Friday, October 9, 2009

The Nobel Peace Prize Trivialized

I awoke to absolutely astonishing news this morning. Admittedly, I was a self-proclaimed Obama supporter in the US elections last November; however, I am not as supportive of Obama's latest 'achievement'. In fact, I am disappointed and frustrated.

I am concerned that the decision to prematurely award Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize will prove to be a greater source of disappointment and resentment throughout the international community than one of cooperation and peace. The committee's decision could also strengthen any existing arguments against the Prize's status as a true symbol of Peace-enhancing accomplishments.

Indeed, the aftermath of this award will further lengthen an already hefty list of obstacles facing the Obama administration!

Furthermore, awarding Obama at this stage of the game trivializes the Prize and transforms it into a tool to wield
against opponents; to strengthen Obama's initiative toward paving peace. The peace prize is intended to be an honour bestowed on individuals who have ALREADY significantly contributed or made longstanding commitments to endeavours that furthered peace in various capacities. I believe that a quick glance at past winners demonstrates that fact--Mother Theresa, Woodrow... Read more Wilson, Nelson Mandela, even our own Lester B. Pearson--all honoured after a) a life b)visible, consistent ACTION devoted to peace-paving goals.
Obama may aspire to pave peace in various areas, but where is the evidence? The prize should not be awarded in anticipation of great achievements or noble action, but after such accomplishments. Winning a peace prize shouldn't be an 'easy feat'.

A friend of mine questioned whether "Obama's peaceful intentions [are] really worthy of less recognition then that group's warlike actions", especially when seemingly bellicose officials like Kissinger have been awarded, to which I respond:

Everyone and their brother desires 'world peace'. True, the legacy of individuals like Kissinger are questionable, however at least they achieved something concrete that, if fully successful, would have established some semblance of improved peace/stability.
To position Obama next to the achievements of people like Willy Brandt, Gorbachev, Elie Wiesel? They have concrete evidence to show for their 'hopes & and dreams of peace'. Just because Obama wants 'change' and peace doesn't mean he should be lauded for it