I was up in the wee hours when I saw the BBC announce that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I recall reading years ago that the process is not necessarily a rigorous screening, in that the decision can be guided by a select few. I wondered if this was perceived as a contrast effect, with Barack being perceived as an internationalist, despite being in the office for a very short period of time when the nomination was submitted. A friend of mine put on my Facebook wall a link to this article were Polish Solidarity leader Lech Wałęsa echoed the sentiments of many…too fast.
Malcolm Gladwell had this Tweet::
“Question: Is the goal of the Nobel Peace Prize committee to reward progress of an individual or to encourage the progress of society?”
If we think about progress in peace, what would that look like? What should be the next steps, globally, for the Obama administration? It’s tough given the state of the economy, as the electorate is less interested in peace and more interested in jobs and the healthcare issue. So, will this be a headache for him as the US decides what to do in Afghanistan? Is there pressure for him to act in a certain way? At the end of the day, it’s the US electorate that matters. It might spur some thinking about creative solutions for situations like Afghanistan where peacekeeping is an oxymoron no matter the deployment of resources. It might also accelerate some housecleaning of US detention policies of foreign suspects. Like the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the world, we shall see.
Twitterversion:: Obama wins #Nobel Peace Prize, but what does it represent? What r next steps,globally? Natl security polcy? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/2mcp @Prof_K
Comments 3
Don Waisanen — October 10, 2009
Ken, check out Tim Rutten's LA Times op-ed on this today. He goes into the way in which "This year's prize . . . is meant to reward words and not deeds." He also gets at how the deeds criterion, when applied to past Nobel prize winners, is potentially misleading: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten10-2009oct10,0,6945839.column
It seems to me those in the charge of the prize are putting a premium on speech-action, rather than a forced binary between speech and action. Don Waisanen
Fred Strauss — October 14, 2009
'Internationalist'? Yep. More interested in his international reputation, than in our well being and our security. Clearly.
Here's a little insight into what the Nobel Peace prize is all about lately.
http://tinyurl.com/yjtjrpg
It's petty hate-Bush silliness. There's no other way to make sense out of it. It (the prize) hasn't had any real meaning for a while. It's a silly joke -- unless you don't take seriously what strong and free nations do all the time to protect their citizens - and the free world - from barbarians and evil dictators.
Fred Strauss — October 15, 2009
'Internationalist'? Yep. More interested in his international reputation, than in our well being and our security. Here's a little insight into what the Nobel Peace prize is all about lately. http://tinyurl.com/yjtjrpg
It's petty hate-Bush silliness. There's no other way to make sense out of it. It (the prize) hasn't had any real meaning for a while. It's a silly joke -- unless you don't take seriously what strong and free nations do all the time to protect their citizens - and the free world - from barbarians and evil dictators.