Obama's Peace Prize: Pro and Con

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 14:00


Even a few hours later, President Obama receiving the Peace Prize is still surprising. Leaving aside the aspirational argument for the award, which Adam discussed earlier today, and the important messaging behind the award, which I discussed earlier, here is a quick at the pro and con arguments:

Pro
There have been some tangible accomplishments President Obama has made toward a more peaceful world. These include:

  1. Starting the process of removing all American troops from Iraq by December 2011;

  2. Passing a stimulus bill that will make a real impact on the greenhouse gasses emitted within the United States, and signing an executive order that will further reduce the greenhouse gas output of the United States federal government;

  3. Halting the plan for a "missile shield" in Eastern Europe;

  4. Boosting the cause of multilateral diplomacy through responses to the world financial crisis in the G-20, engaging Iran on nuclear power, arriving at a strategic arms reduction agreement with Russia. applying pressure on Israel over expanded settlements, and advancing international climate change talks.

  5. Banning the use of torture by the United States military, and starting the process of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Con
Then again...
  1. Increasing the United States troop levels in Afghanistan arguably should have made President Obama ineligible for the Peace Prize. It is very difficult to accept that a prize for peace should go to a world leader who is escalating a war and continuing tactics that have resulted in both civilian deaths and a major refugee crisis.

  2. The ongoing reduction in United States carbon emissions has been caused as much by the economic downturn and local / state laws than anything the Obama administration did. Further, it is far from guaranteed either that the final version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or that the Copenhagen climate summit will yield a new climate change agreement.

  3. Starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is more the doing of the Iraq government than anything else. All the United States is doing is not breaking a security agreement with another government.

  4. It could be argued that the missile shield was cancelled because we didn't have the money for it as much as any other reason.

  5. A new diplomatic approach is great, but has it has not yielded many tangible results yet. We should not emphasize process over accomplishments.

  6. Those who developed the torture policies will not be prosecuted, and Guantanamo Bay has not actually been closed.
There are pretty strong arguments on both sides. I lean against, because of Afghanistan. Check out BoBo2020 for the pro, and Glenn Greenwald for the con. Below this piece, David Sirota also rightly objects to the messaging from the DNC, even if I enjoyed the aggressive tone.
Chris Bowers :: Obama's Peace Prize: Pro and Con

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama's Peace Prize: Pro and Con | 31 comments
Greenwald and Sirota: GOP allies (4.00 / 1)
'Against.'  Color me shocked.
That's Not Really Fair (0.00 / 0)
Their objections are just a teensy bit different than the GOP's.
[ Parent ]
You mean (0.00 / 0)
there's a difference between criticism of Obama from the left and criticism of Obama from the right? Huh: who knew?
[ Parent ]
Sometimes it's hard to tell from the tone... (4.00 / 2)
There are some days here when you feel like you are at FreeRepublic.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
That's horseshit. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Disgusting comment, but par for the course (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Nice (4.00 / 2)
And I suppose the Obama administration isn't a GOP ally for escalating a war that is supported mainly by Republicans at this point?

"Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war. Seven in 10 Republicans support what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Democrats mildly opposed the war in April while independents and Republicans favored it. But opposition has grown 18 points among Democrats and 10 points among independents."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-afghanistan-war-opposition-at-all-time-high/

[ Parent ]
Does It Matter? (4.00 / 3)
The argument "Is it deserved" is largely irrelevant when coming from the left, and disingenuous when coming from the right.

Can't we feel glad that an American president is now so respected that he could actually win a Nobel Peace Prize, even if his accomplishments might not fully warrant it?

In reality the world is just so glad to finally be rid of Bush, that they wanted to reward and encourage the trend towards constructive diplomacy.

Increasingly over the last eight years we were becoming viewed with the same mixture of dread and anger as Hitler during the 1930's. The same feeling existed that Bush was literally a mad-man capable of plunging the world into war for reasons that could never withstand the most minimal scrutiny.

In reality, how was Bush's rationale any better for invading Iraq than Hitler's for invading Poland? Cheney and Bush invented a fictional meeting between Al Queda and Saddam, and a fictional "yellow-cake" incident to justify their decision. Hitler had his SS guards dress up in Polish uniforms and fake an attack on German soil to create a fig-leaf justification.

Bush didn't believe his own lies any more than Hitler did. He just didn't care about the truth so long as he got his way.

Is the world UNJUSTIFIED in awarding an explicit repudiation of policies that were making the U.S. a rogue state and a terrible threat to world peace?

[ Parent ]
if you're going to give people a Nobel Prize for not being George W. Bush, (4.00 / 1)
where's mine?
[ Parent ]
I find (4.00 / 1)
replies of this type to indicate a degree of narcissism.

It is Obama, not me or you, that actually has done the work and has the ability to begin the process of change. That he has a difficult job in this world of ignorance and entrenched injustice only adds to his achievement.

[ Parent ]
Obama: GOP Ally (0.00 / 0)
Obama himself said he didn't deserve this award.  Just saying.
[ Parent ]
The committee's argument regarding Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)
is that that war has a UN mandate behind it, and approval was sought and granted at the UN first.

