Levellers

Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Too Soon the Laureate

One word leaps to mind in considering the Nobel Committee’s announcement yesterday that this year’s Nobel Peace Prize would be awarded to President Barack Obama:  premature.  Alfred Nobel’s will was very clear on who could nominate someone for the peace prize (members of national parliaments or congresses, political science or philosophy faculty in universities, and persons who have already won the prize) and who would determine (in secret) the recipient (a committee formed by the Norwegian Storting or Parliament but whose members cannot include sitting members of the Storting or the Norwegian government).  But Nobel’s will (largely because he wrote it without legal help, distrusting lawyers) is notoriously vague on the criteria for winning the Peace Prize.  This has led to a wide variety of Nobel Peace Laureates in the century plus of the award–from pacifists and peace activists, human rights activists, to politicians and diplomats from many countries, to organizations that work for peace in a wide variety of ways.  The award has been given for diplomatic efforts leading to the end of wars and to signing of peace treaties. It has been given for relief work in the midst of war (e.g., the International Red Cross and Crescent Societies, Doctors Without Borders, etc.), for aid to refugees. It has been given for efforts in arms reduction, or to nonviolent social movements, and for efforts to eliminate major causes of war and violence such as poverty, ethnic or religious conflict, or environmental threats.

But the vagueness of criteria for the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize has led to some very odd choices:  most notoriously when former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam’s chief negotiator Lu Duc Tho (neither a person of peace) were awarded the Prize jointly for negotiations toward ending the Vietnam War.  Lu Duc Tho became the only person in history to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize saying, rightly, that no peace had been achieved and that the talks were breaking down. Another time the Nobel Committee made an embarrassing choice designed to encourage a peace process was when they jointly awarded the prize to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat.  Both Rabin and Arafat had previous histories as terrorists and some argued that Arafat had not yet abandoned that role.  One member of the Nobel committee quit in protest.

The selection President Obama is not that bizarre.  In fact, if his ambitious foreign policy agenda is successful at any of his peacemaking goals:  a just two-state peace between Israel and Palestine, reversing the nuclear arms race, etc., then I fully expected that he might be a future Nobel Laureate.  But this seems, at best, premature  –even to Pres. Obama to judge from his reaction.  Yes, he has stopped U.S. torture, although failing so far to hold any of the torturers accountable and pushing for the continuation of the practices of indefinite detention without trial (for some al Qaeda members that the administration believes guilty of crimes but cannot prosecute because the evidence was obtained by torture under the Bush regime) and rendition.  But the prison at Guantanemo Bay is not yet closed and the “detainees” have not been either tried in regular courts or released.  Yes, he has begun the slow ending of the occupation of Iraq, but most of our troops are still there.  Yes, he wants to restart the Israel-Palestinian peace process, but has failed so far to get Israel to stop building new settlements or get Palestinian factions to reconcile with each other or stop stockpiling weapons for future attacks against Israel–nothing has yet happened.  Yes, we are scheduled to have nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia–but they haven’t yet taken place.  He has expanded the war in Afghanistan and started an undeclared one in Pakistan with predator drones.  He wants a new engagement with Iran that leads to their abandoning of their nuclear weapons ambitions and, eventually, to the first resumption of U.S.-Iranian diplomatic ties since 1979–but no progress has yet been made and recently he seemed to imply a willingness to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear plants.

The hawkish Obama has proceeded apace, but the Obama who dreams of peacemaking has yet to move from hope to actual change.  Thus, I call this award premature, and Obama himself calls it “a call to action.”  That, I suggest, is how peace activists from around the world should react–not by mocking or condemning this choice, but by using it as moral leverage in encouraging real peacemaking from this administration.  As filmmaker Michael Moore said yesterday, “Congratulations, Mr. President–now go out and earn it.”  That should be the unanimous note of peace activists–encouraging this president to live into the award that he does not (yet) deserve.

Later this weekend, I will email the White House with this message and a list of suggested actions that Pres. Obama can take between now and the formal presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize in December that will act as steps toward fulfilling that “call to action.”

