Huh?

[danalwyn]

Wait, what? Seriously?

I mean, why? He hasn't done anything yet.

Let me make a point. Barack Obama has made great strides in returning the world to some sort of diplomatic normalacy. He's done this by re-opening diplomatic channels, and by striving to reconnect the world's strongest military power to the world that it threatens. He has made several statements about human rights, specifically in Africa, where of all the first world leaders he has special clout, that are commendable and deserve praise. He has made steps both in nuclear disarmament and in promoting peace that are laudable, and in the fullness of time may bear spectacular fruit. And he is reforging the kind of alliances that we hope will see the world through the rocky times ahead as the political landscape of the world changes.

But all this, all the uncertainties in that paragraph, underline a very serious flaw. None of his accomplishments, none of his speeches, none of his initiatives, and none of his overtures, have yet yielded serious results. He's being praised for getting Iran back to the bargaining table against a united front, for essentially pulling the plug on Chavez's South American block, for re-normalizing our relations with an internally unstable Russia, and for the message that he's sent to Africa. But none of these efforts have yet produced anything substantial. Maybe in a year or two we'll be celebrating a victory on the diplomatic front, but right now we just don't know. We don't know whether he has the skill, the persistence, or that all-important trait, the luck to pull it off. And to hand the prize out based on expectations, on good intentions instead of results, seems to me against what the prize should stand for. We reward people for what they've done, not for what they say they're going to do.

It was a lousy year for the peace prize, and I don't think there were many stand-out contenders for it, but to award it to someone in their first year on the global stage, without any real significant accomplishments under his belt, cheapens both the prize and the recipient more then they deserve.

(I may be the only disgruntled person on my F-list, but since when has that stopped me from making an ass of myself?)

Comments

[moon-very-thin.livejournal.com]

I'm with you entirely on this. I don't understand the rationale behind it at all. I know the committee like making grand didactic gestures, but I don't understand the point of this one. You'd think they'd be able to find some HRAs who are doing good work, and who would significantly benefit from the increased profile this would give them.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

The sad thing is, by next year, they're going to either be saying "Hey, we should have given this prize to him for X, which he actually did" or "Man, we never should have given him the prize". There seems to be an impressive amount of lack of foresight here.

[moon-very-thin.livejournal.com]

Definitely. Although maybe we're interrogating their plans from the wrong perspective here. Perhaps their key motivation was to start wank on the internet?

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

1) Give Obama Nobel Peace Prize.
2) ?????
3) Profit!

[tx-cronopio.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure it's how you say "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead!" in Swedish. In other words, he got it for being Not!Bush.

Which is silly, but it'll be worth it to watch Rush Limbaugh's head explode.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I still think that the Nobel Prize committee shouldn't be running around being silly, but that's probably what it was. The thing is that it wouldn't have been hurt by waiting another year.

It's probably a good thing for them that they've hidden the politics behind this one and thrown away the key.

[gagyourmouth.livejournal.com]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

We'll have to see how things transpire. To me, it seems that Obama's biggest chances are in creating a global initiative between the major powers to reduce nuclear proliferation, and provide what will eventually be a united front on matters of international security, and in the continuing struggle of what to do about Africa. I'm most optimistic about Africa, since he enjoys a unique position of major world leaders in regard to it, and I'm hopeful that out of this will come a framework that will slowly lead us to be able to address the problems of that continent. But it won't come quickly, and we don't have any idea how it will turn out until it ends. So far I've been of two minds on his foreign policy, he's made some very good decisions, but on the AfPak subjects, where he really should have been ready to hit the ground running, he's been strangely indecisive. I'm hopeful, but withholding judgment for the moment.

Do I know you by the way? I don't recognize the name.

[melligator.livejournal.com]

Obama aside, where has that website been all my life?

[tripathy.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. I just heard about this a couple of minutes ago, and my first reaction was that he hadn't done anything. Okay, he's making a go of it, and that's great, but first-place trophies don't get handed out just for trying.

I feel...rather irritated, and I'm not quite sure why.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I've been reminded now repeatedly, that the Nobel peace prize isn't necessarily given out to reward people, but also exists to be given to people in the midst of their work, to encourage them to proceed. My argument with that is that there has to be some work to proceed on, and I think Obama's barely started.

Mostly I'm just grumpy because I don't like surprises, and I don't think this puts the Nobel committee in particularly good odor right now. Like you, I'm feeling sort of irritable about all this.

[bladed-crescent.livejournal.com]

It's even weirder than you think. All Nobel nominees have to be... nominated... by February of that year. So someone put Obama's name into the ring when he wasn't even a month into his job. That's... uh... even more premature.

Like you, I don't know many contenders for the Peace Prize this year, but I imagine some of the Iranian opponents to Ahmadinejad (sp?) might be worth a look - did that farce happen early enough? I don't remember. Regardless, I have to say that that Not!Bush (Not!Anyone; you should excel to be awarded something, not merely not fuck things up) is not an acceptable reason to be given the award. I mean, wasn't that part of the reason that Jimmy Carter and Al Gore got theirs? Besides, is that what Peace Prize is for nowadays? Not screwing up?

That's a pretty low bar to hit. I thought the purpose of these things was for outstanding achievements. I mean, in the sciences, you don't even get the award for years/decades after you've made your breakthrough, just so what you've done has time to have a significant impact.

It's great that he's donating the reward money to charity, but still... he hasn't done anything yet. Wait a couple years or five and then we'll see what crops hath grown from these fresh-sown fields.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking that it one of the contenders in the Iranian election won't get the nod, because even though they were running, they were still a pretty cleric-happy and nuke-happy bunch. FP is pointing towards imprisoned Chinese professors, or possibly Vaclav Havel.

The defenders of the prize point out that the prize isn't actual an accomplishments prize, it's awarded to people to encourage them to continue in their efforts. This is one of the strange ways in which the Peace and the Sciences/Literature prize differ. Whether Obama had any efforts ongoing that need that kind of encouragement is up for debate, and I'm sort of dubious.

Maybe they're just evening out Teddy Roosevelt or something.