So you couldn’t award the nobel peace prize to Ghandi yet Obama’s good intentions qualify him?

I don’t understand the logic of choosing President Barack Obama as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize at a time when he hasn’t proven to his own countrymen yet his worth as a President and as a man of peace, applied rather than theoretical.  It was no doubt a proud moment for every believer in human rights and equal opportunity when Barack Obama was elected as the first black President in a country so not over its race issues. Having been elected following eight years of a Bush reign that managed to alienate the majority of the world’s nations with the exception of Poland , Samoa and other members of the coalition of the willing club, the election of Obama had a wondrous effect on the rest of the world.  We who watched the new president on election day, despite not quite subscribing to his campaign promises of engaging countries that actively sabotage peace in the Middle East, we felt a sense of joy that a member of a previously prosecuted minority could rise to the highest office in the United States-leader of the free world.  But that has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize.  The Prize, that was denied a gigantic peace figure like Mahatma Ghandi despite being nominated many times, could not possibly be awarded to a newly-elected president with good oratory skills and good intentions.  I do not understand the rush for the Nobel committee to risk the standing of the prize and jeopardize the maneuvering space of the man in one go.  He needed to have some leeway to make the tough decision to stop the Iranian quest for  the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.  Now his hands are tied with a the heavy weight of the prize.  What got over the members of the committee?  They were chosen by the Norwegian parliament to fulfill a role, and this role has to be well-thought out.  What I saw today was a seemingly precipitous decision to counter all the frustration the Europeans have felt during the Bush years.  I don’t believe awarding the prize at this time does justice to Obama, to the Nobel legacy, and to the other contenders (some of whom have undeniable accomplishments resulting in tangible peace).  They could have waited a year. Or two.  What was the rush? Failing that, he should have turned it down.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to So you couldn’t award the nobel peace prize to Ghandi yet Obama’s good intentions qualify him?

  1. AspiringArtists says:

    When you’re overly idealistic, you often times lose touch with pragmatism, and that is what happened with his advisors: young, ambitious, idealistic, eloquent, hopeful. Acting whilst targeting to instill emotion in people, yet forgetting that there is a big portion of the population that can think in relative terms. And react.

  2. AspiringArtists says:

    The Europeans are trying to influence US foreign policy with this. How can Obama increase troops now without feeling foolish? How can the Nobel Peace Prize laureate escalate a war that will lead to more horrific and unnecessary deaths? The Nobel committee plays a clever game. Frankly, I think the Nobel committee demonstrates a pretty clear awareness of how geopolitics works and is trying to influence US foreign policy, like they should

    Now, President Obama, had the choice of not accepting the prize, which he should have done, to be honest. But he didn’t, and now that he didn’t, he will have to deal with the consequences of that.

    Obama is NOT “commander in chief of the most powerful nation in the world…”. He is commander-in-chief of the most powerful MILITARY. It’s an important distinction, but no one ever makes it (Obama made the same mistake in his speech today). He commands U.S. citizens who serve in the military; he does not command those of us who don’t. He’s not my commander-in-chief. But the fact that we so blithely say that he is commander-in-chief of our country, rather than of our military–and that Obama says so himself!–amply demonstrates, alas, how our warlust has so infested our political discourse.

    • brigittekm1 says:

      I agree with you, he should have declined it. It would have given him a much stronger position to maneuver from. But I guess it is the human nature factor that played a decisive role in this, he was compelled to say “he was humbled” and accept it anyway, to get into the history pages, as if being the first US President who is part of a minority is not enough to immortalize him. He seems to have incompetent advisors who could benefit from longer term vision.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s