The Italian journalist Roberto Fontolan compares the Nobel Committee’s decision to award President Barack Obama this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to that of a teacher who gives a mediocre student an A to encourage him to excel in the future.
Any sane human being can understand why such a pedagogical method is naïve and likely to produce the opposite results.
During the 1968 presidential elections, Americans were increasingly disaffected by the war in Vietnam and by Lyndon Baines Johnson’s handling of the situation. Naturally, his Republican opponent Richard Nixon took advantage of these sentiments, campaigning to end the increasingly brutal war. Yet Nixon’s policy in Vietnam is well known.
Likewise, President Bush’s approval ratings plummeted during his last years in power, largely due to the war in Iraq, which even many of the staunchest Republicans find immoral.
It is entirely possible that Obama will avoid the mistakes of Nixon and fulfill his promise of withdrawing American troops from Iraq by next August. However, it is more prudent to wait and see if the war does end during Obama’s rule than to award noble words that have the potential of not being realized.
In a recent “Saturday Night Live” sketch parodying the event, Fred Armisen dressed as Obama and announced that he won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being President George Bush. Indeed, since last year’s presidential campaign, Obama has been gaining support largely by condemning of his predecessor’s mistakes.
However, actions speak louder than words as Obama’s foreign policy decisions become more like those of the Texan whose unpopularity was Obama’s ticket to the White House.
Since taking office, Obama has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, explicitly condemn the Armenian genocide and stop the illegal settlement of Palestinian territory by Israelis, which is in violation of international law. Meanwhile, young men from the United States and its allies continue to perish in Afghanistan because Obama approved a surge in troops.
These recent actions show that Obama does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for good intentions, as almost everyone desires nuclear disarmament. History shows that noble words can influence actions and increase peace.
In 1919, Woodrow Wilson received the Nobel Peace Prize after radically reorienting his country’s role in global affairs. Not only did Wilson’s intervention in World War I save the lives of millions of Europeans, but he played a key role in granting the oppressed nations of Europe freedom from German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman imperialism. He also sent generous humanitarian aid overseas.
When awarding an American president or other prominent statesman, the Nobel Committee should recognize heroic actions such as those of Wilson, not just noble words.
Like pet rocks, lava lamps and digital pets, Obamamania is a fad that is destined to become obsolete. Obama’s plummeting approval ratings unambiguously show that his charm is wearing off.
Each day, more and more Americans realize that constant criticism of Bush and handsome looks do not make up for a lack of policy experience. Apparently the five Norwegians who award the Nobel Peace Prize have yet to realize this.