NOTABLES: Persons of interest

I was not expecting the first commentary on today's seismic shocker from a major newspaper anywhere to come from the Times of London, least of all to take this form, but it says it for all persons of common sense:


Absurd decision on Obama
makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
by Michael Binyon

October 9, 2009

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.

However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war.

Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters.

Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous [deserving] winners have been diminished.


NB: I first posted the 'news' on the preceding page, to which Cowgirl had an immediate reaction.



The AP's initial commentary from its chief White House correspondent is equally skeptical - yet another surprise, as heretofore, MSM have been unhesitating and even cheerleading participants in the chorus of Hallelujahs to their hero-idol-icon.


Analysis: He won, but for what?
By JENNIFER LOVEN



WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 (AP) – The awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on darkened, still-asleep Washington. He won! For what?

For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February — it was an enormous honor.

The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. Work on the president's ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.

And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and can't get a climate change bill through his own Congress.

His scorecard for the year is largely an "incomplete," if he's being graded.

He banned torture and other extreme interrogation techniques for terrorists. But he also promised to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a source of much distaste for the U.S. around the world, a difficult task that now seems headed to miss his own January 2010 deadline.

He said he would end the Iraq war. But he has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012, and that's only if both the U.S. and Iraq stick to their current agreement about American troop withdrawals.

He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But he's received little cooperation from the two sides.

He said he wants a nuclear-free world. But it's one thing to telegraph the desire, in a speech in Prague in April, and quite another to unite other nations and U.S. lawmakers behind the web of treaties and agreements needed to make that reality.

He has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with legislation still stalled in Congress.

And what about Obama's global prestige? It seemed to take a big hit last week when he jetted across the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympics — and was rejected with a last-place finish.

Perhaps for the Nobel committee, merely altering the tone out of Washington toward the rest of the world is enough. Obama got much attention for his speech from Cairo reaching out a U.S. hand to the world's Muslims. His remarks at the U.N. General Assembly last month set down new markers for the way the U.S. works with the world.

But still ... ?

Obama aides seemed as surprised at the news as everyone else, not even aware he had been nominated along with a record 204 others. Awoken by press secretary Robert Gibbs about an hour after the vote was announced, the White House says the president responded that he was humbled to be only the third sitting U.S. president to win.

The award could be as much about issuing a slap at Obama's predecessor, former President George W. Bush, as about lauding Obama.

[A Fox commentator said Obama becomes the third American honored by the Nobel jury 'simply for not being Bush' - Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and now, Obama.]

Bush was reviled by the world for his cowboy diplomacy, Iraq war and snubbing of European priorities like global warming. Remember that the Nobel peace prize has a long history of being awarded more for the committee's aspirations than for others' accomplishments — for Mideast peace or a better South Africa, for instance.

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

Obama likely understands that his challenges are too steep to resolve — much less honor — after just a few months. "It's not going to be easy," the president often says of the tasks ahead for the United States and the world.

The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize.


One must note, as the AP writer does, that the deadline for submission of nominations for the 2009 prizes was February 1, 2009, a bare 12 days after Obama was sworn in as President - when he had not yet even made those speeches that the awards committee cited him for!

And why do you think those faceless Nobel jurors in Oslo completely ignored John Paul II and Ronald Reagan in their consideration of Peace prizes in the crucial years that preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall? Because one was Catholic - tut-tut! that would never do! The Dalai Lama was OK, Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu, as well, but certainly not the Pope, any Pope!- and the other was avowedly conservative, never mind how obviously successful his domestic and foreign policies were! And never mind that John Paul II actually was one of the major architects of the fall of Communism, as opposed to other winners who simply represented potential good and even fought notable battles in doing so.


And here's one from a Obama-rah-rah boy:


What did Obama do
to win the Nobel Peace Prize?
by Gideon Rahman

October 9, 2009

In an earlier version of this article, posted late last night, I expressed some scepticism about the Nobel Peace Prize, even suggesting that it might be pointless.

