President Barack Obama should give back the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, not only should he give back this prize, he should preemptively reject any further honors which might be bestowed upon him, as he is clearly not worthy and never will be.
There are many people who have argued that the prize was awarded “prematurely.” This, of course, is nonsense. After all, what could Obama do that would make him worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? So far, he barely managed to convince the most powerful nation in the world to turn away from a policy of fear-based saber rattling and childish international name-calling. President Obama sold a nation, which had been steeped in paranoia and jingoistic self-righteousness on the idea that perhaps, just perhaps, the world was not entirely out to get us, and we might even have a few things in common. He was elected on a platform of hope including hope for diplomatic cooperation, and now he seeks to sit down with nations America had until recently been giving the silent treatment. He will not even demand any preconditions for such talks, not even the softball prerequisite that they agree with us and capitulate to our every demand. What does any of that have to do with “World Peace”?
The President boldly declared that America should commit itself to the expression of its principles and ban torture even in the face of terrorism and the horrors of 9/11. He set in motion the closing of the illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay. He has even reengaged Russia in the effort for nuclear arms reduction, as if America should lead by example or something. How are we supposed to demand that Iran halts its nuclear program if we are not allowed to hypocritically proceed with our own? This is the man Norway wants to give a “Peace” Prize to? What a joke!
It has been said that giving the Prize to President Obama is a mere repudiation of former President George W. Bush. That much should be obvious. President Obama’s policies, ideas, and philosophy when it comes to diplomatic relations are such a departure from President George W. Bush that any endorsement of Obama is obviously just a thinly veiled jibe at the former president. Like any other time someone agrees with or congratulates someone you do not like, it’s a safe bet they are just doing it to get on your nerves. This proves just how childish and petty the Nobel Committee actually is! Never mind what they say they mean by it. Who wants to listen to people who do things we do not immediately understand or necessarily agree with anyway? That sounds like something President Obama would do, and he does not even deserve a Nobel Peace Prize!
Pew Research Center has recently released a report outlining a major boost in favorable views of America worldwide since President Obama’s election. What is this, some kind of popularity contest? Should we just give Nobel Peace Prizes to anyone who inspires an atmosphere of global concord and hope for a better future? When President Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 it was because he did something. It was not simply that the League of Nations he founded was a good idea in the right spirit. It was the very embodiment of perfect achievement. It probably prevented a second world war! When German journalist Carl von Ossietzky was given the prize in 1935, it was not simply for peacefully speaking out against the Nazi Party. He actually prevented the Nazis from ever coming to power! The Nobel Committee was right not to give a Peace Prize to the Dalai Lama until 1989 when Tibet was actually freed. With the Nobel Peace Prize, it all ultimately comes down to brass tax, and, once you get past all the open-minded, cooperative rhetoric and international hope mongering, Obama simply does not deliver.
There is also the more insidious side of the Nobel Committee to consider. Rumors persist that part of the reason President Obama was awarded the prize had to do with encouraging the more peaceful parts of his agenda. It is also said that the prize could boost Obama’s credibility and thus his ability to force peace down the throats of innocent dictatorial aggressors everywhere. Note that these reports are not confirmed, but it certainly makes one think about the committee’s ulterior motives to secretly promote peace by giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a world leader. If that turns out to be the case, then the politicization of this prize would have essentially rendered it worthless.
One could hardly imagine a world where the Nobel Peace Prize was anything more than a trophy given to international winners in the race for peace. It completely demeans the prize to give it to anyone who cannot demonstrate in graph or chart form precisely the impact they have had on the world.
Maybe the choice to select President Obama would make some sense if they were giving out a prize meant to recognize powerful, ongoing efforts. Perhaps if there was some prize to give to people who embodied a spirit of unity and reconciliation over conflict, Obama could have been in the running. It would have to be some kind of prize for helping inspire peace, a “Peace Prize” if you will. Come to think of it, that’s not a half bad idea.
About afox
President Obama should donate his Nobel Peace Prize funds to the U.S. government to pay for his two Scandanavian trips: 1. Copenhagen for his failing bid to push the Olympic games there and 2. To pick up Nobel Peace Prize funds. Each trip cost the U.S. taxpayer about $ 920,000 for Air Force One, security etc.
And there is the issue of how the Nobel foundation funds invested in Swedish armament industry and in weapons of mass destruction.
1. Originally the directive from Alfred Nobel was to place the funds in real estate or similar safe investments, however since 1953 the foundation was allowed by the Swedish government to invest in shares, which stopped the hither to depletion of the funds.
2. The funds are at the moment approx US$ 500 million in total (it shrunk approx 20% last year).
3. The management is not done by the foundation itself, it is split across several (about ten) portfolios managed by different asset managers in Sweden and other countri es, the spread across countries and by asset type can be found here: http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/finan-manag.html
4. As late as 2005, there is an explicit admission from the foundation that there are NO ethical guidelines issued to the asset managers:
http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article256458.ece?service=articlePrint – in Norwegian)
5.There have been several ‘scandals’ surrounding the asset management, presumably deriving from the lack of ethical guidelines from the Nobel foundation
- In 1998, the Observer made an investigation into the investments and found that many of the world largest arms manufactureres (including Boeing, British Aerospace, GKN och Smiths Industries) were in the Nobel foundation portfolios
- in 2005, a Norwegian organization ‘Norwatch’ looked specifically into the portfolio handled by a US firm group called T Rowe Price who in their general portfolios have manufacturers of both cluster bombs and atomic bombs (Lockheed Martin). The Nobel foundation did not exclude the possibility that their funds were invested in such shares
6. it is probable that such investments are held in the the Bofor group, which has a high level chemical plant in Ifshahan, Iran, which manufactures TNT, and quite likely sophisticated chemical precursors used to help create nuclear enriched uranium.
However, dynamite and related products was the original invention and=2 0business which gave Alfred Nobel the means to set up the prize in the first place, and he was the owner of Bofors from 1894-96, during which he “had the key role in reshaping the iron manufacturer to a modern cannon manufacturer (…)” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors
No doubt the prestige of the prize to a large degree derives from the large sums involved, but is therefore also stained by the way the money was and is procured.
But the prestige also derives from Alfred Nobels testamentary wish to promote peace and international understanding.
The paradox the funds for the Nobel Prize are invested and retained in funds related to armament productions and weapons of mass destruction and many people are unaware of this situation.
What is the big fuss? Nobel, who founded the Peace Prize, invented dynamite precursor to more powerful explosives.
On the other hand, Obama was nominated for the award within twelve days of his inauguration. He hadn’t had time to do anything for peace, either positive or negative. But he’s up there with such notables as Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.
What’s to moderate; I cited fact.
Are you opposed to the First Amendment?