www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama and the Nobel peace prize

Even greater expectations
Oct 9th 2009
From Economist.com

Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?

AP

BARACK OBAMA, who has been America's president for just nine months, has won the 2009 Nobel peace prize. Perhaps the Nordic judges felt it was a suitable consolation after Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro in its bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. Or the prizegivers might have felt moved by Mr Obama’s personal story: that a mixed-race man is president says much about the peaceful progress on race relations in America. Instead they emphasised Mr Obama’s aspirations and his commitment to diplomacy, even if, so far, he has achieved little that is concrete.

Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia. Since coming to office Mr Obama has also overseen talks aimed at reducing the nuclear arsenals of Russia and America, while speaking of his ultimate wish to “get to zero”—somehow ridding the world of all nuclear weapons. Most substantially (and to the dismay of the Polish and Czech governments), he has scrapped an earlier plan to deploy a missile-defence shield on land in eastern Europe, which had been seen as a provocation by Russia.

Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy. Some may also see Mr Obama’s push for more action to tackle climate change as a factor—he is urging Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill and has said that his administration would decree new environmental rules if Congress fails to do so. (Al Gore, another Democratic figure, also won the Nobel prize, for his campaigns against climate change.)

Yet critics will have plenty to complain about. The prize-giving committee was at pains to emphasise Mr Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. In the citation, the committee argued that 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.” But is the award premature? Although the prize may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing around trying everything without yet achieving much.

One might point to Mr Obama’s lauded decision to close the military prison for terrorist suspects in Guantánamo Bay, and his explicit rejection of the use of torture by American spies and interrogators. Both are welcome, but for now Guantánamo Bay remains open. Carrying through on promises is proving far harder than making them. Similarly Mr Obama made progress in encouraging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold talks about peace earlier this year, but as he is distracted by other concerns both parties have since drifted away from negotiations. And so far North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Russia—among others—have offered nothing of substance to demonstrate that a policy of engagement will bring more results than Mr Bush’s tough line.

More troubling is Afghanistan. Although the Nobel committee has now rewarded Mr Obama with a title of peacemaker (plus $1.4m or so), he remains a war president. He must shortly decide whether to deploy an additional 40,000 soldiers to fight against Taliban and other insurgents in a conflict that has lasted for eight years. With no obvious means of ending that war, there is a serious possibility that Mr Obama's presidency will become dominated by worsening conditions there.

Mr Obama’s aspirations may be laudable, but he has several tough years ahead. The Nobel committee evidently wants to encourage him but it might have been wiser to hold judgment until he has achieved more. In America itself, the decision has already infuriated conservative commentators, ensuring there will be no peace on the home front, at least.

www.economist.com [economist.com]

I am not a European-hater, but I am a despiser of socialist/neo-marxist ideology. The influence of Marx and Engels on contemporary EU political thinking was/is surely the greatest travesty of the contemporary world. Europeans, at least those who can still think for themselves, should really come to terms with the history of socialism/marxism and realize that it is and always will be the antithesis of Christian thought.
What is really setting off most Americans about your posting is that the socialized medical practices of Europe are a joke. The Dutch have legalized Euthanasia, prostitution and homosexuality runs rampant, Church attendance is almost nil, yet you congratulate the small minority of Americans such as Mr Obama and company who want to follow your lead to moral bankruptcy.

Also, to deny that Europe was saved from the cold war by the American forces is sheer lunacy. It would have been in your Grandfathers best interest that he spoke Ukrainian, because London would have been Russian speaking by 1946 if the Americans were not there to protect you.

+Averky of Blessed memory summarizes contemporary European thinking quite nicely:
"Never before on this earth has there been such a huge number of people who freely and easily, without any shame, without any pangs of conscience "call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)."

Alexandr

Essentially, I guess, I would suggest that just as Americans and Europeans stood together in the wars of the 20th century, we are called upon to fight the encroachment of all oppressive ideologies together. I can understand your hatred of Marxism. I only ask that you/we seriously contend with the other, equally diabolical systems of our time and any other.


First of all, I'm still not comfortable with your equating of Marxism with socialism. Of course Marxism entails a social order that one might describe as 'socialistic', but socialism and Marixism are not the same thing. A Marxist will be socialist, but a socialist is not necessarily a Marxist.

But regardless of how we might argue that (and I'm sure we could), I was deeply impressed by Pope John Paul's suspicion of both unfettered capitalism and socialism. I expect, if we humans could devise an authentic one, he would have been most interested in a economic-social order based on Christ.

And ultimately, we are probably safer saying that fear and hatred, infidelity and death are more antithetical to Christian thought than socialism, which, at its best, is born of a good impulse.


