Home  >  Europe

But What Has He Actually Done?

Published date

Categories Europe

Author

OK, Europe, we get it already: you love Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. But what has Barack Obama has done to justify the award of a Nobel Peace Prize?

I hope President Obama is sensible enough to be embarrassed by this. I see no reason to believe — and hope that I never will — that President Obama campaigned for this. As such, the award says nothing about Obama himself, something perhaps about a segment of his supporters who will be moved by this, and volumes about the shallowness and vacuity of post-war, post-modern Europe, or at least of the class of intellectuals that represents it. And it raises so many more questions:

How can Europe’s intellectual class be simultaneously this stupid and this condescending in its apparent belief that this will be effective in manipulating our political system?

Is this redeemable for 20,000 properly equipped troops for Afghanistan?

Does the Nobel Committee believe that this award will create a sense of obligation on the part of our president? And if so, to what end?

Granted, the Olympics are often a mixed blessing anyway, but was this meant as some sort of consolation prize?

Is the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize still to promote peace, or is it all about guilty European liberals asking a God in whom they do not believe to expunge the original sin of their grandfathers for flocking to the Milice, the Falange, the Blackshirts, the Ustashe, and the Waffen SS?

Finally, what consideration was given to Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, Meir Hossein Mousavi, Rebiya Kadeer, or Kang Chol Hwan, all of whom have actually risked or sacrificed so that others could live freely and in peace? Why did the Nobel Committee miss the chance to award the prize to the people of Tehran, or to Neda as their surrogate, thereby missing such an extraordinary opportunity to promote peace and rebuke fascism?

Is this another example of the intellectual price Europe has paid for so many many generations of repressing and exterminating original thought?

0Shares

14 Responses

  1. Arafat getting the award dropped it much in my esteem. Their thinking of giving it to Kim Jong Il at the same time they were planning to give it to Pres. Kim Dae-Jung kept my esteem for it low.

    Now, I think it is a joke. I think the world community is a joke. it will take several years of proper awards for them to wipe away the awesome stink they just smeared on themselves…

    …and it has nothing to do with Pres. Obama himself. Not personally or politically. It has to do with his past — the lack of any remote record showing he deserves this award — but that isn’t his fault.

    If they had given the award to Kim Dae-Jung shortly after becoming president in South Korea and before the Summit – (which led to him finally getting the award) – it would have made sense: The man’s history was one that could stand up to such an honor.

    If President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for what he has accomplished in his career, pretty much most newly elected presidents and prime ministers in the democratic world should have been given it — kind of like an honorary key to the city — 8 months into their first term…

    The world community is officially – and probably beyond repair – a joke.

    Having nations like Libya and similar on the Human Rights Council in the UN has long been a joke. Championing nations like Cuba and leaders like Hugo Chavez has long been a joke.

    Giving Pres. Obama this award so soon before he could prove anything at all in his presidency – is a joke. The court jesters are in charge of “the world community.”

  3. This will invite rebukes, but I think it is a fact until history proves differently: With US troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq (and inmates still in Gitmo), the evil George Bush did more to free people from tyranny than Pres. Obama.

    IF Pres. Obama withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (and releases inmates from Gitmo/US captivity), then the Nobel Cmte can give him the prize and say, “Obviously, the US occupation was a greater affront to freedom and peace than were the governments of the Hussein and the Taliban. That is why Pres. Obama deserves the award.”

    But, Pres. Obama hasn’t even had time in office to withdraw troops or close Gitmo – if he ever does 1 or more of the 3.

    If Pres. Bush is evil and the opposite of a Nobel Peace Prize candidate, then Pres. Obama is at least tainted with his stink until he ends they tyranny Bush created.

    Or, the Nobel Cmte and “world community” are — useless court jesters…

  5. Finally, what consideration was given to Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, Meir Hossein Mousavi, Rebiya Kadeer, or Kang Chol Hwan, all of whom have actually risked or sacrificed so that others could live freely and in peace? Why did the Nobel Committee miss the chance to award the prize to the people of Tehran, or to Neda as their surrogate, thereby missing such an extraordinary opportunity to promote peace and rebuke fascism? “

    Hear! Hear!

  6. I think the Nobel Peace Committee should be advised to wait before awarding these things. You never see someone get awarded for Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, or Economics until the work they did is fairly mature. Allowing the results of a persons work to mature gives you the perspective of whether or not it was actually worthwhile.

    For example Charles Dawes was awarded the peace prize for saddling Germany with reparations debt after WWI. In addition between WWI and WWII there were about a dozen prizes awarded for playing a part in the league of nations. It amazes me that they haven’t realized that world peace is at least as complicated as chemistry; while they would never award someone a prize for chemistry based on a chemical equation on a piece of paper that had never been reacted in a lab, they should not be handing out peace prizes for work that did not result in actual sustained peace.

  9. Let’s say I think you’re doing a great job. You’re making progress towards a number of important goals. You’re light years better than your predecessor. You want to give the guy some encouragement for the work he’s started, even though he gets banged around over several initiatives. Get the picture?

    Awards can be for progress made or for things already done. Even something like the ‘Most Improved’ Award isn’t an indication that they’re the best.

    The other nominees, from what I’ve heard, get lots of credit for their peaceful efforts in their respective regions. But have any changed the *world*?

  10. Awards can be for progress made or for things already done.

    So Obama has changed the world?

    Looking at what he has done and progress he has made in his total career —- if he has changed the world to the world community’s viewpoint, they are court jesters just like I wrote above — a joke – and worse yet – they can’t even see it…

    Troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Detainees are still in Gitmo with no release in sight. The Patriot Act and pretty much every thing the ignorant world community wailed and put on sack clothe on for and threw ash over their heads over that came in the Bush years are still in place. (I use biblical language in light of how demonized they made Bush and how apocolyptic they wailed.)

  11. You’re making progress towards a number of important goals. You’re light years better than your predecessor. You want to give the guy some encouragement for the work he’s started,

    Laboring under quite a few assumptions, aren’t we?

    The only “achievements” Obama has accomplished is that he’s managed to denigrate his own country on his worldwide apology tour, and he reads his teleprompter with a fair degree of competency – both of which “achievements” occurred after the committee ended their selection process.

    In the real world, Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is a farce. But since the prize has become utterly meaningless since the terrorist Arafat was awarded it, I suppose it’s fitting that a meaningless prize was awarded to someone who’s accomplished absolutely nothing.

  12. If Chris’s thinking reflects that of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, the prize has ceased to be about courage or accomplishment, it’s merely a reflection of whom the members would vote for if they were eligible. Which is fairly symbolic of the futility of this gesture.

    But then, what does it say that they gave one to Arafat?

  13. According to the Prize requirements themselves, it’s too far-fetched for Obama to have received it, though I still think it was premature. Quoting their website:

    … the Peace Prize is to go to whoever “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”.

    Giving it to people whose work is ongoing is by no means unprecedented either.

  14. shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations

    So, this has been a popularity contest? If the world really likes the US president, he gets a Nobel Peace Prize out of the box – with no accomplishments to date. If they really hate him, then the next guy can get it if he just tries a little and says a lot of stuff they like to hear — without much doing involved…

    The awarding was a fantastic joke.