Howard Zinn, the passionate genius who wrote A People's History of the United States, neatly summarizes at The Guardian why many of us at least have misgivings about the current occupant of the Oval Office being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, there have been less deserving recipients. Zinn mentions the "war criminal" named Kissinger, in particular.
Elie Wiesel and Mother Teresa also come to mind as especially undeserving.
What's wrong with this year's choice? Writes Zinn: "People should be given a peace prize not on the basis of promises they have made – as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises – but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war ..."
Exactly. This award is at least premature. We can only hope that Obama earns it.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I really enjoyed reading Zinn's article.Here is why I am not supportive of the prize being awarded-I vehemently opposed both wars and have not missed a chance to trash Bush and the Bush administration for waging two wars of choice.
I would be a hypocrite if I changed my position and supported a president who could end both wars tomorrow if he so chose.He's the CinC and controls the military.
It would be political suicide and almost certainly destroy his legacy but compared to innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq and yes Gaza the Presidents career and legacy don't matter. human life does.
I am also opposed to war and I have been in war, however I know that war is not mechanized like a light switch. It just cannot be turned off. I have no doubt that President Obama will de-escalate Afghanistan when the time is right and the loss of life, both civilian and military can be kept at a minimum. The draw down in Iraq is well on its way.
So Stimpson how about joining OSO and the team at my place. I would love to have you as a contributor.
MM: I'm honoured by the invitation, but I'm swamped with work as it is. (That's why there was more than a week between posts earlier this month.) Also, I'd say BHO could "turn off" a war effort by announcing that the U.S. is putting an end to it; he couldn't withdraw all troops the next day, but he could make it very clear that it's over, and soon. And I long for the day when mainstream discourse in the U.S. doesn't include an assumption that conquest of other countries is a U.S. birthright. Too often I hear "pundits" on TV talk about Iraq and Vietnam as wrong because they were "unwinnable" wars and not because invasion of countries that pose no imminent threat is just plain wrong. But enough of that rant for now.
Oso: Note that Truthdig also posted, in honour of Columbus/Indigenous Peoples Day, something about Zinn's assessment of Columbus as a genocidal maniac. Of course, that stuff is familiar to anyone who's read People's History.
I agree that he could "turn off" the war, at least rhetorically Stimpson, and I think that is starting to happen. You will note there has been no promise of the 40K troops demanded by the generals.
"You will note there has been no promise of the 40K troops demanded by the generals."
I have noticed that, and it made me smile. It's an encouraging sign.
Stimson, when Bush and the GOP were in power, the biggest single threat to peace in the world was the US. In addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush also planned to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Iran. The Bush/GOP doctrine of preemptive war, my way or STFU diplomacy, and war crimes had made our nation an international pariah. Obama led the movement that removed those warmongers from power and embarked on a policy of diplomacy and multilateralism, thus returning the US to the world community. It that light, it's difficult to say that he has done nothing for world peace.
Oh he's done something for world peace, alright. But enough to merit a Peace Prize now? No.
I do like how the prize puts a little pressure on his administration to earn that prize, however. And I love how it nearly made Republican heads explode.
Stimpson,
thanks for the tip,I'll check out Truthdig right now.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded from heaven or some oracle. It is basically political. I think, based upon when BHO was nominated - February - we can take it as a sign that Norwegians wanted to express the relief of much of the rest of the world who are our friends: Whew! A sign that change is coming to America. But I share, the concern of many here: show me the deeds that match BHO's ideals.
And it's worth repeating that it really really really irritates the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
Thanks for dropping by, Vig.
I'm on the same page as Vigilante on this one.
I wish I had more time, Stim! Yours in one of my favorite watering holes. But my kids have roped me into the English Premier Futbol League rotisserie. I have two teams going and it's too much to handle!
The gang in Oslo is free to give the award to anyone they wish. I thought freedom would make the righties happy but apparently it's how freedom is excersized that gets them worked up.
I like your site Mr. Stimpson. I would comment more often but some of your subject matter is out of my territory. But those are also the most interesting subjects to me.
Continued success to you.
Post a Comment