World

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Analysis: Obama won, but for what?

Associated Press

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 honour.

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 US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a source of much distaste for the US 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 US military presence there won't come until at least 2012, and that's only if both the US 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 US politicians behind the web of treaties and agreements needed to make that reality.

He has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the US.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 US hand to the world's Muslims. His remarks at the UN.General Assembly last month set down new markers for the way the US 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 US president to win.

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

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

An utter travesty that will do BHO no good
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
This will be very damaging to Obama in the United States (which is the place that counts for him). He will be accused, with reason, of being in the pay of foreign powers. The Nobel Committee will be seen as a tool of the international liberal conspiracy - which obviously it is. I wouldn't be surprised if some Congressman doesn't introduce a bill to prohibit serving presidents from receiving substantial cash prizes from abroad. The only way Obama can salvage his situation is to refuse the award. For his own self-respect and the respect of his people, he should. Next Nobel for President Biden, no doubt!
Re: An utter travesty that will do BHO no good
[info]belfastboy wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC)
International liberal conspiracy!!! Rampant paranoia, that. Have you spotted any black helicopters around lately? And don't forget that the World Government in waiting is plotting to take away your guns. You just know that they are.

Seriously, the US President receives this high honour, and it is seen as damaging - what's wrong with you? I dare say the hillbillies who haven't a clue as to the whereabouts of Stockholm will hate it. The place is probably full of liberals, pinkos, faggots and commies anyway. (YOu see, I know the jargon)>
Who won?
[info]arion444 wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC)
Ah, he won for peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for upholding civil rights at home? Don't think so.
damage
[info]beetjewaarheid wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC)
Well, the award is of course very damaging to Obama on account of its utter absurdity. The world will fall over backwards laughing - it is in extremely bad taste to accept an award which one knows is (more than) undeserved, so if he doesn't turn it down, it will haunt him forever. The Nobel Committee (what's wrong with them? an interesting mystery) can be his nemesis.
it's about hope for change
[info]marcdunord wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)
this is a prize to prod him to do good deeds. he is the most powerful man on earth. this is not for the last six months. this is about helping him not to forget that the next 8 years could truly change the world. from day one, rahm, summers, and hillary have been force-feeding obama that supporting thugs, thieves, usurers, and usurpers, both domestic and foreign, is the only way, as well as reminding him relentlessly that the "contributions" of such people mean death or life for any presidency.

the rest of the world --us-- we have one only our fading voices. the nobel committee has seen that and decided to add its little, highly symbolic prodding. let's add pour voices to denounce and harass obama's team of venal sell-outs and satraps and let's prod obama and the few decent democrats with power to side more and more with the non-predatory common people of the usa and of the world.
mmmmmmmmm
[info]panic2009 wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)
is it april 1st?
two and a half wars and a peace prize?!
[info]mikhalovich wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC)
The leader of an aggressive, violent empire/garrison state involved in two-and-a-half wars and Obama gets the "peace" prize. The members of the Nobel committee must have been smokin' some pretty powerful sh*t!
Obama's I-Am-Schocked-And-Awed Moment is Weightless
[info]fredscribe1 wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 03:54 pm (UTC)
President Obama knows when to feel humbled. Having shunned a meeting with the Dalai Lama because the Chinese objected (trade with the Chinese is, after all, important), seeking world-wide nuclear disarmament but excluding the Israelis, (let's not even mention illegal settlements,) ratcheting up demands on Iran, who has no nuclear arms, and increasing the number of US troops in Afghanistan, it must be hard for him to see where all the peace is that the Nobel supremos are talking about. The phrase 'PR stunt' might have occurred to the ultra-cynical among us. But it may be some comfort to American families who bury weighted sand-bags in coffins instead of the bodies of their children to remember that their President is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. The special relationship with Israel will not be tainted by a peace prize from the people who brought us dynamite; though some untouchable Israeli army commanders may have a laugh at the irony of it. It's easy to be cynical; awarding US war Presidents peace prizes is enough to make anyone cynical. Or merely turn one's stomach. If it was done to slap George W. Bush in the face it was stupid and undignified. Bush might, however, take out a map of the globe to see where Nobel actually is. So the Nobel Prize goes the way of all media events and gives the recipient his on-camera I-am-shocked-and-honoured moment. It might, possibly, boost a President whose public glow has faded considerably since his election and seems to be increasingly lost for inspirational I-have-a-dream rhetoric. The award will not give Obama any more clout in the Middle East where, clearly, the Israelis no longer even care about US opinion and it will not save lives, civilian or military, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama was given the award, not for his work towards world peace, but simply because he was there.
He should've won the black bush award!
[info]voodoojedizin wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 04:23 pm (UTC)
He should've won the black bush award!
Except for skin color this president's policies are exactly the same as NAZI bush.