  • Announce that the U.S. will “re-sign” the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty “unsigned” by former Pres. Bush.  Since the legality of “unsigning” a ratified treaty is murky (and unprecedented!) under both U.S. and international law, I doubt that this would even need ratification by the U.S. Senate–but with 60 Democratic Senators, such ratification should be pro forma.
  • Announce that the U.S. will “re-sign” the Treaty of Rome that authorized the creation of the International Criminal Court and will join the ICC instead of continuing the Bush-era attempts to evade the ICC’s jurisdiction.  Joining will require Senate confirmation, and some will balk out of fear that the ICC might attempt to try members of the Bush admin. for war crimes related to torture and rendition if the U.S. does not prosecute them, but Obama should take that risk.
  • Sign the International Treaty Banning Landmines.  The U.S. is one of the few democratic holdouts even though American Jody Williams (who won the Nobel for her efforts) founded the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.  Even many famous generals around the globe support this since landmines are of limited military value in war, but continue to kill and maim civilians long after wars are officially over.
  • Sign the Treaty Against Child Soldiers.  Former Pres. Bush refused because he wanted the U.S. to still be able to have 17 year olds in the military–but out military will hardly crumble without them.  And this treaty gives some teeth to efforts to stop the kidnapping and forced induction of adolescent and pre-adolescent children into both government and rebel armies–most notoriously by the so-called “Lord’s Resistance Army” in Uganda.
  • Announce an increased pace of the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.
  • Announce an end to use of the predator drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the enormous loss of civilian life.
  • Deny General McChrystal’s request for additional troops in Afghanistan. Freeze at current levels while re-thinking Afghanistan–seeking a new way forward.
  • Announce that the U.S. will unilaterally reduce its nuclear weapons by 10% across the board. We need MUCH deeper cuts around the globe, but this unilateral step could jump-start the talks with Russia and show the world that you are serious about reversing the nuclear arms race. It could be a transforming initiative that invites similar moves on the part of others.

Beyond these steps, the way grows harder and must include cooperation from both Congress and international partners.  Grassroots peace and human rights organizations should do our part by supporting the actions the Obama administration takes for peace, praising them, and encouraging more and criticizing steps in the wrong direction.  Also, not waiting for governments or prizes, we need to continue our own, independent, actions for peace.

October 10, 2009 - Posted by | foreign policy, human rights., Iran, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, peacemaking

12 Comments

  1. The award was premature, but I congratulate President Obama…

    Comment by Paul | October 11, 2009

  2. Absolutely. And I congratulate him on treating this as a “call to action” for himself and for the people of the USA.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 11, 2009

  3. I can forgive Alfred Nobel for having invented dynamite, but only a fiend in human form could have invented the Nobel Prize.

    Comment by George Bernard Pshaw | October 11, 2009

  4. I concur Michael. We know why some (not all) Republicans are going mad attacking Obama’s receiving the award. John McCain congratulated him; however, Limbaugh, Beck et al were like ravenous dogs…

    Comment by Paul | October 11, 2009

  5. It is amusing (at first) at the predictable rightwing heads exploding anytime Obama is honored for anything. It’s a more extreme version of what happened in 2002 when Jimmy Carter was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize and in 2007 when Al Gore was so honored. It was right on schedule.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 11, 2009

  6. The Nobel Prize is not evil…However, some of the recipients may not have been worthy…

    Comment by Paul | October 11, 2009

  7. Yes–and all of them have been controversial to some group or another.

    If I were creating a peace prize, I’d spell out the criteria far more clearly. It would go only to nonviolent activists and practioners of just peacemaking–almost never to politicians.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 11, 2009

  8. By the way, you can read the history of the Nobel Prizes, including every laureate (winner) from the beginning in 1901 at http://nobelprize.org/

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 11, 2009

  9. “The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer”

    Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Laureate

    How peaceful

    Comment by George Bernard Pshaw | October 11, 2009

  10. Well, TR was wrong about a good many things. And his was one of many controversial choices by the Nobel Committee. When TR was chosen–the first sitting politician–many were upset that the committee did not choose a peace activist. Here in the U.S. even a newspaper editor who was a TR supporter said, “The Norwegians have weirdly chosen to give a peace prize to the least peaceful person in these United States.” TR had invented “gunboat diplomacy” after all and expanded American imperialism in Latin America and Asia. But the Nobel committee awarded him the prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese war. The Nobel had much less prestige in those days and TR didn’t travel to Oslo to receive the prize and give the required speech for TEN YEARS.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 11, 2009

  11. I’ll let Jesus be my role model…

    Comment by Paul | October 12, 2009

  12. Last year some people here in COlombia wanted to propose president Álvaro Uribe to nobel peace prize, and Obama’s nomination is almost as bizarre.

    Comment by mountainguy | October 12, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: