The Nobel Committee’s decision to award a rather, er, premature Peace Prize to Barack Obama has been greeted with skepticism on the left and scorn on the right.
But this decision was, by all appearances, motivated by the desire of a group of elite Europeans to give their stamp of approval to Obama and his agenda. So—while responses from the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan are probably more significant—how is the announcement being received in Europe?
Unsuprisingly, the official sources are expressing official approval. The English-language version of the German publication Spiegel has a round-up of responses from national leaders and other important muckety-mucks, who generally offer congratulations to Obama and, in some cases, explicit endorsement to the selection—though Spiegel notes that “officials also acted with surprise — and statements from leaders came much later than would usually be expected.” And there was a bit of on-the-record grumbling, or at least eyebrow-raising. In a widely-reported comment, the Polish anti-communist leader Lech Walesa—who’s been critical of Obama before—said, “Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast — he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet.” Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller called the move an “unusual choice,” reports The Copenhagen Post. And in Norway, home of the Nobel, while prime minister Jens Stoltenberg praised the announcement, opposition leader Siv Jensen
said it came too early: “It is [results] that counts, not visions.”
The European press itself, of course, is not known for its reluctance to express an opinion, and response there tracked fairly closely to what we’re seeing in America: conservative disbelief, liberal dismay. “No joke, despite appearances,” said a commentator for the conservative Spanish publication ABC. The Times of London’s Michael Binyon goes farther: the headline on his column reads, “Absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize.” On the other side of the spectrum, the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont is not moved to defend the selection: “Why now?” his commentary asks. Spiegel’s Claus Christian Malzahn predicts the prize will be “more of a burden than an honor.” And Le Monde, France’s leading liberal paper, put the selectors on the defensive, headlining its coverage “The Nobel committee justifies the choice of Obama.” (Translations via Google).
So if nothing else, the announcement is revealing some underlying similarity of opinion on either side of the Atlantic. Maybe Obama deserved the prize after all!
I wish he wouldn't have made the swift decision to donate all of the money to charity. Who else has donated their Nobel Peace Prize money to charity? So what if Americans don't agree with this, he shouldn't appease us by giving $1.4 million dollars away. It doesn't make him look better in the eyes of Republicans, conservatives, or anyone by giving the money away. They still feel the same about him. He should've kept the money and disregard what anybody says. visa customer service
#1 Posted by Bobby Trailer, CJR on Sun 11 Oct 2009 at 07:27 PM
Its seems to make controversial deciasen to give obama novel prize. Whovere criticizes this disigen should be re conceder
#2 Posted by Dazzle Smile Pro, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 06:40 AM
Considering the record of previous pols who recieved the Peace Prize, Obama may have been taken on too early. Then again, it's hard to say that his attempts to make peace will be longer lasting than the other American presidents. Granted Carter's deal between Begin and Sa'adat has survived into a "cold peace", but other laureates like Teddy Roosevelt
and Woodrow Wilson may have looked good at first, but eventually something happened that "spoiled the soup". Teddy made peace between Japan and Russia by getting the Russians out of China. A few years later the Japanese invaded China, and forty years later the Russians entered the war at the eleventh hour and got a piece of Japan for its efforts.
Woodrow Wilson created to nations in 1919 that fell apart by the late 1990s, one peacefully and the other in a bloody war. Then, the League of Nations which he created was ditched by the US Senate, and after that, the agreements that were signed created a whole set of "new nations", fathered by Wilson, at least two of them were in conflict, in the case of Poland and Lithuania, Poland got a piece of what was supposed to be part of Lithuania, and the Greeks and Turks cut the Agean Sea in half transfering each others' nations back "to where they belonged". Hardly peaceful.
Then, the reparations that Germany paid France created the background for the rise of National Socialist movement in Germany which lead to . . . Hardly peaceful, no?
The bottom line is that as the Russian proverb states "The morning is wiser than the night". Yet, if experience teaches anything, wishful thinking often creates more disasters than it improves anything. There are still some people who insist that if the Great Empires of the turn of the nineteenth-early /twentieth centuries were allowed to develop into constitutional democratic states we would have avoided all the world wars and . . .
#3 Posted by Zev Davis, CJR on Mon 12 Oct 2009 at 06:57 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded now to three Democratic Party politicians in the past eight years. The Clintons must be thinking 'what do we have to do?' at this point.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 13 Oct 2009 at 03:49 PM