I think that, just as Europeans - infuriatingly - portray Americans as some kind of caricature, your description above could do the same thing to Europeans. I don't get the sense that you are a European-hater. I do think, though, that without actually going to French Churches and considering the culturally 'subversive' power of some of the new religious movements; without exploring Germany and the seriousness with which Germans take their freedom (albeit in a different way to Americans); without accounting for the Irish and the Poles, who, for all they have had to contend with real scandals in the Church, remain Europe's Catholic pitbulls; without witnessing the incredible power of the still-existent European 'peasantry' as they trudge off to Church for the great festivals, it is not fair to assess the state of Europe as you have.

(Incidentally, it is perhaps no accident that the failed states of Europe, in the sense that you describe, tend to include those that became predominantly Protestant at the Reformation.)

Having said all that, I reiterate that I would not want to, for one second, excuse Europe's cowardice and lack of prophetic vision now; I just don't think it's any more helpful to see Europe as a failure and America as superior. I love America. I love Europe. And both are failures in many, many ways.


I entirely accept that American will kept the threat of Communist spread at bay. What I am arguing is that at least for the bulk of the Cold War, it was not American will alone. All through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, when NATO still meant something, transatlantic cooperation was an important dimension of the Cold War. Of course, Europe couldn't have done it without American help. But it wasn't like America was over here standing all by herself. America and Europe stood together in a way that would have made Charlemagne proud.

I just don't see why any of what we are discussing has to be absolutely one way or the other. Part of our shared heritage is faith in the power of the intellect and objective inquiry. That is why Obama strikes a chord with many, even orthodox, faithful Christians. He reminds me of the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. When Trudeau was in power, he made many mistakes; of that there can be no doubt. But what he was very good at, was seeking to understand the world and responding accordingly.

Those who have hopes for Obama may be wrong about him, but if so, at least they had a reason for having looked to him with hope in the first place.

This is really very illigical! like really... Like what kind of peace did he bring?

honestly it makes me doubt all the Nobel awards...

Peace?! It's not personal for Obama or something that has to do with american politics! It's just common sense!

Accusations against different countries' health care systems are almost never justified. Having lived most of my life in either Canada or Britain, with a former home in Texas and a brother in California, I could anecdotally identify weaknesses and strengths with all three systems.

Don't kid yourself regarding 'high taxes' and all that, though. On proportionally similar incomes, I have never done better financially than I do now in the UK. And I don't have to worry when my children fall and break their teeth and I need to take them to the dentist. My experience of health insurance premiums in the US, on the other hand, is of unaffordably high amounts.

Sometimes the rhetoric makes it sound as if British hospitals and Canadian hospitals have 3rd world conditions. I can assure you that this is not the case.

I would not argue that one is better and one worse; I would say, though, that life expectancy, as well as general health and well-being is similar in all these countries. Unless - and I don't say this to be polemical - one is among the poorest class in the US. Then, affordable health care is more difficult to come by. Having said that, I just don't think it is helpful to automatically assume that current talk of health care will mean a breakdown of everything Americans rightly hold dear.

Dear Slavophile,

I have been editing your posts for more clarity of quotes.

From now on, please click on 'Switch to Full Reply Screen' on the bottom of your draft, and then you will see an ' " ' icon on the top.

Highlight what you want quoted with your cursor, and then simply click on the " icon and it will come out in boxes like I have been doing it for you.

Thank you.

Alice, Moderator

I expect Barack Obama will be the first U.S. president to win the Nobel peace prize twice. After all, once he has turned back the oceans and healed the planet, he'll deserve another one, won't he?

To be fair, Mr. Obama seemed just as surprised as everyone else. It's not his fault that the Norwegian Nobel committee has gone collectively mad. Much as Mr. Obama is admired for his rhetoric and for being the first African-American president of the United States (and much as the world admires America for electing him), this is too much, too soon.

But at least we'll get a great Nobel speech on Dec. 10!

Top 10 Reasons to Give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize:

10. First eleven days of his administration, he didn’t invade the Sudetenland
9. He keeps Joe Biden out of the Situation Room AND “the Loop“!
8. Lobbying with First Dog Bo to give dogs the vote.
7. Keeps sending Hillary out of the country. (per Bill C.)
6. Took missiles out of Poland because of all those jokes he heard growing up.
5. Managed to successfully avoid confrontation with anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan
4. Personally kept New York City on terror alert readiness with low level fly bys of Air Force one
3. Encouraged inventor of gas mask bra every time Michelle wasn’t looking.
2. Successfully lobbied for independence for eight of the 58 states.

And the number one reason to give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize?

