I feel like I'm the only one in the world who is not happy that Osama bin Laden has been tracked down and killed. Well, I'm not entirely alone. I'm pretty sure there are some terrorists around the world who are sad. Not al Qaeda, though, because they claim he is not dead. Duh. He's dead. There is absolutely no way Obama would risk announcing Osama's death if he wasn't sure it was true. Pending a zombie invasion, Osama is as dead as a doornail.
Then why am I not happy? Did I naively hope the US soldiers would capture bin Laden and put him on trial? Hah! No. That would never have happened. And I'm not sure I'd have wanted it to. But I think I'd liked to have lived in a world where that at least was a possibility.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not sad that Osama bin Laden is dead. He was one of this world's fanatics, so involved in his own loony cause that he observed absolutely no respect for human life. Osama's world must have been a black and white one, where most of the patches were very, very black. The things he was willing to do, and capable of making others do, are really, truly horrible. I hate - HATE - the things he did.
Despite this, I am not sure his death is a good thing. There are two reasons I am not celebrating. First, I don't like the fact that the world has come to this - celebration of someone's death, regardless of who it is. People I have the utmost respect for, Americans and non-Americans, people I usually agree with (politically and otherwise), and people I don't usually agree with - they all seem to have no problem being happy about this death. It saddens me that Osama has done that to them - created hate in them. I understand it - a part of me feel like celebrating too - but I don't like it. To me, Osama is still spreading terror by making the hate many of us felt for him blossom into celebrations at his death.
Secondly, and far more important, I don't think there is very much to celebrate. Sure, he got what was coming. Had he been captured and put on trial, he would still have been sentenced to death. Punished. Since I am no fan of torture, there isn't any sentence I could have suggested that would have been more appropriate. I am no fan of the death penalty either, but even I would have had to accept that this was the only possible solution in this particular case. Still, I'm not so sure Osama's death - one way or other - will help. Sure, the families of those who died on 9/11 and several other terror actions the last decades might feel some consolation. They deserve that. But - will this put an end to future terror actions, an end to the future grief of families? I am afraid that it will not.
The experts are in disagreement, and none seem sure. This might lead to violent responses. Retaliation is likely. The war on terror is not won yet. In a long-term perspective this could mean a more peaceful world.
I hope the latter is the case. If this - in any perspective - leads to the end of terrorism, the end of the war in Afghanistan, a more peaceful world; then I'm out there celebrating with you. If it does, I'd gladly have killed him myself. But I am not so optimistic. Osama was not alone. Until yesterday the terrorists had a leader in hiding, somewhere, in a cave (which turned out to be a mansion). Today they have a martyr killed by the enemy.
Thus I'm not so sure the world is a better place today than it was yesterday.
And yes, I am aware that you probably don't agree with me in this. As I said, it seems the entire world disagrees. Whether you think I am naive, stupid, "just not American", wrong, misguided, or even despicable/evil/terrorist-friendly; you are entitled to disagree with me. You might even be right. I just think it will be a while before we know for sure the effect this will have had, and I guess I am saving my celebration until I know if this really means a better world.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
On pictures and words
If 1 picture > 1000 words, could you watch 473 pictures and say you've read The Lord of the Rings?
Could you take 50 snapshots, and claim to have "won" NaNoWriMo?
Could you query an agent, pretending that you only took 80 pictures, while you actually sneaked (sorry, Tami, snuck) an additional 12 into the album?
I think not. Though sometimes a picture is worth quite a lot of words. Like this one:
By my count, it is worth 179 words.
You'll have to swing by Burrowers, Books & (today more than ever) Balderdash to find out which words.
Monday, April 12, 2010
On Sunday the 11th of April
I almost never do a “this is what I did today” blog. Partly because I almost never write my posts on the day I publish them. I usually let them simmer for a while, and I like to get a second or third read-through with fresh eyes which can only be achieved if I write it first, then leave it for a while, and then read it again. This gives me the ability to spot terrible writing, and the strength to cut it like a mad butcher. (Take this paragraph. Absolutely hopeless. I expect to molest it to smithereens before finally being satisfied with it [unless I will keep it the way it currently is to make a point. Oh, dang, now that I said it, I kind of have to, don’t I?].)
The other reason I don’t do “this is what I did today” posts is because I have absolutely no need for this blog to turn into my personal (yet very public) diary. I used to keep diaries (well, one at the time…). When I visited my parents over the Easter break, I found some of my old diaries, and boy am I glad those aren’t public material... Some of it probably should be – if it’s true that laughter is healthy, I should be sentenced for keeping this miracle drug to myself.
Back when I kept a diary I was surprisingly audience-aware (even if I pointed out a number of times that the only audience for whom I was writing was myself). I was concerned with voice, language, structure – all the things I now consider when composing texts were already then tools I actively used (more or less consciously) to make a readable diary.
A third reason I normally avoid “this is what I did today” (if I am going to continue using this term I very soon need to invent an abbreviation for it – TIWIDT?) posts is that my life often isn’t all that exciting on a day-to-day basis. A lot of my blog posts would sound something like this: “I got up between 6 am and 7.30 am (entirely depending on how long I bothered hitting the snooze button before actually leaving bed – usually somewhere between 3 and 50 times. No kidding). Had a shower, took the tram to the university. Sat at my desk for X hours, only interrupted by Y number of breaks. Took the tram back home. Slept.” Boring!
Today, however, has been an out of the ordinary sort of day. So if I ever was to do a TIWIDT post, this would be the time.
Oslo seems to be the kind of city where it’s either awesome or awful to be. It’s never, or at least rarely, “just okay”. Today was one of the awesome days. The sun was shining, and believe you me, after five months of winter and one month of rain (slightly exaggerated on both accounts, but not by a lot) we deserve some sun. When it finally showed up, however, it was so brilliant that it hardly feels like it’s been gone at all. I think my face freckled up after about ten minutes outside (alright – I’m exaggerating again – first of all we had lots of sun yesterday as well, and secondly I spent about 7 hours outside today, so I was expecting spring freckles).
I’m not the only one who feels this way. It takes no more than ten degrees (celcius) and half an hour of sun before Osloensians (we aren’t called that. I don’t really know what we are called. So I made up a name. I do that a lot…) are popping up everywhere, smiling, wearing short sleeves, eating ice cream or drinking beer (utepils – "outdoors beer" – is a common term here). If I had told a foreigner walking around in Oslo two weeks ago that the city has half a million inhabitants he wouldn’t have believed it, because there were no one to be seen. If I had told him today, he might be inclined to think I was making an understatement. Oslo does have half a million inhabitants, and today all of them were outside (or so it seemed).
I too acted like a proper Osloensian (it’s catching on!) today and enjoyed just how lovely this city can be in springtime. My roommate and I walked to a museum I’ve been meaning to visit for a while. The Nobel Peace Center (whose giraffe mascot I wrote a blog post about a while back) has been featuring an exhibit called “From King to Obama”, showing the links between the two Nobel Peace Prize laureates (cleverly summed up in the following quote: “Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so our children can fly.”). As the quote perhaps also shows, the exhibit somewhat glorified both King and Obama. However, since the exhibit was focusing on the Nobel Peace Prize aspect of both their journeys I suppose there was little point in emphasizing any controversies.
After the exhibit (and the gift shop. Let’s not forget the gift shop. I almost always prefer the gift show [shop. I might subconsciously have given the answer to why I always prefer the gift shop. Clearly I mistake it for a show!] to the actual museum no matter how interesting the exhibits…) we had lunch – outside, naturally (this is also part of the Oslo spring – every little café will magically conjure up at least one table with a couple of chairs, and voila – people can enjoy their coffee/beer/meal/ice cream at the risk of freezing to death. Very charming). There we also met another friend of mine, before both my friends left me to walk around on my own. I went to the fortress, where I took some very poor pictures (in my defense, I was blinded by the sun), before a friend called up asking if I wanted ice cream. Of course I did.
I had some spare time before the ice cream appointment, so I went to a bookshop (probably the only one in Oslo that is open on a Sunday) to see if I could find a copy of The Secret Garden. This little piece of information has so many digressions tied to it that even I don’t know where to start… Alright, let’s give it a try.
First of all, I always, always read The Secret Garden in spring, and I have for as long as I’ve been able to read. It’s very important that I don’t read it too early (if any more snow falls after I’ve started reading it, spring is ruined), but I can also not read it too late (it’s already late-ish. Anything after April is out of the question). While I recognize that there are books that are better written, more interesting, with better plots and more complex characters; I still considers this as my favourite book. After all, I have read it about 20 times by now.
Seeing as I love it so much, you might wonder why I haven’t purchased it before. Oh, I have! Trust me! I own no less than three copies of this book. The first one is in Norwegian, and this is the copy I have read over and over and over and… And over. I know every little typo (there are plenty) in that copy, and because this is my childhood copy, I must admit I prefer it. For every other book, though, I tend to prefer the original version (that is, if the original version is in a language I can read. So my “original version preference” is pretty much limited to English and Norwegian. And Swedish and Danish, but that is only because they are so similar to Norwegian. It also used to include French, but I haven’t tried reading French for years, so I don’t know how much I’d get out of it now. How stupid was I to let my third language go?!?).
Since I normally prefer the original version, I decided to convert to English for my annual Secret Garden reading a couple of years ago. I bought it in English, and started reading it, but it just wasn’t the same… What I didn’t know, however, was that a good friend of mine (who was at the time living in the US) had bought me another English version, a beautifully illustrated version, even. When she came back with this thoughtful gift for me, I didn’t have the heart to tell her that a) I had already bought a copy; and b) I preferred reading it in Norwegian. So I accepted the present. The following spring (last spring, in fact) when I had to pack most of my books away for long-time storage since I was moving, I chose to keep the illustrated English version in the easy access pile, while the two others went into boxes.
