So I'm a bit behind the times, but I did actually see (and get a bit tired of all the reporting on) the Obama Nobel Prize. I was slightly encouraged that many people that I know to be strong Obama supporters (a couple bordering on rabid) were just as puzzled as non-supporters.
This is what the Nobel website had to say: In selecting him, the Norwegian Nobel Committee...appear to be endorsing Obama's appeal for greater multilateral cooperation aimed at tackling the thorniest global problems; conflict, nuclear weapons, climate change. They highlight his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy, and the new climate of dialogue and negotiation that Obama is promoting. Emphasis is also placed on renewed US commitment to international organizations, in particular the United Nations.
The section of Alfred Nobel's will detailing the creation of the Peace Prize states that it 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." In answer to questions during the announcement press conference about how early in Obama's Presidency the award was being made...the Committee wanted to demonstrate its support for the approaches he is taking towards global problems.
Contrary to most American's popular beliefs, news from the US is not generally the top story world-wide...I don't hear a lot about things going on in the US via CNN and I admit to not being very diligent about reading online news. I did learn alot more about Obama's stance on disarmament by reading around as a result of the award. However, since the nominations window closed a mere 11 days after he took office it seems far too premature to award him anything. He ran for the prediency on a platform of hope. He believes in conflict resoluation and that those resolutions can be found in the values and commitments that are universal to all people. I applaud that sentiment heartily.
People who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, however, have often devoted decades, often their entire lives, to their cause (Jimmy Carter,2002, Mother Teresa, 1979). They are experts in their field (Norman Borlaug, 1970, Linus Pauling, 1962). They have risked their lives for what they believed in (Martin Luther King 1964, Nelson Mandela, 1993). They are ordinary citizens thrust suddenly into situations in which not acting becomes impossible (Betty Williams and Maired Corrigan, 1976). They have survived unspeakable horrors (Elie Wiesel, 1986). They have stunned the world, doing something that no one thought possible (Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, 1994).
I hope with all my might that he fulfills his promises. I pray that the work he is starting, both at home and abroad, continues in a direction that makes both our country and the world a better place. His election, I believe, changed our country and our world. He opened a door and stepped we across a threshold into new possibilities. We are not the same and I could say that confidently even if I was not an Obama supporter.
I just can't put President Obama in that category--yet--even with the power of the election. I think the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded for achievements, not the possibility of achievements, for a life dedicated to a cause that fundamentally changes the nature of our world, not for an election and a few days of promise. Read the stories of past Nobel Peace Prize laureates (click on the person, then on the right side of the page on "presentation speech" to read a summary of the person's accomplishments) and you will be inspired and strengthened and renewed by the people who have given so much of themselves in so many ways for the betterment of our world and our future.
This is what the Nobel website had to say: In selecting him, the Norwegian Nobel Committee...appear to be endorsing Obama's appeal for greater multilateral cooperation aimed at tackling the thorniest global problems; conflict, nuclear weapons, climate change. They highlight his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy, and the new climate of dialogue and negotiation that Obama is promoting. Emphasis is also placed on renewed US commitment to international organizations, in particular the United Nations.
The section of Alfred Nobel's will detailing the creation of the Peace Prize states that it 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." In answer to questions during the announcement press conference about how early in Obama's Presidency the award was being made...the Committee wanted to demonstrate its support for the approaches he is taking towards global problems.
Contrary to most American's popular beliefs, news from the US is not generally the top story world-wide...I don't hear a lot about things going on in the US via CNN and I admit to not being very diligent about reading online news. I did learn alot more about Obama's stance on disarmament by reading around as a result of the award. However, since the nominations window closed a mere 11 days after he took office it seems far too premature to award him anything. He ran for the prediency on a platform of hope. He believes in conflict resoluation and that those resolutions can be found in the values and commitments that are universal to all people. I applaud that sentiment heartily.
People who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, however, have often devoted decades, often their entire lives, to their cause (Jimmy Carter,2002, Mother Teresa, 1979). They are experts in their field (Norman Borlaug, 1970, Linus Pauling, 1962). They have risked their lives for what they believed in (Martin Luther King 1964, Nelson Mandela, 1993). They are ordinary citizens thrust suddenly into situations in which not acting becomes impossible (Betty Williams and Maired Corrigan, 1976). They have survived unspeakable horrors (Elie Wiesel, 1986). They have stunned the world, doing something that no one thought possible (Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, 1994).
I hope with all my might that he fulfills his promises. I pray that the work he is starting, both at home and abroad, continues in a direction that makes both our country and the world a better place. His election, I believe, changed our country and our world. He opened a door and stepped we across a threshold into new possibilities. We are not the same and I could say that confidently even if I was not an Obama supporter.
I just can't put President Obama in that category--yet--even with the power of the election. I think the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded for achievements, not the possibility of achievements, for a life dedicated to a cause that fundamentally changes the nature of our world, not for an election and a few days of promise. Read the stories of past Nobel Peace Prize laureates (click on the person, then on the right side of the page on "presentation speech" to read a summary of the person's accomplishments) and you will be inspired and strengthened and renewed by the people who have given so much of themselves in so many ways for the betterment of our world and our future.
3 comments:
I didn't realize the nominations window closed so soon after he took office. The Nobel Peace Prize is definitely a political award!
I saw in the news today that some committe members were trying to defend their choice. They sound weak and lame.
Should we even take this award that seriously? I don't know.
One committe member noted that Obama did not look very pleased to have received the award and I totally agree. I think he's embarrassed.
We don't get much US news here either but they did show that Obama was also surprised and perplexed. A lot of people ask why he got a nomination and Gore didn't since he has campaigned for his work on global education in climate change forever and Clinton for his Northern Ireland peace agreement.
But the Nobel Prize committee has done stranger things in the past.
Post a Comment