I was planning on avoiding comment on the whole Obama/Nobel thing, until this morning’s op-ed from Ross Douthat in the New York Times landed in my inbox, arguing that the president should have refused the prize. Not content to point out some of the damaging political consequences of Obama's acceptance, Douthat argued that his acceptance was a “travesty”.
Let’s be clear about this: the Nobel Prize has attained a certain universal status because of the broad aspirations it stands for and the many inspiring individuals who have received it. But it is a political tool operated by a small group of politically-driven individuals, not a genuinely universal institution. The Nobel Prize is not the equivalent to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Moreover, the underlying philosophy as laid out by Alfred Nobel reflects a particular view of the road to peace, and one that was to a degree influenced by the traditional Kellogg-Briand style peace efforts that so manifestly failed to avert generalised war twice in the twentieth century. There can be little doubt that the efforts of northern European states to promote reconciliation between warring parties in several regions of the world has been nothing short of amazing, and has at times even worked. But like it or not, what has worked most effectively in the past half century to limit the real danger, global warfare, has been the combination of genuinely multilateral institutions like the United Nations, providing a forum for the negotiation of the coagulated will of the world; and the deterrent effect of nuclear weaponry.
The prize, then, is a political object that reflects the political views of Alfred Nobel, refracted through a small group of well-meaning Nordic liberals. This doesn’t invalidate it, but it does politicize it. Moreover, as has been widely observed this week, the committee's intention to operate as a political mechanism means that the award – as in this case – is often given in the anticipation of events to be completed rather than for triumphs already achieved. Nobody would consider the idea of giving out the Nobel Prize for Literature to someone who’s just written a promising first novel, but this is defended for the Peace Prize. Why? Because it is not really a prize. It’s propaganda.
Propaganda for peace is a pretty good thing. The only problem is if it doesn't work. And if those five individuals who unanimously awarded the prize to Obama believed they were helping to further his political agenda, they were pretty naive. I remember an effort in The Guardian during the 2004 election to phone up Americans in swing states and to encourage them to vote for Kerry. Guess how that one went down. In truth, the prize didn't sway people who support the president or people who hate him; it simply confirmed their pre-existing beliefs.
If pushed, I might go so far as to say that the Nobel committee probably made a tactical mistake giving the award to Obama this year. The committee got itself Obama-ized.
That said, though, what is absolutely astonishing is that American right wingers should be saying that Obama should have refused the award once it was offered, or that his acceptance of it is somehow a blot on the president’s reputation. Ok, so you don’t happen to agree with the Norwegians who handed your president a prize. You don't think their vision of politics is correct. Don’t you think it’s quite nice anyway that people in other countries like and respect the person who runs your country? That they think he might help further the cause of world peace?
Do you only want presidents who are feared and hated by the rest of the world? Is that really what this is about?
Don’t agree with the politics? Fine. Ignore them. That’s the point about Norwegians (no offence intended). They’re hardly going to make your life a misery if you say “Thank you very much” and take no notice of them, which is presumably what Obama will do. In fact, they’ll probably be perfectly happy about it and head to do some cross country skiing or reconcile something else. So why all the hatred? What is wrong with people who can respond to good intentions with such fury?
In the 1930s, Henry Ford – largely in response to the vicious campaign of anti-Semitic propagandizing he launched across the forecourts of Ford Motor Company in the early 1920s – was given a medal of honour by Hitler. Dozens of groups demanded that he give the medal back, and when he refused this was widely seen as a stain upon his honour. Is this how far we’ve come in eighty years: that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, a group of people whose sole job is to try and reward individuals for promoting the cause of peace, has now taken the place of Nazi Germany in the rhetorical framework of the American right?
Think Of the Children
1 hour ago
