Archive: October, 2009
The Norwegian Nobel committee has done President Obama no favor by awarding him the 2009 Peace Prize.
The committee clearly bestowed the prize for Obama’s intentions, not his achievements - since nominations were closed on Feb. 1, 2009, 12 days after he took office. At bottom this was an effort to boost Obama’s efforts to promote “a new climate in international politics” and to abandon the unilateralism that characterized the presidency of George W. Bush. The award openly aims at encouraging Obama to live up to his campaign promises to pursue diplomacy and dialogue and a world without nuclear weapons.
Yet nothing more clearly demonstrates the gap between Nobel committee hopes and on-the-ground reality than the fact that the prize was announced on a day when Obama was holding high level White House talks about future strategy in Afghanistan.
Obama may seek dialogue, and may even encourage Afghan reconciliation talks with low and medium level Taliban. However, senior Taliban leaders and Al Qaeda aren’t interested in bargaining. They are interested in taking over Afghanistan, setting up an Islamic emirate, and using it to destabilize Pakistan and get their hands on nuclear weapons.
The Peace Prize may enhance Obama’s appeal to rational actors in the international community who want to play by global rules. But those whose minds are focused solely on narrow national goals, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, have little interest in behaving like good global citizens. Those gripped by ideology, such as al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime, have little interest in multilateral institutions. They want to create their own rules.
The Nobel Award won’t make the Israelis and Palestinians more willing to compromise, nor will it make Indians and Pakistanis more likely to settle differences over Kashmir. Nor will it overcome U.S. domestic political squabbles over the economic costs of combating global warming.
It will symbolize global aspirations that President Obama can’t meet, for reasons that often lie beyond his control, and reflect the mess he inherited from his predecessor.
At best the Nobel will burnish Obama’s aura abroad and may help him on the margins; at worst, it will serve as an awkward reminder that the world’s inherent violence and imperfections aren’t always susceptible to dialogue, even though it’s worth trying.. Despite admirable intentions, Obama has to operate in the real world.
-------
Read more of my comments on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize in my column on Sunday at go.philly.com/trudyrubin
I can't believe he did it.
I can't believe President Obama, who understands the new world in which we live, made the gaffe of going to Denmark - to pitch a Chicago Olympics bid that we were bound to lose. No one should have been surprised that Chicago only got 18 votes and was knocked out in the first round.
I argued against the idea of Obama's going to Denmark with colleagues, who were all convinced it was the right move. After all, other heads of state were going. But any finger on the global pulse made clear that this was not the year for an American bid, irrespective of Obama's international shine.
Think about it. One: The last time the United States got the nod, in Salt Lake City, there was a scandal involved that compelled the IOCC to change its entire system of choosing winners. Why would the IOCC want to summon up memories of those last, misbegotten U.S. games?
Two: in a globalized world, a rising power like Brazil - which also has a superstar leader named Lula - was a far more attractive choice than a hyperpower whose gloss was tarnished by the economic crisis. Three: in a globalized world, where South America has never hosted an Olympics (and the United States has done so many times) Rio was the obvious choice.
Four: there was no good reason for Obama to be promoting a US venue at a time of economic downturn. Who needs the Olympics anyway? We've been there, done that. And almost every city that gets the nod winds up losing money. Obama himself said two weeks ago he had no time to go to Denmark because he had more important things to do - like work on health care or his Afghan strategy. He was right.
The president let good judgment be swayed by his Chicago friends, such as advisor Valerie Jarrett, and they put him in the embarrassing position of pitching a product that couldn't be sold. They risked tarnishing his international image as a leader whom much of the world admires, an image that is one of his key strengths. For what? So Chicago could go broke?
Message to Obama: tell your friends to keep their ideas to themselves in the future. And keep your eye on the ball.
The live blog will begin at noon Friday.


