I have something of a set ritual every day when I wake up. I try and dodge the alarm clocks. I have an old little analogue alarm clock I set for around 6am. I also have the alarm on the blackberry set to (depending on how I feel the night before) about the same time. I usually don't hear the regular clock for whatever reason. Anyway, one favourite technique of avoiding the alarm is to wake up, pick up the blackberry and head back to bed. I keep the thing deliberately away from arm's reach so that I have to get up to turn it off. Usually, it ends up with me taking the phone back to bed with me and leaving it by my head so I can hit snooze again in 10 minutes. Sometimes, I read the already queued up emails (being on the West Coast of North America means that the Indians, Chinese and the East Coasters have already finished/started their day). I also, if I am up for it, check facebook and the BBC in that order. And so it was Friday morning last week. The headline of course, in case you have forgotten, is that the President of the United States won the Nobel Prize for peace. I dozed off. I think I woke up at the next alarm ring and checked again to make sure I wasn't dreaming that one up.
I wasn't. My first reaction was... for what? Traditionally, the Nobel prizes are held in fairly high prestige around the world. Its not so much that people compete to win, its more just something very prestigious to be associated with. I know that my Alma Mater has been dreaming forever of winning more Nobel prizes. To date, we have a single one, that of Dr. Michael Smith. There are other measures of a research university besides winning Nobel prizes (say, publishing in a prestigious journal like the Lancet or Nature)... but winning a Nobel prize seems to be the gold standard as it were.
The peace prize is probably the only controversial one of the lot. It seems like they are given out (not always) for political reasons. That is not to say that many of the winners are not worthy; people like Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela and organisations like the ICRC are perhaps the epitome of the award but sometimes, the Norwegians hand the award out to some questionable characters out there. Like say one Henry Kissinger. Someone many people consider worthy of being sent to the Hague to be tried for crimes of war committed primarily in many South American countries during his time in the State Department and as National Security advisor. One such event was that other September 11th, way back in 1973, for those who care to go find out more. Or say Arafat, Rabin and Peres. Or Al Gore. And now Obama.
Nevermind that the citations were for some noble cause in most cases; in the case of Kissinger, it was for the end of the hell that was the Vietnam war, in the case of the trio from the middle-east, it was for the Oslo Accord. Al Gore won probably because of that film he made and for his talk on global warming in a country that officially didn't accept it (at the time anyway). I am sure there are plenty of people out there who believe, one way or the other that these people didn't deserve their awards and should be thrown in prison or mocked for their hypocrisy or something like that. Equally, I am sure there are those out there that believe their contributions were legitimate to the Nobel committee's stated citation, no matter what they did before or since.
The Obama nomination is something else though. Pretty much anyone else prior has done _something_ to deserve their award. We can point to something tangible to justify that. Henry Kissinger _did_ help end the war in Vietnam. The three musketeers from the Middle East _did_ indeed sign the Oslo accord (and Clinton made sure they shook hands) in the (I think genuine) hopes of making peace amongst their people. US President Obama was nominated two weeks after he was sworn in as President. His citation talks about "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Aside from making a promise to close the illegal prison in Cuba, he had not done much else other than being a) not Bush and b) the first half-black President of the United States. His election did indeed bring about something of a renewal in the United States. People seem to have genuine hope and a wish for a more progressive prosperous and non-violent United States. Or at least one that is much more multilateral than the prior administration.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Obama or pro-Obama. I am merely interested in the man. Generally, I think he has been good for the image of the United States; Obama is much more palatable as the person representing the United States compared to the cretins from the previous 8 years. Some of them are probably responsible for crimes against humanity and will never face justice for their crimes. But that is the world we live in. Obama is also a very eloquent man who has expressed some incredibly noble thoughts and ideas to various parts of the world. I recall seeing a survey they conducted in Canada which said that Canadians would elect Obama by a 94% margin. For those keeping score, that is much higher than the percentage the Americans themselves were willing to elect him by. Not that the poll has much credence because a) it is a poll, b) Canadians do not get to elect American presidents and c) Canadians are a lot more left leaning than our American cousins. Suffice to say, Obama is a rock star in Canada. Canadians probably know more about him and his life than they do about their own leadership.
