Obama. Nobel award.

[xi]

My comment:

I guess, most people around the globe got shocked today. I too. Obama
Nobel peace prize??? why???. I have read several electronic surveys in
Europe. Among left oriented people above 50% think that "Obama does
not deserve that prize". Among conservatives close to 100% agree.

We all, Europeans, Chinese, probably most Latinamericans, Asians,
Africans, etc. compare Obama with our politicians. We say, Obama did
not not do more than our president, premier or whatever. In fact, he
has done less. He is just a newcomer to a world where politicians use
diplomacy, not wars. Therefore Obama is promises to behave as the rest
of the world does since many years ago. Then, why he deserves a prize
and not the rest?

Worse, many people wrote that if we compare Obama with people in NGO
or individually who has been fighting for peace along years this
reward looks like an insult.

After any award, we use to ask ourselves does the winner deserve that
reward? But, probably that is not the right question in this case. I
think that since some years ago, the Norwegian committee asks to
themselves "how can we better use our prize to push peace?". Now, this
reward looks different.

Obama does NOT DESERVE the Nobel Peace Prize, obvious. But Obama NEEDS
this prize more than any other politician.

Let me put an example. Obama has delayed his decission about
Afghanistan. More troops?, less troops?, withdrawal? fresh war in
Pakistan?

In my opinion, the committee took a serious risk. If Obama decides
more troops in Afghanistan or in Iraq, if he extends war to Pakistan,
etc. If US troops are in Afghanistan or Iraq in four years, the Nobel
Peace prize will be seen as a farce, even result of bribary rather
than justice.

I want to believe that Obama has not delayed his decission about
Afghanistan just to ensure his Nobel prize. Since this reward, for my
opinion about him, what he finally does about troops in Afghanistan is
crucial. If he does not reduces (at least) the amount of troops, he
will be even worse for peace than Bush. He would be a dishonest
president that betrayed his country and his troops delaying a
decission to receive a personal reward. At least, Bush did not hide
his intentions.

I think (or I want to think) that Obama WANTS to reduce troops. Even,
he WANTS to bring all troops home. We all (or most) know that in USA
the president has a voice but the military apparatus has much more
power. This Nobel Peace prize reinforces him in USA, domestic public
opinion, in order to make such decission and many others to come.

He, Obama told that he receives this prize as a call for action. Let
us hope it is true and hereinafter Obama behaves as any other
president around the world. I would give him the Nobel Prize if he
makes USA to behave as any other peaceful nation. If that is the
result, thanks Nobel Peace Prize committeee, you made a great service
to the humankind.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

[xi]

Analysis: Obama won, but for what?
Friday, 9 October 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/analysis-obama-won-but-for-what-1800213.html

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

[Justice]

He says, and I believe him, that he didn't even know his name was in
the hat. So we must assume that anything that is happening now is NOT
in light of an award. His deliberations about the US role in
Afghanistan are real, something he promised he would do, and it
appears that he is leaning heavily toward trying to create some
security there in the hopes that more non-military types will be able
to go in and assist the Afghans in creating an infrastructure -- not
only a strong central government but also roads and bridges and
schools and hospitals.

Whether 40,000 troops can do that -- or even if he has 40,000 to send
(since he long ago promised that the troops would have longer periods
at home than just one year which was true in the Iraq war) is not
known. Which promise will he keep? the one to the troops? Or the
one to the Afghans? Bush did promise that once we went into the
country we would not just leave them in a lurch. The government
clearly wants us to stay -- the people, for the most part, would like
us to leave.

BUT, they don't have a strong government -- if we leave the Taliban
will come back in. The people are tired of war. So tired they are
willing to have any government? Maybe.

========
As for why he won the award, yes, I imagine that pushing toward their
own goals of world peace is part of the process. But you should read
their statement as to why he won the award. Put that way, he's a
gamechanger, he's pushed for global nuclear disarmament; he's
announced plans to speak to the Iranians AND he hasn't let any
taunting on their part push him away from that goal; he's created a
better working relationship with the Russians by dropping the old
"defense shield" that Bush proposed placing in eastern bloc countries;
and he remains committed and ready to be part of the 6 party talks
with North Korea, even as he has said he might get involved in one-on-
one talks if it would help the process.

Accomplishments? He's changed the way the United States is playing
the game. We are back to our "normal" selves, which means, we're not
going to be starting any wars; we're going to work with everyone and
anyone who says they want to meet the goals of peace and social
justice, and we're probably not going to stand by and permit Israel to
pick a fight with her neighbors (Lebanon) or kills thousands in Gaza
without saying a word.

I know it's difficult for people around the world to rmember how
horrible Bush was. He's gone now and we'd all like to forget him.
But when you take everything he did -- not just domestically, but all
of the problems he created wherever he went, down to touching Merkle
inappropriately and turning Blair into a poodle, all the way to war in
Iraq -- he was a horrible horrible man. Anyone who came after him who
had the possibility of bringing the US back into the family of nations
should get a peace prize.

[xi]

Justice, Obama did possitive things, no doubt. More or less, you
describe what most presidents around the globe do, he is not the first
one that started a nuclear disarmment process, he is not the first one
who has been in talks with Iran, he is not the first on anything, he
just joined the rest. If, for example, Dimitry Medvedev receives that
prize I would tell exactly the same. Less accomplishments because he
arrived later and diplomacy is a slow process and because diplomacy is
unusual in USA so he faces more obstaces and more drags. But not in
the rest of the world.

Do not see this as a criticism toward Obama, it could be toward the
committee but as you see in my post it is not a criticism toward it
either. I understand their decission.

After I posted that message, I realised one aditional reason for Obama
to receive that reward. Americans like you deserve that prize and
deserve to be proud of your president after years and years of
"exile".

For all those reasons I have to applaud to Nobel committee, althought
I hve to say very friendly that I still think that Obama does not
deserve it.

:)

At least, not yet.

Peace and best wishes.

Xi

> > Xi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -