The inventor of dynamite, Alfred Nobel, stipulated in his will that a huge part of his fortune would go toward a peace prize awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.” The five-member committee that chooses the prize’s winners is selected by Norway’s Parliament. It has over time liberalized the selection process by choosing those that are not necessarily peacemakers but poverty, disease, and climate change foes. In other words, they have granted awards to warriors in some of their favorite causes.
This year they really liberalized the process by selecting someone who has no accomplishments in any of the above. Of course I am alluding to the shocking news that Barack Obama has won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Hence, the reason the Prize has become a politicized joke.
The selection is proof that the committee has also been caught up in the whole Obama hysteria. Give me a break. They nominated him for the prize just 12 days after he was inaugurated as president! Aren’t nominees based on outstanding achievement? Simply becoming president does not qualify – take George W. Bush as an example.
In its selection of Obama the committee said it “attached special importance to Obama’s vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons.” The statement is clearly in reference to the President’s speech to the United Nations where he pledged to work for a nuclear free world. Apparently the committee believes that words speak louder than actions since the President has never acted to reduce nuclear weapons as either a senator or president. Besides, a nuclear free world is fantasy. Because of the fear of Armageddon nuclear weapons have prevented World War III. Giving up our nukes is politically impossible given his rhetoric that Iran and North Korea are out to get us with theirs. Why would we disarm and leave ourselves vulnerable to every bad guy come lately?
According to the committee, another rationale for their selection was because “Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.” Yes, multilateral diplomacy is important, but after Bush even McCain would have looked like Dag Hammarskjold in terms of multilateral diplomacy. I am not sure this is that great an accomplishment.
The second part of the quote shows the committees political leanings – socialist. The United Nations is useless. The 20th Century was one of the bloodiest in history. The U.N. doesn’t prevent wars. In fact, huge amounts of its budget are eaten up with administration costs and salaries making it nothing more than a huge international jobs program for the upper and middle classes of developing nations. But, the socialists love it because it lends a hand to the less fortunate and provides the appearance that something has been done to ensure world peace. Thus, the committee loves Obama because he loves the U.N.
I did read one article on Obama’s selection that hypothesized he was chosen not so much for his performance but for his promise. This is ridiculous as well. It’s like me as a teacher prejudging a student and giving him an “A” before the term begins because he comes from a good family background and therefore has great promise. Even worse, it’s more like a new straight “A” college graduate getting a six figure income job over a ten year veteran with a proven track record. These scenarios are unreasonable. The big question is: What if Obama does not fulfill his promise? Does he have to give up the award with its $1.5 million prize? And how tarnished will the award be in the future?
It is ludicrous that Jimmy Carter brokered a peace deal between two historical enemies (Egypt and Israel) in the late 1970s and didn’t receive the Prize. It is even more insane that Obama has done nothing to promote peace and he gets the Prize. In reality, Obama in several instances has even been anti-peace. He has not ended the cruel embargo against Cuba which has done nothing to end the tyranny and has only hurt the people on the ground and driven a wedge between our two nations. He will not be closing the Guantanamo Bay prisoner of war camp this January. He will more than likely commit additional troops to Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, he continues to talk tough to Iran and North Korea. And let’s not forget his unofficial war in Pakistan.
No, all of the reasons given for Obama’s selection just do not add up. There must be something else under the surface. Since the socialists on the Peace Prize’s committee love socialized medicine, perhaps they are attempting to hand Obama some political capital to use in his battle to socialize our healthcare system. Talk about liberalizing the selection process to support their pet projects. Whatever the case, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a politicized joke because it has been given to an unworthy recipient in the cause of promoting the committee’s political agenda. Whatever socialist goal that is.