Reprint from Newsday.com
I begin with a confession. Away from my home in Cambridge, traveling in London, I must admit, with embarrassment, that when I first saw the headline in a tabloid "Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize" I thought it was a joke. After all, the satirical publication, the ONION, has featured headlines that were less surprising. A bit later, I realized that the joke was on me.
After some reflection, I have come to a different conclusion. The world knows that President Obama is engaged in three 'hot wars' -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. There is the possibility of armed conflict with Iran and perhaps even North Korea. As a student of American history and politics, I also happen to believe that Obama is involved in a Civil War in this country. Significant portions of the right wing seem willing to do just about anything to defeat him and his causes. His own efforts to be civil, unfailingly civil, have impressed much of the world and many Americans. They seem to have had no effect whatsoever on the determined, disloyal, opposition—the screaming heads on the cable news, and their tacit supporters in Republican leadership.
I monitor the yearly awarding of the Nobel Prize. Even the prizes in science have political aspects—who gets nominated, who gets lobbied for, which of the people involved in the discovery actually get to divide the money (a maximum of three persons). When it comes to the Prizes in Literature and in Peace, the awarding of the Prize is intensely political. The list of those who got the prize (e.g. Henry Kissinger for Peace) and those who did not (James Joyce, Vladimir Nabakov, Leo Tolstoy, Marcel Proust in Literature) confirms the view that the Nobel Awards committee—knowing that the world is listening and watching—is intent on making a statement.
Whatever you may think of Barack Obama, his election and the early months of his Presidency have been a powerful statement to the world. Be unfailingly respectful, indicate your willingness to walk the extra mile, always seek to confer, consult, reflect, rather than to plunge prematurely into battle, at home or abroad. The contrast with predecessor George W. Bush could not be more dramatic. Certainly, if this approach proves to ease some of the trouble spots cited above, to bring about reconciliation rather than revenge, the awarding of the Prize will have been fully deserved.
In making this possibly premature move the Prize committee has altered the traditional rationale for the prize. Realizing that the world is in perilous shape—and that this time around (as compared to 1914 or 1939) at least ten nations have nuclear weapons—they are trying to shape events, and to prevent events, rather than simply reacting to them.
In this way, the Nobel Peace Prize is more like a Prize with which I have familiarity—the MacArthur Prize Fellowship. When I received the so-called 'genius award' in 1981, at age 38, the award was unknown and so was I. Over the years I've had the opportunity to observe dozens of the several hundred persons who have received the Prize Fellowship. In some cases, the individuals were not affected at all—this is especially true for those who are already established and over 60 years of age. In some cases, the individuals were blocked in their creative process—this is especially true for those who were even younger and even less accomplished than I was. Where the Prize has been most influential has been in giving time and support to individuals who have embarked on a lonely path, with uncertain results. The prize buys them time and a measure of recognition.
Obama is scarcely unknown. But as a leader of a nation, and one involved in both domestic and foreign conflicts, his future course is completely unknown at the present time. Indeed, some commentators take Obama's respect, courtesy, and reflectiveness as a sign of weakness. On October 7 2009 in London's INDEPENDENT newspaper, novelist and critic Gore Vidal issued a severe indictment:
"This kid (Obama) has never heard a gun fired in anger. He is absolutely bowled over by generals who tell him lies and he believes them. He hasn't done anything…You have to go by what people tell you. He's like that. He's not ready for prime time and he's getting a lot of prime time on his plate at once."
Vidal makes a valid point but I believe that he way underestimates Obama's strength and his ability to make tough decisions, even overruling the generals, as President Kennedy (and Presidents Truman and Eisenhower) were able to do. The Prize Committee hopes that, by the awarding of the prize at this time, it can strengthen the more pacific facets, the 'better angels' of Obama's character. Even more crucially, it may give him the resolve to do what is right—even against military pressure and against almost certain castigation by the belligerent right wing in our country. Given the mixed record of the Nobel committees in their more political guise, I believe that this award —-- the Obama Gamble, if you will --- is well worth taking. Should it be successful, the world – and not just Oslo - will have reason to rejoice.
Name: Good Jono