Obama Should Respect The Peace Prize; He Should Give It Back
Earlier today the United States bombed the moon, sending a probe approximately the weight of a SUV rocketing into the lunar surface at twice the speed of a rifle bullet. Despite this announced and pre-meditated act of celestial aggression towards the lunar surface, the Nobel Committee also saw fit today to honor President Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel committee recognized the American President for his “extraordinary” efforts in the promotion of international diplomacy, citing such examples as Obama’s speech in Cairo and his nuclear-disarmament efforts at the United Nations. While President Obama represents a fairly dramatic shift from the “shoot first and ask questions later” diplomatic stance of his predecessor, however, the Nobel committee does itself and President Obama a disservice by awarding him the prize.
Surely there are more deserving individuals in the world today who have done greater and sacrificed more in the name of peace and humanity. While the Nobel committee might wish to use its political clout in awarding the prize to suggest that Obama’s rather than Bush’s path is the more moral and just for the United States, it does so at enormous risk to its own legitimacy as a greater force for the recognition of a virtue that, all too often, is its own and only reward.
Indeed, it seems that in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize the committee has given President Obama an unprecedented and paradoxical ability to actually do something so early in his term to prove himself worthy of it.
He should give it back.
Perhaps such a refusal would be uncouth and seen even as an act of disrespect by the committee but for Obama to accept the award now, at this stage of his Presidency, says that there is nothing more to give. A Peace Prize is a swan song – recognition for some lasting and great achievement of surpassing importance. President Theodore Roosevelt won his for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War; President Wilson was honored for his efforts to establish the League of Nations; and President Carter received recognition for his humanitarian efforts in the years since he left the White House.
Obama’s speeches and platitudes are certainly significant and perhaps they do mark a major shift in American policy which may, with time and distance, prove the underpinnings of a policy that makes the world safe, peaceful, and secure once again. But today, with his Presidency less than a year old, Obama has too much left to do and too much still to prove to justly, reasonably, and deservedly accept this honor.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
So, who should get it, then? Remember that Henry Kissinger won, and Arafat, and Wilson after inventing racist governmental propaganda and dragging us into WWI and sacrificing mountains of corpses. It’s a token with a mixed history. But still, who should get it instead?
Who should get it……how about all the dead Americans who have saved the free world’s collective butts more than once……only to have their deaths mocked by awarding the Peace Prize to the Faux President
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree that he should give it back–not because he hasn’t had enough time to prove himself worthy of it, but because it’s already too late. By my unofficial count, Obama’s responsible for the deaths of at least a couple hundred people around the world. Unless the nobel committee meant it as an ironic gesture, in which case, yeah, he should keep it.
Shows how worthless the Peace Prize is when they give it to the President of Goldman Sachs, Barack Hussein Obama, the guy who hides his birth certificate
Here here Chris.
Obama has given the best speeches i’ve ever seen from any Country’s leader – i’ll give him that. But i agree with you. Simply being a ‘good’ cop to Bush’s ‘bad’ cop (fucking evil cop) doesn’t merit the world’s most distinguished humanitarian achievement; quite to the contrary. Obama has to prove to us – via policy changes that have real consequence like ENDING occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, or stopping Darfur genocide – that he has earned that prize.
While his speeches are nice and may even inspire some warm fuzzy camp-fire songs, for this award they don’t count.
President Obama appears to have won by illustrating adult behavior on the world stage – such a deviation from the past eight years that folks outside the country have taken notice.
Being an adult is a good thing. Saying “give it back” is childish.
Keep it, Mr. President, and then live up to it now and always.
Yeah, but it’s a PEACE!!! prize, not an etiquette prize. It seems kind of ridiculous to have to point out something so goddamn obvious, but dropping bombs on people via unmanned aircraft doesn’t qualify as a peaceful activity. Unless, that is, you live in an alternate universe where words mean the opposite of what they’re supposed to mean.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think this nails it. Which does make the prize look silly.
In response to another comment. See in context »Give back a couple of million bucks? Let’s see what he does with the money.
Come on. Why is this on Obama? He didn’t campaign for it, didn’t ask for it, but he should give it back (insulting the Nobel Committee in the process) because, what he didn’t “earn” it? I like how everybody is an expert an Nobel credentials today.
Right now, there seem to be a lot of people pissed that Obama got an award. Fine. But you know who else is pissed? Hamas is pissed, the Taliban is pissed. If accepting this award makes their lives (and recruitment initiatives) one iota harder, he should trumpet the prize. Not give it back.
This has nothing to do with Obama personally (it would have been just as ridiculous to have given the award to Bush or Clinton), and it isn’t that he didn’t “earn” it either. It’s that it’s more than a bit of a stretch to give a “peace” award to the nominal head of a military that is currently occupying two countries and making inroads into a third–occupations that involve, you know, killing people. I may not be an expert on Nobel credentials, but there seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] were a variety of calls in the media today for President Obama to reject the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded [...]
Mr. Thomas,
The award is probably not about what Mr. Obama has done but what he might do. He might escalate the war in Afghanistan. He might either lead a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities or allow Israel to do that. However, he might find it hard to do those now that he is the winner of he Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee has perhaps taken Mr.Obama hostage in a way (“You won’t anything to happen to your shinny new medal or reputation”).
A friend of mine posted this on my Facebook page; but I think it is directly appropriate for your post. Obama already deserves the Nobel Peace Prize; and he should keep it for that reason.
In its Press Release this morning, the Nobel prize organization said “The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
In his brief time in the Senate, Obama sponsored a bill designed to cause the United States to make a cooperative global effort to reduce nuclear threats in the world. That 1977 effort needs to be recognized as an early step toward recognition with the Nobel Peace Prize.
110th Congress
S.1977
Title: A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 8/2/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The previous year he worked toward a cooperative global effort to reduce threats from conventional arms.
109th Congress
S.2566
Title: A bill to provide for coordination of proliferation interdiction activities and conventional arms disarmament, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] (introduced 4/6/2006) Cosponsors (26)
Lugar-Obama Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006, S.2566 Obama was the only Cosponsor on 4/6/2006 when the bill was introduced into the Senate. The term “Lugar-Obama” is in the Senate record. The Lugar-Obama bill was included in the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006, Public Law No: 109-472, and was signed by President Bush in January 2007.
This bill was aimed at conventional arms threat reduction. This is a quote from the bill:
“In General- The Secretary of State is authorized to carry out an accelerated global program to secure, remove, or eliminate stocks of MANPADS, small arms and light weapons, stockpiled munitions, abandoned ordnance, and other conventional weapons, including tactical missile systems (hereafter in this Act referred to as `MANPADS and other conventional weapons’), as well as related equipment and facilities, that are determined by the Secretary to pose a proliferation threat.”
In 2006 and 2007, Senator Obama had a vision of cooperation in the world to reduce nuclear and conventional weapon threats. That needs to be acknowledged – and was today.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mridul. mridul said: Obama Should Respect The Peace Prize; He Should Give It Back http://bit.ly/8u72i Totally agree, he should first turn his words into actions [...]
Not sure Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize after bombing The Moon! More funny details @ http://www.thelintscreen.com