1. He single handedly saved Chicago from invasion by foreigners.

Very cute. Thanks.

Anyone for the destruction of human life,especially by partial birth about, DOES NOT, deserve a nobel peace prize, such a person is not about peace but about violence against the most vunerable and innocent of our society. Such an award is hypocrisy!
I am ashamed of the land of my ancestors, Norway, but not much can be expected by a country who has a long history of violence against the innocent, regardless of however they try to cover their guilt by standards of living or social economics.
It is time for such people to hear the call of repentance!
Stphanos I

On the other hand, if we want to be positive about this award, I have a few thoughts I would like to share. Most of us think that Mr. Obama personally does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact Mr. Obama himself has said he does not think he deserves it.

But America as a nation does deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, no other country has done so much for so long to defend and promote freedom, democracy and human rights all over the world. America and Americans saved Europe from fascism and communism. America and Americans are fighting today for peace and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. No nation deserves more recognition for its leadership in the world than America. So, by giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the President of the United States, I think it is possible to say that the Nobel committee honours not just Mr. Obama, but the whole nation and all Americans. And they do deserve to be honoured.

God bless America!

Vatican appreciates Obama receiving Nobel Peace Prize

Vatican City, Oct 9, 2009 / 12:59 pm (CNA).- The Vatican offered its appreciation today for President Barack Obama’s work for peace on the international level, following the announcement that the president the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi told L’Osservatore Romano that President Obama’s reception of the award “is greeted with appreciation by the Vatican” due to his efforts “to promote peace in the international arena, particularly in the recent effort in favor of the nuclear disarmament."

Fr. Lombardi also said that he hopes that the honor “may generate the expected results for the future of humanity.”

Reacting to the award, President Obama stated that it isn’t necessarily “a recognition of my own accomplishments,” but rather a “call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.”

Fox News reported that the award committee chose the President due to his work to reduce nuclear weapons, his commitment to easing tensions with the Middle East and his dedication to cooperation.

The chairman of the Norwegian committee charged with choosing the peace prize recipient, Thorbjoern Jagland, said that although the president’s initiatives have yet to bear fruit, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

In his statement today, the president also said he does not feel that he deserves “to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.”

Previous winners of the award include Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Theodore Roosevelt, Elie Wiesel and Jimmy Carter.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17351

My knowledge of American politics is probably only sightly higher than my knowledge of South African Native Flora. To put things into perspective, my knowdlege of South African native flora is none-existant

Still, I was surprised as many others were to hear that he had won the prize - mostly as I wasn't even sure if the removalists had all his belongings into the White House yet. Then about 8 minutes after I first heard the news I went 'ooooooooooooooooh - that's why'. I don't think that the committee have directly awarded President Obama. I think they have actually awarded every voting citizen of the United States of America. But of course, one can understand the difficulties associated in identifying who voted, whom they voted for and them giving them each an award and letting them present a speech - far to difficult. So an elected leader is there as a representative of the people - so the logical process is to give him the award 'in their name' Simple.

1) President Obama's (of course I mean all of the people who voted for him but for simplicity let's go with his name) award is a big 'flipping the bird' to President Bush and his administration, his supporters within the US and those nations that supported him in his War of Error (nope, not a typo).

2) The award is a massive "THANK YOU PEOPLE" to those that voted for him

3) It is a 'HA HA' (a la The Simpsons) to Sarah Palin and that old guy... does anyone remember him? Is he still around?

Before I get bombarded with PMs about being a green, hippy loving Socialist - let it be known that I am a conservative. Here in my own country I am a member of the conservative party (ironically called The Liberals!). That aside, even I could see that voting in President Obama was the right thing to do. Right from policy perspectives and ... yes I am going to say it... right for th moral reasons too. About time a man of African American heritage held the office. Cogratulations American people!!!

On another note - the talk about National Healthcare Systems amuses me. How could anyone not see a National Health System as a positive thing. In Australia we have a susbstantial health system - admittedly it could be better - but the standard of living is one of the highest in the world - we routinely have 3 or 4 or 5 cities in the top rankings, and both sides of the spectrum support it and I dare-say would like to see it developed further.

Considering the forum in which this topic is being discussed - doesn't a healt system seem the Christian thing to do?

Just some thoughts.

Misha

Among realistic candidates I would have loved it if Vaclav Klaus had gotten the award. The guy has been a thorn in the side of the EU, has opposed partnerships for homosexuals and independence for Kosovo, blamed Georgia for the war in South Ossetia, and considers Global Warming a myth.

I for one was not surprised.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been devalued and has lost all meaning and credibility years ago.

Jimmy Carter, Yasir Arafat and Al Gore... Now B.H.O.

<shrug>