Thus, I only had one of my three copies available this spring. I had completely forgotten that I had packed the other two copies when I promised my sister that she could borrow the book from me this spring. Consequently, I lent her my only remaining copy, and was left with nothing… I didn’t have the heart to tell her that I didn’t have another copy, but I also could not face having spring ruined because I could not read it. So I thought that buying another copy was a reasonable solution (I will never be rich. Not as long as there are bookshops in the world). (Un?)Fortunately, my other sister called just as I was about to make the purchase, and she managed to convince me to check a library before buying it (again). So, I still don’t have the book, but I’m guessing that this time tomorrow I will (if the library at the university doesn’t have it, the bookshop probably will. And what are the odds that my sister phones me twice in two days?).
To finish this digression before returning to the actual topic – as far as I know neither my sister nor my friend are regular readers of this blog, so I feel relatively safe writing about this without making anyone feel too bad about the possible ruination of my spring…
(See, this is another reason why I don’t write TIWIDT posts. With my digressionary tendencies, they end up frightfully long! I shall try to hasten my pace…)
I eventually met up with my friends for ice cream. Again, we insisted on sitting outside, even though it was getting chillier by then. Eating ice cream in Oslo in April in sunshine (am I even allowed to have that many in’s in [haha] one sentence?) can be quite pleasant. Eating ice cream in April in Oslo in shade, however, is c-c-cold. But we survived, and afterwards we strolled around to regain normal body temperatures. Oslo (this post should of course be called “On Oslo” [or quite possibly “On The Secret Garden”], but I have reserved that title [the Oslo-one] for a similar-yet-different post that I have in mind for June[-ish]) – Oslo has a relatively new opera house, and it has become a popular attraction for tourists and Osloensians alike. You can walk around on its white marble exterior, looking out over the fjord. It’s very nice, actually. We went there for something of a photo shoot (don’t ask – I have digressed enough as it is), before I finally decided it was time to call it a day.
I made one last stop on my way home – I picked some flowers that to me more than anything say spring. Hestehov [tussilago farfara, or coltsfoot] isn’t actually all that pretty. It doesn’t smell nice, and it grows in such numbers that by many it is considered a weed. Still, it is the first wild flower that appears each spring, and the yellow little heads look like miniature suns stretching towards the sky. In true spirit of this springful day, then, I picked some and brought home where they are now sunning up our kitchen table (I just googled “sunning” to make sure I wasn’t saying something I didn’t know what meant. The definition “the opposite of mooning – involving front” clearly implies that I did… And yet, I am too tired and amused to change it…).
There. I finished my TIWIDT post. I shall post it as it is (with one quick read-though. Just the one), even if it is as long as a Osloensian winter. Now that I think about it, though, the proper title of this post would have been “On spring”. Oh, well…
[Note: if you have actually read through all of the above you also deserve to know that I really meant to post this last night. Just as I typed up the last paragraph, however, my internet connection died. I probably should have interpreted this as a sign that the Internet gods didn't want me to expose anyone to such a lenghty ramble. Seeing as you are reading this, I evidently am not afraid of the wrath of the Internet gods. If you never hear from me again, chances are I should have been afraid...]
The other reason I don’t do “this is what I did today” posts is because I have absolutely no need for this blog to turn into my personal (yet very public) diary. I used to keep diaries (well, one at the time…). When I visited my parents over the Easter break, I found some of my old diaries, and boy am I glad those aren’t public material... Some of it probably should be – if it’s true that laughter is healthy, I should be sentenced for keeping this miracle drug to myself.
Back when I kept a diary I was surprisingly audience-aware (even if I pointed out a number of times that the only audience for whom I was writing was myself). I was concerned with voice, language, structure – all the things I now consider when composing texts were already then tools I actively used (more or less consciously) to make a readable diary.
A third reason I normally avoid “this is what I did today” (if I am going to continue using this term I very soon need to invent an abbreviation for it – TIWIDT?) posts is that my life often isn’t all that exciting on a day-to-day basis. A lot of my blog posts would sound something like this: “I got up between 6 am and 7.30 am (entirely depending on how long I bothered hitting the snooze button before actually leaving bed – usually somewhere between 3 and 50 times. No kidding). Had a shower, took the tram to the university. Sat at my desk for X hours, only interrupted by Y number of breaks. Took the tram back home. Slept.” Boring!
Today, however, has been an out of the ordinary sort of day. So if I ever was to do a TIWIDT post, this would be the time.
Oslo seems to be the kind of city where it’s either awesome or awful to be. It’s never, or at least rarely, “just okay”. Today was one of the awesome days. The sun was shining, and believe you me, after five months of winter and one month of rain (slightly exaggerated on both accounts, but not by a lot) we deserve some sun. When it finally showed up, however, it was so brilliant that it hardly feels like it’s been gone at all. I think my face freckled up after about ten minutes outside (alright – I’m exaggerating again – first of all we had lots of sun yesterday as well, and secondly I spent about 7 hours outside today, so I was expecting spring freckles).
I’m not the only one who feels this way. It takes no more than ten degrees (celcius) and half an hour of sun before Osloensians (we aren’t called that. I don’t really know what we are called. So I made up a name. I do that a lot…) are popping up everywhere, smiling, wearing short sleeves, eating ice cream or drinking beer (utepils – "outdoors beer" – is a common term here). If I had told a foreigner walking around in Oslo two weeks ago that the city has half a million inhabitants he wouldn’t have believed it, because there were no one to be seen. If I had told him today, he might be inclined to think I was making an understatement. Oslo does have half a million inhabitants, and today all of them were outside (or so it seemed).
I too acted like a proper Osloensian (it’s catching on!) today and enjoyed just how lovely this city can be in springtime. My roommate and I walked to a museum I’ve been meaning to visit for a while. The Nobel Peace Center (whose giraffe mascot I wrote a blog post about a while back) has been featuring an exhibit called “From King to Obama”, showing the links between the two Nobel Peace Prize laureates (cleverly summed up in the following quote: “Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so our children can fly.”). As the quote perhaps also shows, the exhibit somewhat glorified both King and Obama. However, since the exhibit was focusing on the Nobel Peace Prize aspect of both their journeys I suppose there was little point in emphasizing any controversies.
After the exhibit (and the gift shop. Let’s not forget the gift shop. I almost always prefer the gift show [shop. I might subconsciously have given the answer to why I always prefer the gift shop. Clearly I mistake it for a show!] to the actual museum no matter how interesting the exhibits…) we had lunch – outside, naturally (this is also part of the Oslo spring – every little café will magically conjure up at least one table with a couple of chairs, and voila – people can enjoy their coffee/beer/meal/ice cream at the risk of freezing to death. Very charming). There we also met another friend of mine, before both my friends left me to walk around on my own. I went to the fortress, where I took some very poor pictures (in my defense, I was blinded by the sun), before a friend called up asking if I wanted ice cream. Of course I did.
I had some spare time before the ice cream appointment, so I went to a bookshop (probably the only one in Oslo that is open on a Sunday) to see if I could find a copy of The Secret Garden. This little piece of information has so many digressions tied to it that even I don’t know where to start… Alright, let’s give it a try.
First of all, I always, always read The Secret Garden in spring, and I have for as long as I’ve been able to read. It’s very important that I don’t read it too early (if any more snow falls after I’ve started reading it, spring is ruined), but I can also not read it too late (it’s already late-ish. Anything after April is out of the question). While I recognize that there are books that are better written, more interesting, with better plots and more complex characters; I still considers this as my favourite book. After all, I have read it about 20 times by now.
Seeing as I love it so much, you might wonder why I haven’t purchased it before. Oh, I have! Trust me! I own no less than three copies of this book. The first one is in Norwegian, and this is the copy I have read over and over and over and… And over. I know every little typo (there are plenty) in that copy, and because this is my childhood copy, I must admit I prefer it. For every other book, though, I tend to prefer the original version (that is, if the original version is in a language I can read. So my “original version preference” is pretty much limited to English and Norwegian. And Swedish and Danish, but that is only because they are so similar to Norwegian. It also used to include French, but I haven’t tried reading French for years, so I don’t know how much I’d get out of it now. How stupid was I to let my third language go?!?).
Since I normally prefer the original version, I decided to convert to English for my annual Secret Garden reading a couple of years ago. I bought it in English, and started reading it, but it just wasn’t the same… What I didn’t know, however, was that a good friend of mine (who was at the time living in the US) had bought me another English version, a beautifully illustrated version, even. When she came back with this thoughtful gift for me, I didn’t have the heart to tell her that a) I had already bought a copy; and b) I preferred reading it in Norwegian. So I accepted the present. The following spring (last spring, in fact) when I had to pack most of my books away for long-time storage since I was moving, I chose to keep the illustrated English version in the easy access pile, while the two others went into boxes.
Thus, I only had one of my three copies available this spring. I had completely forgotten that I had packed the other two copies when I promised my sister that she could borrow the book from me this spring. Consequently, I lent her my only remaining copy, and was left with nothing… I didn’t have the heart to tell her that I didn’t have another copy, but I also could not face having spring ruined because I could not read it. So I thought that buying another copy was a reasonable solution (I will never be rich. Not as long as there are bookshops in the world). (Un?)Fortunately, my other sister called just as I was about to make the purchase, and she managed to convince me to check a library before buying it (again). So, I still don’t have the book, but I’m guessing that this time tomorrow I will (if the library at the university doesn’t have it, the bookshop probably will. And what are the odds that my sister phones me twice in two days?).
