President Obama's reaction to receiving the Nobel Peace Prize today somehow made me think about Beyonce's reaction at the VMAs in September. As Kanye West launched into his now-infamous speech, the camera flashed to Beyonce, who was clearly flattered but taken completely off-guard. In a speech today, Obama said that he was honored but felt like he didn't belong amongst the many who have been revolutionary in order to garner the award (visit this article from the WSJ)... a fair analogy to Beyonce's utter confusion at the unsolicited compliment from West.
And indeed, the Nobel Peace Prize has over time gotten such acclaim because of its connection to those who are evoking change in remarkable ways. Though Obama is very much an emblem of change for America right now, his presidency is still early and was just beginning when he was nominated (New York Times summary article here).
Though not every year highlights a revolutionary, recent winners include former pres Jimmy Carter (2002), the group Doctors Without Borders (1999), Nelson Mandela (1993), Elie Wiesel (1986), Mother Teresa (1979) and Norman Borlaug (1970--if you don't know who Borlaug is, you should. A man credited with saving a billion lives through his agricultural pioneering research. Yes, billion with a "B." A personal hero of mine, who just passed away this past month). A full list here of winners.
What's going on here is that the Nobel Committee is diluting its credibility by allowing its actions to become politically motivated. The confused and even upset reactions are because for an award as esteemed as the Nobel Peace Prize, "a call to action" doesn't cut it. An admirable message, but one that detracts from the legitimacy of the cause.
Yo yo Nobel Peace Prize Committee, I like you, Ima let you finish, but I just gotta say that some of the other recent winners had the best accomplishments of all time. OF ALL TIME. Get it together, old dudes.
PS to Mr. Silton: Apparently Teddy Roosevelt's award was unrelated to the Spanish-American War; he got it for making a treaty between Russia and Japan. Guess his "Big Stick" diplomacy didn't hurt him there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
"The confused and even upset reactions are because for an award as esteemed as the Nobel Peace Prize, "a call to action" doesn't cut it."
Exactly. Anyone can make "a call to action", but few people actually carry it out.
Obama didn't end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and he's being award a peace prize, how ironic.
Ari: I really like the connection you made to the Kanye West VMA's :] It really does demonstrate how the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is putting Obama on the spotlight for something he has not yet accomplished.
Today, I told my friend about Obama winning the nobel peace prize and her reaction was " ...for WHAT? What the heck did he do? Be the first Black President of the U.S.?"
I think its great that Obama is calling for nuclear disarmament internationally;however I think that it is quite difficult to enforce at a global level. And the fact that he received a prize for calling it is ridiculous. Once these calls are accomplished then yes he deserves it. The Committee should have definately considered someone else who has actually accomplished spreading peace as of now.
I think that the whole set up of this prize has the potential for contradiction and disaster...
Exactly. It could make our current president strive to uphold his title, as a peacemaker. That would definitely be disastrous. Not that making peace is a bad thing, but trying to push another country into agreement is different.
He deserves it for attempting to diversely represent everyone at his presidential speech. (; A pastor who doesn't shares his views. (if I remember correctly)
Kevin: I agree, there does seem to be a great deal of irony that the Prize was announced just as Obama is amidst talks about the intensifying war in Afghanistan. I definitely understand the idea behind this "call to action," but justifying that with the Peace Prize seems ludicrous.
Emily: Good point about nuclear disarmament. That in particular is nothing more than a lofty ideal at this point in time. The United States has made progress in that aim since the 1980s, but every single politician in Congress knows that it will be a long time and a lot of changes before we'd be willing to relinquish any more of our stockpile.
Really. It's just an award. Does it matter so much if a bunch of politicians on a commmittee try and influence world politics by awarding a prize to a person who may or may not deserve it? If they actually make the world a better place, why not?
Besides, it's not like the Nobel Peace Prize hasn't had its share of controversial recipients before. They're a group of politicians elected by the Norwegian Parliament. They're only human.
Very clever connection to the VMA's Ari. I personally did not even know that Obama won the Nobel prize. It surprises me that he did because I haven't heard of any recent accomplishments.
I feel that this award will put more pressure on to his presidency.
What if Obama does not live up these new expectations?
I also agree that Obama's Nobel Prize is premature. If he had been awarded the prize later on in or after his presidency I think it would have been much more meaningful. It's unfortunate that he got it awarded to him so early on b/c now it will always have this shadow (of questionability) hanging over it. Even though its "just an award", its the most prestigious award on earth (or at least one of them) and with it comes a lot of significance. Hopefully Obama will prove the Nobel committee right!
I think the awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize will not lead to any good. It seems clear to me that the prize was awarded as a political statement rather than a genuine recognition of merit, which not only undermines the prestige of the award, but also means that someone who truly deserves the award was robbed of it.
Obama is clearly not a militaristic President, but if he choose to use the military for some reason (e.g. Afghanistan), the committee will look ridiculous.
Obama does not benefit from the award either. Now, the pressure is on him to be a peacemaker, which he may or may not want to be.
The idea that he was awarded the prize partially because of his belief in nuclear disarmament is ridiculous. There is no way that nuclear disarmament is a viable possibility, and I think Obama knows that.
Overall, the giving of the award to Obama is borderline insane, especially when looking at the accomplishments of the others who have won the award. Obama does not even compare, and the committee did him no favors by pretending he does.
The same situation that occurred for emily happened to me when I heard about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I immediately asked the person who told me "wait what did he win it for".
I also agree with Kristyn that it is more of a political statement rather than as a recognition of accomplishment. I find it odd especially in contrast to how many Nobel prizes are handed out. I am not sure about the Nobel peace prize but I know that it is not uncommon for the Nobel science prizes to be handed out 10 years after a discovery. They wait and see if that discovery truly is monumental to the development of science before giving out the award.
I believe that this ideology should be used in the current situation as well. Lets say that Obama's nuclear disarmament does work and is able to be enforced. Give him the award in 5 or 10 years when there is proof of success and the nuclear disarmament has actually happened.
the Nobel prize committee recently came out to defend Obamas prize...saying "Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said.
"Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"
good point.
go to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_obama for the details
"Though Obama is very much an emblem of change for America right now, his presidency is still early and was just beginning when he was nominated"
i agree with that statement because he did get nominated for the nobel prize 11 days into his precidency
however he is not only an emblem of change in america but throughout the world. as stated in the colbert report, foreign countries(norway) have only seen obama's speeches and future plans for our nation. the nobel peace prize was given to him because he is a model for how all nations should be conducting their affairs
however the norwegiens are changing the orginal purpose of the nobel peace prize. like we see from the long list of those who had already won the prize, this prestige award is given for those who have ALREADY brought significant amounts of peace for our world.
so i think the nobel peace prize should not have been given to obama
Post a Comment