|
ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Obama wins Nobel Prize (10/9/2009 12:09:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
At any rate, this is an empty, meaningless "award." Like I said earlier, nothing but a door prize. I can't imagine any reason anyone would be excited or significantly proud that he won this. A complete non-issue, in my opinion.
I can't agree, and before folks pile on, I'm telling you all it's for political reasons. Readily and openly admitted. Here's why.
I strongly believe that the Cheneys of this world are wrong, that an open dialogue with other nations is not a sign of weakness and kowtowing but an absolute necessity with friend and foe alike. We don't have to like what we hear, we don't have to listen to it, we don't have to change our attitudes and decisions based on it necessarily, but to make any kind of progress, now or eventually, we must have that dialogue. No, that doesn't mean we should seek to placate our enemies, and no, it doesn't mean that they are just poor and misunderstood. It does mean that without dialogue, only force is left. Dialogue doesn't remove force from the table, but relying on force alone limits our strength quite considerably--especially in Iran and North Korea, where our force is insufficient (i.e., we invaded Iraq because we could...not so easy with Iran and North Korea, as the consequences and repercussions would be far more severe). If we can't even talk, we are the ones unreasonable.
Much of the rest of the world feels this way (especially Europe), so it's not surprising that Oslo does. Obama opened the door to the possibility of a real change from an eight year era of frigid relations with friend and foe alike--again, a policy isolation that I believe is foolish, dangerous, and short-sighted. We aren't as all-powerful as we like to fantasize. Being part of the discussion serves us much better, even when we disagree with the direction of that discussion. We should at least be there to say so and why, willing at least to listen to alternative proposals, if not necessarily accept them.
So a tiny corner of the world decided to take $1.4 million and use their only chance at a large stage to express their congratulations on a change in policy, a change that they apparently strongly believe is crucial to peace in the world.
Are they right? And is this a good use of the Prize? That's all fair game for debate. But they're also well within their rights to do with it as they please--and they have.
I certainly see your point, and agree with the underlying philosophy of your post, but the problem I have is that at the time he was selected for the award he hadn't done anything but take the oath of office and announce relatively vague intentions to to things differently. It's certainly a huge step in the right direction, but it's not really an accomplishment. According to Alfred Nobel's will, the prize is supposed to go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." I just fail to see how Obama's pledging to do that work comes anywhere near actually meeting that criteria.
Sure, it's their call to make and their award to give, and it's not my place to criticize them for it. It doesn't affect my life in any way. But if they're going to step so far outside the parameters of their own criteria to award the prize on such tenuous and illusory grounds, one of the results is going to be that I'm going to have a much harder time taking their selection process - and, therefore, the award - seriously in the future. Which is a shame, because I think this represents the abandonment, the cheapening, of a rather lofty and noble principle.
|
|
|
|