To finish this digression before returning to the actual topic – as far as I know neither my sister nor my friend are regular readers of this blog, so I feel relatively safe writing about this without making anyone feel too bad about the possible ruination of my spring…
(See, this is another reason why I don’t write TIWIDT posts. With my digressionary tendencies, they end up frightfully long! I shall try to hasten my pace…)
I eventually met up with my friends for ice cream. Again, we insisted on sitting outside, even though it was getting chillier by then. Eating ice cream in Oslo in April in sunshine (am I even allowed to have that many in’s in [haha] one sentence?) can be quite pleasant. Eating ice cream in April in Oslo in shade, however, is c-c-cold. But we survived, and afterwards we strolled around to regain normal body temperatures. Oslo (this post should of course be called “On Oslo” [or quite possibly “On The Secret Garden”], but I have reserved that title [the Oslo-one] for a similar-yet-different post that I have in mind for June[-ish]) – Oslo has a relatively new opera house, and it has become a popular attraction for tourists and Osloensians alike. You can walk around on its white marble exterior, looking out over the fjord. It’s very nice, actually. We went there for something of a photo shoot (don’t ask – I have digressed enough as it is), before I finally decided it was time to call it a day.
I made one last stop on my way home – I picked some flowers that to me more than anything say spring. Hestehov [tussilago farfara, or coltsfoot] isn’t actually all that pretty. It doesn’t smell nice, and it grows in such numbers that by many it is considered a weed. Still, it is the first wild flower that appears each spring, and the yellow little heads look like miniature suns stretching towards the sky. In true spirit of this springful day, then, I picked some and brought home where they are now sunning up our kitchen table (I just googled “sunning” to make sure I wasn’t saying something I didn’t know what meant. The definition “the opposite of mooning – involving front” clearly implies that I did… And yet, I am too tired and amused to change it…).
There. I finished my TIWIDT post. I shall post it as it is (with one quick read-though. Just the one), even if it is as long as a Osloensian winter. Now that I think about it, though, the proper title of this post would have been “On spring”. Oh, well…
[Note: if you have actually read through all of the above you also deserve to know that I really meant to post this last night. Just as I typed up the last paragraph, however, my internet connection died. I probably should have interpreted this as a sign that the Internet gods didn't want me to expose anyone to such a lenghty ramble. Seeing as you are reading this, I evidently am not afraid of the wrath of the Internet gods. If you never hear from me again, chances are I should have been afraid...]
Saturday, December 12, 2009
On Nobel "not managing to keep my mouth shut" Me
I know I promised lovely stories about our gingerbread bridge (I still intend to write it), and I know I have missed a couple of days. Sorry. I will try to make up for it sometime. But sometimes life gets in the way, you know? There is something about working 14 hour days that gets to me in the long run... First at school - trying to finish a draft for my silly chapter three (thesis, not a novel. Don't get your hopes up, writer's group...) before Christmas - then in the bookstore, wrapping books for strangers who doesn't deserve it. In addition I somehow manage to get myself involved in social activities on top of this - my two last free days in December have now been booked. Thus, blogging inevitably falls into the "low priority" pile.
These last few days I must admit I haven't actually been working so diligently, though. Oslo has been Obamafied. We've had nothing else in the news for weeks. On Thursday when I woke up, there were police cars outside my house, blocking the road where he was to pass. Being something of a Nobel Peace Prize geek, I've been following the broadcasts from his hectic 26 hours in Norway. I actually did not go downtown to join the 10 000 others standing outside his hotel awaiting the 1,5 minutes he spent on the balchony waiving to the crowd (I was stuck at work, wrapping books for - you guessed it - strangers who doesn't deserve it).
In between all of this I have barely been reading blogs. But today there was one that caught my eye. Why? Because it was about the Nobel Prize. It is a funny and clever comment on this year's prize. I disagree with the main view, but I will still highly encourage anyone to read it. I wanted to comment (and eventually will), but as my comment turned out to be so long, I instead decided to post it here, and only post a small excerpt on the blog in question. My reply might not make terribly lot of sense unless you've read Annabelle Robertson's post first, so I suggest you first click on the link and then come back here to see what I have to say in the matter.
Finally (that is, "finally" before pasting in the lenghty comment), I know that this has been the NobelPrizability of Digressions lately. I will try to giraffe it up again later. It's just that the subject of the Nobel Peace Prize lies close to my heart, and I can't seem to shut up about it (hence today's cheesy title).
Let me first congratulate you on winning the Pulitzer and the Oscar.
While I happen to disagree with you on many of the points you are raising, I think you are doing it in an intelligent and amusing way – which is refreshing seeing as much of the debate has been very polarized. Either people seemed to hate or love this year’s award, while few seemed willing to actually take a look at the reasoning behind the prize. I’m happy to see that you did not fall for this temptation.
There are, however, a few points where I believe you are mistaken. First of all, you interpret the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel literally. This is not necessarily a mistake in itself – a literal interpretation of a will is fine (and usually quite common) – but it is a mistake in the sense that it does not follow the precedence that has been set the last 108 years since the Prize was awarded for the first time in 1901. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has gradually moved away from a literal interpretation of the will and towards an interpretation of the intentions behind it. The disadvantage of this is, of course, that they could be wrong. Perhaps they don’t understand Alfred Nobel’s intention, and perhaps the Peace Prize has been awarded on a faulty foundation all these years. The advantage, however, is that it enables the committee to develop the Nobel Peace Prize into a continuously relevant prize. The Nobel Peace Prize has actually contributed to transforming the very concept of peace. When Alfred Nobel wrote his will, he could not foresee that someone would be awarded the prize he constituted for their work for human rights or environmental awareness. There was no such thing as nuclear weapons. In Nobel’s time, peace simply meant “the absence of war”. Today we know that it is much, much more.
That being said, awarding the prize to President Obama actually isn’t all that controversial in terms of following the will. Obama may not have organized any “peace congresses”, but it is universally accepted today that while peace congresses was a common tool for creating peace a hundred years ago, it somehow lost its glamour after the First World War. No one has taken this part literally for a long, long time.
It’s no doubt that this prize was controversial, however. The fact that he is new in his position is one thing, and I’ve noticed that the fact that a nomination would have had to have come merely days after his inauguration has been mentioned as another. This is the second point where I believe you were mistaken.
There is a difference between being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and being considered for it. Obama may have been nominated before he had much time to fulfill any of the reasons the committee gave for awarding him the price, but he has been able to make up for this between February and October when the final decision was made. In these months, in the committee’s opinion, Obama was the man who did most for international diplomacy or “fraternity among the peoples” (keynote speech in Egypt to the Moslem world in June; improved relations with Russia; reaffirmation of U.S. support to the United Nations); and for his work towards a world free of nuclear weapons (most importantly through his cooperation with Russia). Any potential, future achievements or failures in these or other issues are not considered when deciding who wins the prize – no matter what Jens Stoltenberg, Desmond Tutu or Michael Binyon (there you’ve got three names you never thought you’d hear in the same sentence) says. The Nobel Peace Prize does not work as a sanction, so the fact that Obama after the announcement decided to send more troops to Afghanistan does not affect the prize. It is unfortunate, perhaps, but it is also unrelated (unfortunately. Perhaps).
There is nothing in Alfred Nobel’s will or the precedence created by the Committee indicating that the laureate has to be a saint. Naturally it is likely that the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee hopes Obama will prove to be a worthy laureate (also) in the future. They probably hope that he during his presidency will create more peace than war. But at the same time, the members of the committee – regardless of what has been claimed in the aforementioned polarized debate – are not stupid. They understand that President Obama is a man of action. He is a politician. He is the Commander in Chief of a country fighting two wars. And he has no intention of giving up on these wars. The members of the committee knew this when their decision was made. And yet they weighed his work for international diplomacy and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and found it a sufficient reason for awarding him the prize, despite his role in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
These last few days I must admit I haven't actually been working so diligently, though. Oslo has been Obamafied. We've had nothing else in the news for weeks. On Thursday when I woke up, there were police cars outside my house, blocking the road where he was to pass. Being something of a Nobel Peace Prize geek, I've been following the broadcasts from his hectic 26 hours in Norway. I actually did not go downtown to join the 10 000 others standing outside his hotel awaiting the 1,5 minutes he spent on the balchony waiving to the crowd (I was stuck at work, wrapping books for - you guessed it - strangers who doesn't deserve it).
In between all of this I have barely been reading blogs. But today there was one that caught my eye. Why? Because it was about the Nobel Prize. It is a funny and clever comment on this year's prize. I disagree with the main view, but I will still highly encourage anyone to read it. I wanted to comment (and eventually will), but as my comment turned out to be so long, I instead decided to post it here, and only post a small excerpt on the blog in question. My reply might not make terribly lot of sense unless you've read Annabelle Robertson's post first, so I suggest you first click on the link and then come back here to see what I have to say in the matter.
Finally (that is, "finally" before pasting in the lenghty comment), I know that this has been the NobelPrizability of Digressions lately. I will try to giraffe it up again later. It's just that the subject of the Nobel Peace Prize lies close to my heart, and I can't seem to shut up about it (hence today's cheesy title).
Let me first congratulate you on winning the Pulitzer and the Oscar.
