Worth is a Matter of Opinion

I would like to take a look at Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize for a moment and examine it through the eyes of the group of 5 Norwegian politicians, at least 3 of whom are unequivocal lefties, who decided on the award.  World reaction has generally been one of surprise.

Even Norway’s AFtenposten (the largest daily paper in the country has a poll in which visitors to their site can vote in.  They ask the question, “Was the prize to Obama correct?”  62% of Aftenposten’s own Norwegian readers voted no, 37% were in favor.

The question I continue to ask is, “What can Obama possibly have done in the last 9 months to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?”  Obama himself acknowledged that the award must be grounded in some standard other than his actual achievements in office.

So I did some digging and here is how the Nobel selection committee explained its choice.  This is their statement in full (italicized), with my comments throughout.


The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”  But what exactly in Obama’s first nine months (or first 9-10 days – the period he had been in office when nominated for the award) represents an “extraordinary effort to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?”  Have we seen any greater cooperation between peoples this year than last year?  I don’t think so.  And Obama’s “peace” platitudes are anything but extraordinary.  I suspect that what the committee means is something it can’t say: they are rewarding Obama for his apologies on behalf of America, his repeated mea culpas around the world.  Have those apologies on behalf of America brought about “cooperation between peoples?”  Of course not.  But they are indeed “extra-ordinary” and I suspect that, as much as anything, they account for the Nobel committee’s enthusiasm for Obama and his administration.


The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”  I’m pretty sure this was not supposed to be taken as a joke, but you have to wonder.  A “world without nuclear weapons,” recedes further into the distance with every Iranian and North Korean act of evasion, enrichment of uranium, and testing of medium and long range missiles.  What, exactly has Obama done to prevent these rogue nations from obtaining or using nuclear weapons?  Absolutely nothing.  And yet, perversely, that’s exactly what the Nobel committee likes.  If Obama had actually tried to “work for a world without nuclear weapons,” by stopping Iran from getting them, then he probably would’ve been out of contention for the award.


Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics.”  Hmmm… How is that “new climate” manifested?  By the Iranians’ renewed commitment to developing nuclear power that can be used to obliterate Israel?  By Russia’s ongoing efforts to exert control over the territories of its former empire?  By North Korea’s testing of missiles that can reach the United States?  By Hugo Chavez’s crackdown on independent media and growing alliance with Russia and Iran?  By increasing Taliban violence in Afghanistan?  By the Poles being sold out, yet once again, to Russian power?

Don’t the Nobel panelists see that the “new climate” looks like the “old climate” only with less hope and less security?


 “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.”

How many countries are in the world?  100?  150?  200?  How is it that in nine months a new American President can cause “multinational diplomacy” to “regain a central position” in the world?  Aren’t there 199 or so other countries that are perfectly free to engage in multilateral diplomacy, no matter what the U.S. President does?  Apparently those 199 countries, including Norway, are consigned to irrelevance.  Those who wrote this citation were of course trying to contrast Obama with his predecessor, George W. Bush.  But Bush was anything but hostile toward the role of the UN.  On the contrary, the Iraq war was deferred for something like 6 months so that U.N. procedures could play themselves out.  Nor was the Bush administration averse to “multilateral diplomacy,” which it consistently used for better or worse, with respect to both Iran and North Korea, and used with considerable effect to create international coalitions to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama actually, has yet to assemble a single international coalition to do anything at all.


 “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”  This short paragraph is contemptible.  So far, the Obama administration has done nothing at all to “meet the great climatic challenges.”  Those “challenges” are, moreover, a hoax.  The world is always either getting warmer or colder, its climate never stands still.  There is essentially zero evidence that human activity makes any significant difference in the climatic swings that have been going on for thousands of years.  The politicians who wrote this citation know nothing about climate science.  What they do know is that the pretense that climatic disaster is at hand is a valuable tool in the hands of those who want to destroy free enterprise and turn more or less all power over to the state.  They see Obama as an ally in this effort, which is a key reason they wanted to support him in this farce called the Nobel Peace Prize.

What about the claim that “democracy and human rights are to be strengthened?”  This verges on the obscene: the much reviled Bush administration did, in-fact, strengthen democracy and human rights in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  So far, the Obama administration has done nothing similar.  In-fact, Obama has been quite willing to sell out human rights in Honduras, Iran, Venezuela and elsewhere.  “Democracy and human rights” to the Nobel committee must be a rhetorical flourish.  The last thing they want is actual promotion of those values. 


Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”  I guess this means that the Peace Prize isn’t awarded based on what a person has done or achieved, but on their ability to charm a crowd.  There have been several “bad” winners of the Peace Prize in the past, but to my recollection, Obama is the first to be awarded the prize for celebrity status.  Who knows, maybe next year it can be awarded to Paris Hilton.


His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”  This is actually very revealing.  Historically, it has always been understood that a countries leader speaks for and tries to advance the interests of his country and its citizens.  The Nobel committee begins from a different view point.  When the Nobel committee talks about the “worlds values and attitudes,” it is speaking for a very specific and narrow group: Europe’s most left-leaning politicians, not the “majority of the world’s population.”  The world’s population is, to say the least, much more diverse.  In-fact, I think that a majority of the world’s population want economic and political freedom for themselves and their families. 

The situation we face today is quite a bit more ambiguous, in part because of unprincipled and ineffective leadership here in the U.S. Obama thinks that “those who are to lead the world” must do so not on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by most of the world’s people, but rather on the basis of “transnational elite” values, which hold that the world is to be run by self-selected educated elites, that traditional cultures and values are slated for extinction, that all power is to be concentrated in the hands of elites who operate through national governments and international organizations, and so on. We can debate whether this vision of international rule by transnational elites is a good one, but it is laughable to claim that Obama’s diplomacy is based on values and attitudes that are shared by “a majority of the world’s population.”


For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.””  This is unintentionally self-revealing: the Norwegian Nobel Committee has been working at its left-wing task for 108 years, but just now, with President Obama’s election, has the committee found a hero–someone whose liberal foreign policies line up “precisely” with the committee’s own prejudices. How could the committee wait, when the very exemplar of its left-wing, trans-national foreign policy is at hand?

So that is why the Nobel Prize Committee embarrassed itself by awarding its Peace Prize to a President who, by his own admission, hasn’t done anything yet. The award was, at best, a wishful prediction. We can all follow events for the next three years and determine whether, in fact, the Obama administration’s policies have made the world a more peaceful place. Should the Nobel Prize Committee get lucky, it will be a great thing for the world. But that scenario isn’t very likely.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: