Naomi Klein on the Awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama

[Orwellian_Ghost]

You know, I try not to speak about things before I really had a process—you know, a chance to process it, because my raw reaction is really that this represents—it’s very significant and disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize. And, you know, it’s been cheapened before, and it will cheapen again—be cheapened again, but I think there’s something really striking here. And even just listening to the rationale that, despite overwhelming evidence, they’re giving this prize in the hopes that it will change Obama’s mind or encourage him to do things he hasn’t done—this is a candidate that ran a campaign that was much more based on hope and wishful thinking than it was on concrete policy. So we have hopes being piled on hope and wishful thinking.

This is supposed to be a prize that rewards concrete behavior, concrete action. And there are many people out there in the world who were under consideration for this prize, who every day perform acts that are taken at enormous risk for concrete benefit. I mean, I think that one of the people—one of the names under consideration this year was Dr. Mukwege in the Congo, in the DRC. This is somebody who is under personal threat because he is saving the lives of women every day who have been violently raped. And giving the prize to Dr. Mukwege—and I’m just giving one example—would have been such a concrete victory and encouragement for that action. It would have put pressure on the United States to take action, on the international community to take action, for the women of the Congo. And instead of that, we have this very, very political decision, and in many ways it’s like a pat on the head for good behavior or the hope of good behavior, because actually we’ve seen a lot of bad behavior. And we can come back to this.

But what I’m working on right now is a piece for Rolling Stone about the climate negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. And one of the things that the Obama administration is being rewarded for with this prize or what Barack Obama is personally being rewarded for in this prize is his supposed breakthroughs on international relations. What we’re actually seeing, as we speak, in Bangkok—this is the final day of two weeks of climate negotiations—has been extraordinarily destructive behavior on the part of the United States government, on the part of the Obama administration, absolutely derailing the climate negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen. Developing countries are absolutely shocked by what US climate negotiators have done. They have gone into these talks saying, you know, “We’re back. We want to reengage with the world.” What they’ve actually done is made a series of demands that would destroy the Kyoto Protocol and the binding emission architecture that was set up under Kyoto. So, to reward the Nobel Prize in the context of destroying the climate, where the US is destroying the climate negotiations, or threatening to, to me, is just shocking.

...

And now is the moment when we’re seeing his actual commitment to change. And it has been one disappointment after the next.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/9/as_us_continues_afghan_iraq_occupations

[roody]

1. Naomi, we don't want to hear this! Thanks for speaking up.

[ixion]

2. that's the thing... if Obama has charged forth

and started dismantling the Police State -- put into high gear after 911, if he had made true actions towards pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say yeah, he deserved it for having the guts to restore the rule of law. But nothing has changed. Nothing.

I don't see nominal changes in Policy as worth of the Nobel Peace Prize.

[MarjorieG]

5. I honestly think that our ship of state, of anything, can't be dismantled by president's decree, The

Nobel is often for guiding efforts.

[ixion]

10. It is unquestionably more difficult to remove something from a bureaucracy

than it is to add it, so I agree with you there.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't things that can be done. Not supporting the unPATRIOTic Act when certain unconstitutional provisions are set to expire. I didn't like that chicanery under Bush, and I certainly don't approve of it just because I happened to vote for Obama.

He may not be able to fully dismantle it, but he is most certainly capable of de-fanging.

[vadawg]

3. never even heard of this doctor in the congo, this prize could have given him

protection from harrassment from the authorities, im with the author on this it should be on concrete achievments and to be honest it would make a whole lot more of a difference to the aforementioned doctor..

[elias7]

55. And maybe this prize will give Obama some protection from those who would have him killed

[MarjorieG]

4. The Nobel is not always for concrete action, but Klein is always critical. That's her job, but I

don't always believe her worst case scenario. She has her righteousness, often good reporting, but I don't put her on a pedestal, nor do I Amy Goodman.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Noone should be put on a pedestal

Agree on that.

[ProSense]

14. No one deserves the award?

How ridiculous.

[timeforpeace]

16. Well, Noone doesn't, that's for sure. Hasn't done anything yet.

[chimpymustgo]

22. Once again, you miss the point.

As I read through the list of nominees, the Dr. from the Congo jumped out - for all the right reasons.

[ProSense]

23. "Noone should be put on a pedestal" What point did I miss? n/t

[Bear down under]

51. Where did you find the list of nominees?

Under the Nobel Foundation's statutes, the names of nominees for any of the prizes are kept secret for fifty years. In the case of the 2009 Nobel Prizes, that means until 2059.

Any list you (and Ms Klein) might be reading is speculation.

[CanSocDem]

7. Well...

...it's not as if we haven't seen, recently and close to home,the corruption of legitimate public institutions by the industrial ruling class, .

.

[demoleft]

8. yes, a "very, very political decision" that fits a very, very extraordinary historical period...

...in which obama and the US may give a new course.
so i see that in this perspective: more commitment on obama, more responsibility.

klein's criticism (widely shared in the world) was expected.
what i wait for from a peace-maker is the unexpected.

let's see if in some years we'll have to knock on obama's house door and ask him to give that back.
in the meantime i rejoiced.

