The Obama love fest marches on. How utterly bizarre that he has received this honor immediately after declining to meet with another Nobel Laureate... hard not to notice that among all the commentaries and congratulations, the Dalai Lama's reaction is conspicuously absent. Is the Nobel Committee trying to subvert Obama's stated intention to intensify military action in Afghanistan by handing him a check that reads 'Man of Peace', or do they just want their own private audience with the guy? Historically, the prize has been awarded to individuals who've taken real, substantive personal risks in the interests of justice, peace and planet, or embraced platforms crucial for moving in that direction (think of Al Gore and the IPCC); i may be missing something in his background, but it doesn't seem to me that Obama qualifies under either of these criteria.
Last weekend i met a Danish woman who asked if i was happy about Obama becoming president, flashing me that semi-glazed over, starry-eyed look that i've come to recognize as the spell of saviordom. People so desperately want to believe that Obama is "the answer", the man who will make all things bad in the world go away or transform into bite-sized bits of goodness. It feels too cynical to dispel anyone's optimism; yet, from another perspective, one could argue that encouraging the worship of a well-marketed elected official reflects an even deeper level of psychic despair. Thus far, Obama has not managed to deliver much more than drone attacks on impoverished villages, appeasement towards zionist extremists and guaranteed, unrestrained profits to big pharmaceutical companies. My conversation with the woman from Denmark demonstrated yet again the extent to which Europeans still want to believe that the US can set things right in the world, and how willing we all are to ignore what we don't want to see in order to keep whatever dream we harbor alive - be it a savior nation or a savior from Chicago.
There are those who have argued that the Nobel Peace Prize lost all credibility back in 1973, when it was awarded to Henry Kissinger - in the same year that he orchestrated the overthrow of Allende, condemning the Chilean people to over a decade of inexcusable repression. i am not going to shame myself by challenging that position, since i think the Norwegians would have better served the interests of peace by arresting Kissinger the minute he stepped off the plane. Perhaps my reaction to Obama winning is just a matter of selective or short-term memory, of not wanting to accept that something i'd like to believe has substantive meaning has actually been devoid of it for at least several decades. i suppose i should be thankful that if persona marketability was their main criteria, at least the Committee didn't select Angelina Jolie.
At this time, one hopes that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient will take a moment to reflect on the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. when he accepted his award in 1964.
Last weekend i met a Danish woman who asked if i was happy about Obama becoming president, flashing me that semi-glazed over, starry-eyed look that i've come to recognize as the spell of saviordom. People so desperately want to believe that Obama is "the answer", the man who will make all things bad in the world go away or transform into bite-sized bits of goodness. It feels too cynical to dispel anyone's optimism; yet, from another perspective, one could argue that encouraging the worship of a well-marketed elected official reflects an even deeper level of psychic despair. Thus far, Obama has not managed to deliver much more than drone attacks on impoverished villages, appeasement towards zionist extremists and guaranteed, unrestrained profits to big pharmaceutical companies. My conversation with the woman from Denmark demonstrated yet again the extent to which Europeans still want to believe that the US can set things right in the world, and how willing we all are to ignore what we don't want to see in order to keep whatever dream we harbor alive - be it a savior nation or a savior from Chicago.
There are those who have argued that the Nobel Peace Prize lost all credibility back in 1973, when it was awarded to Henry Kissinger - in the same year that he orchestrated the overthrow of Allende, condemning the Chilean people to over a decade of inexcusable repression. i am not going to shame myself by challenging that position, since i think the Norwegians would have better served the interests of peace by arresting Kissinger the minute he stepped off the plane. Perhaps my reaction to Obama winning is just a matter of selective or short-term memory, of not wanting to accept that something i'd like to believe has substantive meaning has actually been devoid of it for at least several decades. i suppose i should be thankful that if persona marketability was their main criteria, at least the Committee didn't select Angelina Jolie.
At this time, one hopes that the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient will take a moment to reflect on the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. when he accepted his award in 1964.
I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.
After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time -- the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.
Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.
This morning i received an email from moveon.org which claimed that the primary reason Obama won the award is his push for nuclear disarmament. On this, i would refer you to Thomas Pickering's recent commentary in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: "...the Obama administration will at least continue to look seriously at the possibility of missile defense, focusing less on a frenetic commitment to early deployment and more on bringing it to its full technical capability." Their clock is still set at 5 minutes to midnight, so while the potential to move away from nuclear war may be greater than it was a year ago, our experts at the Bulletin have yet to lower the threat level.
Also want to tag on a quote from someone at Israel Radio, just to illustrate how convoluted perspectives on the Nobel Prize - or perhaps peace, itself - can become. "Almost nine months of pregnancy at the White House has not given birth to one peace or any [significant] progress under the inspiration of American president.... Whoever had hope that President Obama would lead a military operation against Tehran, today those hopes have evaporated. A Noble Peace Prize laureate doesn't rush into to any war." Does that need deconstruction?? According to the Secret Service, death threats to Obama are up 400% since his inauguration. The racist anti-sanity birthers [sic] are taunting him left and right, but who would be surprised if the first tangible attack came from an agent of zionism? Yet that surely won't happen in Oslo, so we can all start stocking up on popcorn and rhetoric, in preparation for another monumental speech and a blogophere frenzy to prove it so.
No comments:
Post a Comment