Anyway, the point here is to ask what exactly Obama has done so far to be given the Nobel prize for peace. I am baffled as to what he has done to strengthen anything. He hasn't said silly things like "If you're not with us, you're against us" for example, but does that qualify to put him the same league as Linus Pauling? He hasn't started any new wars based on highly questionable intelligence or flimsy lies. Does that qualify him? He hasn't added any new country to the Axis of Evil yet. Is that enough? He hasn't really made any headway with any of the issues that the world has put on his plate (and ones he has gladly championed)... the plight of Cuba, the lunacy of what is going on in the Middle East, the mess the previous administration left with the two active wars, the illegal prison in Cuba, the support for questionable governments (like the ones in Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia), the alarming changes in climate and so on and on and on. He is the President of the United States, not the President of the rest of the world. Just because we want him to solve all the problems out there... it doesn't mean he will. I don't know what he has done to get the award. I am baffled as to why he was given the award.
Note that this is jealousy or some kind of anti-American rant or anything like that. I've so far heard many people have issues with people questioning the logic behind handing him the award. I feel that some of these die-hard supporters of Obama consider than in the same vein as someone picking up a rusty nail and poking the eye balls out of a cute puppy and then stomping it to death. I mean, yes, he's a half-black man, he won fair and square in the election and he means well and electing him is quite an accomplishment for the United States of America in their quest to reconcile their sordid past... but he is no god or demi-god for that matter. He's just a guy. And he's going to do what all the guys before him did. Protect the interests of his country in a world where there are winners and losers. That means that if it makes economic/political/military sense, he will support a murderous regime. That means he will gladly do trade with one communist regime while doing his best to starve another. It means that he will always see one group of middle easterners as legitimate and the other as corrupt and one that encourages terrorism. This isn't going to change. Obama may be a half-black President. But he's not nuts.
Or maybe I have underestimated the Nobel committee. Perhaps they are much smarter than I give them credit for. Perhaps they have hanged the carcass of the dead albatross around Captain Obama's neck while he navigates the rough waters of the world. Perhaps they have pigeon-holed him into not doing anything too nasty by giving him the peace prize. Because after all, the expectation of the world now is for him to live up to the award he already been given. This is a bit orthodox if you ask me, but it might just work. Give someone an award and maybe, just maybe, you can force them into acting for the collective good of the world.
At any rate, interesting times are ahead.
I wasn't. My first reaction was... for what? Traditionally, the Nobel prizes are held in fairly high prestige around the world. Its not so much that people compete to win, its more just something very prestigious to be associated with. I know that my Alma Mater has been dreaming forever of winning more Nobel prizes. To date, we have a single one, that of Dr. Michael Smith. There are other measures of a research university besides winning Nobel prizes (say, publishing in a prestigious journal like the Lancet or Nature)... but winning a Nobel prize seems to be the gold standard as it were.
The peace prize is probably the only controversial one of the lot. It seems like they are given out (not always) for political reasons. That is not to say that many of the winners are not worthy; people like Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela and organisations like the ICRC are perhaps the epitome of the award but sometimes, the Norwegians hand the award out to some questionable characters out there. Like say one Henry Kissinger. Someone many people consider worthy of being sent to the Hague to be tried for crimes of war committed primarily in many South American countries during his time in the State Department and as National Security advisor. One such event was that other September 11th, way back in 1973, for those who care to go find out more. Or say Arafat, Rabin and Peres. Or Al Gore. And now Obama.
Nevermind that the citations were for some noble cause in most cases; in the case of Kissinger, it was for the end of the hell that was the Vietnam war, in the case of the trio from the middle-east, it was for the Oslo Accord. Al Gore won probably because of that film he made and for his talk on global warming in a country that officially didn't accept it (at the time anyway). I am sure there are plenty of people out there who believe, one way or the other that these people didn't deserve their awards and should be thrown in prison or mocked for their hypocrisy or something like that. Equally, I am sure there are those out there that believe their contributions were legitimate to the Nobel committee's stated citation, no matter what they did before or since.