American corporations are running America and its policies, so they will continue wars over oil and geopolitical control. Another puppet just a different color.
Re: He should've won the black bush award!
[info]turk_diddler wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 04:39 pm (UTC)
Wow, I know an Australian talent show you'd just love to watch.
Peace prize
[info]kojowusu wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 05:34 pm (UTC)
It is no doubt a little premature since Obama has barely started.
But in Obama's defence, did previous winners really achieve much?
Yasser Arafat and Israeli P - fighting still continues!!
In any case is the Nobel peace prize really noble.
Any prize that has been won by 3 US presidents has an elitist bent.
This is the equivalent to the Academy Awards giving the lifetime achievement award to Hanah Montana!
[info]arthurshort wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 09:27 pm (UTC)
Just ridiculous! The Nobel committee were clearly intoxicated when they stuffed their envelopes with their votes!

I want what they were imbibing too!!!
Liberals or Republicans
[info]dontalk2her wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 10:41 pm (UTC)
Who cooked up this nonsense? It's as if Obama will be forever black, forever in need of gestures, forever a temporary office-holder. This may be the first time that a major award has diminished the recipient. His enemies will be salivating. I despair.
Please correct article from US editor
[info]acrevenna wrote:
Saturday, 10 October 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC)
The article written by the US editor on the reaction of president Obama mentions that in several parts: the norwegian committee, that president Obama will travel to Oslo, and the news from Oslo. All of them refering to the Nobel Price.
Please be so kind as to correct the article and indicate the appointed editor that is a Swedish committe and that the ceremony will take place in Stockholm, Sweden.
It would be sad to see the integrity of this journal fade for such clear errors.
On second thought, the Nobel move may be smarter than it looks
[info]fin_d_empire wrote:
Sunday, 11 October 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
The Nobel guys actually made it a lot harder for Obama to keep making war and allowing Israel to crap on the Palestinians:

Winning peace prize could stymie Obama


Dan Balz, Washington Post

Saturday, October 10, 2009

What of the wars?

What happens, Galston asked, if the president accepts the recommendations of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more U.S. soldiers? Will Obama lose favor overseas for failing to live up to the ideals embodied in the peace prize?

White House officials insist that Obama will make the decision about Afghanistan without considerations about the Nobel committee's view of his presidency. But the aura of the peace prize will be a constant presence in every action he takes on the world stage.

Many of Obama's goals enjoy widespread support, from preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians with a two-state solution to taking action to combat global climate change to - the most ambitious goal of all - the emergence of a world free of nuclear weapons.
'Setting the clock back'

Michael O'Hanlon, a national security analyst at Brookings, said he faults the Nobel committee, not Obama, for a decision that cheapens the prize, though he added that the factors cited in the award are laudable.

"I don't think it helps him at all," he said. "He himself has seen the need this year to pivot from being an international pop-star-like figure to establishing a more solid and pragmatic footing in foreign policy, and the award therefore actually risks setting the clock back a bit."

For all the prestige that comes from the Nobel Peace Prize, it could slow that transition from setting out his grand vision of a 21st century foreign policy to delivering on it region by region, issue by issue, as the clock ticks on his presidency.


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date