OPPORTUNITY FOR POLITICAL REFLECTION?

On the 9th of October, 2009, the Nobel committee in Oslo announced the selection of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This came as a surprise, excitement, disappointment, or an opportunity for outrage for some. For all, it can be safely said that this is somehow significant.

Chosen only 2 weeks before the nomination deadline, Obama will be the fourth United States president to be awarded the prize, following Jimmy Carter, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt. Though the White House will accept the award in Oslo, Obama announced that the 10 million Swedish kronor will be donated to charity. Obama, only 8 months into the first year of his first term in office, stated that he will “accept this award as a call to action”, though he found himself undeserving, describing his reaction as “surprised and deeply humbled”.

The Nobel committee announced that Obama was selected for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”; namely, international relations in the Muslim world and pressing for nuclear non-proliferation. His setting a “new climate” of diplomatic relations, occurring after the extremely unpopular reputation established by 2 terms of the Bush administration may perhaps be viewed as an achievement or an easy victory. Nonetheless, the international policy decisions of the Obama administration thus far have already been widely perceived as fulfilling a more constructive role for an ever less singly hegemonic United States in the contemporary geo-political order. The committee stated that “his diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

Criticism has poured on the president from all sides. It is precisely these values at the heart of outrage for Obama’s American conservative critics. The affirmation of values of an international community, which has scorned American political action, by the American president, apparently comes as some type of ill-loyalty. Upon agreeing with ‘foreign critics’, and in possible contradiction to perceived American interests in a time of economic hardship, Obama is rewarded with a prize. Given that the US is currently engaged in 2 wars, these critics find it unfitting that international attitudes with the goal of peace are to be affirmed, rather than simply victory. Non-conservative, more adroit critics simply point out the irony of a president leading a nation engaged in two wars being given the Peace Prize. Most negative voices simply point out the fact that Obama has yet to have many any “concrete achievements”. Perhaps a most reasonable criticism is simply that this will raise expectations of his performance beyond what can be reasonably expected, given the constraints, and thus compound an undesirable situation politically. Obama is not without defenders, however. Bill Gates, among others has spoken out positively on the president’s behalf, contending that Obama offers the urgently needed prospect of a new future.

From this situation we may quite easily glean that while criticisms and praises alike are bound to their own perspective, thus politically motivated, that the award itself has taken on a political role: encouraging types of political behavior. But, can this easily be assumed to be so simple as “good” or “bad” without falling into the sea of shouting? Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion is the admission that there is not even a truly ‘neutral’ position to speak of, which could contain such different opinions. It is of the utmost political significance, if not simply bizarre, that virtually everyone from Chavez to Castro to Bill Gates can say together, “this is ridiculous”, or “this is good”, without agreeing in the slightest as to why. |