The Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama is bound to be controversial. The early news in the United States must have spoilt many a breakfast on the rabid Right, and the froth and foam would not have been from the morning espressos.
The Nobel Committee in awarding President Obama the prize for his “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples” would have been aware that their decision was not only hasty, but rather premature. It is likely the decision was more for his intentions, and an investment in future efforts. “We gave you the Peace Prize, now don’t backtrack, or cut deals that go against those hoping you deliver.” It is also possible that this was an attempt to give impetus to his peace attempts, keeping in mind how vicious and vociferous his opponents, especially at home, are becoming each time he takes a step.
But will ground realities allow President Obama to be worthy of the prize?
In Afghanistan he seems ready to up the ante in an ill-advised and immoral war. If terrorist actions by a group of citizens were justification for invading a country, then the deeds of past U.S. governments would have made the United States the most invaded country in the world.
Will Mr Obama be able to stare down a small number of West Bank settlers whose intransigence causes so much unrest in the world as they usurp land they can have no moral justification over?
True, the president’s actions in trying to build bridges to the rest of the world are a welcome change from the Texan gunslinger, and his Mephistophelian ‘pardner’ before him. Some wit has suggested that the award was more an indication of just how bad the previous administration was.
Many of us think that President Barack Obama is the most charismatic and exciting leader on the world stage and desperately want him to succeed.
But Mr Obama might just find out that making peace in the world is as difficult as making peace with the Republican Party.
16 October 2010
© Percy Aaron
Wow Laos 