…and the Nobel Peace Prize goes to Obama?

Posted on 11. Oct, 2009 by Maria Clark in Uncategorized

It’s been almost a year since Obama’s historic election and so far the change we can believe in has yet to come true.

Sure he’s addressed issues others in his job post have pushed under the rug. On Day 1 he issued an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay. Ten months later the prison is still operational. We still have a strong military presence in Iraq. Iran is still developing nuclear arms. The health care debate may develop into a civil war. Words are great, but where are the results?

I think SNL did it best when they broke down what Obama has and hasn’t done over the past 10 months:

So when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize last week I was just as confused as many others. Why would the award that was given to Al Gore for his work educating millions on climate change, or to the Dalai Lama for his peaceful protest for Tibet’s autonomy, be given to someone who so far has only spoken out against issues that have held our country back all these years but done little to change anything.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee told The Associated Press, that “awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.” In his defense, he is changing the way the United States is viewed around the globe. He has retreated from the methods of diplomacy that have defined our country for the past 50 years and brought leaders like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez back into the discussion. The Cuban Embargo certainly hasn’t changed Castro’s ways and in the 40 something years the island nation has been cut off, they have become impoverished and underdeveloped. If they won’t change their ways maybe we can find some sort of a middle ground and dialogue is the only way to achieve that, so says Obama. Sure this is a legitimate reason, but is it enough to award someone who has good intentions but no concrete results to show for them?

Some of his recent actions have cast doubt over his true commitment to human rights causes. Human rights activists have interpreted his refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama during his week-long visit as an act of appeasement towards China.
The fact that Obama administration officials made it known that the failure to receive the Dalai Lama was based on a wish to not undermine negotiations next month with Beijing over the controversial nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, only angered American human rights groups and members of Congress.

They described Obama’s action as a complete reversal of his pre-election position when he and Hillary Clinton both urged Bush not to attend the opening ceremony at the Olympics in Beijing in protest over China’s use of force to quell the uprising of Tibetans.

If he’s going to open dialogue to Castro and Chavez, shouldn’t he be as willing to do so with the Dalai Lama? Delaying that meeting until after he meets with Chinese president President Hu Jintao in November, is just playing into the U.S. new image on the global stage. All talk and no action.
….
Speaking of awarding Obama for his diplomatic approach to nuclear disarmament, how about looking at this issue from the other end of the spectrum.
David Von Drehle made the following point in a Time Magazine article today:
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we’ll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you’ll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.