Monday, March 26, 2012

Has Barack Obama warranted his Nobel Peace Prize?



The Nobel Peace Prize awarded Barack Obama in 2009 seemed to pre-empt any concrete action and even declared policy. At the time Ben Pershing wrote in the Washington Post:  that when he was elected a year ago, not even Mr Obama's aides would have thought the president would be spending 10 December in Oslo picking up the Nobel Peace Prize. However, Mr Pershing writes, it has turned out to be an award that "has probably spawned more headaches in the White House than pride".
"And now the president and all his men are trying to make the best of a politically awkward situation," he continues.[i]
The perception that Obama was different to his predecessor was world-wide and yet any elected President had to have some of the same agenda as well as carry on some of the legacy of his predecessor.
            There is no doubt that George W. Bush was held in universal disdain (although I’ll be interested to see how he is viewed with the advantage of hindsight; especially his second term) and that Obama seemed to be heralding a new era in American foreign policy. Ben Feller writing in the Huffington Post wrote: "Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that 'I face the world as it is' and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States," he says.[ii]
In an editorial for the New York Daily News Josh Greenman wrote: "They wounded two doves with one stone. No matter how much you like Obama and his foreign policy, it is patently ridiculous that a man who's served less than nine months as President should earn a prize that eluded even Mahatma Gandhi."
But Mr Greenman does not blame Mr Obama for what he calls this mockery:
"It's not Obama's fault he attracts such absurd knee-jerk adulation from the world's elites, all for a series of compelling speeches and pledges to cooperate with the world community... Now, the prize is officially a late-night joke. And like it or not, Obama is part of the punch line."[iii]
And Greenman pretty much hits the nail on the head. Obama’s election was rejoiced the world over, much more so than in his own country, which still remains a country very divided.           The committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Obama said he viewed the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as "a call to action."[iv]
So how is the Prize allocated?
The Nobel Peace Prize winner is chosen by a five-member committee of lawmakers elected by the Norwegian parliament. Specially appointed advisers weigh in.
More than a year before the prize is awarded, the Nobel committee seeks nominations from members of governments and international courts, heads of universities, academics and previous Nobel laureates. Self-nominations are not allowed. The nomination deadline is in February.
The committee makes its final vote in October. The winner is determined by a simple majority vote.[v]
 The reason given by the committee for choosing Obama perhaps underpins the problems we have in the world, "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," the committee said of Obama.[vi] What they really meant was values and attitudes held by the majority of Europeans. So perhaps the real problem is that the Nobel Peace Prize is not really relevant anymore; nevertheless I intend to discuss whether Obama has met those expectations.
A very good article quoting 9 different Foreign Policy experts opinion of how Obama has fared in his first term can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/23/grading_obama_s_foreign_policy  Here the views vary from mildly successful, to not quite up to it. My summation of the article is that in very few areas has Obama taken a leadership role due to not having defined policies.  I tend to concur that Obama tends to react to situations rather than lead. On the positive side he hasn’t made many serious errors.
Fox News is proudly right wing and is definitely not a supporter of the president, yet I present their take on his Foreign Policy in his first term:

[vii]

            I believe any goodwill that Obama had engendered early on in his administration has gone by the wayside. America’s name in the Middle East is not good. America has left Iraq to what seems to be sectarian strife. It has muddied its name in Afghanistan and is being asked to leave a year earlier than planned. Pakistan is an ally in theory only. The Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations are more moribund than ever. The Americans perhaps reluctantly supported the rebels in Libya yet are not too keen to intervene in Syria. In fact the Arab Spring has been a massive headache for the U.S, with most of the dictators falling being stalwarts of past American policy; Obama’s appeal to the Muslim world having been made from Mubarak’s Egypt.
            China is certainly establishing itself as a superpower and a possible alternative to the U.S for many countries. The old enemy, Russia has also started to show its teeth, with Putin painting the U.S. as the bad guys in every situation. The Korean situation is an unclear as it has been with Obama using the same stick and carrot techniques of his predecessors.
            The biggest concern in the world today is Iran, who with potential nuclear capabilities will be a threat to not just Israel, but the whole western world. Obama’s tactic seems to be a Robert Dulles form of brinksmanship. Scary stuff.
            I don’t think Obama has justified the Prize he was awarded in 2009. However we in Australia will continue to support him, or more correctly, the U.S.A and follow them into any theatre of conflict.