solely on rhetoric, not substance. Sure, he has vowed to create a nuclear-free world, yet words do not supplant actions.Or perhaps these days they do. Mr. Obama objectively does not deserve this award, yet perhaps the committee believes he will sometime in the future live up to his rhetoric and this award. I too hope that. I still give him the benefit of the doubt, though.Finally, you are right: it would have been better for the committee to keep the Peace prize until either there is true peace or until another Ghandi or Mandela comes along. Mr. Obama, regardless how formidable he might be, is no Ghandi or Mandela.Again, well done.Insightful comments, Michael. The Nobel Committee probably awarded the Peace Prize on hope for peace via the charisma of Mr. Obama. Now that President Obama sounds like a hawkish warrior in his Prize acceptance speech, I'm pretty sure some Committee members may be scratching their beards, having second and third thoughts. ~mogama~
Well posed questions and good article to give us much to think about. there is some irony in this all, isn't there? Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. MarijoThanks, Marijo, for your comment. ~mogama~
I think obama is just as media hyped as any other president has ever been. Its just unfortunate that the Nobel foundation is in someone's pocketThanks, Jonathan, for reading. ~mogama~
