Commentary
Peace prize for promises, promises . . .
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Oct 16, 2009, 00:09

Rarely has a president of the United States held the hopes of so many around the world in his hands as President Barack Obama. Prior to his inauguration as the 44th US president last January, he promised to right the wrongs committed by his predecessor and to bring peace to our troubled planet. Nine months on and we’re still in the gestation period. Many are wondering whether the stork will ever deliver the baby.

However, it appears that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s five decision-makers have been charmed by carefully crafted words without substance. Just two weeks after the first black US president moved into the White House, they decided that he was their man.

In defence of the committee’s selection, the former prime minister of Norway, Thorbjoern Jagland, insisted Obama deserved the accolade due to his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” as well as his “work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Obama says he is “humbled” and “surprised” by the award, which he views as a call to action. The problem is, until now, he has displayed nothing but inaction; a fact that hasn’t escaped America’s best-known comedians and talk show hosts.

“Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far is wining the Nobel Peace Prize,” said Jay Leno. Jon Stewart derided him for piling “stuff” on his plate, but failing to “chow” down.

During a Saturday Night Live skit, Obama was impersonated by Fred Armisen who said, “When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I’ve done so far . . . and that is, nothing.”

Armisen then flourished a checklist of Obama’s non-accomplishments that included, “Close Guantanamo Bay -- Not done,” “Out of Iraq -- Not done,” “Improve Afghanistan -- Worse,” “Global Warming -- Not done,” “Limits on executive powers -- Not done” and “Torture prosecutions -- Not done.”

Naturally, Republicans have jumped on the mock-Obama bandwagon with alacrity. In a GOP fundraising letter, Republic National Committee chief Michael Steele wrote, “It’s a stunning, if not truly surprising, indication of just how meaningless a once honourable and respected award has become.” Others are characterising their president as a ditherer.

The left-wing British press has been even more savage in its condemnation. “No wonder he said he was ‘humbled’ when told the news,” wrote The Independent’s Robert Fisk. “He should have felt humiliated . . . For the first time in history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded its peace prize to a man who has achieved nothing -- in the faint hope that he will do something good in the future. That’s how bad things are.”

“The reality is that the award is less of a recognition of Mr Obama’s achievements than a mark of thanks from the world for his not being George W. Bush,” suggests a Guardian editorial, which echoes the thoughts of Cuba’s Castro.

Writing in the Guardian, Howard Zinn said, “People should be given a peace prize not on the basis of promises they have made -- as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises -- but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war and Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

But are those currently delighting in mocking Obama as one of the most unworthy Nobel recipients in history being fair?

I would venture to say not entirely. While Armisen’s checklist is, sadly, accurate, Obama has managed to diffuse burgeoning tensions between the West and Russia over the proposed anti-missile shield that was set to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama’s decision to shelve this plan was an important step towards quelling Moscow’s fears and preventing a new Cold War.

The US leader’s visit to Cairo last June, where he made his famous speech designed to reach out to the Muslim world, did succeed in smoothing feathers ruffled by the Bush cabal and dampening anti-American hostility that was rife throughout Muslim countries from Morocco to Indonesia.

It is also true to say that President Obama genuinely wishes to further Middle East peace and is sincere in his pursuit of a Palestinian state. That said, like so many like-minded would-be brokers before him he cannot work miracles. It’s unfortunate that Israel’s present government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, is one of the most hard-nosed in history with no intention of relinquishing land for peace.

Yet, I cannot help but conclude that as well intentioned as they might be, members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee have made a mistake. Obama may be calling for a nuclear-free world, but at the same time he blesses Israel’s so-called ‘nuclear ambiguity.’

Moreover, he has sought to protect alleged Israeli war criminals by condemning the Goldstone report as one-sided and pressuring Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to defer a Gaza War Crimes UN Security Council vote based on the UN’s own findings.

If President Obama is as decent a man as he portrays himself, then the Nobel Peace Prize will weigh on his chest like a stone until he decides to rise to the occasion. By referring to it as a call to action, he is clearly aware of his own shortcomings to date. It may be that this newly appointed Man of Peace will surprise us yet. But don’t bet your house on it!