Everyone knows that President Obama recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. He accepted it as a "call to action" to work with other nations in attempt to resolve current issues. I wanted to look into Obama's winning this prize, so I read an article about the subject entitled "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize 'a call to action.'" I tried to be open-minded, so I got this article from msnbc.
Personally, I never understood why Obama won this award. He hasn't done much for America, and a lot of what he has done has actually hurt our economy. And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award! According to the article, though, "Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." Essentially, they gave him the award because they thought that it would help to resolve current issues.
So apparently, the Nobel officials did have a rationale for selecting him. But I still don't understand their logic. How can giving him the Nobel Peace Prize possibly ease tensions with the Muslim world? I just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!
I think that there might be other motives behind the Nobel officials' giving Obama the award. This may have been a "stab" at former President George Bush. Maybe the Nobel officials are so happy that Bush is gone (because they think he was a horrible president) that they gave Obama this award to rub it in Bush's face.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that if they did give Obama the peace prize just to get back at Bush, it would be both terrible and hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don't think Obama should've gotten the prize. He got it for promising things. I don't get an A in Math for promising to do my homework. I think it's just silly.
"And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award!"
ReplyDeleteI thought it was sort of confusing Obama received the prize, as well. However, regarding the middle east, I think it's important to look at Obama's way of addressing the region. I don't know much about it, but the impression I get from Obama, based on parts of his speeches (esp. Cairo) I've heard and some of his actions I've read a little about (starting out his presidency with a peace talk in Israel), is that he's been more open to talks and compromise between the US/Israel and the middle eastern countries that we are in conflict with, or at least more quickly active in such affairs. I recall in his Cairo speech he made a point of saying that America is not at war with Islam in any way, and, although he was firmly stating his support of Israel, he focused on the similarities between American/Islam shared values. I think the type of tone he's set is at least a bit significant, and if it says anything about his actions to come and he does act, we could make a lot of progress with creating more peaceful solutions to problems.
"just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!"
While I don't agree with them giving him the Nobel Peace Prize, this was not the idea they had in mind when giving him the prize, as the giving of the actual award recognizes efforts to bring peace, it has never been thought to cause world peace by handing it over (I may just be misreading you here). I believe they chose to give him the prize to motivate Obama more to stick to the important promises he's made as president, which could be seen as eventually leading us to more peace in the long run. There is no 'sudden' effect expected here, but I think Obama's now in a position where, if he doesn't live up to the prize, it's an embarrassment. However, I still think it's premature to have given the prize to Obama, I think it's a bizarre way of motivating someone. Obama has said a lot of great things, in my opinion, but we're still waiting to see how he will act.
I don't think the people who voted on the peace prize are concerned with rubbing anything in Bush's face. I mean, perhaps it's possible, but it seems an odd conclusion to come to immediately, as that sort of action seems very unimportant compared to the problems we face today. I think the contrast between Obama and Bush may be a factor in the decision, according to the needs of the US right now, but I think they were more focused on the tasks at hand and the future rather than doing something ridiculous like that.