Nobel Prize for Promises? by Howard Zinn

by Maireid Sullivan | October 10, 2009 at 04:09 pm

408 views | 51 Recommendations | 10 comments

We are all weary of war, but we really need to go easy on Obama. He has achieved a lot in a very short time. The Nobel Prize should encourage him, and the rest of us too. No one person can turn "the machine" around. Can you? The more I try the harder it gets. Major revolutionary changes have always led to seemingly more turmoil than the pre-change struggle. Usually courageous, spiritually uplifting political unity led to major political change, but was often followed by ruthless power-plays and terrible civil wars, –over approaches to re-building, setting brother against brother. We are witnessing the same political phenomenon in the USA right now.

NOTE: Michael Moore's retraction of his criticism of President Obama is worth reading:

Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/get-obamas-back-second-thoughts-michael-moore

The comments to this piece, on Moore's website, are really terrific, for example:

#1. a short excerpt: "we can join the neo-cons and say it means nothing - or we can accept the committee's support with gratitude, for it seems they are rooting for us, and fortified, we can work hard, for that which we think is legal, and just, and will fulfill the promise of our democracy and their Prize, and bring greater health and happiness to all - here and around the world. Now let's get back to work."

#2. "After all is said and done, one thing is clear. Those who live thru their heads AND their hearts can sense that President Obama is truly and passionately a peace maker. That is his true nature. It stands out loud and clear for anyone to see. He is attempting to get thru the maze and battlefields of old politics and that takes time, doesn't it? He definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize - and I enthusiastically support that choice! His peaceful nature resonates to the peacemaker within all of us - around the world."

Here! here!

But, in the following Truthout article, Howard Zinn has harsh criticism re. the pace of President Obama's achievements.

"People should not be given a peace prize 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. Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Nobel Peace Committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history" Howard Zinn

I was dismayed when I heard Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on wars in two countries and launching military action in a third country (Pakistan), would be given a peace prize. But then I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel Peace Prizes. The Nobel Committee is famous for its superficial estimates and for its susceptibility to rhetoric and empty gestures, while ignoring blatant violations of world peace.

    Yes, Wilson gets credit for the League of Nations - that ineffectual body which did nothing to prevent war. But he also bombarded the Mexican coast, sent troops to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic and brought the US into the slaughterhouse of Europe in the first World War - surely, among stupid and deadly wars, at the top of the list.

    Sure, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Japan and Russia. But he was a lover of war, who participated in the US conquest of Cuba, pretending to liberate it from Spain while fastening US chains around that tiny island. And as president he presided over the bloody war to subjugate the Filipinos, even congratulating a US general who had just massacred 600 helpless villagers in the Phillipines. The Committee did not give the Nobel Prize to Mark Twain, who denounced Roosevelt and criticized the war, nor to William James, leader of the anti-imperialist league.

    Oh yes, the Committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects.

...

Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, was given a peace prize!

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

sara star

at 19:01 on October 10th, 2009

Russia congratulates Obama.

"I think this Nobel Committee decision is evidence of a realistic vision of the dynamics of global development. I hope that it will serve as an additional impetus to our joint work to create a new climate in international politics and promote initiatives of crucial importance for global security.

I want to confirm my readiness for further constructive cooperation in developing Russian-American relations on the basis of equality, mutual respect, regard for each other's interests and for the benefits of world peace and stability."

albertacowpoke

at 19:29 on October 10th, 2009

Good for Russia, but I still regard anything coming out of Moscow with skepticism. I always wonder what their real motives are. After all Zarkosi of France called Obama naive and egotistical. Maybe Mednedev has that figured out too.

Maireid Sullivan

at 01:10 on October 11th, 2009

Zarkosi of France is a hawk. He is THE leading EU promoter of the Military Industrial Complex.

He is the one who pushed through the Lisbon Treaty. As a consequence of this "Treaty" the whole of European Community will begin producing war munitions.

At the beginning of the last real-estate boom bust cycle, Ireland, which had the final say on the Lisbon Treaty vote, became rich by offering tax breaks to communication technology industries who set up their EU operations in Ireland (e.g. Apple, which pulled out when the 10 yr. tax breaks came to an end). Now the Irish, and the rest of the EU, will get rich on "tawdry trade wars" –through munitions manufacturing.

... so naturally, Zarkosi of France doesn't support President Obama's peace efforts.

Maireid Sullivan

at 00:33 on October 11th, 2009

Thank you very much for sharing this important commentary, Sara Star.

I haven't been following closely, so this is really good news, re. powers that support Obama's efforts to bring everyone to the table.

I'm on Michael Moore's list, and today he sent a follow-up to his criticism of the outcomes so far of Obama's efforts. Here is the link:

Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/get-obamas-back-second-thoughts-michael-moore

Babel-Fish

at 19:31 on October 10th, 2009

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[1] Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize should be awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament.

Perhaps that explains why Obama received the prize?

Maireid Sullivan

at 23:33 on October 10th, 2009

Thanks for that, Babel-Fish.

Michael Moore had this to say in his second newsletter today:

Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/get-obamas-back-second-thoughts-michael-moore

djermano

at 06:27 on October 11th, 2009

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/nobel-peace-awardees-promise-end-war-afganiraq..

Russia only says this because Obama scrapped Bush's missile defense plans in Europe. ..While they deployed the mission in other secret locations.

Rev. Jermano

a211423

at 20:47 on October 11th, 2009

I think most of us have had second thoughts about an opinion, and it takes some courage to come out and say perhaps I was a little hasty. But Michael Moore did, and that makes him even more credible in my book.

Thanks for the article.