I like the historical context of the Times piece, but they undercut their own assertion:
> The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished. > Given that the Nobel has often put their mouth ahead of feats: > Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most > contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho > for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a > warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the > Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never > intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack > South Vietnam. > Hopefully he won't come across worse than Le Duc tho :-) -enp On Oct 9, 2009, at 10:54 AM, [email protected] wrote: > From Times Online ( London ) > October 9, 2009 > Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize > > Michael Binyon > > The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met > with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep > embarrassment by the President himself. > > Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was > clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European > gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of > America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its > promise to re-engage with the world. > > Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in > its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely > begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace. > > The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen > international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will > point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations > with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there > is little so far to show for his fine words. > > East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any > change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s > vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make > any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and > the Palestinians. > > There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose > principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in > Afghanistan. > > The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that > once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all > the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 > more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in > Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is > hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities. > > The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared > to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace > campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was > clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. > But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be > negligible. > > In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of > Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to > Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued > that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at > least attempts to break the deadlock. > > Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most > contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho > for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a > warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the > Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never > intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack > South Vietnam. > > Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The > committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is > certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his > supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they > can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all > previous winners have been diminished. > >
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
