This is what I have written for my first published article. They corrected my mistakes as I must have made some, and they put a lot more quotes in it but that was the original copy. In retrospect, it isn’t very good and it sounds like I know what I’m talking about, athough not being an American, I doubt i can. But hey, even with the subs’s mistakes, it’s been branded “a good article” by the senior staff. I feel cheated.
- Obama wins 2009 Nobel not-George-W-Bush Prize.
BARACK Obama is to the international community what Amy Winehouse is to gossip. He is a constantly present, often surprising and always observed public figure who never fails to ignite debates and declarations around the – international – lunch table. His status as the first Black man to sit in the White House and his potential as the first American President people worldwide can actually like since Bill Clinton are qualities few can deny. However, his responsibilities as the most influential World leader will keep the debate running. And lately, a fierce new argument has been engaged in the fragile household of the international community: should Barack Obama have won the Nobel Peace Prize?
The President of the United States being rewarded for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” certainly is a ground-breaking event after George W. Bush’s eight years of presidency. He was the one who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the one whose administration stigmatized most of the Arabic community. He certainly was not a running candidate for a Nobel Peace Prize. But was Obama a credible nominee? It has been assumed as soon as February 2009, only 11 days after he took office and a mere few weeks after his election, that his name was amongst the 205 on the secret list of those who have been nominated for the prize. And we should not forget that three out of six past Peace Prizes have been awarded to opponents of the Bush administration, so there is logic to be found in this choice. The Nobel Prize committee is indeed arguing that the Peace award is often given as a sign of encouragement, and is here meant as a blessing for Obama’s stand on international politics.
Since he took office in January 2009, Barack Obama has indeed drastically changed the United States’s approach to foreign policy. He has repeatedly stated his will to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he has been working to improve the relationship between his country and the Muslim world, and by closing the Guantanamo camp he has given a strong blow to the military image of the past administration. His campaign to raise awareness about global warming has also been seen as a radical change from George W. Bush’s previous behaviour on the subject. Overall, the international community is endorsing Obama’s actions when it comes to most of the new US foreign policies.
Isn’t all that swell? He sure seems to be a good guy, and he has been saying a lot of wonderful things that certainly encourage world peace. However this is all about what Barack Obama said, and there is really only one thing he has done: closing Guantanamo bay. Now wait a minute. How come the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is the leader of a country which is engaged in two wars, one of them going on since 2001, and both so controversial that the highly symbolic detention camp of Guantanamo could not possibly be allowed to run any longer? Not to forget that on the very same day Obama was awarded his prize, he war-suited up and sent more troops to Afghanistan. These soldiers might be there to maintain peace, but they’re doing so by making war, which is hardly synonymous to a Nobel Peace Prize. Furthermore as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, despite the President’s aspiration of ridding the world of them, the American arsenal still counts more than 5500 warheads.
It remains true that he has made a lot of efforts to mend the bridges between the United States and the Muslim world. But then again, after what the Bush administration did to these bridges, it seems only natural for his successor to repair past mistakes. It is not that such actions are not to be noticed and congratulated, but they are a logical conclusion to years of abuse. If a bully realizes he has been wrong and stops bullying, he is usually not given a prize for it.
On the subject of global warming, it is again also true that even during his presidential campaign Obama has made environmental issues a central piece of his program. Nonetheless since the beginning of his presidency, the environment seems to have fallen behind on his agenda. Early after his election, he was promising that America would play its full role in the renewing of the symbolic Kyoto protocol (protocol the United States still haven’t signed). However such inspiring declarations have been scarce ever since.
Fellow Democrat Al Gore must be seriously wondering where this year’s award is coming from, being himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2007 for his remarkable work to put environmental issues in everyone’s mind, and for his fight against climate change during his years has Bill Clinton’s vice president.
It is difficult to blame Barack Obama for his intentions or his actions, maybe because there are not many actions to observe. The Nobel committee has been defending its choice, arguing that few like Obama had “captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.” But for those like Tim Marshall, Sky News’s foreign affairs editor, this Nobel Peace Prize would have also been suitable for any Miss World, because “every year Miss World comes on and says ‘I want world peace and the world free of nuclear weapons’.”
What concerns the international community is that through this choice, the symbolic message of the Nobel Peace Prize has been devalued, acknowledging aspirations rather than outstanding actions.
Wei Jingsheng, a Chinese dissident, has spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for criticising the communist regime in his country. Piedad Cordoba, a Colombian Senator, has been fighting throughout her political life for the rights of women in Colombia and helped in the liberation of several hostages from the FARC rebels. Sima Samar leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and she serves for the U.N. in Darfur. They and many others have been active in their fight for freedom and peace for more than 10 months, and this is not Barack Obama’s case. He just happens not to be George W. Bush.
*