The Obama nomination is something else though. Pretty much anyone else prior has done _something_ to deserve their award. We can point to something tangible to justify that. Henry Kissinger _did_ help end the war in Vietnam. The three musketeers from the Middle East _did_ indeed sign the Oslo accord (and Clinton made sure they shook hands) in the (I think genuine) hopes of making peace amongst their people. US President Obama was nominated two weeks after he was sworn in as President. His citation talks about "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Aside from making a promise to close the illegal prison in Cuba, he had not done much else other than being a) not Bush and b) the first half-black President of the United States. His election did indeed bring about something of a renewal in the United States. People seem to have genuine hope and a wish for a more progressive prosperous and non-violent United States. Or at least one that is much more multilateral than the prior administration.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Obama or pro-Obama. I am merely interested in the man. Generally, I think he has been good for the image of the United States; Obama is much more palatable as the person representing the United States compared to the cretins from the previous 8 years. Some of them are probably responsible for crimes against humanity and will never face justice for their crimes. But that is the world we live in. Obama is also a very eloquent man who has expressed some incredibly noble thoughts and ideas to various parts of the world. I recall seeing a survey they conducted in Canada which said that Canadians would elect Obama by a 94% margin. For those keeping score, that is much higher than the percentage the Americans themselves were willing to elect him by. Not that the poll has much credence because a) it is a poll, b) Canadians do not get to elect American presidents and c) Canadians are a lot more left leaning than our American cousins. Suffice to say, Obama is a rock star in Canada. Canadians probably know more about him and his life than they do about their own leadership.
Anyway, the point here is to ask what exactly Obama has done so far to be given the Nobel prize for peace. I am baffled as to what he has done to strengthen anything. He hasn't said silly things like "If you're not with us, you're against us" for example, but does that qualify to put him the same league as Linus Pauling? He hasn't started any new wars based on highly questionable intelligence or flimsy lies. Does that qualify him? He hasn't added any new country to the Axis of Evil yet. Is that enough? He hasn't really made any headway with any of the issues that the world has put on his plate (and ones he has gladly championed)... the plight of Cuba, the lunacy of what is going on in the Middle East, the mess the previous administration left with the two active wars, the illegal prison in Cuba, the support for questionable governments (like the ones in Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia), the alarming changes in climate and so on and on and on. He is the President of the United States, not the President of the rest of the world. Just because we want him to solve all the problems out there... it doesn't mean he will. I don't know what he has done to get the award. I am baffled as to why he was given the award.
Note that this is jealousy or some kind of anti-American rant or anything like that. I've so far heard many people have issues with people questioning the logic behind handing him the award. I feel that some of these die-hard supporters of Obama consider than in the same vein as someone picking up a rusty nail and poking the eye balls out of a cute puppy and then stomping it to death. I mean, yes, he's a half-black man, he won fair and square in the election and he means well and electing him is quite an accomplishment for the United States of America in their quest to reconcile their sordid past... but he is no god or demi-god for that matter. He's just a guy. And he's going to do what all the guys before him did. Protect the interests of his country in a world where there are winners and losers. That means that if it makes economic/political/military sense, he will support a murderous regime. That means he will gladly do trade with one communist regime while doing his best to starve another. It means that he will always see one group of middle easterners as legitimate and the other as corrupt and one that encourages terrorism. This isn't going to change. Obama may be a half-black President. But he's not nuts.
Or maybe I have underestimated the Nobel committee. Perhaps they are much smarter than I give them credit for. Perhaps they have hanged the carcass of the dead albatross around Captain Obama's neck while he navigates the rough waters of the world. Perhaps they have pigeon-holed him into not doing anything too nasty by giving him the peace prize. Because after all, the expectation of the world now is for him to live up to the award he already been given. This is a bit orthodox if you ask me, but it might just work. Give someone an award and maybe, just maybe, you can force them into acting for the collective good of the world.
At any rate, interesting times are ahead.
Comments