While I happen to disagree with you on many of the points you are raising, I think you are doing it in an intelligent and amusing way – which is refreshing seeing as much of the debate has been very polarized. Either people seemed to hate or love this year’s award, while few seemed willing to actually take a look at the reasoning behind the prize. I’m happy to see that you did not fall for this temptation.
There are, however, a few points where I believe you are mistaken. First of all, you interpret the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel literally. This is not necessarily a mistake in itself – a literal interpretation of a will is fine (and usually quite common) – but it is a mistake in the sense that it does not follow the precedence that has been set the last 108 years since the Prize was awarded for the first time in 1901. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has gradually moved away from a literal interpretation of the will and towards an interpretation of the intentions behind it. The disadvantage of this is, of course, that they could be wrong. Perhaps they don’t understand Alfred Nobel’s intention, and perhaps the Peace Prize has been awarded on a faulty foundation all these years. The advantage, however, is that it enables the committee to develop the Nobel Peace Prize into a continuously relevant prize. The Nobel Peace Prize has actually contributed to transforming the very concept of peace. When Alfred Nobel wrote his will, he could not foresee that someone would be awarded the prize he constituted for their work for human rights or environmental awareness. There was no such thing as nuclear weapons. In Nobel’s time, peace simply meant “the absence of war”. Today we know that it is much, much more.
That being said, awarding the prize to President Obama actually isn’t all that controversial in terms of following the will. Obama may not have organized any “peace congresses”, but it is universally accepted today that while peace congresses was a common tool for creating peace a hundred years ago, it somehow lost its glamour after the First World War. No one has taken this part literally for a long, long time.
It’s no doubt that this prize was controversial, however. The fact that he is new in his position is one thing, and I’ve noticed that the fact that a nomination would have had to have come merely days after his inauguration has been mentioned as another. This is the second point where I believe you were mistaken.
There is a difference between being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and being considered for it. Obama may have been nominated before he had much time to fulfill any of the reasons the committee gave for awarding him the price, but he has been able to make up for this between February and October when the final decision was made. In these months, in the committee’s opinion, Obama was the man who did most for international diplomacy or “fraternity among the peoples” (keynote speech in Egypt to the Moslem world in June; improved relations with Russia; reaffirmation of U.S. support to the United Nations); and for his work towards a world free of nuclear weapons (most importantly through his cooperation with Russia). Any potential, future achievements or failures in these or other issues are not considered when deciding who wins the prize – no matter what Jens Stoltenberg, Desmond Tutu or Michael Binyon (there you’ve got three names you never thought you’d hear in the same sentence) says. The Nobel Peace Prize does not work as a sanction, so the fact that Obama after the announcement decided to send more troops to Afghanistan does not affect the prize. It is unfortunate, perhaps, but it is also unrelated (unfortunately. Perhaps).
There is nothing in Alfred Nobel’s will or the precedence created by the Committee indicating that the laureate has to be a saint. Naturally it is likely that the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee hopes Obama will prove to be a worthy laureate (also) in the future. They probably hope that he during his presidency will create more peace than war. But at the same time, the members of the committee – regardless of what has been claimed in the aforementioned polarized debate – are not stupid. They understand that President Obama is a man of action. He is a politician. He is the Commander in Chief of a country fighting two wars. And he has no intention of giving up on these wars. The members of the committee knew this when their decision was made. And yet they weighed his work for international diplomacy and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and found it a sufficient reason for awarding him the prize, despite his role in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
On VIP visits (part two)
Dear Mr. Smith,
First of all, let me offer my sincerest apologies on behalf of my countrymen. If you by any chance should have happened to read a Norwegian newspaper lately, it must have been annoying to say the least. They have been packed with speculations about a countryman of yours and his upcoming visit to Oslo, while virtually no one seems to care that you are visiting too. And unlike this other guy, you are bringing your entire family; you are staying several days (as opposed to 26 hours); and I am sure you’d never be as selfish as to turn down an offer to lunch with the king just because you had a country to rule. You know the importance of royalty – after all, they call you the Prince of Bel-Air!
Frankly, I think it’s unfair and a little disgusting that your visit has been overshadowed like this. No Norwegian companies have made advertisement campaigns asking if you want a cup of coffee. They aren’t welding manholes for your safety. And your arrival to the country was barely mentioned in one of the major online newspapers, while his surely will attract every journalist in the country. I know. It’s terribly unfair!
I know it must be a small consolation, but I can assure you that you’ve been famous here a lot longer than him. We’ve been busting aliens and hip-hopped with you for close to two decades, while we only got to know him a couple of years ago. He might be a smooth talker, but I bet there are more kids in this country able to recite the lyrics to “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” than there are those knowing the words of any of his speeches.
Finally, I thought I’d warn you that the police has made a bunch of security recommendations for the next few days – again it’s mostly because of this other guy visiting, but I’m sure it’s also partly so that you will feel a little safer as well. You can find the complete list here, but there is one in particular I thought I’d mention. “Don’t walk on the roof of any building close to the President [the other guy].” Now, I don’t know if this is something you do on a regular basis, but I recently saw a movie of yours where you were not only walking on the roof of buildings; you were throwing cars around, and flying, and generally causing a lot of havoc. This will probably be considered “suspicious behavior” by the police force here, so I’d recommend to try to avoid things like that until you’re back home where you’re more familiar with the rules. It would be a total bummer if you in addition to being ignored because of some random guy were to be arrested due to strange, foreign rules.
By the way, our weather doesn’t always suck this bad – I recommend June. I wish someone would have told you about that before you booked your flights and everything. Perhaps they also should have told you about this other guy coming here at the same time as you.
Anyway – despite everything – welcome to Oslo!
Yours truly,
Cruella Collett
First of all, let me offer my sincerest apologies on behalf of my countrymen. If you by any chance should have happened to read a Norwegian newspaper lately, it must have been annoying to say the least. They have been packed with speculations about a countryman of yours and his upcoming visit to Oslo, while virtually no one seems to care that you are visiting too. And unlike this other guy, you are bringing your entire family; you are staying several days (as opposed to 26 hours); and I am sure you’d never be as selfish as to turn down an offer to lunch with the king just because you had a country to rule. You know the importance of royalty – after all, they call you the Prince of Bel-Air!
Frankly, I think it’s unfair and a little disgusting that your visit has been overshadowed like this. No Norwegian companies have made advertisement campaigns asking if you want a cup of coffee. They aren’t welding manholes for your safety. And your arrival to the country was barely mentioned in one of the major online newspapers, while his surely will attract every journalist in the country. I know. It’s terribly unfair!
I know it must be a small consolation, but I can assure you that you’ve been famous here a lot longer than him. We’ve been busting aliens and hip-hopped with you for close to two decades, while we only got to know him a couple of years ago. He might be a smooth talker, but I bet there are more kids in this country able to recite the lyrics to “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” than there are those knowing the words of any of his speeches.
Finally, I thought I’d warn you that the police has made a bunch of security recommendations for the next few days – again it’s mostly because of this other guy visiting, but I’m sure it’s also partly so that you will feel a little safer as well. You can find the complete list here, but there is one in particular I thought I’d mention. “Don’t walk on the roof of any building close to the President [the other guy].” Now, I don’t know if this is something you do on a regular basis, but I recently saw a movie of yours where you were not only walking on the roof of buildings; you were throwing cars around, and flying, and generally causing a lot of havoc. This will probably be considered “suspicious behavior” by the police force here, so I’d recommend to try to avoid things like that until you’re back home where you’re more familiar with the rules. It would be a total bummer if you in addition to being ignored because of some random guy were to be arrested due to strange, foreign rules.
By the way, our weather doesn’t always suck this bad – I recommend June. I wish someone would have told you about that before you booked your flights and everything. Perhaps they also should have told you about this other guy coming here at the same time as you.
Anyway – despite everything – welcome to Oslo!
Yours truly,
Cruella Collett
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
On VIP visits
Dear Mr. President,
A little under two months ago, both you and I woke up in Washington, D.C. (well, technically, I woke up in University Park, Maryland, but it’s pretty close) to a big surprise: the Norwegian Nobel Committee had chosen you to be this year’s laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize. I was astonished, to say the least, and judging from the speech you held a few hours later, so were you. That day I wrote a post on this very blog, where I commented on the committee’s decision, and expressed my views on it. I said then, and I still believe so, that even though I – like many others – wonder if awarding you the prize right now was a little early, there were some good reasons for choosing you at this time.
I also speculated on whether one of the less idealistic reasons was to make you come to Norway. If this at all was a consideration, the committee must be rubbing their hands together in glee, since your visit is scheduled to start tomorrow.
I can assure you that everything seems to be set. Norwegian newspapers have been packed with schedules, speculations and suggestions for weeks. Will he come, or will he prioritize Copenhagen? Will he spend the night? Will he spend more than one night? Will he stay with the royal family, or at a hotel? Will he be here for the concert or not? I’m guessing you have been blissfully unaware of just how much attention your short visit to Norway has gotten here. I’m fairly sure there still are other news stories out there, and they probably earn more space in the newspapers you normally read. Even the really serious Norwegian newspapers have felt like “Obama Social Times” lately.
But don’t worry – we’re thrilled to have you, of course. I went to the Nobel Institute today. I hear this is one of the places you’re scheduled to visit – to meet with the people who got you into this mess in the first place. I don’t know if you have mixed feelings about meeting the committee, but I’m sure you’ll have a good time. At least they seem to have prepared properly. They had lots of decorations up (in your honour, I can imagine), and trust me – the staff there is really friendly. If you get a chance, check out the library. It’s where I get lots of my books, and they let you keep them for the longest time (though they might be hesitant to letting you take them out of the country).
