I was recently pursing through old political commentary, when I came upon these gems. The context: this was immediately after President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; pundits were thoroughly analyzing the event. The predictable reactions from both parties, however, were most humorous.
Michael Steele immediately shot out a press release criticizing Obama:
The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won't be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.
Wow. That was quite harsh. It's generally considered polite to congratulate a guy when he's won an award. And when that guy is our president, disingenuously criticizing him at every turn doesn't exactly do our country any good.
The Democratic National Committee's way of pointing this out, however, is just hilarious:
The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.
The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim.
When I read that "The Republican party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists," I chuckled for a good long while. The rest of the statement actually makes a good argument, but that sentence's hyperbole is just ridiculously funny.
In the past week the Obama administration has taken steps to clarify and disseminate its policy with respect to the promotion of human rights and democracy. Following on the heels of an administration that liked to define the purpose of U.S. foreign policy as expanding freedom around the world and ending tyranny, the Obama administration has looked for a different approach and a different vocabulary to describe the place of human rights promotion in the foreign policy mix.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. ~ Barack Obama (President of the United States. Peace Prize Acceptance Speech. December 10, 2009)
For years, Americans saw live, and in person, or on television screens, Presidential aspirant Barack Obama. Several mused; the man is calm in a crisis. "No drama Obama" was the phrase most often associated with the candidate. Those closely and personally connected to the potential President corroborated what was for most only an observation. The election did not change Barack Obama. His calm demeanor remained intact. Yet, many perceived a difference, not in his response to a predicament, but in the President's rhetoric. Empathy evolved into escalation. This was perhaps most evident on two occasions, when Mister Obama delivered his Address on the War in Afghanistan, and then again when the Commander-In Chief offered his Remarks in acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. After these events, the pensive pondered; what was there all along, Cerebral Discord, the Two Faces of Barack Obama.
"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones."
Obama 2 (speaking for himself):
Whatever mistakes we have made.... the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.
If President Obama had been the least bit serious about combating the threat of global warming--potentially the greatest threat ever faced by the human race, and a grave threat to the future peace and security of America and the world (OL diary here)--he passed up the best possible opportunity to rally support for the kind of dramatic action that needs to be taken at the Copenhagen Summit in his Nobel Peace Prize Speech (transrcipt). Of course, there were two good reasons for doing so. First, he has absolutely no intention to push for such desperately needed action to combat global warming. Second, he was far too busy justifying war to think much about anything else. (The word "peace" appeared 32 times in his speech. The word "war" appeared 35 times.) Repeating one of his favorite lies from his Afghanistan War speech, he said:
Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden, not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest, because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.
Rather than repeat myself (Afghanistan and Obama's lies--a further note), as Obama has done, and parse his claims in detail once again, why not just look at one part of this claim--that "the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."
Instead of picking one decade at random out of our past, to see how freely we intervened in other countries, let's first take a look at the period Obama referred to, and then take a step back to look at his speech in context.
On the flip is a list of post-WWII interventions. Just take a look, and ask yourself, is this what global security looks like? Or is it a confused mish-mash best explained not as a defense of freedom and global security, but as the unaccountable workings of empire? Remember, not a single one of the interventions listed on the jump was authorized by a congressional declaration of war--the legally prescribed process under the Constitution. UN Security Council approval--required under international law, which is also binding under the US Constitution--has been almost as rare, meaning that virtually everything listed below is a specific collective national act of lawless violence, carrying with it countless individual acts of violence as well. But this is the record of 'underwriting global security' that Obama blithely claims as justification for yet more of the same lawless violence in the name of 'peace.'
That was not a peace prize acceptance speech. That was an infomercial for war. President Obama took the peace prize home with him, but left behind in Oslo his praise for war, his claims for war, and his view of an alternative and more peaceful approach to the world consisting of murderous economic sanctions.
Today is "Young and Future Generations Day" here at the International Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen, and I'm here with my wife Wahleah and our two-year-old daughter Tohaana. Along with thousands of other young people, we're doing everything in our power to convince world leaders to commit to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding international agreement based on a target of 350 parts per million (ppm), which is the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Less than 400 miles away in Oslo, Norway, President Obama is accepting the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." If ever there was a time and place to live up to that honor, now, in Copenhagen is it.
