Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize: questions and opinions

 The rationale used for naming Nobel Prize winners is, at best, at bit fickle. Not often powerful figures on the international scene needing a bit of back-up are awarded and then, so as to appear balanced, relatively unknown people struggling in out-of-the-way places, say, the 1992 winner, Rigoberta Manchu Tum, of Guatemala, for her struggles for the rights of indigenous people. What was the criteria for naming President Barack Obama 2009 Nobel Peace winner? Officially, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The U.S. president was awarded the prize just 37 months after taking office, for his stress on “negotiating” differences--in clear contrast to the policies of ex-president George Bush.

 

Yet, Washington continues its increasing involvement in Afghanistan, refuses to end the unending economic blocade of Cuba, continues to maintain prisoners on Guantanamo base (although sending many of them to Europe), and in Latin America U.S. Big Brother presence has been beefed up with the renovation of the snooping activities of the 4^th Fleet and U.S. military presence on seven bases in Colombia. There furthermore are questions concerning whether or not there was undercover involvement in the military coup in Honduras.

However, one might read the decision as future oriented--to help Obama in his struggle internally with mitilaristic forces and externally to give him more credit in negotiating conflicts on the international scenario. The question nevertheless remains open to debate--as usually happens with the awards, some being in favor, others against.

 

In a letter to editor published in “The Progressive” Oct. 9, Pete Karman complains tongue in cheek about the award:  “I heard this morning that Barack Obama will have to take time out from strategizing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, supervising the Pentagon’s new Africa Command, propping up a murderous military coup in Honduras, reviving the Fourth Fleet to police a peaceful (until now) Latin America, opening a new string of bases in Colombia, calling air strikes and commando raids from the Horn of Africa to the Philippines, and helping America to sell more weapons to more countries than the whole rest of the world combined, to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.”

There have been no steps to scale down the Pentagon’s military activities around the world, in spite of the nice sounding talk about “negotiating” differences: there are still U.S. troops in Iraq, no sign that the numerous private military contractors will be called home; no legal end yet to the Bush Administration’s policy of “extraordinary renditions,” Washington continues to claim the right to indefinitely detain people without habeas corpus rights at the Bragram Air Base; no advances in prodding Israel to mitigate its policy towards occupied Palestinian territories.

 

Some argue that it is too early to judge these not very peaceful actions, and they point to Obama’s captivating rhetoric on peace and negotiating differences. True, but the war machine in the United States continues, healthy and well budgeted, in spite of the current financial crisis. Was the prize given for Obama’s expressed desire for peace or for concrete actions? Was it a veiled criticism of the policies of previous U.S. presidents?

 

In a letter published on his web page, Michael Moore says: “I think the Nobel committee, in awarding Obama the prize, was also rewarding the fact that something profound had happened in a nation that was founded on racial genocide, built on racist slavery, and held back for a hundred-plus years by vestiges of hateful bigotry (which can still be found on display at teabagger rallies and daily talk radio). The fact that this one man could cause this seismic historical event to occur -- and to do so with such grace and humility, never succumbing to the bait, but still not backing down (yes, he asked to be sworn in as "Barack Hussein Obama"!) -- is more than reason enough he should be in Oslo to meet the King on December 10. Maybe he could take us along with him. ’Cause I also suspect the Nobel committee was tipping its hat to all of us -- we, the American people, had conquered some of our racism and did the truly unexpected. After seeing searing images of our black fellow citizens left to drown in New Orleans -- and poor whites seeing their own treated no better than the black man they had been raised to hate -- we had all seen enough. It was time for change.”

 

The current world system remains militarized, despite the rhetoric. Noam Chomsky pointed out in an article for the New York Times News Service that “The United States spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on its military and it is far more advanced in the technology of destruction. The United States is also alone in having hundreds of global military bases and in occupying two countries in the crucial energy-producing regions.“

 

During the Cold War numerous instruments were constructed to defend and consolidate Washington’s interests around the world. One was clearly NATO, representing Washington’s unipolar view of the world. It is now being reshaped into what appears to be a U.S. dominated global intervention force, especially concerned about control over energy. In a word, the intention of the U.S. is clearly to maintain and increase its role as “decider” and “shaper” of the world that is emerging. That inevitably implies confrontation with those around the world who view things from a different perspective.

While the notion that differences should be "negotiated" rather than fought out is certainly a healthy change for the world, there are no indications that Washington plans to give up its geopolitical intentions.

The question concerning why Obama was given the peace award thus remains open; as is the question concerning why much less well known persons working silently around the world were not awarded.