Oslo downtown also looks festive and ready to receive you. I saw them weld all the manhole covers the other day, so you can be assured that there will be no threats from below. I also heard that there will be extra planes stationed around the city, so I wouldn’t worry about threats from above either. Frankly, the biggest danger will probably be when meeting with the committee. I hear Geir Lundestad has a mean handshake.
Also, please don’t take any consideration of the kiosk chain (Narvesen) that exploits your visit in their newest advertisement campaign. Even though they have – for your convenience, no doubt – put the price of a cup of coffee in dollars on their posters and referred to how Clinton had a cup of coffee when he visited, this is not the coffee you want to buy (and it’s definitely not the coffee Clinton got). Trust me, it’s not good. We’ve a name for coffee like that in Norwegian – skvip – and there is better to be found. (From what I recall, Clinton got his coffee from Pascal – go there. They have wonderful cakes too.) Besides, when seeing it in dollars, it makes me realize that coffee (like everything else here) is ridiculously expensive. Not even the coffee places in your neighbourhood (and I should know, since that was where I got my coffee on my way to the office each morning) are that pricey. Besides, I far prefer that little Caribou on the corner of 17th and Pennsylvania to Narvesen any day!
Finally, I read in the Obama Social Times – sorry, I mean Aftenposten – today that the Oslo police force are sending out recommendations for how people should behave while you are here. I thought I should repeat a few of those points for you – after all, some of them might be useful for you as well (plus it might help explain some potential weird behavior that you otherwise might just think was “typically Norwegian”).
• Don’t close the curtains and make sure to have the light on if you have a view to the President (so if you’re seeing directly into someone’s fully lit, non-curtained bathroom, you’ll know this isn’t necessarily a flasher).
• Don’t look out of windows for longer amounts of time, don’t open windows and don’t take pictures (I’m not entirely sure if this also applies to you, but just in case you might want to make sure not to take any pictures from your hotel room).
• Don’t walk on the roof of any buildings close to the President (this I can’t quite understand why they are including. After all, you’re used to it. Every time I’ve walked by, there have been at least a couple pretty grumpy looking guys on the roof of your own house. Surely you wouldn’t mind a couple of fiddlers on the roof in Oslo too?).
• Don’t act suspiciously (well, this one is a given. The thing, though, is that people that really are up to no good also know this, so often it’s not the ones acting suspiciously that are the real problem. This is almost like having a box in US immigration forms asking whether you are being truthful in your answers. Oh, wait, you already have that box… Never mind…).
• Listen to the police and let them know if you see anything suspicious (but you have people helping you with that, don’t you?).
• Keep an eye on all your own belongings (this one definitely applies to you too. I’d make particularly sure that the medal is safe, seeing as it’s made of pure gold. There will be a lot of people on that award ceremony, and one can never be too careful, right?).
Keeping all this in mind, you should be pretty well prepared for a couple of days in Oslo. Too bad we don’t have any snow downtown yet. It really is much prettier then. Actually, you should consider coming back sometime, perhaps when you’re retired and have a little more time on your hands. You’re not getting a very accurate image of Norway this way. No mountains and only one fjord. You really ought to see the Western and Northern part of the country too. I recommend June.
Welcome to Oslo!
Yours truly,
Cruella Collett
A little under two months ago, both you and I woke up in Washington, D.C. (well, technically, I woke up in University Park, Maryland, but it’s pretty close) to a big surprise: the Norwegian Nobel Committee had chosen you to be this year’s laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize. I was astonished, to say the least, and judging from the speech you held a few hours later, so were you. That day I wrote a post on this very blog, where I commented on the committee’s decision, and expressed my views on it. I said then, and I still believe so, that even though I – like many others – wonder if awarding you the prize right now was a little early, there were some good reasons for choosing you at this time.
I also speculated on whether one of the less idealistic reasons was to make you come to Norway. If this at all was a consideration, the committee must be rubbing their hands together in glee, since your visit is scheduled to start tomorrow.
I can assure you that everything seems to be set. Norwegian newspapers have been packed with schedules, speculations and suggestions for weeks. Will he come, or will he prioritize Copenhagen? Will he spend the night? Will he spend more than one night? Will he stay with the royal family, or at a hotel? Will he be here for the concert or not? I’m guessing you have been blissfully unaware of just how much attention your short visit to Norway has gotten here. I’m fairly sure there still are other news stories out there, and they probably earn more space in the newspapers you normally read. Even the really serious Norwegian newspapers have felt like “Obama Social Times” lately.
But don’t worry – we’re thrilled to have you, of course. I went to the Nobel Institute today. I hear this is one of the places you’re scheduled to visit – to meet with the people who got you into this mess in the first place. I don’t know if you have mixed feelings about meeting the committee, but I’m sure you’ll have a good time. At least they seem to have prepared properly. They had lots of decorations up (in your honour, I can imagine), and trust me – the staff there is really friendly. If you get a chance, check out the library. It’s where I get lots of my books, and they let you keep them for the longest time (though they might be hesitant to letting you take them out of the country).
Oslo downtown also looks festive and ready to receive you. I saw them weld all the manhole covers the other day, so you can be assured that there will be no threats from below. I also heard that there will be extra planes stationed around the city, so I wouldn’t worry about threats from above either. Frankly, the biggest danger will probably be when meeting with the committee. I hear Geir Lundestad has a mean handshake.
Also, please don’t take any consideration of the kiosk chain (Narvesen) that exploits your visit in their newest advertisement campaign. Even though they have – for your convenience, no doubt – put the price of a cup of coffee in dollars on their posters and referred to how Clinton had a cup of coffee when he visited, this is not the coffee you want to buy (and it’s definitely not the coffee Clinton got). Trust me, it’s not good. We’ve a name for coffee like that in Norwegian – skvip – and there is better to be found. (From what I recall, Clinton got his coffee from Pascal – go there. They have wonderful cakes too.) Besides, when seeing it in dollars, it makes me realize that coffee (like everything else here) is ridiculously expensive. Not even the coffee places in your neighbourhood (and I should know, since that was where I got my coffee on my way to the office each morning) are that pricey. Besides, I far prefer that little Caribou on the corner of 17th and Pennsylvania to Narvesen any day!
Finally, I read in the Obama Social Times – sorry, I mean Aftenposten – today that the Oslo police force are sending out recommendations for how people should behave while you are here. I thought I should repeat a few of those points for you – after all, some of them might be useful for you as well (plus it might help explain some potential weird behavior that you otherwise might just think was “typically Norwegian”).
• Don’t close the curtains and make sure to have the light on if you have a view to the President (so if you’re seeing directly into someone’s fully lit, non-curtained bathroom, you’ll know this isn’t necessarily a flasher).
• Don’t look out of windows for longer amounts of time, don’t open windows and don’t take pictures (I’m not entirely sure if this also applies to you, but just in case you might want to make sure not to take any pictures from your hotel room).
• Don’t walk on the roof of any buildings close to the President (this I can’t quite understand why they are including. After all, you’re used to it. Every time I’ve walked by, there have been at least a couple pretty grumpy looking guys on the roof of your own house. Surely you wouldn’t mind a couple of fiddlers on the roof in Oslo too?).
• Don’t act suspiciously (well, this one is a given. The thing, though, is that people that really are up to no good also know this, so often it’s not the ones acting suspiciously that are the real problem. This is almost like having a box in US immigration forms asking whether you are being truthful in your answers. Oh, wait, you already have that box… Never mind…).
• Listen to the police and let them know if you see anything suspicious (but you have people helping you with that, don’t you?).
• Keep an eye on all your own belongings (this one definitely applies to you too. I’d make particularly sure that the medal is safe, seeing as it’s made of pure gold. There will be a lot of people on that award ceremony, and one can never be too careful, right?).
Keeping all this in mind, you should be pretty well prepared for a couple of days in Oslo. Too bad we don’t have any snow downtown yet. It really is much prettier then. Actually, you should consider coming back sometime, perhaps when you’re retired and have a little more time on your hands. You’re not getting a very accurate image of Norway this way. No mountains and only one fjord. You really ought to see the Western and Northern part of the country too. I recommend June.
Welcome to Oslo!
Yours truly,
Cruella Collett
Monday, October 19, 2009
On the President, the Peace Prize and precarious positions
For the most part I’ve tried to keep this blog nice and diplomatic. I tend to turn to humour instead of cannonballs (a technique I believe a number of world leaders, past and present, ought to adopt). However, there are times when I can’t help but ram the cannon, even if I know it’s a risky business. I have expressed my opinions on the Middle East conflict, for instance, although I limited this to show my concern for the fact that there is an ongoing conflict rather than expressing my sympathies (or lack thereof). I’ve also written a couple of pieces on the Nobel Peace Prize – one generic and one specifically concerning the most recent laureate.
When I do write something like this I don’t do it lightly. I have a bachelor’s degree in international studies. I am in the process of getting a master’s degree in history. I have specifically studied war and peace for years, and even if I hardly can claim to be an authority on the subject, I do believe that by now I have the right to say that at least I know when I know what I am talking about. Therefore it bothers me when people tell me I don’t.
