- Stay Connected
Gobama or Nobama?
We live in a cruel world filled with violence, genocide, and war. In such harsh times, it is vitally important to preserve and encourage international peace. In the past, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has play a key part in identifying, encouraging and rewarding specific individuals who help foster and create peace. This year, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a decision which has been met with much criticism. Some argue that it is too early in Obama’s presidency for him to win a prize and that he has simply not accomplished enough for international peace to deserve such a prize. There is certainly truth to some of these claims. However, many opposers fail to realize that the Nobel Committee’s decision may have tremendously positive results. Although the Norwegian Nobel Committee decision to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was not laudable, it may motivate him to act in a manner that is more beneficial to the international community in the future.
At the time President Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, he had not accomplished enough to deserve it. Nominations of the 2009 Nobel laureates took place on February 1st, 2009, only two short weeks into Obama’s term. At that point he had not yet begun working extensively with the international community. This is a crucial point that is often overlooked. When debating the Nobel Committee’s decision, it is important to consider how much Obama had done at the time he was nominated, and less important to focus on how much he has accomplished since. Those Obama supporters who argue that he has contributed to peace through his peace talks and speeches addressing the international community are therefore not responding to the question “Was the Nobel Committee’s decision laudable?” as all their support and evidence comes from moments after Obama was nominated. The answer is clear. At the time Obama was nominated, he did not deserve to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. How could anyone argue that he was a legitimate candidate if he should have never been nominated in the first place?
Nevertheless, although President Obama did not deserve to win the Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision may prove to have beneficial long-run results for the international community. The Nobel Peace Prize comes with great acclaim and esteem. Now that Obama is a Nobel laureate, the eyes of the entire world are watching him not only with newfound respect, but also with higher expectations. These expectations of the global community place pressure on Obama to act in a more peaceful and accepting manner. Obama acknowledged his new role when he wrote that he “accept[s] this award as a call…for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” Hopefully, with his new power, respect, and expectations, Barack Obama will elect to act even more peacefully, diplomatically, and respectfully towards other countries and cultures.
It is widely acknowledged that the Norwegian Nobel Committee made a political move when they awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. Upon being nominated Obama himself was “surprised and humbled,” stating that he did “not feel that [he] deserved to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by [the] prize.” However, their decision may have positive results in the future, as Obama will now be encouraged to behave in a more peaceful, cooperative manner with the rest of the world. Rather than focusing on the past, we ought to move forward and consider how President Barack Obama can use his new power to spark international change and peace.
Aaron W.
February 5, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Yes, I agree with that. But to get back to the original point. Obama isn’t pressuring Israel just to try to improve the economy. He’s pressuring Israel to start peace talks that will undoubtedly only end up either with no change, or with Israel giving up more land and more terrorists, while the Palestinians make empty “promises” to stop terror, therefore needlessly putting innocent people’s lives at stake.
Aaron W.
February 1, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I’m not an expert on Israeli economic policy, so I can’t say what specifically Netanyahu has done to improve the Palestinian economy, but a major platform on which he ran was improving it, so provided he sticks to his word, he has taken or will take steps. If he doesn’t, then I agree that the U.S. should pressure him to do so, but should be careful not to come across as too harsh or anti-Israel, so as not to alienate Israelis. It is true that Hamas does blame Israel for the poor economy to gain support, but Hamas itself is not a product of poor economic conditions.
dimitri halikias
February 1, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Hamas’s popularity amongst the impoverished Gazan people is a product of poor economic conditions. Obviously the group is anti-semitic, hateful, and terrorist, and I agree negotiations with Hamas are not succesful tools of diplomacy, but Israel and the international community have to make a commitment to improve the economic situation on the ground in Palestine.
Aaron W.
January 22, 2010 at 2:15 pm
He has put far too much emphasis on pressuring Israel without realizing that Israel is hardly an obstacle to peace. He just doesn’t realize that the Palestinian government does not want peace with Israel. This was proved this past summer when the so-called “moderates” of Fatah re-adopted the infamous “3 noes” of Khartoum: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, and no recognition of Israel. Obama thinks that getting Israel to make concessions to Palestinians will lead Palestinians to want to make peace with Israel. What he needs to realize is that pressuring Israel only alienated Israelis and caused Palestinians to believe that he would force Israel to meet all their demands without them having to make any concessions at all.
dimitri halikias
January 23, 2010 at 7:31 am
I agree with that, but the only problem is that Obama, other than a few formalities and public statements, has not at all pressured bibi or any other israeli leader to stop the expansion of the territories. I agree that change has to start from Palestine, but Obama hasn’t promoted any policies (backed by any sort of threat) that would force Israel to make concessions.
Aaron W.
January 25, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Israel already has made concessions. They have promised to freeze West Bank settlements for 9 months. And the Obama administration has put immense pressure on them, even bringing up the idea of economic sanctions toward Israel. But even if they do agree to freeze construction in East Jerusalem, there still will not be peace. Negotiations will occur, and Israel will give up more land and more terrorists. The Palestinians will respond with bombs and missiles aimed at Israeli civilians. Settlements are not an obstruction to peace. The only obstruction is radical Islam.
dimitri halikias
January 25, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Obama has at no time made any serious political or economic threat towards Israel. If you are referencing the George Mitchell comment, there is no legitimate way for the president to withhold or delay the arrival of promised loans. Also, radical Islam and Hamas is a product of the terrible economic state of Palestine, until the United States begins dealing with this problem, there can be no peace. I agree with you on the settlements issue.
Aaron W.
January 28, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Hamas and radical Islam in the territories are in no way products of the terrible economic state there. They are products of anti-Semitism and jihadism, and nothing else. Hamas does rope in some of its followers by blaming Israel for the economic troubles and promising rebellion against Israel, but the organizations themselves were not products of the poor economy. But even if they were, Netanyahu has promised to work to improve the Palestinian economy, even before he was elected, so why should the Obama administration pressure him to do so?
dimitri halikias
January 28, 2010 at 9:16 pm
What has netanyahu done to promote the Palestinian economy? And also, Hamas thrives off of the desparation of the Palestinian people brought on by economic problems
Aaron W.
January 22, 2010 at 12:09 am
Obama’s strategies have been counterproductive in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to name just one area. There are many.
dimitri halikias
January 22, 2010 at 12:24 pm
How specifically have Obama’s dealings with the Israel-Palestine conflict been counter-productive? Do you support the expansion of the West Bank settlements, or do you think they should be stopped and obama hasn’t done enough to stop them?
Mbernstein1
January 16, 2010 at 8:59 pm
And you know what “the right techniques” for peace are better than President Barrack Obama does? I don’t think your high school transcript particularly stacks up.
But Amalia / Amo / Ama llama / Ami, very nice article.
Aaron W.
January 16, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Fine, if you’re really going to get that technical, then what I meant was that in my opinion, the techniques he is using are not effective, and in some cases counterproductive. And just because he has more of an education than me does not mean that he is always right when our opinions differ.
dimitri halikias
January 17, 2010 at 9:03 am
Where exactly has Obama been counterproductive?
Aaron W.
November 7, 2009 at 9:55 pm
It’s true that his getting the award increases pressure on him to foster peace, and I am sure that he is telling the truth when he says that he views it as a call to action and will do his best to create peace, but does that mean that he will succeed? It’s unlikely, considering that the techniques he’s used so far have accomplished next to nothing. In other words, what I am saying is essentially that he has been trying and will continue to try to foster world peace, but that he is not using the right techniques, and therefore will almost definitely fail.