Given the internationalism that the peace committee declares it exists to foster, that is a relevant distinction.  

The Peace Committee are not pacifists.  They're ok with UN wars.  I do think that's interesting.

Makes sense (4.00 / 2)
I still don't think Obama should get it because of Afghanistan, but you do a great job of explaining the committee's thinking here. Much appreciated.
[ Parent ]
Not interesting, it's quotidian hypocrisy. (0.00 / 0)
what would really be exciting, stimulating, and different in this world of lies, PR, and spin is if they actually were resolutely for peace!
[ Parent ]
7. Obama's Latin America politics increase the tensions there. (0.00 / 0)
Or does anybody believe the US building new bases there is helpful for peace in the region?
There's really only one pro, and it obviates all the cons (4.00 / 10)
In the eyes of the Nobel Committee, at least. The pro is this:

Obama has redirected the ship of American state back into the course of international legitimacy and respectability. He hasn't been perfect, but he's realigned the world's most powerful nation with the international concensus on how international relations ought to work. In short, because Obama is president, the US is no longer a rogue superpower.

I think that's a fair judgment on Obama. There's a question of whether this sets the bar too low, of course, but we need to realize just how awful the image of the US around the world had become, especially in Europe and the Muslim world.

When did he do this? (4.00 / 1)
he's realigned the world's most powerful nation with the international concensus on how international relations ought to work.

He's returned foreign policy to basically what it was under Clinton and Bush Senior. Brought it back from fanaticism. That hardly represents an "international consensus" on international relations, rather a return to a state of affairs whereby the United States still imposes its bloody will on the rest of the world (or at least the poorer parts) with military and economic might.  

[ Parent ]
returning to the Clinton-era status quo (0.00 / 0)
is now worthy of a Nobel Prize?

Damn, Bill Clinton must be green with envy. Carter won one, Gore won one (despite not being allowed to be president), and now Obama's won one, less than a year into his term, just for bringing things back to the way they were under Clinton's tenure. All the Dem presidents since Carter, as well as our Dem president-in-exile, except for Clinton, have now won it.

But Clinton's unlikely to get it, no matter how many charitable foundations or global initiatives he sponsors.

[ Parent ]
That's not a fair argument (4.00 / 1)
just for bringing things back to the way they were under Clinton's tenure.

You don't seem to appreciate how difficult that might be given everything that's changed since then. It's a different world.

[ Parent ]
There is a Machiavellian con as well (0.00 / 0)
1. By November 2012 America didn't get the change it needed.

2. The average American undecided thinks back to the initial hoopla and grandiosity of the Obama Years and says, "nope, let's humble some folk."

That's called comeuppance, and since Obama is feeding the grandiosity when he should be killing it, he is personally to blame.

Alternatively:

1. By November 2012 America didn't get the change it needed.

2. The average American undecided thinks back to the initial hoopla and grandiosity of the Obama Years and says, "At least Obama put a stop to that shit when he realized that government wasn't just about PR."

So the moral con: he doesn't deserve accolades as a peace maker.

And the Machiavellian con: He looks even better by showing humility and common sense by declining the prize saying "I'm about results for the little guy, not narcissistic supply for myself and those basking in my narcissistic glow."

Process (4.00 / 4)
We should not emphasize process over accomplishments

I think this is actually wrong.  Science is a process. Democracy is a process.  Capitalism is a process.  Diplomacy is a process.  War is a process.

When people say the ends don't justify the means, they are saying process is just as important as accomplishments.

This also stuck out for me (4.00 / 2)
when I read Chris's rather weak list of cons. It amazes me to see how quickly many people on the Left have forgotten the dark days of the Cheney-Bush administration.

Also, the strong language used by the DNC is appropriate. There is a core of truth to the comparison between the attitudes of the Taliban and right-wing angst. Both would like nothing more than the implementation of policies that would expand war.  

[ Parent ]
Major Problem: Goldstone Report (4.00 / 1)
It strikes me as a rather bitter irony that this award comes on the heels of Obama consigning the Goldstone Report to the dustbin as a favor to his pals in Tel Aviv. All in the name of "peace," of course.

This will lend itself to some unfortunate hedlines going forward: "Nobel Peace Prize Winner Endorses Ethnic Cleansing In Gaza," for example.

I'm sure the Palestinian diaspora--just for starters--is mighty impressed with the wisdom of western "peacemakers" on this day.  

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

In a perfect world, major politicians would rarely get Peace Nobels (4.00 / 2)
Because nearly all of them have done things, and are often still doing things, that should disqualify them. E.g. Kissinger and the carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia, Begin and his Irgun atrocities, even Carter and his covert program to destabilize Afghanistan in order to draw in the Soviets. Then again, in a perfect world, major politicians would not do such things to begin with.

In any case, I find Obama's winning this at this point in his presidency to be ludicrous. While nothing that he's done so far, at least compared to others who've won it, disqualifies him from it, neither has anything that he's done thus far qualified him for it. His winning the presidency was clearly impressive and encouraging, but it's hardly helped the cause of world peace in and of itself, nor has anything he's said or done as president. He may well be on track to deserving one in a few years, but at this point, one has to scratch one's head and wonder just what those crazy Norsemen were thinking.