Normally, I don’t like to target specific people or specific replies, because inside me somewhere there lives a little girl who simply wants everyone to like her and to get along with everybody. However, sometimes I am forced to tell this little girl that this is not how the real world works. Sometimes one needs to confront things to have a fruitful discussion, and there will always be someone disagreeing with you. This is okay – I don’t mind that others don’t share my opinions. What matters is the way it is done. Some of the replies to my previous post on President Obama’s peace prize I was fine with – the opinion that Obama did not (yet?) deserve the Nobel Peace Prize is a valid one, it’s even one I partly agree with. The opinion that the Nobel Prize has lost some of its credibility because of the committee’s recent decision might also be valid – at least as an opinion. Whether it is a historical fact remains to be seen. I am not inclined to think this is so, actually, since the history of the prize shows several equally (and more) controversial laureates. The case against this year’s decision is that it is political, and that Obama has not yet done anything to deserve it. Well, the prize has frequently been accused of being political, and its laureates have on several occasions been accused of deserving war prizes rather than peace ones. At least no one can say that about Obama (yet?). Accusations that he is an “evil communist” do not count in this respect, by the way, since a) he is not a communist (and I very much doubt he is evil); and b) even if he had been a communist, or even evil, that alone does not equate him being in favour of war rather than peace.
But back to the replies I received. My post spurred something of a debate on my Facebook-page of all things. Since I was away, I was not able to participate in the debate (that in true digressionary spirit derailed into a debate on U.S. healthcare reform and its funding). I don’t like jumping into a debate this late, but I do feel that some of the premises raised more than deserve my attention. Therefore I will step away from two of my principles – this post will be (already is, I believe) political, and in order to get my point across I will target specific replies (even though the little girl inside me is silently aching).
It is sad that people around the world think they know what is best for the U.S.
I don’t think I know what is best for the U.S. But I do think that when a country has rapidly increasing unemployment rates, when its economy is in deep crisis, and when there are growing numbers of people living in poverty, it is high time to try to solve the problems. So far, it appears that Obama is at least willing to try. I am not saying he will succeed, and I am not saying he won’t. But I do think it is a good thing that he is trying.
I say this leaning on my background from international relations and history (and international economy, I might add). If my own political convictions also come to play, this just means I am human. It does not mean I think I have the right to enforce my beliefs on the people of the United States. I respect the fact that there are people here who have different opinions than me. I also notice, however, that there are people who share my opinions – people who are tired of the fact that they have to work their backsides off and still only barely afford healthcare. This is actually more evident to me now, living in the U.S., than what it was before I came here. So to say that I, as a foreigner, has no idea what I am talking about is a grave underestimate of my education, my intelligence and my ability to observe my surroundings.
You and others around the world who think Obama is so great, didn't grow up in the kind of freedom we are used to
I’m not entirely sure whether this is supposed to offend me, or whether this too is an underestimate. I chose to believe the latter. See, I can’t quite understand what kind of freedom U.S. citizens supposedly have that Norwegians haven’t.
Let me clarify. Norway has been an independent country since 1905. Even while we were in union with Sweden, however, we had our own constitution (since 1814), which at the time was the most progressive one ever written (including the U.S. one). In the following century, Norwegians gradually gained more civil rights. By 1913, we had universal suffrage (Norway was the second country in the world to allow women the right to vote). Excluding the five years of Nazi occupation during World War Two, Norwegians has thus enjoyed incredible freedom for a long time. In fact, since our collective memory so vividly remembers what lack of freedom implies, many Norwegians are very aware of what kind of freedom we are fortunate enough to have today.
Further, citizens in Norway enjoy the freedom of speech, the right to assembly and other fundamental human rights now integrated in our constitution. I have never experienced that I could not express my own opinions (which is probably why it shocks me when I in this instance basically am told that I should not). I have always enjoyed great freedom – in fact, I am willing to claim greater freedom than what many Americans do, because unlike many of them, I have for instance been fortunate enough to be able to travel a lot. Seeing different parts of the world allows me to appreciate my own country, because I do see that there are disparity in terms of freedom and prosperity around the world. The United States is a great country, but let there be no doubt – it is not the only great country.
In terms of civil rights, as shown above we are right up there with the United States. When it comes to other types of freedom, I don’t see that we fall short there either. Norway has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, and also one of the largest PPP (purchase power parity) per capita, both considerably higher than that of the U.S. – Norwegians enjoy far larger financial freedom than most people in the world. Norway this year ranks top at the United Nations’ Human Development Index, which measures level of education, life expectancy and GDP per capita. We have been number two for a couple of years now, but before that, we ranked top six years in a row. What this translates to is that the UN considers Norway “the best country to live in”. I’m not saying the UN list is exclusive – clearly there are other factors that determine how happy or free the citizens are, but it does appear that a high score on these three points constitute a good starting point.
Finally, I believe there is a common misunderstanding coming to play here – the assumed battle between “individual freedom” versus a “strong government”. In theory I have less individual freedom because I pay more taxes than an American, and because I cannot choose which health insurance I want, since I am automatically insuranced through the government rather than with a private company. I am willing to argue till my face turns blue the Norwegian welfare system actually gives me MORE individual freedom, because I still have the option of choosing a private clinic in Norway or abroad if I want to, an option that I actually might be able to afford because there are no insurance companies stealing my money (since I don’t have to pay for health insurance), and because I, despite the taxes I pay, am still left with more money at the end of the month due to all the other services my government also provides that I thus don’t have to pay for. I can, if I want to. But I don’t see the point – after all, the system is working. If anything, I pity those who didn’t grow up in the kind of freedom I am used to – a freedom that also allows you to trust your government.
American Freedom will never die and Socialism will not last.
Here it is again. The struggle between “American Freedom” (individual freedom) and “Socialism” (strong government). I believe that I under the previous point clarified why I don’t think this is a particularly fruitful debate. One further reason, however, is a matter of definition. You can find a number of definitions of socialism in various dictionaries, but let me provide one:
Transferring power to the government from the individual isn’t taking power from the people in a social-democratic system. This is where the democratic part comes to play. The government is elected by the people.
Social-democracy has been part of Norway’s backbone, alongside capitalism, since the end of World War Two. Yes, capitalism. Because we do have open markets (in some cases even more so than the U.S., because we are subject to EU rules even if we’re not a member). But this does not change the fact that we also have a strong government, deeply vested in the welfare state. Even when we have conservative or liberal governments, no one is trying to put an end to the welfare state, since this is the foundation for how our entire society is wired.
Likewise, Obama is not trying to change everything about the existing system in the United States. I don’t foresee a similar construction as the Norwegian welfare state forming in the U.S. I’m not even sure it is desirable, and it is probably not possible considering the mere size of the Unites States. What Obama is saying is that today there are a number of Americans that cannot afford proper healthcare, and this is not something a civilized society ought to tolerate. His proposal to get there is to have a government based alternative to ensure at least a minimum of security for everyone (and how do I know this? Because I have listened to what he says about the reform, I have read the reports and I pay attention to what is being said in the media. That is media in plural, yes).
Despite my welfare state upbringing, I happen to believe that the important part of Obama’s promise is “minimum for everyone”, not “government based”. If there can be other solutions more compatible with the current U.S. system – fine. Go for that. But rather than trying to find such solutions, the opposition largely seems to be doing their best to trash Obama’s proposal by labelling it “socialist” or “communist”, or even “evil”. Why they want to revoke fears that should have been buried with the Cold War axe instead of constructively cooperate, is beyond me, and this, more than political convictions, is why I am inclined to believe that Obama has a better case than the rest of them.
The healthcare plan will not make you poor. It will not make businesses go bankrupt. It will not turn the USA into a socialist as opposed to a capitalist country. If anything, Norway is an example that a middle way is indeed possible. I am not saying the Norwegian system is flawless, because it isn’t. Let me once again emphasize that I am also not saying that the U.S. should adopt Norway’s system. But I do think it is worth considering the proposed changes rather than dismissing them as “socialism”.
It [the fact that Obama won the Nobel Prize] just proves that the rest of the world wants us to be just like them.
Well, no. It doesn’t prove anything. First of all, the Nobel Peace Prize is not a “be like us or else” kind of prize. Secondly, it hardly reflects the opinion of the world. I think the six members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee would be rather flattered to hear such an accusation. Their decisions reflect their opinion, and nothing else. In this case the committee’s reasons for awarding Obama was “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and for his initiatives in cooperation in such themes as human rights, democracy and climate challenges. Not once during the announcement was domestic, U.S. issues mentioned. If the members of the Nobel Committee also have an opinion on these matters, they do not mention it as a basis for their decisions. Since both the nominees and the records of the committee’s meetings are confidential and not to be released for at least 50 years, we will not know for a while yet whether the committee members had ulterior motifs. Therefore it is pointless to discuss it.
In the end, it does not matter whether we like or dislike the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. The decision has been made, and the Nobel committee never has, in its 108 year long history, changed its mind. The decision will stand. There has been disagreement within the committee (in 1973, when the prize was awarded to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, the North Vietnamese who is one of the few that has declined the prize, two of the committee’s dissenting members actually resigned), though this year’s decisions appears to have been unanimous. I’d like to quote Obama’s big sister, Auma Obama, who this weekend visited Norway in her capacity as working for CARE in Kenya. When asked what she thought about her brother’s reaction to the prize – that he felt he didn’t deserve it – she said that she did not think it was important whether he felt he deserved it. “It’s not up to you to decide whether you deserve something or not. When you get a prize you are given that prize. You are nominated. (…) We can’t define how those people feel about us.”
