Obama, the Virtual Nobel
The prize awarded to Barack Obama is more a sign of realism than idealistic stupidity. The honor conceals an affront aimed at all hawks. And the message is for two-fold detente.
The highest worldwide honor has thus been awarded to an impossible mission, entrusted to a novice head of state. And why not? After all, it is less debatable to award the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 to Barack Obama – long before he has succeeded – than to Jimmy Carter, in 2002 – long after he had failed.
In the list of questionable decisions, we have seen worse. President Theodore Roosevelt, by chance, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, was the inventor of the “Big Stick” doctrine, which translated into a significant increase in both American military operations and weaponry.
One could cite many other examples and even jeer at the age-old propensity of the Norwegian jury to reward American statesmen.
But to indict the Nobel is, in this case, neither a good nor a fair reason. In fact, it is a bit too easy, because what they wanted to pay tribute to in Oslo was a will, rather than a promise, of peace, an individual determination rather than a collective delusion.
This Nobel is much more a sign of realism than idealistic stupidity. Implicitly, the honor conceals an affront aimed at all hawks, from Washington to the Middle East. And the message is for two-fold detente.
First, great hope that which Barack Obama knew how to arouse by wanting to change the hyper-powerful American relationship with the rest of the world. This ambition joins a planetary aspiration which the biracial profile of Obama embodies better than any other current leader.
Even if currently the only peaceful push attributed to the “Obama spirit” is the historic protocol – signed after the awarding of the Nobel – between Armenia and Turkey, the speech addressed to Islam, the rapprochement with Russia, the objective of reducing nuclear arms and the new consideration of Africa outline paths that did not exist even a few months ago. In the absence of any other alternative, the “need” for America is always present.
Secondly, and especially, this Nobel is an incentive measure, an obligation for results even though Barack Obama is just beginning to show the way. Rather than being rewarded for work that is still comes up short, the American president is being exhorted to justify his laurels.
The highest worldwide honor has thus been awarded to an impossible mission, entrusted to a novice head of state. And why not? After all, it is less debatable to award the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 to Barack Obama – long before he has succeeded – than to Jimmy Carter, in 2002 – long after he had failed.
In the list of questionable decisions, we have seen worse. President Theodore Roosevelt, by chance, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, was the inventor of the “Big Stick” doctrine, which translated into a significant increase in both American military operations and weaponry.
One could cite many other examples and even jeer at the age-old propensity of the Norwegian jury to reward American statesmen.
But to indict the Nobel is, in this case, neither a good nor a fair reason. In fact, it is a bit too easy, because what they wanted to pay tribute to in Oslo was a will, rather than a promise, of peace, an individual determination rather than a collective delusion.
This Nobel is much more a sign of realism than idealistic stupidity. Implicitly, the honor conceals an affront aimed at all hawks, from Washington to the Middle East. And the message is for two-fold detente.
First, great hope that which Barack Obama knew how to arouse by wanting to change the hyper-powerful American relationship with the rest of the world. This ambition joins a planetary aspiration which the biracial profile of Obama embodies better than any other current leader.
Even if currently the only peaceful push attributed to the “Obama spirit” is the historic protocol – signed after the awarding of the Nobel – between Armenia and Turkey, the speech addressed to Islam, the rapprochement with Russia, the objective of reducing nuclear arms and the new consideration of Africa outline paths that did not exist even a few months ago. In the absence of any other alternative, the “need” for America is always present.
Secondly, and especially, this Nobel is an incentive measure, an obligation for results even though Barack Obama is just beginning to show the way. Rather than being rewarded for work that is still comes up short, the American president is being exhorted to justify his laurels.
Previous article![]( "The U.S. Loses Support in Afghanistan")
Next article![]( "Corporal Punishment")
