Obama's Nobel Prize and What it Means

Let's put this in perspective: the United States is still occupying Afghanistan and Iraq and conducting illegal military action in Pakistan. The United States is still the leading producer of green-house gases. The United States still supports China, Israel, Saudi Arabia and numerous other practitioners of the most grievous human rights abuses in the world. The United States still executes more people per capita than any 'first would' country. The United States still allows millions to die due to lack of or inadequate health insurance. How does this warrant anyone representing the power structure of the United States winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

First, it is absurd that any siting U.S. president can possibly win the Nobel Prize. Since the end of World War II Presidents of the United States (not too mention Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson the only other sitting presidents to win the prize) have led the country in human rights abuses that warrant trial much more than awards.

But this is not the debate you are going to hear when the Nobel Committee's decision is discussed by the corporate media. In the U.S. both the presidents critics and his supporters are far more concerned with the image than the reality of this situation. The president did not ask to be awarded the prize and has remained humble while accepting it, But the media, far more concerned with theater than reality, is going to be portraying the President as some ego-maniac, messiah once again stealing the spot light (which can be seen here, here and here). We are going to seen this debate cast in light of Obama and his personality rather than true questions about America and its unpeaceful practices which these commentators have nothing to gain by challenging. Ultimately these attacks are going too outweigh any benefits the prize will bestow on the president.

I am not going to attack the entire idea of the Nobel Peace Prize as I believe that the majority of the time it goes to deserving individuals (just consult the list). However, their are numerous examples of individuals who deserved the award not receiving (the most notable and frequently cited being Gandhi) and other examples of those who did not deserve the award winning it. The most tragically comic Henry Kissinger who received the award in 1973 while the U.S. was still engaging in illegal bombings of Cambodia. His counterpart in Vietnam Le Duc Tho refused the award saying that his country had not yet received peace.

With this understanding, there are numerous individuals who certainly did deserve the award this year (some listed here) and did not receive it. Europe, apparently not getting the memo from the United States media, is still in the grips of its own delusion about the president. Obama has encouraged this delusion with some impressive rhetoric especially his Egypt speech, but until these words are reinforced by some real actions the president is a long way from deserving this honor. However, if he can use this as a challenge to fight for peace, as he said he would, this may end up being a good thing.