It used to be the case that Nobel peace prices were awarded based on abstract notions like a person’s actual achievements in an area relevant to the prize itself. To make a quick example, people awarded the Nobel peace prize would have had to have done something not insignificant towards the goal of bringing peace to our troubled world.
In light of recent events, one could very well ask, “So, what the fuck has Obama ever done for peace?“. The problem is, there is no sane answer for that question.
What has Obama been up to?
- giving in-principle support for a nuclear-free world. The issue I have with this is that Obama only seems concerned about other people’s nuclear weapons. In fact, Obama is only really concerned with certain other people’s nuclear weapons. Actually, that’s not even right. Obama is concerned with some hypothetical nuclear weapons that Iran might or might not make, some time in the future. These are the weapons he wants to rid us of. Remember now that George Dubya Bush wanted to rid the world of Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons. He didn’t get no stinking peace price. Why should Obama? Has Obama made any plans to reduce the number of US nuclear weapons? No. Has Obama told Israel about his plans for a nuclear-free world? No. Does Obama want to do anything serious like halt the trade of uranium, which inevitably ends up in nuclear weapons? No.
- Re-affirmed the US’s support for Israel in no uncertain terms. Israel, being the next major destabalising force in the Middle East ( after the US of course ) continues to be one of the largest blights on the human race, and in particular the 21st century, practising a particularly brutal form of slow-motion genocide on the Palestinians. It is an absolute travesty that a supporter of Israel can win the Nobel peace prize, and hardly anyone bats an eyelid. It used to be, not so long ago, that peace actually meant peace for everyone, simultaneously, and not ‘relative peace for our political allies’.
- Maintained the US’s devastating military occupation of Iraq. Maybe some people will call me an idealist, but the President of an occupying imperial power should not receive any peace prize, and in particular not the Nobel peace price. Sure, Obama isn’t the one who dragged the whole world, kicking and screaming, into Iraq. And sure, if Obama was president during this period, it’s at least feasible that we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now. But we are in Iraq right now, and Obama’s not doing anything about that, despite promising voters that this is precisely what he’d do – in a hasty fashion – if he were elected. Not only has Obama not withdrawn troups from Iraq, but he hasn’t actually changed direction in any way from the course the Dubya adminstration had set for him. Why?
Increased the number of troups in Afghanistan. Surely, after 3 decades of being the world’s war play-thing, Afghanistan has seen enough war, death, and imperial wrestling. Does Obama want us to believe he’s liberating the Afghani women that Dubya said we were liberating? Has he been there and asked these women himself? Is it at all possible that they’ve been liberated enough by foreign armies, and just want us to get the fuck out of their country so they can rebuild? Sure, the Taliban is still there. We put them there. The problem is that our presence has killed far more innocent people that the Taliban ever have, and while we continue to send troups there to fight a war, the war will continue, and more innocent people will die. While it’s true that theoretically, we could send a lot more troups and actually bring the place under our control, we’d then only have a situation closer to Iraq. But then of course we’d have to leave some time. Who would we leave in control? And please don’t mention democracy. I didn’t come down in the last shower. We’d leave someone like … the Taliban … or Saddam. At least that’s what we have done in the not-so-distant past. I don’t believe anything has changed. Hey – look at the current president – Karzai. He’s ex-Taliban ( but who isn’t these days? ). The ‘elections’ ( and remember – there is no such thing as a democracy while under military occupation ) were widely denounced as being riddled with election fraud. Karzai is big pals with his share of Afghan war-lords ( but again, who isn’t ). However, according to the US, Karzai’s biggest problem is that he doesn’t command shit, outside his own ‘green zone’ while encircles about 3 kilometres inside Kabul. You see, this control is the most important thing for ‘us’. Whoever can control Afghanistan will get it when it comes time to leave, despite whatever else they may be getting up to.
- Increased the number of unmanned-drone attacks on alleged ‘Taliban targets’ in Pakistan. ‘Taliban targets’ is another way of saying, ‘whoever the fuck we just killed’. Even using official ( ie mainstream media ) estimates, the number of innocent deaths vs Taliban deaths is a frightening 10:1. What ratio, exactly, can a US president achieve, and still expect to be awarded the Nobel peace prize? Really, I’d like to know.
- Kept Guantanamo Bay open for business, despite promising aplenty that it would be shut. He has since backtracked to the point of saying that it’s perfectly valid to be holding ‘these people’ indefinitely, and that he had improved things by reducing the time of their indefinite incarceration, as well as making the closed military hearings with secret evidence more ‘fair’.
Kept Robert Gates, Dubya’s old buddy and defence secretary in his old position. Because he was doing such a good job? Because Obama had no intention of changing anything? Some other reason that makes sense?
To people’s credit, there are actually some raised eyebrows over this award.Reuters reports that Claire Sprague comments, “It would be wonderful if I could think why he won“. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983, complains, “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act“. Meanwhile, ex-allies of the US, the Taliban, find it difficult to endorse the award, stating he had escalated the conflict there and contributed to the deaths of countless civilians.
Obama has brushed off these comments, seeking to deflect them with his … er … humility. He says he’s surprised and humbled. On both cases he’s lying. As for surprise – these things don’t just sneak up on you. It’s possible that he was surprised at one point, when someone in his office first came up with the idea ( yes I think this is a stunt ). But his days of surprised are long over. And as for humility … Jesus no. There is no such thing as a humble US president. My research does suggest that there is such thing as a humble US citizen, difficult as they may be to locate when you need one. But there are no humble US presidents.
Which ever way you look at it, Obama is a war-time president, who has done fucking nothing to withdraw from the multiple wars his country is engaged in. He has continued full-steam ahead with Dubya’s multiple ‘traditional’ wars, as well as the war on terror. Now sure, he hasn’t actually started any new wars. Is that all you have to do these days to get a Nobel peace prize … not start a war? If so, hey, I haven’t started any wars. Where’s my fucking prize?