2009-10-10
Obama admits he didn't deserve to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Yesterday, President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for... well, nobody's really sure. Mind you, this isn't a criticism of President Obama's policies or approaches. The fact of the matter is that President Obama has been the President of the United States for less than 10 months and he hasn't had the time to actually put into practice any of the plans he's laid out.
Ahh, but the Nobel Committee likes his plans.
KEEP READING!!!! - DON'T COMMENT YET!!!
Now, Obama's plans can be debated all night long, that's not what this is about. My problem with this is that the Nobel Committee is giving peace prizes away for plans, which 9 times out of 10 turn out to be just empty rhetoric. Granted, Obama is much more likely to carry out what he intends to do, but why not award the Nobel Peace Prize AFTER he does them.
Here's another way to look at it. I have a friend from the Air Force who is convinced I'm going to be the dictator of the world one day and that the entire world is going to prosper under my reign. So if he was on the Nobel Committee, I would have been nominated for a prize because of how awesome the world was going to be when I become the dictator of the world.
Needless to say, there are problems with that. First of all, odds are that I'm not going to become Dictator of the World. Second of all, even if I became Dictator of the World, there is no guarantee that my plans for social justice and reshaping the global economy are going to work as well as my friend thinks they are going to work.
Joking aside, let's use a real life example. In 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, President Peres, and Yassar Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to the Middle East. Now it's 15 years later and civilians are still being killed on both sides of that conflict. Granted, much changed after Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by a radical Jewish extremist, but that's just my point. Even the best laid plans RARELY work out as they should.
Yet it appears that plans, rather than accomplishments, have been the primary focus of the Nobel Committee in recent years. For example, Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002 for:
... his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development
Yeah, but how many people are living in freedom today because of the actions of Jimmy Carter? The key word in the above quote from the Nobel Committee is "effort." The word "effort" means that as long as Jimmy Carter TRIED to do the right thing, he qualifies for the award.
Well, perhaps this is my liberal upbringing talking here, but I have to believe that people naturally plan to do the right things when they think ahead and try to do the right things when given the opportunity. Take those idiot Christians who protest at military funerals, believing that God wants our soldiers to die because gays are allowed in the United States. They wouldn't be there if they didn't think they were doing the right thing.
The same can be said of the most brutal terrorists. By killing Christians and Jews, they believe they can make the world a better place. So here, for example, Usama bin Laden has a plan to make the world a better, more peaceful place and has already made the effort to make that happen. Does he deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?
Well, by the standards of the Nobel Committee, yes. Bin Laden deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
HOWEVER, he won't be given one. The reason being that the members of the Nobel Committee don't agree with bin Laden's plans for peace or the efforts he's made to make the world more peaceful (in the end, at least). Notice that bin Laden has what Carter, Obama, Rabin, Peres, and Arafat had (well intentioned plans and effort).
So if the Nobel Committee can rule out bin Laden because they disagree with his politics, why can't they rule out anybody else for their politics? Well, it turns out they HAVE.
Pope John Paul II, Gandhi, Elenore Roosevelt, US Senators Nunn (D-GA) and Lugar (R-IN), President Vaclav Havel (led Czechoslovakia out of Communism and was the first President of the Czech Republic), and many others like them never got a Nobel Peace Prize even though they put their plans into action and had tremendous results.
Let's compare Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on Global Warming, President Obama, and President Havel, who never won the award. Let's just pretend like Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases are real and problematic in terms of the impact they have on the climate.
Are the people of the world no longer living with the fear of Global Warming? No.
Are the people of the world all living in peace and harmony? No.
Are the people of the Czech Republic no longer living under the fear of communist oppression? Yes.
Yet, it is President Obama and Al Gore who have Nobel Peace prizes for wanting to do something good for humanity and President Havel who lacks a Nobel Peace Prize on his list of accomplishments because the Nobel Committee thought others had bigger, better plans than him.
To President Obama's credit, he came out and said he didn't deserve to win the award. However, he does fit right in with many of the other unqualified winners of it.
Archived Comments
Wickle
I'd like to write a really great book that will change the world and yet appeal to even the most reluctant readers of all ages.
Somehow, I don't think that that aspiration is going to get me a Nobel in Literature.
As much as I wish I could cheer for an American getting the award ... I find myself thinking that Nobel has just demonstrated that even they don't take themselves seriously anymore.
Laurie
I tend to agree that the Nobel committee has doled out Peace Prizes to people who have, in many cases, made monumental efforts to achieve peace but whose efforts haven't really amounted to a whole lot. But the criteria-as laid out by Nobel himself- seems to support this priority.
The Peace Prize should be awarded ‘to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'.
I would say that Obama might qualify for some of this with what he did this year. Osama bin Laden? Not so much :)
And honestly? I think this is much ado about nothing. This is a private organization, privately funded, with a nomination/selection process that is secretive and closed. I guess my bottom line is who cares? This is an organization that never bothered to recognize Ghandi, and extraordinarily peace loving dude. The process is highy subjective. Whatever...
brian d
This was given out by a committee of international members and not some liberal or democratic party front. It is probably more of a statement of dislike for the foreign policy of George W Bush and the percieved difference in Obama than it has anything to do with what Obama has actualy done. Obama has made it palatable for them to like America a little more than they had and that is the only change. But for most perception is reality.
brian d
I've seen people do more for a Klondike bar.
Kevin Tracy
HAHAHAHA!!! Thanks, Chris. That made my day.