To conclude. If you think Obama didn’t deserve the prize, fine. It won’t change anything, but you’re entitled to that opinion. If you think Obama is an idiot who will ruin everything the United States was built upon, you’re entitled to that opinion. If you think Norway is a socialist state where the poor people have no idea how un-free they are, I suppose you are entitled to that opinion as well, although I do feel I have done an effort to enlighten you so that your opinion may be based on facts rather than assumptions. What I demand, though, is my right to express my opinions (especially considering this is MY blog). I don’t appreciate insinuations that I shouldn’t use this right, and I don’t appreciate insinuations that I don’t know what I talk about (for the record – no, I don’t believe everything I hear in the media. That includes Fox News, by the way).
I know I am putting my head on the chopping block with this post, but I feel it’s the right thing to do. And I apologize in advance if anyone feels offended by my doing so. Most of all I apologize that this got so long. If you managed to stay with me through the end – kudos to you for that!
When I do write something like this I don’t do it lightly. I have a bachelor’s degree in international studies. I am in the process of getting a master’s degree in history. I have specifically studied war and peace for years, and even if I hardly can claim to be an authority on the subject, I do believe that by now I have the right to say that at least I know when I know what I am talking about. Therefore it bothers me when people tell me I don’t.
Normally, I don’t like to target specific people or specific replies, because inside me somewhere there lives a little girl who simply wants everyone to like her and to get along with everybody. However, sometimes I am forced to tell this little girl that this is not how the real world works. Sometimes one needs to confront things to have a fruitful discussion, and there will always be someone disagreeing with you. This is okay – I don’t mind that others don’t share my opinions. What matters is the way it is done. Some of the replies to my previous post on President Obama’s peace prize I was fine with – the opinion that Obama did not (yet?) deserve the Nobel Peace Prize is a valid one, it’s even one I partly agree with. The opinion that the Nobel Prize has lost some of its credibility because of the committee’s recent decision might also be valid – at least as an opinion. Whether it is a historical fact remains to be seen. I am not inclined to think this is so, actually, since the history of the prize shows several equally (and more) controversial laureates. The case against this year’s decision is that it is political, and that Obama has not yet done anything to deserve it. Well, the prize has frequently been accused of being political, and its laureates have on several occasions been accused of deserving war prizes rather than peace ones. At least no one can say that about Obama (yet?). Accusations that he is an “evil communist” do not count in this respect, by the way, since a) he is not a communist (and I very much doubt he is evil); and b) even if he had been a communist, or even evil, that alone does not equate him being in favour of war rather than peace.
But back to the replies I received. My post spurred something of a debate on my Facebook-page of all things. Since I was away, I was not able to participate in the debate (that in true digressionary spirit derailed into a debate on U.S. healthcare reform and its funding). I don’t like jumping into a debate this late, but I do feel that some of the premises raised more than deserve my attention. Therefore I will step away from two of my principles – this post will be (already is, I believe) political, and in order to get my point across I will target specific replies (even though the little girl inside me is silently aching).
It is sad that people around the world think they know what is best for the U.S.
I don’t think I know what is best for the U.S. But I do think that when a country has rapidly increasing unemployment rates, when its economy is in deep crisis, and when there are growing numbers of people living in poverty, it is high time to try to solve the problems. So far, it appears that Obama is at least willing to try. I am not saying he will succeed, and I am not saying he won’t. But I do think it is a good thing that he is trying.
I say this leaning on my background from international relations and history (and international economy, I might add). If my own political convictions also come to play, this just means I am human. It does not mean I think I have the right to enforce my beliefs on the people of the United States. I respect the fact that there are people here who have different opinions than me. I also notice, however, that there are people who share my opinions – people who are tired of the fact that they have to work their backsides off and still only barely afford healthcare. This is actually more evident to me now, living in the U.S., than what it was before I came here. So to say that I, as a foreigner, has no idea what I am talking about is a grave underestimate of my education, my intelligence and my ability to observe my surroundings.
You and others around the world who think Obama is so great, didn't grow up in the kind of freedom we are used to
I’m not entirely sure whether this is supposed to offend me, or whether this too is an underestimate. I chose to believe the latter. See, I can’t quite understand what kind of freedom U.S. citizens supposedly have that Norwegians haven’t.
Let me clarify. Norway has been an independent country since 1905. Even while we were in union with Sweden, however, we had our own constitution (since 1814), which at the time was the most progressive one ever written (including the U.S. one). In the following century, Norwegians gradually gained more civil rights. By 1913, we had universal suffrage (Norway was the second country in the world to allow women the right to vote). Excluding the five years of Nazi occupation during World War Two, Norwegians has thus enjoyed incredible freedom for a long time. In fact, since our collective memory so vividly remembers what lack of freedom implies, many Norwegians are very aware of what kind of freedom we are fortunate enough to have today.
Further, citizens in Norway enjoy the freedom of speech, the right to assembly and other fundamental human rights now integrated in our constitution. I have never experienced that I could not express my own opinions (which is probably why it shocks me when I in this instance basically am told that I should not). I have always enjoyed great freedom – in fact, I am willing to claim greater freedom than what many Americans do, because unlike many of them, I have for instance been fortunate enough to be able to travel a lot. Seeing different parts of the world allows me to appreciate my own country, because I do see that there are disparity in terms of freedom and prosperity around the world. The United States is a great country, but let there be no doubt – it is not the only great country.
In terms of civil rights, as shown above we are right up there with the United States. When it comes to other types of freedom, I don’t see that we fall short there either. Norway has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, and also one of the largest PPP (purchase power parity) per capita, both considerably higher than that of the U.S. – Norwegians enjoy far larger financial freedom than most people in the world. Norway this year ranks top at the United Nations’ Human Development Index, which measures level of education, life expectancy and GDP per capita. We have been number two for a couple of years now, but before that, we ranked top six years in a row. What this translates to is that the UN considers Norway “the best country to live in”. I’m not saying the UN list is exclusive – clearly there are other factors that determine how happy or free the citizens are, but it does appear that a high score on these three points constitute a good starting point.
Finally, I believe there is a common misunderstanding coming to play here – the assumed battle between “individual freedom” versus a “strong government”. In theory I have less individual freedom because I pay more taxes than an American, and because I cannot choose which health insurance I want, since I am automatically insuranced through the government rather than with a private company. I am willing to argue till my face turns blue the Norwegian welfare system actually gives me MORE individual freedom, because I still have the option of choosing a private clinic in Norway or abroad if I want to, an option that I actually might be able to afford because there are no insurance companies stealing my money (since I don’t have to pay for health insurance), and because I, despite the taxes I pay, am still left with more money at the end of the month due to all the other services my government also provides that I thus don’t have to pay for. I can, if I want to. But I don’t see the point – after all, the system is working. If anything, I pity those who didn’t grow up in the kind of freedom I am used to – a freedom that also allows you to trust your government.
American Freedom will never die and Socialism will not last.
Here it is again. The struggle between “American Freedom” (individual freedom) and “Socialism” (strong government). I believe that I under the previous point clarified why I don’t think this is a particularly fruitful debate. One further reason, however, is a matter of definition. You can find a number of definitions of socialism in various dictionaries, but let me provide one:
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.Under this definition, or most others, Obama’s policies don’t warrant the label socialism. Neither does, actually, the Norwegian system. Norway is currently governed by a social-democratic government. I emphasize democratic, because even though it is evident to me that there is a difference between socialism in its purest form and the variety of ideologies or systems that include socialist elements, I realize it might not be as clear to everyone else.
Transferring power to the government from the individual isn’t taking power from the people in a social-democratic system. This is where the democratic part comes to play. The government is elected by the people.
Social-democracy has been part of Norway’s backbone, alongside capitalism, since the end of World War Two. Yes, capitalism. Because we do have open markets (in some cases even more so than the U.S., because we are subject to EU rules even if we’re not a member). But this does not change the fact that we also have a strong government, deeply vested in the welfare state. Even when we have conservative or liberal governments, no one is trying to put an end to the welfare state, since this is the foundation for how our entire society is wired.
Likewise, Obama is not trying to change everything about the existing system in the United States. I don’t foresee a similar construction as the Norwegian welfare state forming in the U.S. I’m not even sure it is desirable, and it is probably not possible considering the mere size of the Unites States. What Obama is saying is that today there are a number of Americans that cannot afford proper healthcare, and this is not something a civilized society ought to tolerate. His proposal to get there is to have a government based alternative to ensure at least a minimum of security for everyone (and how do I know this? Because I have listened to what he says about the reform, I have read the reports and I pay attention to what is being said in the media. That is media in plural, yes).
Despite my welfare state upbringing, I happen to believe that the important part of Obama’s promise is “minimum for everyone”, not “government based”. If there can be other solutions more compatible with the current U.S. system – fine. Go for that. But rather than trying to find such solutions, the opposition largely seems to be doing their best to trash Obama’s proposal by labelling it “socialist” or “communist”, or even “evil”. Why they want to revoke fears that should have been buried with the Cold War axe instead of constructively cooperate, is beyond me, and this, more than political convictions, is why I am inclined to believe that Obama has a better case than the rest of them.
The healthcare plan will not make you poor. It will not make businesses go bankrupt. It will not turn the USA into a socialist as opposed to a capitalist country. If anything, Norway is an example that a middle way is indeed possible. I am not saying the Norwegian system is flawless, because it isn’t. Let me once again emphasize that I am also not saying that the U.S. should adopt Norway’s system. But I do think it is worth considering the proposed changes rather than dismissing them as “socialism”.
It [the fact that Obama won the Nobel Prize] just proves that the rest of the world wants us to be just like them.
Well, no. It doesn’t prove anything. First of all, the Nobel Peace Prize is not a “be like us or else” kind of prize. Secondly, it hardly reflects the opinion of the world. I think the six members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee would be rather flattered to hear such an accusation. Their decisions reflect their opinion, and nothing else. In this case the committee’s reasons for awarding Obama was “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and for his initiatives in cooperation in such themes as human rights, democracy and climate challenges. Not once during the announcement was domestic, U.S. issues mentioned. If the members of the Nobel Committee also have an opinion on these matters, they do not mention it as a basis for their decisions. Since both the nominees and the records of the committee’s meetings are confidential and not to be released for at least 50 years, we will not know for a while yet whether the committee members had ulterior motifs. Therefore it is pointless to discuss it.
In the end, it does not matter whether we like or dislike the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. The decision has been made, and the Nobel committee never has, in its 108 year long history, changed its mind. The decision will stand. There has been disagreement within the committee (in 1973, when the prize was awarded to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, the North Vietnamese who is one of the few that has declined the prize, two of the committee’s dissenting members actually resigned), though this year’s decisions appears to have been unanimous. I’d like to quote Obama’s big sister, Auma Obama, who this weekend visited Norway in her capacity as working for CARE in Kenya. When asked what she thought about her brother’s reaction to the prize – that he felt he didn’t deserve it – she said that she did not think it was important whether he felt he deserved it. “It’s not up to you to decide whether you deserve something or not. When you get a prize you are given that prize. You are nominated. (…) We can’t define how those people feel about us.”
To conclude. If you think Obama didn’t deserve the prize, fine. It won’t change anything, but you’re entitled to that opinion. If you think Obama is an idiot who will ruin everything the United States was built upon, you’re entitled to that opinion. If you think Norway is a socialist state where the poor people have no idea how un-free they are, I suppose you are entitled to that opinion as well, although I do feel I have done an effort to enlighten you so that your opinion may be based on facts rather than assumptions. What I demand, though, is my right to express my opinions (especially considering this is MY blog). I don’t appreciate insinuations that I shouldn’t use this right, and I don’t appreciate insinuations that I don’t know what I talk about (for the record – no, I don’t believe everything I hear in the media. That includes Fox News, by the way).
I know I am putting my head on the chopping block with this post, but I feel it’s the right thing to do. And I apologize in advance if anyone feels offended by my doing so. Most of all I apologize that this got so long. If you managed to stay with me through the end – kudos to you for that!
Friday, October 9, 2009
This just in…
I couldn’t NOT post an extra blog today, considering my endless blurbs about it yesterday. “This year’s Nobel Peace Prize goes to… President Barack Obama!!!”
If you, like me, heard the announcement (though I didn’t hear it live. Had I known, I would have seen it live. My mom texted me from Norway, and I didn’t even believe her – I went straight to check the news), if you heard the announcement you would have had goosebumps too. The crowd went “whaaaaooooooooOOOOO!” I think there was 75 % surprise in that whaaoo, 24 % happiness and maybe that one, tiny percent dislike. Once the decision leaves the room, though, this one will be criticized, believe you me.
I am as big a fan of Obama as anyone (well, maybe not anyone – having done some walking around in D.C. the last couple of months I realize there is a Obamania out there I’m not going to try to compete with – you’ll never see me in Obama undies, for instance). I believe he is the right guy for the US right now (even though he has a tough job ahead of him), and I believe the course he is steering the US in is right for the world. However, there is a long step from that to the Nobel Prize, in my opinion.
To me, it sounds like this year’s prize is an attempt of looking back – for better and for worse. As I mentioned yesterday, in its early history the Nobel Prize was definitely political. The last time (to my knowledge) the prize was awarded a sitting head of state (or at least an American president) was in 1906, when the-less-than-peaceful Theodore Roosevelt won it.* The reason? Norway had existed as an independent state for one year only, and it was time to make diplomatic contacts.
Neither Obama nor the Nobel Committee benefits from this comparison. I would like to think that they gave him the prize for all the right reasons, but it is hard for me not to automatically think “this is just so he’ll come to Norway”. Everyone wants a piece of Obama (and I now suspect that several of the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are wearing Obama undies…).
The Nobel prize has always balanced on the difficult line between “political” and “irrelevant”. This year they took a great leap over to the political side. The problem with awarding the prize to a sitting head of state is also, of course, that he still has plenty of time left to “dis-earn” being a laureate. And Obama is not just a sitting head of state, he is a relatively new head of state. He has at least three more years (potentially seven) to f..(oh, well, I’ll try to make it PG-something) …to hing it up. While the Nobel prize only ever is awarded for actions already taken, though with the intention of inspiring future ones, it’s no doubt that if the laureate should act in a way not consistent with winning a peace prize after having received it, it reflects on the decision of giving it to him in the first place.
The other way to look at this is that it is a step back to the intentions behind the prize. Nobel’s will does emphasize “folkens forbrödrande” (fraternity between the nations), “abolition or reduction of standing armies” and “the formation and spreading of peace congresses”. The last few years this has often been interpreted rather creatively. This year, however, the leader of the committee specifically mentioned Obama’s direct influence on this – his commitment to reduce weapons of mass destruction, his extraordinarily work for international diplomacy and the fact that he represents a hope the world needs.
I agree with these points. The questions is not so much whether Obama deserves the prize (I think he eventually would have won it anyway), the question is whether it was right to give it to him now, so early in his presidency; and whether he needs this distinguished honour to promote his cause. To reply to the latter first: probably not. He already holds an extraordinary position in the world – not just as president of the United States, but as the committee correctly identified – as a hope for cooperation and development in the years to come. Setting aside the potential loss of credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize due to this year’s obvious political agenda, was it right to give it to him now? I don’t know this, and only time will show. However, rather than being awarded for actions past this year’s prize seems to be meant as a standard Obama can measure himself against. Something to live up to. If so , it might be timely. And I am confident that Obama is the sort of person who has it in him to accept another glory without getting inflated. He definitely is Nobel Peace Prize laureate material.
So, with all my heart: congratulations, Mr. President!
*After having read some news stories on the subject, I take it back. Woodrow Wilson (who indeed worked for peace after World War One) won the prize while he still was president in 1919.
If you, like me, heard the announcement (though I didn’t hear it live. Had I known, I would have seen it live. My mom texted me from Norway, and I didn’t even believe her – I went straight to check the news), if you heard the announcement you would have had goosebumps too. The crowd went “whaaaaooooooooOOOOO!” I think there was 75 % surprise in that whaaoo, 24 % happiness and maybe that one, tiny percent dislike. Once the decision leaves the room, though, this one will be criticized, believe you me.
I am as big a fan of Obama as anyone (well, maybe not anyone – having done some walking around in D.C. the last couple of months I realize there is a Obamania out there I’m not going to try to compete with – you’ll never see me in Obama undies, for instance). I believe he is the right guy for the US right now (even though he has a tough job ahead of him), and I believe the course he is steering the US in is right for the world. However, there is a long step from that to the Nobel Prize, in my opinion.
To me, it sounds like this year’s prize is an attempt of looking back – for better and for worse. As I mentioned yesterday, in its early history the Nobel Prize was definitely political. The last time (to my knowledge) the prize was awarded a sitting head of state (or at least an American president) was in 1906, when the-less-than-peaceful Theodore Roosevelt won it.* The reason? Norway had existed as an independent state for one year only, and it was time to make diplomatic contacts.
Neither Obama nor the Nobel Committee benefits from this comparison. I would like to think that they gave him the prize for all the right reasons, but it is hard for me not to automatically think “this is just so he’ll come to Norway”. Everyone wants a piece of Obama (and I now suspect that several of the members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are wearing Obama undies…).
The Nobel prize has always balanced on the difficult line between “political” and “irrelevant”. This year they took a great leap over to the political side. The problem with awarding the prize to a sitting head of state is also, of course, that he still has plenty of time left to “dis-earn” being a laureate. And Obama is not just a sitting head of state, he is a relatively new head of state. He has at least three more years (potentially seven) to f..(oh, well, I’ll try to make it PG-something) …to hing it up. While the Nobel prize only ever is awarded for actions already taken, though with the intention of inspiring future ones, it’s no doubt that if the laureate should act in a way not consistent with winning a peace prize after having received it, it reflects on the decision of giving it to him in the first place.
The other way to look at this is that it is a step back to the intentions behind the prize. Nobel’s will does emphasize “folkens forbrödrande” (fraternity between the nations), “abolition or reduction of standing armies” and “the formation and spreading of peace congresses”. The last few years this has often been interpreted rather creatively. This year, however, the leader of the committee specifically mentioned Obama’s direct influence on this – his commitment to reduce weapons of mass destruction, his extraordinarily work for international diplomacy and the fact that he represents a hope the world needs.
I agree with these points. The questions is not so much whether Obama deserves the prize (I think he eventually would have won it anyway), the question is whether it was right to give it to him now, so early in his presidency; and whether he needs this distinguished honour to promote his cause. To reply to the latter first: probably not. He already holds an extraordinary position in the world – not just as president of the United States, but as the committee correctly identified – as a hope for cooperation and development in the years to come. Setting aside the potential loss of credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize due to this year’s obvious political agenda, was it right to give it to him now? I don’t know this, and only time will show. However, rather than being awarded for actions past this year’s prize seems to be meant as a standard Obama can measure himself against. Something to live up to. If so , it might be timely. And I am confident that Obama is the sort of person who has it in him to accept another glory without getting inflated. He definitely is Nobel Peace Prize laureate material.
So, with all my heart: congratulations, Mr. President!
*After having read some news stories on the subject, I take it back. Woodrow Wilson (who indeed worked for peace after World War One) won the prize while he still was president in 1919.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