Consolation prize for Chicago?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Disqualification (4.00 / 1)
I actually think a decent percentage of peace prizes should go to leaders who have lots of 'disqualifying' history.  As they saying goes, you don't make peace with your friends.  Leaders and warriors who eventually put down their arms for peace deserve the prize, I believe.  Of course, those sorts of awards always go to both sides.
[ Parent ]
Yes and no (4.00 / 1)
As I see it, it really depends on the nature and extent of such disqualifying actions, and the context in which they were done. Both Begin and Arafat were terrorists who needlessly and deliberately took the lives of innocents, not as an unavoidable collateral to justifiable military action, but in and of itself. But they also did these things, to their view at least, in an attempt to liberate their respective people from oppressive occupation. And they also made peace, or attempted to do so, many years later. So I can see the justification for their Nobels.

But Kissinger? As I see it he murdered or caused the eventual death of millions, and his Nobel was an abomination. It would be like giving Cheney one if he ends up doing some helpful shuttle diplomacy in the future (not a likely prospect, I know, but let's pretend for the hypothetical). Not deserved. I can't precisely define it, but there's a line that, if crossed, permanently disqualifies one from the Peace Nobel, as I see it. And if one were really sincere in one's atonement, one wouldn't need a Nobel. The act of attempted peacemaking should be sufficient reward in itself. (Yes, I know, and we should all have lollipops and unicorns.)

Of course, none of this pertains to Obama's Nobel, the issue here being whether he deserved it for positive actions taken, not whether he didn't deserve it for negative actions taken.

I say no to both. He's no Kissinger. But he's also no Carter. Yet.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Keep the US - and it's f***ed up internals out of the discussion.. (4.00 / 4)
I'm frankly disgusted at the negative reactions by the Left or anyone else on this, unless you were already a hater - they aren't worth discussing.

I'm just as pissed at his wavering as anyone else - but this isn't about how we see Obama. Or what Obama has or hasn't done for us.
This is about how the world sees him. How he, as a man and as a leader, makes them feel.
This is about the guy that walked alone - into Idaho.  The guy that took on Israel - alone. The guy that bucked everyone from both sides of the aisle to work with Iran.

The Peace is awarded to exceptional people.  And no one can deny that Obama is indeed very special, a man the likes of whom the US has never seen.
A man whom the world, and many of the rest of us, doubted would ever rise from American soil.
So Back the fu** off.

 

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

A big Thank You from the world (4.00 / 2)
I liked what Ezra said

The Nobel Committee said, in essence, thank you for proving us wrong. The prize was about what Obama meant to other countries, or at least to the Nobel Committee. Not what he currently means to America.

America has already gotten used to Obama. It's common to talk about the "overexposure" of the first African American president in history. It's ordinary to see him hedging on important political priorities, and failing to please his most ardent supporters. It's normal to see him called communist by his enemies and spineless by his friends. America, to its credit, has adjusted to its first black president with ease and swiftness.

But the rest of the world hasn't necessarily done the same. This prize, which came as Obama contemplates a troop build-up in Afghanistan and hectors the international community on financial regulation and global warming, suggests that there is some reservoir of relief and amazement for America's young president. The international gushing may seem absurd to us, as the schoolyard lionization of an older brother often seems funny to a sibling, but it can be used to our advantage. Leaders in allied countries no longer run against America, and now the Nobel Committee is attempting to welcome America back as the leader of the free world. And it didn't cost us anything. Would that life told more jokes like that one.


[ Parent ]
You Go Girl!!! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Your basic argument is that we thought you were all belligerent cretins? (0.00 / 0)
Because that's simply not the case.

America may not be terribly popular amongst average Europeans, but historical European anti-Americanism is a world apart from the reaction Bush and Cheney engendered.

We used to think of American leaders as our backward cousins. Disruptive, somewhat simple and not entirely civilised, but more to be condescended to than feared. Whereas the Neocons? Them, we feared. And hated. And feared and hated some more. In between mocking them for an ignorance that surpassed even Reagan's.

This prize is for taking that away. It doesn't hurt that Obama's charismatic, multi-racial and bearing the hopes of an entire generation. But honestly you could have elected an illiterate West Virginia hillbilly with no knowledge of where Canada was, and you'd still have been in with a chance.

[No offence intended to Americans, of course. I'm aware that just about all of these stereotypes are unfair, but they aren't uncommon.

Europe doesn't really matter any more and knows it, so condescension is all we really have left - and a country without even a functioning national healthcare system is a pretty tempting target, you must admit.]

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Speaking of emissions, the tradition of a solar car race is up a notch! (4.00 / 1)
it is far from guaranteed either that the final version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

Take heart. There's good news on the Mall this week - 20 solar powered homes were designed, built, dismantled and packed up and brought to the competition site in DC - 2009 Solar Decathlon. A google or GoodSearch turns up individual university websites: U of Arizona calls their desigh the Sage Project and U of Illinois the Gable House. Both have beautiful exteriors that fit the climate of their localities. A tad small inside, but hey, there's less to move that way!

Obama's Peace Prize: Pro and Con | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox