In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Cara

Like everyone else, I was hit with the news this morning that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And, like seemingly everyone else, my first reaction was “Really? Already? But why?”

Luckily for me, just as I began to ask that question, I came across this article from the AP, which debunks several Nobel Peace Prize related myths. Of most significance is the last:

_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

Assuming the AP is correct, suddenly (at least to me), this whole thing makes a lot more sense.

Now, I’m not saying that closes all opportunity for criticism of the decision, by any means. Please, criticize away — there’s definitely room for it! But it makes sense to do it from a fully informed perspective. A lot of the criticism I’ve seen appears to be working off of a mistaken assumption — one which I myself thought was correct — so it certainly seems relevant to clear things up. I, for one, am glad to see that someone did.

24 thoughts on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

  1. If it’s to encourage peace, why not just give it to anyone involved in a conflict, so they magically resolve their issues after the prize? That’s a pretty inane way of distributing something as important as this.

    How the hell does anyone get the nobel peace prize while expanding a war and shielding human rights abusers? This is absurd.

  3. My father’s take on it in our discussion on the subject this morning was, “It’s ridiculous, but, shit, if they can give it to Kissinger…” I find I can’t really disagree with him. It is ridiculous. But more ridiculous people have won in the past.

  4. I’m wondering if Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize recepient who has refused to meet with another recipient, the Dalai Lama.

  5. I think the Nobel Committee spun it in a way that was persuasive. It seemed like they made two other important points besides that the prize would encourage Obama to do good:

    1. Obama’s created a new climate of multilateralism. He’s invigorated international institutions.
    2. When the question gets framed as “Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world?,” Obama begins to look like a much more reasonable choice.

    As for #1, that’s difficult to deny. As for #2, reasonable people disagree, but I think it almost follows naturally from #1. Pursuing a strategy of diplomacy and multilateralism puts every peace effort in a more favorable context. It’s hard to overestimate the impact of that shift.

  6. My take is that it was awarded for the symbol of us having the ability to change hats from someone like Bush to Obama and electing an African American, to boot, and as a blunt message to Obama to hurry up and start/finish erasing the Bush global disasters.

    If you’re gonna send that message, it’s a pretty good way to do it.

  7. I’m wondering if Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize recepient who has refused to meet with another recipient, the Dalai Lama.

    NPR reported that Obama and the Dalai Lama are slated to meet late this year or early next year.

    I read on some other blog today that they surmised Obama’s win was because he is “Prozac for the international community,” which, while funny, does make some sense. Think of Bush.

  8. Maybe we should do all awards this way. Let’s release next years Oscar winners and Grammy winners early, before any of those pesky movies or albums are made. Why bother? We pick some good people to encourage them to do some good work. Sean Penn. You win. We think you might do a good movie or two. Radiohead here’s your album of the year. I know, you haven’t released a new one. But come on, you will do good things.

    Yeah, it’s silly. It’s irrational. I am a liberal. I like Obama, but this is nuts. All the kool-aid sippers are stretching to find any way to defend this one. It doesn’t wash.

  9. I totally don’t think he DESERVED to win. But then, neither did the committee in Oslo either. I mean, do you seriously think they thought Yassar Arafat was an exemplary member of the world community devoted to world peace? They gave it to him because he stopped blowing people up and came to the peace talks.

    I think it should probably give everyone in America pause that that’s how Europe sees the US now — a state so potentially damaging that they deserve an award when it seems like they might stop blowing so many people up.

  10. What a farce. So according to the AP, it’s a “myth” that one actually has to do something to earn the prize? I realize that they don’t give it out only to those whose efforts are wholly successful, but isn’t the point that some tangible, concrete effort must have been made in the first place?

    FYI, a list of nominees that the Nobel committee thought deserved the prize less then Obama:

    Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”

    Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

    “Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”

    Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”

    “Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.'”

    “Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.”

  11. Thank you! This is what I’ve been having to tell everyone all morning long. This and the fact that it’s their damn prize and they can give it to whomever they want. I predict this award will both place a greater pressure on him to focus on peace and give his words weight in the global community. I can’t find a problem with either of those things happening.

  12. …. I guess I need to repeat myself? “This whole thing makes a lot more sense” doesn’t mean “I now 100% agree with the decision!” I don’t. I think others deserved it more. And I also said that there are tons of legitimate criticisms. For example, I too disagree with the way that Obama has handled many, indeed probably most, peace-related matters. All I’m saying is that I can now see what they might have been thinking when making the decision — and that “but it’s too soon, he hasn’t done much yet, and we’re still waiting to see whether he actually lives up to his promises” isn’t necessarily the fully valid argument that people think it is. Also, that the strongest arguments are made with all the facts in mind.

    You can disagree with the choice without acting as though Obama’s name was pulled out of somebody’s ass. My best guess is that it’s: a) a strong rebuke of Bush, b) an acknowledgment that even with tons of people still having a whole lot of damn good reasons to hate America, and with Obama doing a whole lot of things wrong, his election has improved international relationships, and c) an attempt to motivate and/or shame Obama into doing the good, peacemaking things he said that he was going to do, and to show strong international support for those promises.

    There is at least one strong counter argument attached to each of those reasons and whether or not they were fully legitimate ones! Or that they should have outweighed the accomplishments of other nominees! I never said otherwise.

  13. I realize that they don’t give it out only to those whose efforts are wholly successful, but isn’t the point that some tangible, concrete effort must have been made in the first place?
    Nate Silver has a decent rundown of Obama’s tangible, concrete efforts here. There’s more here. Important to note about those achievements: they don’t derive solely from his being not-Bush; they represent an actual push toward a different mode of doing foreign policy worldwide.

    Every year, there are deserving people who go unrecognized for the critical work they do. That’s a terrible shame. It really is. I just don’t see why that tragedy should cheapen the very real contributions of those who are recognized.

  14. In a completely non-political sense, I can understand why he got it, and agree with the decision. Unfortunately, it look so obviously like a political move that I can’t get 100% behind it. I am personally in agreement with the politics behind it, but when it is so obviously political instead of neutral as I thought it was supposed to be, we lose credibility.

  15. NPR reported that Obama and the Dalai Lama are slated to meet late this year or early next year.

    Also, the cheque is in the mail.

    The problem is that Obama broke a tradition of US presidents meeting the Dalai Lama when he came to Washington that lasted 20 odd years. Sure, they might meet sometime, but a clear message has been sent to China that Tibet is not really an issue to the US administration anymore.

    It’s it just odd that someone who won a prize for ‘efforts to strengthen international diplomacy’ would cut another recipient out of the diplomatic loop.

  16. To me, that article reads as this fellow on the Nobel Committee trying to justify their decision in the face of criticism. Alfred Nobel’s own words are that the prize is to 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”

    There’s nothing there about intentions. IMHO, Cara, you’ve been spun.

  17. There is at least one strong counter argument attached to each of those reasons and whether or not they were fully legitimate ones! Or that they should have outweighed the accomplishments of other nominees! I never said otherwise.

    Well then, what’s left of your defense? That there have been worse recipients of this prize? Sure: but none of them were quite so idle, so un-achieving of anything except election victories. The Nate Silver list mentioned above doesn’t say anything factual either.

    1. Well, Unree, it wasn’t really much of a defense at all, though some people here are taking it as such. It was an attempt to add a bit of context and explanation. I was quite apparently not as clear in that as I had thought, including in the comment you quoted from, though I wish I had been.

      I just thought other people would be interested. Really, that’s the fully story. I found it interesting first thing this morning and was glad I read it. I posted it on Twitter and many other people there found it interesting enough to retweet. And as a result I thought the Feministe audience might find it interesting as well, though I realize now that I might have been wrong in that. I’m getting the impression that some readers are thinking that I have some kind of ulterior motive other than sharing that I’m attempting to be coy about, but … I don’t. I honestly don’t care enough to have an ulterior motive, though clearly I underestimated the extent to which other people do care, and I’m sorry for that.

  18. clear message has been sent to China that Tibet is not really an issue to the US administration anymore.

    It’s it just odd that someone who won a prize for ‘efforts to strengthen international diplomacy’ would cut another recipient out of the diplomatic loop.

    My understanding is the opposite. He put off meeting with the Dalai Lama so that he’d still have some diplomatic ligitimacy in dealing with other nations in the meantime without appearing to have allied favorites among people with political power as opposed to having a nice photo opportunity with someone with only symbolic power. Like it or not, the Obama has to deal with both the Dalai Lama and China and prioritize his meetings. Sorry it’s not happening on your timeline. What’s your beef?

  19. What’s my beef? What’s with your attitude? When did I say I was upset that things weren’t happening ‘on my timeline.’ That kind of snide comment doesn’t suggest you want to have any kind constructive discussion of this issue, but I’ll try.