Now that Barack Obama has been awarded the peace prize, I would like to withdraw this criticism. The prize is clearly an award of huge significance, awarded after only the deepest reflection, and won only by demi-Gods!

I am a genuine admirer of Obama. And I am very pleased that George W Bush is no longer president. But I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. ['Slightly'?]

It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace - Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka? The peace prize committee say that he is being rewarded for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”.

But while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort” - my kids get them all the time - I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.

[And if it comes to that, dozens, if not hundreds, of world leaders in the past 100-plus years of the Nobel Prizes deserved the prize just as well for years, if not decades, of making speeches about their noble intentions for world peace. Heck, the faceless Oslo jurors should award themselves the Peace Prize, for who could possibly have 'nobler' aspirations for world peace than they ???]

It is also very odd timing. In the next couple of weeks, Obama is likely to yield to the wishes of his generals and to send many thousands more troops to Afghanistan. That will mean he is a wartime president, just as much as Bush or Lyndon Johnson. If Afghanistan ends up being Obama’s Vietnam, giving him the Nobel Peace Prize will look even sillier in a few years time.

[Perhaps the Oslo Five actively intended to 'control' and almost compel Obama to strategic inaction henceforth, i.e., let's see him dare send more troops to Afghanistan now, or even consider strong sanctions against Iran, with the onus of the Peace Prize holding him down! Or for that matter, let's see him dare do anything remotely 'warlike' if he must to protect and defend the country and Constitution as he swore to do?]


The Vatican appreciates
the award to Obama

Fair and balanced, here's the statement made by Vatican press director Fr. Federico Lombardi, translated from

---

The awarding of the Nobel peace prize to President Obama is greeted with appreication in the Vatican in the light of the commitment demonstrated by the President to promote peace in the international field, nad specially, recently in favor of nuclear disarmament.

It is to be hoped that this important recognition will encourage this difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of mankind, so that it may bring the expected results.

---

Not that the Vatican could officially say anything else! My fear is that Cardinal Bertone will see fit to send a congratulatory telegram to Obama in the name of the Holy Father, or God forbid!, that Benedict XVI himself would go out of his way to write a personal letter of congratulations.

But back to the statement by Fr. Lombardi, obviously from the Vatican Secretariat of State: Adding the bit about nuclear disarmament was rather unnecessary, gratuitous and disingenuous, not to say outrageous, considering that Obama wants the US to disarm even as it has been unable to stop North Korea and Iran from developing their own nuclear arsenal! Leaving the world to the mercy of relentless terrorists is a contribution to world peace????

P.S. I have calmed down now, and on second thought, I must apologize to have been taken in by the 'award' mentality that prevails in worldly affairs. None of it should mean anything, as the only reward that does is favor with God.


Reuters weighs in:


Obama Peace Prize win
has Americans asking why?
Fri Oct 9, 2009 10:00am EDT
By Michelle Nichols



NEW YORK, Oct. 9 (Reuters) - The award of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday to U.S. President Barack Obama had many puzzled Americans scratching their heads.

"It would be wonderful if I could think why he won," said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for."

Itya Silverio, 33, of Brooklyn, was also surprised. "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black," she said. "What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet."

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who won the peace prize himself in 2002, said Obama's win showed the hope he had inspired worldwide.

"It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations," Carter said in a statement.

When told of Obama's win Robert Schultz, 62, a retired civil servant and Vietnam veteran, asked: "For doing what?

"The guy hasn't solved any conflict anywhere so how can he win the peace prize? But if we don't reelect him the next go around we will all look like idiots because the world has anointed him," said Schultz, who lives in a suburb of Dallas.

Some said the choice could damage the Nobel committee's credibility and that of the award.

"It looks less like an objective award than it does a political endorsement," said William Jelani Cobb, a history professor at Spelman College in Atlanta and author of a forthcoming book on Obama.

