Making a mockery of peace
TRULY SHOCKED was I when, on a rather grotesque Sydney morning, I read that Barack Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize. Odd, being that the president did not have the political clout to coerce the Olympic Committee into selecting Chicago for the 2016 games, and it finally went to a country in South America. (Congratulations to the people of Brazil on that note!)
Yet Obama, who is confessedly in the process of waging two wars, although denying that these were wars of aggression, is a recipient of an award that is reserved for those who have an idealistic commitment to peace and prosperity for all. At a moment when I recognized that the president did not have the political clout to fulfill his wish for the Olympics to be in Chicago, but had somehow been adorned with moral clout by the Nobel Committee, the only statement that comes to my mind is, "Bollocks!"
Even if this somehow was a way in which to suggest that the president should be accelerating withdrawal, it is a futile attempt by a committee whose own clout begins and ends ceremonially. From then, I began to read through some news Web sites and see the general reaction, and also to draw from sources an argument as to why President Barack Obama should return the Peace Prize, as one person asked in a New York Times letter to the editor.
First and foremost, there was an argument presented in the New Statesman, Fox News (I never thought I would be able to agree with Fox News), and the Times letters to the editor that Obama received the prize for not being Bush. This is not some grandiose act of morality, no impressive heroism, nothing even closely resembling an act deemed worthy of a prize that is ideologically imbued with certain distinct qualities. The majority of Americans succeed in not being Bush (either father or son). It is not some impossible goal to obtain--merely be a normal human being trying to respect others' freedom.
It was postulated by Simon Reid-Henry that it was somewhat like a "Peace Prize Committee's sub-textual attack on Bush," fitting into the "not-Bush" award-winning prize. Possibly it was awarded due to Obama's flying rhetoric of nuclear disarmament, which was quoted in many periodicals as a reason for the prize, or the fact that he discussed and signed an order that, in the near future, he will make an attempt at shutting down Guantánamo Bay.
Oh, I know exactly why he received the peace award--because of his increasing U.S. capacity to imprison people in Afghanistan, and also, because he has politely, against majority opinion in the U.S., sent 30,000 more troops since May. Maybe it was the fact the Obama wanted Americans to feel more secure by continuing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act, because otherwise those naughty terrorists will come and eat you alive in the middle of night.
It could be that he sacked the general in Afghanistan and selected an individual that was "best known for running the assassination wing of the military's joint special-operations command." Even now at this moment, being discussed by Gen. McChrsytal and President Obama is an increase in troops, and the most pertinent line from a Council on Foreign Relations interview was that the public will have "sticker shock at the size of what the operational plan calls for."
See, what happens is that you start to lose the sarcastic wit you begin an endeavor like this satirical piece with under the pressure of recognizing that the Peace Prize has been awarded to the president--the president who increased defense spending by 4 percent when people were starving and homeless on the streets, with houses being foreclosed on. Yet we can bomb the hell out of Pashtun tribe members.
What "peace" has this arbiter of doom brought with him? What break with authority has Obama explicitly carried out? All I can tell is that he is fulfilling the role as leader of the American empire with acquiescence to the competing dominant interests within the United States.
It is as silly a thought to take notice of, as the fact that on the other side of the Atlantic, an undemocratically elected European Union (EU) president will soon be appointed, and there are whispers that Tony Blair is high on the list for it. The International Criminal Court has received a record number of petitions pertaining to Tony Blair and his little fiesta with Bush in carrying out the war of aggression in Iraq.
Blair is a man who, after slaughtering countless lives through his foreign policy decisions, was sent as a Middle East envoy to bring peace to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The warmonger for peace, I guess you could say, is now in a position as a former head of state to once again be in a seat of power and has literally gotten away with murder. Three cheers to the British gent, father of a fallen soldier, an honorable man, who told Tony Blair, "I'm not shaking your hand, you've got blood on it."
Let us hope that Guardian writer Simon Tisdall knows a thing about the EU when he states, "the smart money right now is on Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, former Dutch foreign minister and NATO secretary general." Only because we need to stop rewarding people for rhetoric, for just speaking and doing nothing in the "action" category.
Instead, we should punish them for the profanity that poisons the world from their actions, and the lies within their rhetoric. In order to maintain some sense of morality, equity should be restored. Neither President Obama nor Tony Blair deserve recognition of any sort as respectable statesmen.
For that matter, neither did George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Gordon Brown or Margaret Thatcher. They have spent the last 30 years pillaging the world for their own interests, disregarding their own citizenry, and making a mockery of all ideals and morality.
No, we should deem our praise worthy of truly extraordinary people who make the ultimate sacrifices so that others may live and die free.
Andrew Smolski, from the Internet