    I merely observed that it was odd that as both Obama and the Dalai Lama have received the same peace prize, which was partially given in recognition for ‘efforts to strenghten international diplomacy’, that Obama felt unable to meet with the Dalai Lama in the same way that other presidents, such as Clinton and both Bush 1 and 2 met with him.

    Tibet is a diplomatic issue, and the Dalai Lama is the international spokesman for the Tibetan people’s desire for more autonomy, so your comment that he is not a political figure is simply untrue. It actually sounds like something that would come from the Chinese Communist party, who dismiss any requests for greater autonomy as a product of the ‘Dalai Lama clique’, as though he is just a religious figure and doesn’t represent the political aspirations of Tibetan people.

    Obama caving to China’s desire to have the Dalai Lama sidelined could have serious repercussions if the Tibetan people begin to lose faith in the Dalai Lama’s ability to bring attention to their situation, as they may resort to more ‘direct action’, with the possibility of violent confrontation.

  20. I’m with the folks who think that the Nobel’s bar was set below sea level when they gave it to Kissinger. I’m not all that enamored of Obama (who’s essentially been doing a Bill Clinton and kissing the ass of the right wing, to no avail), and think there are far better choices for recipients, but whatever.

  21. FYI, a list of nominees that the Nobel committee thought deserved the prize less then Obama: – CTD
    You can disagree with the choice without acting as though Obama’s name was pulled out of somebody’s ass. – Cara

    I suspect a factor in their decision might have been Obama’s level of influence as a US President – in that anything he does, good or bad, is magnified on the world stage. The same might have applied to the award to Arafat (which was given jointly to Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Peres, something that both supporters and critics seem to be omitting at the moment) – due to their position at the political centre of a major world flashpoint.

    Then again, while I can understand that as a factor – if it is – I don’t agree with it.

  22. Pingback: Peace Prizes and Other Awards

  23. I think most of the criticism coming from the left about why this award wasn’t deserved are merited.

    That said, I disagree with the assertion that he has done NOTHING to warrant winning the award. Anyone who caught Maddow last night can see why the Nobel Committee has some justification for giving him the Prize.

    He’s scrapped plans for missile defense in Eastern Europe.

    He’s speaking out strongly on the need to make this a non-nuclear world.

    He’s approaching the issues we have with Iran with an olive branch of diplomacy rather than a seber-rattling indicating preparation for pre-emtpive war.

    The criticisms are valid, though I would point out on GITMO that he hasn’t broken his promise yet. He told us that it would be closed within one year on January 22, 2009. There ar troubling signs indicating that deadline may pass with GITMO still open. If that happens, then he rightly deserves criticism for it… but we’re still three months away from the deadline. I’m not gonna blast him for breaking a promise in an area where he hasn’t broken a promise.

    I also object to the claim that he has escalated war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, I believe that he has reduced the number of troops in Iraq, and the timelines he laid out this past Spring are being met. It is fair to criticize him for extending those timelines beyond the initial 16 month promise he made while campaigning.

    We haven’t substantially escalated the war effort in Afghanistan… yet. There has been a small escalation, but the huge surge hasn’t happened… yet. Gen. McChrystal has requested an increase of 40,000-60,000 troops in the area, but thus far, Obama hasn’t given McChrystal what he has requested – something for which Obama is taking a huge amount of criticism from the right for. His indecision there is troubling insofar as he’s leaving the door open to troop escalation, but don’t criticize him for sending 40,000 more troops there when he hasn’t done that. My sincere hope is that he’s listening more to VP Biden than he is to Gen. McChrystal on this front. We’ll see what happens. If he gives in to McChrystal’s request and begins an Afghanistan surge effort, he rightly deserves every bit of criticism that will follow. And he does deserve to be criticized for allowing the status quo to continue in Afghanistan.

    He also deserves criticism for failing to address the Bush torture programs. But he also deserves praise for ENDING those programs.

    I agree that this award is at best, premature. I also think there were more deserving candidates. But I don’t get why anyone would criticize President Obama personally for winning an award that he himself doesn’t believe he deserved, nor did he ever lobby for it. From all indications, the White House was every bit as shocked by the news yesterday morning as was everyone else. If one feels that the award was unwarranted, the criticism should be directed towards the five Norwegians in Oslo who decided to give it to Obama, not towards the man who won it when he didn’t even ask for it.

Comments are currently closed.