October 12, 2009

Nobel /Noble Peace Prize?


Oh yes, the dust is settling on the outrage and shock recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. I wanted to blog that Friday itself but I was numbed by the decision of the Committee that I couldn't write:-). Ah yes! you got it, I think this year's decision is one of the most outrageous of all Nobel Peace Prizes. Now, having said this, I must tell you all that I was a strong and still am an ardent supporter of Mr. Barack Obama for Presidency. But Nobel Peace Prize is a different ball game.

My understanding is that it is given to a person or an organization that has brought about lasting resolution to conflicts in the world / region or atleast shows a potential to bring lasting peace to the region. Now, pray how does Barack Obama figure in these Qualifications. Yes, he made an impassioned speech and called for wiping out nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth! Wow!

Sounds great! And USA possesses the maximum nuclear weapons. They have always demonstrated double standards by having one rule for them and another for the rest of the world. They ask developing nations to bring down carbon emissions but will not sign the Kyoto protocol themselves. They will dictate terms at WTO talks and play Big brother. They will arm twist United Nations and dictate World policy. In my opinion, just by these acts, any USA politician gets automatically disqualified to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not a coloured comrade doing anti US bashing. I definitely admire a lot of things about USA and I also think very highly of the current President. I do think its amazing for a person to have overcome racial discrimination and risen to the highest office in that country. No denying that. But he has not done anything to bring Peace to any region, apart from a speech he made which at best can be dismissed as a gimmick.

The Nobel Committee member is supposed to have said and I quote, "The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?" Well, my answer is if there is none worthy, then we need not award the prize that year to anybody than by awarding it to a person less deserving and bringing down the credibility of the Award itself.

If I were Barack Obama, I would say, "I am extremely humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee but I would like to say that I have not done anything tangible to deserve this award, yet". Alas, I ain't Barack Obama and that is the bottomline.

4 comments:

aoldeva said...

Probably, it is a preventive and diplomatic measure to avoid or at least procrastinate the next world war.

Raji said...

I don't Nobels have ever deferred Wars.. Ah yes, people have had tacit understanding like Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres signed a truce and once the award was announced, called it off promptly:-).

aoldeva said...

What I meant to say is this: If Obama receives the Nobel Prize, he has to save his name as a 'peace protaganist' and ensure peace in the world and will take all measures to avoid war, by having received the prize.

It becoems a moral obligation on his part for ensuring peace.

Actually, I agreed with your view point; but passed the comment as 'pugazhvadhu pol pazhithal' (sarcastic) for awarding the Nobel prize for Peace to Obama.

Raji said...

I guessed as much