I am proud that our president received the Nobel Peace Prize. Like everyone else, I do not believe that his actions so far merited the award. Obama does not deserve the enmity directed at him by select Republicans and members of the conservative media junta. I doubt Obama wanted this now or at any time in his presidency. Politically, it's a wonderful honor, but a sticky one that carries positives and negatives.
Nevertheless, as I flipped through various news stories, I couldn't help but think that saying "he didn't deserve it yet" sees this from a limited perspective. I think we, as Americans, need to be clear on a few characteristics of the US's role in the world. Our country engaged/engages in unnecessary wars and has put its economic and social interests above those of every other country in the world. The developing world suffered disproportionately and continues to bear a greater burden as legacies of colonialism and neocolonialism hinder growth and peace.
With that being said, it would be foolish to not recognize the US's impressive power and basic fact that the US piloted the Western world through a long period of peace, stability, and prosperity. Despite prickly relations with France at points and several other states, since entering the Second World War, the US assumed and was invited to adopt a leading position in the world. I'm dismayed whenever I hear people claim that the US should remove all of its troops abroad and focus solely on the US. Rejecting a history of American responsibility as a global hegemon (imposed and invited) is dangerous and blind to the nature of international relations. Does that imply that the US should persist in supporting policies that magnify suffering? No, not at all and we as a country could do much more to alleviate hunger, war, etc. Still, it's an imperfect system with players who consistently attempt to one-up other states for material gain. As I mentioned in my reviews of John Perkins' books, there is no proof that an equitable set of global affairs or states will replace a receding US.
Quite possibly, the Nobel committee and certain states have restored faith in the United States to lead, and the peace prize should not be seen as a testament to what he has accomplished, rather his potential as well as renewal of faith in the United States. I think it's disingenuous to believe that the award was given as a reflection on Obama's score card and not as a hope to encourage the president on the part of the committee. Of course, one could discuss ideas of Western normative modernity and what the award represents from a handful of Scandinavian lefties.
Certainly he's not George Bush, however, I think it's simplistic to say that he received the award for simply not being Bush. All the political bluster of a year ago aside, John McCain wouldn't have been Bush. Would the Nobel committee have selected McCain? Unlikely. Obama reached out to the world in a fashion that many presidents never attempted, especially in such a narrow window. His early diplomatic efforts that occurred from the nomination in February until the voting in September should be praised. Still, it puts the onus on him to generate results from his initial successes. Although the Nobel bolsters the diplomacy of the past few months, it lands at an ironic time as the White House contemplates increasing troop levels. So Obama has to earn it and persevere regardless of Afghanistan. Even Michael Moore encourages the president to earn the award. It will be tricky, but I believe he won't languish and it's counterproductive for the US's stature to wish that he fails.
No comments:
Post a Comment