November 2009 / vol. 6 issue 3
| What, no Country Music Association Female Vocalist of the Year? Illustration by jeffrey miranda |
Nobel, No Way
Why Obama should refuse the prize
Kofi Annon, fantastic U.N. Secretary General — worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Mother Theresa, savior of the poor — worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. Martin Luther King, Jr., powerful leader in the civil rights movement — worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. What has President Obama done to join ranks with such illustrious individuals? Practically nothing. President Obama ought to have declined the Nobel Peace Prize because the basis for his nomination violated Alfred Nobel’s intent and because he will be allowing foreign influence to interfere in the decision-making realm of U.S. Middle-Eastern policy by accepting it.
Alfred Nobel, the founder of the award, planned for the prize to be given to individuals in recognition of actions already completed to promote peace. It is difficult to understand, then, what Obama did in his limited time in office that made him more deserving of the award than other possible choices, such as Hu Jia, the Chinese rights activist imprisoned for his protestation against unfair government practices, and Greg Mortensen, whose relentless efforts to improve female education in Pakistan and Afghanistan resulted in the creation of eighty-eight different schools.
The submission deadline for nominations for the award in February was twelve days after Obama was inaugurated as President. What did he do in that short time to promote peace?
During his first week in office, Obama dispatched George Mitchell as a special envoy for Middle East Peace and Richard Holbrook as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He issued an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay within a year and another order formally banning torture for terrorism interrogations in the United States.
Although noble, those actions are not on par with the lifelong efforts of previous winners, such as Nelson Mandela, who spent years of his life aiding the South African movement to end apartheid and many more years behind bars as a result of said efforts.
The committee’s decision makes sense only if the prize was given, as the committee later announced, as a symbol to motivate President Obama to work to maintain peace in the Middle-East. That raises problems because it is contrary to Alfred Nobel’s intent. More importantly, though, it forces Obama to risk violating his obligation to defend the U.S.
By accepting the award, Obama has consented to the council’s view that he will promote peace in the Middle East. Such consent makes him tacitly beholden to the ideal of the award and thus puts him in conflict with his duties as Commander in Chief. If more troops in Afghanistan or Iraq are needed, how can the winner of a Nobel Prize for promoting peace make that decision?
I am no jingoist and do not support the current American wars; however, it irritates me to know that President Obama, who swore to protect the country from threats domestic or foreign, might feel bound by a council of foreigners to maintain a level of peace consistent with their award standards.
What’s worse is that the committee’s decision to award the prize to President Obama was not only an attempt to influence future U.S. foreign policy but also a means to express its disapproval of Bush policy. The mere act of nominating Obama right after his inauguration was a slap in the face of the Bush Administration.
I neither approved of nor voted for Bush, but it can be said that his administration accomplished more tangible acts of peacemaking throughout his eight years in office than Obama could have in twelve days.
Consider, for instance, his work with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bettie Ahern to broker peace in Northern Ireland or the fact that U.S. aid to Africa increased three-fold during his time in office and trade with the continent nearly doubled. The importance of promoting sustainable growth in third-world countries in order to prevent hostilities cannot be stressed enough.
While the Bush Administration should be blamed for much of what is wrong with American foreign policy in the Middle-East, one should not blatantly disregard the major efforts the Bush Administration took to broker peace in the world.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee overstepped its bounds by attempting both to comment on past U.S. foreign practices and influence future U.S. foreign policy. Obama should have declined the award and pursued further peacemaking efforts solely on U.S. terms.
Add a comment!