[Kind of Blue]

45. Well said, Demoleft. Couldn't agree more. n/t

[malaise]

9. After eight years of George Bush I can see why

Obama received the award - I don't think Americans understand how much the world hated America under Bush and there is not doubt that Obama changed the tone.

Having said that, the fundamental change required to change the direction of this planet cannot take place with some of the perpetrators of said evil still in place. President Obama has a lot to do to convince me that meaningful change is on his agenda, particularly with regard to the criminality that is the global financial sector, America's warmongering approach to foreign policy and climate change. He has left too many criminals in critical positions.

I trust Naomi Klein - her comments are important. Hopefully the award will jolt Obama into rethinking more than a few policy approaches.

[demoleft]

12. agreed. and find strange klein misses the importance of the point. n/t

[intheflow]

15. I don't think the world so much hated America as they feared us.

Obama's election has freed most of the world from fear of US invasion whenever the fancy struck us, for whatever flimsy, non-existent reason, as per the Bush Doctrine.

[timeforpeace]

17. Actually, The World never said they hated us, the media said they did but they kept electing rightie

leaders during Bush's terms so you gotta wonder if it was true.

[malaise]

19. People hate bullies

Some also fear them. Believe me most of the world hated the US under Bush.

[mr blur]

46. I think you're wrong, actually. A lot of the world did hate the US

And a lot of it still does.

And, to someone not caught up in American exceptionalism, Klein's right. We like Obama - more, it seems, than millions of Americans do - but were not caught up in the idolatry.

[asjr]

11. The Nobel Prize is given by a committee to

anyone it darn well wants to give it to. I am sure there are a great many people who deserved it, but it is not our call. There was nothing underhanded about it. Barak Obama is the first person in a long long time who actually gives me hope. I applaud the committee.

[ProSense]

13. Now compare Klein's uniformed statement to those made by

Juan Cole's, Douglas Brinkley's and Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland.

Or Michael Moore's opinion (on Twitter).

[earth mom]

41. Michael Moore told Obama to EARN that prize or give it back and to get out of Afghanistan.

Why part don't you get about that? :wtf:

Obviously you don't understand what Moore said.

[ProSense]

53. "Why part don't you get about that?" Here's another message from Michael

to you

Let me know "Why part don't you get about that? OK?

[merh]

18. LOL - Klein telling the Nobel Prize Committee what the prize is all about.

That is certainly, oh, what is the word - hubris.

Her column would have more truth and impact if she wrote "what the Nobel Peace Prize means to me".

Obama said he doesn't feel as if he deserves it. My hope is that the word "peace" will become his moral compass, that he will do all he can to live up to the award.

[intheflow]

58. OT - great new avatar you have there, merh!

[Mari333]

20. I heard this yesterday on the radio

thanks for posting THE TRUTH.

[cali]

24. I wish DUers could figure out that opinion is not fact.

[cali]

21. haha. Klein always cracks me up.

[Hydra]

25. K&R for Truth

And a sad truth that could have been- Obama COULD have deserved this award. All he had to do was give us the change he campaigned on, the law we demanded, the peace that the world deserves.

The Nobel Prize has supposedly been given as a nudge to make him do the right thing. Will it? Considering Kissinger got one, I'm not holding my breath.

[Kind of Blue]

30. Says you and not the guidelines the committe follows. n/t

[Hydra]

31. Yes, says me

The Nobel Prize is honored because of the quality of the people who receive it. Just as Kissinger taints the pool and makes it look like a political party favor, anyone who gets one who does not honor it cheapens its overall effect.

Though why I bother saying anything, either during the Bush administration or this one, I have to wonder. Torture is apparently acceptable these days, along with a myriad of other evils.

[cali]

50. sanctimonious bullshit makes the world a much worse place

and the Nobel Committee is not putting the stamp of approval on torture via awarding the prize to Obama.

[Kind of Blue]

34. Sorry, the sad truth is until You've changed Nobel's guidelines

they've done nothing to cheapen the prize by awarding it to Obama.
Will it "nudge" him? I don't know and neither do you. But I am willing to give him a chance to deal with the monstrosity of 8years to fix.

[Hydra]

38. Around the next bend, don't criticize the people on the Nobel committee

Etc, etc.

I don't deal in maybes and possibles and such. I also didn't mention the committee, although I could say that that they were right to honor his words, but should have waited for the results, such as the Doctor in Congo previously mentioned.

If Obama does indeed open up wars on more fronts and continues constitutional violations, or even just leaves things as they are, how indeed does it not cheapen the award?

[Kind of Blue]

44. It's not about Not criticizing the committee, its's about jumping to

conclusions about what should and should not be and then bandying it around as facts. My personal favorite, Gandhi, though nominated so many times, was never awarded the Nobel. I understand that the intention of the prize is supposed to be political and I accept that. I don't like it but I do understand their rational.