"Guantanamo is not closed yet and it makes it difficult for him to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan," he said, referring to the U.S. prison in Cuba where some detainees have been held for years without trial.

Haag Sherman, director of Houston-based investment firm Salient Partners, said it politicizes the award.

"Largely left leaning U.S. leaders have been recent recipients of that award. It will clearly be viewed as political by the right," he said. "It illustrates that the U.S. is still the prevalent power in the world and that the world really is seeking engagement with the United States."

Opera singer Carissa March, 30, said she was surprised but the win might help Obama achieve some of what he had started.

"Although he's trying to open up talks with nations we haven't spoken with we haven't had enough time to see if it's worked," she said.

"Sometimes when things like this happen it forces people to view things more positively so hopefully other leaders around the world will take (the talks) a little more seriously and open up more."

In Chicago, retiree June Latrobe, 68, was also nonplused. "In all candor he hasn't done anything yet," he said.
Many seemed happy even if they weren't sure why Obama won.

"How wonderful, I think that's fantastic," said David Spierer, 48, from New York who works in medical sales. "I know what he's doing but what has he done? Change is coming but you don't win a Nobel Peace Prize for the future."

"Obama won? Really? Wow," said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. "He deserves it I guess, he's the president. He's a smart guy and I guess he's into peace."


And a second broadside from the Times of London:

Pointless Nobel prize reveals
how Obama is lost in his own mystique
by Bronwen Maddox



Scrap the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s an embarrassment and even an impediment to peace. President Obama, in letting the committee award it to him, has made himself look vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique.

Where do you start, in the daftness of it? Anointing a leader whose character the panel admires, but who is only a fifth of the way through his term of office and has not yet clinched any peace? The fey, fanciful lack of criteria, which does no favours to the rigorous awards in science that, unfortunately, share the same brand name?

No, start with two hard-edged points. The Peace Prize has begun to distort and damage crucial negotiations. And Obama’s acceptance of the supposed honour is a misjudgment that will give power to his critics.

Of course, there are plenty of cases — Northern Ireland, endlessly — where the advances that the prize celebrated then dissolved. Peace is not an eternal state, unshakeable once achieved. I’d put this at the heart of my queasiness about the notion of any peace prize.

But others disagree, saying that effort should be rewarded as much as solid triumph. Even so, given how muddy such efforts always are, what a jumble of motives and ugly arm-twisting before the final, tidy handshake, the Nobel committee seems naive in lauding a purity that is never there.

The real damage is done, however, by making the award to a player actively engaged in conflict resolution, which can tip the balance of power in those talks.

The worst of recent cases was the 2005 award to Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The award was odd, many thought: he had presided over a record of failure by the United Nations nuclear watchdog to detect or stop proliferation.

But British and US officials working to combat Iran’s nuclear ambitions, who had long accused him of being protective of Iran, felt that the Nobel award then reinforced him in his belief that he should resist Western pressure.

In Obama’s case, two huge decisions loom: whether to put more troops into Afghanistan, and whether to mount (or even to threaten) airstrikes against Iran, if it won’t drop its nuclear work. He would surely not (we must hope) be swayed in such deliberations by the thought of jeopardy to his Swedish garland.

Yet if the Nobel Peace Prize were worth anything, then it could influence, if not constrain, people trying to broker deals.

But it isn’t worth anything. What on earth was Obama thinking when the call came through? Really, that it was an honour, not a highly partisan tribute? That it would waft him above the rancour of US politics, in which he is a hero to half the country and a communist to the rest?

Hardly: his critics will just accuse him of having communist Swedes on his side. And they will rightly ram home the point he has missed — that the US President’s stature dwarfs that of this committee.

In the election last November, Obama won the world’s most impressive and valuable prize. The Nobel, in contrast, is as effusive and misplaced a compliment as the “my son” that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi bestowed on him last month. The only blessing of Obama’s acceptance is that he may have killed off the prize for good.