Four former Nobel Peace Prize winners have endorsed a target of 350ppm. On December 12th, 2008, at the international climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Al Gore (2007 winner) said to a huge crowd: "Even a goal of 450 parts per million, which seems so difficult today, is inadequate. We need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million."
I'm a little bit dismayed that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because it doesn't fit the trajectory of the story I want to tell (the history I want to live). Like so many liberals who voted and worked for Obama, I saw (and still see) in him the potential to catalyze impoerant, positive change in our political and social systems. I don't expect him to do it alone - indeed, I don't even expect him to want all the same changes I want. I expect us to have to "make him do it." But I think he might be the first public figure of our time with the tools to make actual change happen, if we can point him in the right direction and give him the support he needs.
So why does it bother me that he received the Nobel Peace Prize? Because the timing feels wrong.
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for his accomplishments in international diplomacy, climate change and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation. The Nobel Committee praised Obama for his "constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting," but, Richard Kim of The Nation wonders if the award comes too soon, as Obama has not yet committed to attending the international climate summit at Copenhagen.
In listening to chatter about the announcement this morning that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, there seems to be a few schools of thought emerging.
The first is my own, which is that this is premature, and Nobels should be awarded for real accomplishments. Words and good intentions are not actions, and while Obama has helped move things along in areas like re-engaging the U.S. in world diplomacy... there remains a glaring lack of significant accomplishment. One colleague called it lingering European post-election love, especially considering that he was officially nominated in February of this year, just one month after taking office.
Another is that a Nobel serves as a booster for efforts- like eating Mario or Luigi finding a fire flower (laugh all you want, this is how eloquent I get on a Friday). As the Nobel committee chairman said:
In response to questions from reporters in Oslo, who noted that Obama so far has made little concrete progress in achieving his lofty agenda, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said he hoped the prize would add momentum to Obama's efforts. At the same time, Jagland said, "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do."
I don't think I agree with that as the purpose of a Nobel prize, but as a progressive, I certainly like that kind of boost. I'll never say no to getting a booster towards ridding the world of nuclear arms, or peace in Israel, or combating global warming- all things Obama has dedicated himself towards. Robert Naiman points out that a Nobel was awarded to Archbishop Desmond Tutu for his efforts towards ending apartheid in South Africa, even though apartheid wasn't fully ended until a decade later. It was more of an encouragement than a note of real accomplishment.
In the end, since it seems more important to get that kind of boost to one's credibility, stature, etc. and actually achieve some good, I'm glad he was awarded the Prize. I remain wholly skeptical of both the rationale and any real accomplishments, but progress is more important, and this furthers progress.
I'm currently in Olso, Norway, and I used the opportunity today to go see Al Gore arrive for the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony at Oslo city hall. First of all, it's amazing how open this country is. We could walk up to the city hall and stand within maybe ten or fifteen feet of the red carpet (you can see more in the pics below).
Al Gore arrived here on Friday and he and Tipper did some sightseeing before the ceremonies. He actually took the high speed train from the airport instead of a limousine. And today, Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (the head of the UN's climate panel) just walked to city hall instead of taking a car.
Regardless of what you think of the committee's decision to award Al Gore and the IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore is an American citizen and usually when an American citizen wins an award of this nature, the sitting president (whomever that is) is expected to offer congratulatory remarks to the winner. It's a basic and fundamental courtesy (like a political concession call once the results come in on election night), even if the congratulatory remarks are not sincerely felt.
You just make the call. Period.
And what's more, those who want a return to civility and bipartisanship in Washington should expect nothing less than a courtesy call from the president.
Here's what actually happened. From the AP:
Asked if Bush planned to telephone congratulations to Gore, as he does to Americans who achieve signal honors in many fields, Fratto said he knew of no plans "to make calls to any of the winners."
What a small, petty man Bush is. Nothing we didn't already know.