Well, you didn't have to mention the committee. You opened that door to committee action by saying "The Nobel Prize has supposedly been given as a nudge to make him do the right thing..."

Finally, "If Obama does indeed open up wars on more fronts and continues constitutional violations, or even just leaves things as they are, how indeed does it not cheapen the award?"

Like you, I'm not very interested right now in ifs and maybes. All I know is the reality of what Obama is dealing with is literally a world of trouble and don't envy him. But I will not judge him cheapening an award based on things he eventually might or might not do. On step at a time, Grasshopper. :)

[dana_b]

26. K&R

now people are going to start dumping on her.

[asdjrocky]

27. So I guess we throw Naomi Klein under the bus at DU now?

I value her opinion and I'm glad we have a chance to read it at DU.

For me, this was a "Hope Prize" given to our President in hopes that he'll do the right thing for our country and the world.

So far, that's not happening.

[Karmadillo]

33. And whenever the ponies arrive, she's not getting one.

nt

[JCMach1]

36. As my daughter would say, she is no longer a 'sparkly' vampire

and thus is truly dead to me...

[QC]

37. Fear not--there is room for all under the Hopemobile! n/t

[Kind of Blue]

47. Actually, yeah. When hope that is what many of us have hung

on to, to make it to the next day and without it would have gone crazy or worse, yes, I will make room for anyone under the bus who tries to take it away, politely though. :)

[ampad]

43. However, it is ok to throw the president under the bus

based on opinions, which someone noted earlier is not truth.

[asdjrocky]

49. I'm not throwing anyone under the bus here.

C'mon, it's not like I'm badmouthing your boyfriend, lighten up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Obama's accomplisments stand on their own.

His failures stand on their own. His head-fakes stand on their own.

I'm glad that Obama got a Nobel, but I'm not confident that if I were on the Nobel committee I would have made the same choice.

[Kind of Blue]

28. "Supposed to be" - Ms. Klein is flatout wrong.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/sejersted/index.html

I'd rather argue the Committee's guidelines than give credit to what she thinks is "supposed to be." No where in it did I see the word "concrete." And she argues against the very political action Nobel intended - The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy.

[berni_mccoy]

32. +1. Even an advocate for many good causes can be very wrong and uninformed on some issues.

[Kind of Blue]

35. Thanks! And I do like her and do value her opinion

but that is all it is.

[berni_mccoy]

52. Same here. I respect her greatly. I disagree with her on this though.

[redqueen]

62. Thanks for pointing that out.

:hi:

[Kind of Blue]

63. Hey, Redqueen!

Caught me :rofl: I keep spreading it to balance out naysayers' "facts" :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

29. Who?

[Liberation Angel]

39. If the award is FOR his nuclear weapons reduction efforts, he deserves it

Frankly, dismantling the threat of nuclear annihilation pretty much trumps any weaknesses on other fronts.

Nothing is more important than reducing the threat from nukes. (I include comercial nuclear power in this).

We can bitch at Obama for Afghanistan or climate change or guantanamo or wekness on National Security and she is right to do so --- but since the committee was focusing on his role in the reduction of the nuclear threat - saying he blew it on other frons kind of pales in comparison.

Obama Is TRYING at least on all these fronts.
He ain't perfect

BUT

he is 1000% better, a MILLION PER CENT better

then the BUSH NIGHTMARE has been

[Liberation Angel]

40. But that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong either. Michael Moore nailed it:

in his letter of congrats to Obama:

If he doesn't end the war in Afghanistan he should send the prize BACK

if he backslides on the environment and caves to big oil, energy, then it will be an epic fail...


It is a complex issue:

if you do some GREAT things for peace, like reducing the threat of nuclear war (and is he REALLY doing that with the Iran bluster and Ms. Clinton? Maybe)

but then you epicly fail on things like the afghan war and the environment (or even health care or reigning in Wall Street's parasitism)

do you still deserve it for the good things you done?

I think Moore has it right and Klein's critique is well reasoned.

But for the nuclear thing I say kudos Obama

[earth mom]

42. Klein is dead on right here, but she will be thrown under the bus as someone else pointed out.

War is Peace on DU now.

Is there any doubt?

When we were all fighting against * & Co, I never ever thought I'd see this on DU. Never. :argh:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Somebody needs to explain to Naomi Klein the difference between a Nobel and an Oscar.

She appears to have confused the two.

[tonysam]

54. Nope. Somebody needs to tell the Nobel Prize committee

the difference, and the difference between the Nobel and American Idol.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Yup, unlike a Nobel, an Oscar isn't about the movie we hope you might make next year.

[tomp]

59. thanks, naomi. nt

[ForeignSpectator]

60. Agree with Naomi Klein...

nice for Obama but to give him the prize on basis of hope for things he might accomplish?

What are the concrete results Obama has actually achieved so far? Not being the nightmare his predecessor was is obviously enough.
Just think about this : you extend a contract with blackwater in Iraq and at the same time get awarded the Peace Prize... then again, kissinger also was awarded this prize so nevermind.

[SIMPLYB1980]

61. Yawn. unrec.