Do you remember all the controversy over the Obama SNL skit? Well the boys at SNL may have been a few steps ahead of the entire world. Today’s announcement that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize has started the international cannons firing. What can be worse than getting the Nobel Peace Prize when you haven’t done anything to earn it? How about countless from around the world coming out to tell you how underserving you are?
Here is the UK Guardian (more liberal than the Times):
“Which is all very well, except that Obama is fighting wars in two Islamic states – Iraq and Afghanistan – and his efforts at international diplomacy, notwithstanding his powerful desire to achieve quick results, has thus far shown almost no progress in pushing forward peace talks in the Middle East and only very partial progress on Iran. It is true that he has made real advances in "resetting" US-Russian relations, not least over his decision to cancel an anti-missile shield that was to be based in eastern Europe, but the consequences of that engagement are too early to judge.
The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W Bush. Or rather being less like the last president. The question now is whether having being anointed perhaps too early by the committee, a Nobel prize earned so cheaply and at so little cost will help him in his efforts on the international stage or rather be an albatross around his neck. Something against which all his future efforts will be judged – and perhaps found wanting.”
Or the UK Telegraph:
“The only possible explanation for the judges' decision to reward Mr Obama is that they are betting on his future achievements. They think he might secure an epoch-making settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians as well as a sweeping disarmament treaty with Russia. Having previously given the Nobel Peace Prize to leaders who have made real agreements to resolve real conflicts, the judges now appear to be rewarding effort and possible future accomplishment.” (Emphasis mine)
Here AP says the committee was favoring Chinese dissidents. Could it be Obama was chosen so as to avoid offending China? A Nobel Peace Prize for the Nobel Peace Prize anyone? Obama gets sloppy seconds? Double ouch.
My take? Two points really.
The first is why should the committee wait to give Obama a prize? Those on the left are rewarded for intentions, not results. Look at Hillary Clinton’s election campaign where she touted her health care reform credentials and stated that few had done as much as her for health care reform. That was the clincher for many on the left, not the fact that few had failed so miserably at health care reform. Even if Obama ends up creating WWIII he will be heralded from the left as someone trying to calm the tumult of an international maelstrom.
The second is that I seriously have trouble reading such critical pieces from the international press regarding a US President. Even if it is Obama and much of it is true. We don’t need our Presidents, right or left, belittled by half-hearted, insincerities. By awarding an award without the weight of legitimacy to back up their decision, this particular award will be little more than a ball-in-chain. Obama should have rejected it, insulted. On a personal note, I would have accepted it. I could use the money.
Via Left Coast Rebel
Via The UK Guardian
Via The UK Telegraph