Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Bolivia's Morales Calls for New Era of 'Peace and Unity' to Break Greed of Capitalism
- What If All the World’s Debt Just Went Away
- Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Mr. President, I am Disappointed'
- 8 Deficit Reducers That Are More Ethical—And More Effective—Than the 'Chained CPI'
- Obama Will Ride to the Rescue... for Republicans
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Thursday, October 15, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Barack and Alyn
Since President Obama was named this year's Nobel Peace Laureate,
there's been a fruitful debate about the degree to which the award was
deserved or strategically useful. It's worth noting that the
president's strong support for the cause of nuclear disarmament was a
key reason he got the nod from Oslo. This support has not only come in
speeches, but also in a very interesting U.N. Security Council
resolution that he cared enough about to deliver to the council
personally and even chair the session in which it was adopted, an
unprecedented move for a world leader.
Speeches are important, too. The speech President Obama made in Prague on April 5, which made a big impression on Europeans including the Nobel committee, recommitted the United States government to the goal, albeit a distant one, of complete nuclear disarmament. In so doing, the president put the government back in the direction of compliance with international law, for disarmament is a legal obligation. It says so right in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the most important multilateral agreement governing the uses ("peaceful" and warlike) of nuclear power and a cornerstone of the current international order.
Article Six of that treaty calls on all states to "negotiate in good faith" on ending the nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament. The phrase "negotiate in good faith," of course, contains some deliberate ambiguity; it enables the states possessing nuclear weapons to claim they are making earnest efforts regardless of the state of the perennially-deadlocked disarmament debate. Some of this ambiguity was resolved in July 1996, when the International Court of Justice issued its historic advisory opinion on nuclear weapons. The World Court was asked whether international law prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Its answer was yes, but only "generally"; however, the legal obligation to eliminate this class of weapons from the arsenals of all nations is definitive.
The court's intervention arose from a citizens' campaign called the World Court Project, which aimed to persuade a majority of states in the U.N. General Assembly to call for an advisory opinion. The lead organizer of the World Court Project was a young man from New Zealand named Alyn Ware, director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. With tireless behind-the-scenes advocacy and diplomatic panache, Ware and the team of lawyers and campaigners he led accomplished the task. Despite the heavy objections of Bill Clinton's administration, Tony Blair's British government, and all the nuclear weapon states, the NGOs forced the issue onto the court's agenda.
For Alyn Ware, it was only one of this brilliant activist's many accomplishments. To follow it up, Ware assembled a group of legal, technical, and diplomatic experts to draft a model Nuclear Weapons Convention, a realistic draft of a treaty to ban the bomb. Global conventions banning biological and chemical weapons are already in force; "nuclear—why not?" was the group's slogan. While the verification and inspection mechanisms required to safely enforce a prohibition on nuclear weaponry may be a bit more complex than the provisions of the earlier conventions, Ware's group proved that a global abolition treaty would certainly be feasible if and when it becomes a political possibility. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has promoted and circulated the draft to all U.N. delegations.
In 2002, Ware launched Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), an initiative to build political support, country by country, for national, regional, and global solutions to the nuclear question. Traditionally, government officials have been reticent to work with NGOs on sensitive disarmament and security issues. Ware is bridging that gap with patient diplomatic spadework.
On October 13, Alyn Ware was one of four people honored with this year's Right Livelihood Award, the "alternative" or "other Nobel prize." Other winners were David Suzuki of Canada, René Ngongo of Democratic Republic of Congo, and Catherine Hamlin, an Australian doctor permanently settled in Ethiopia. They will be honored in Stockholm on December 4, days before Barack Obama accepts the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
Ware has some important traits in common with the former community organizer in the White House. They're only seven months apart in age. Both of them are simultaneously bold visionaries and cunning strategists. Both are relentlessly positive thinkers who radiate inner peace and even temperament. Both men make a habit of reaching out to political antagonists and seeking common ground. Ware, a former teacher and peace education promoter, says, "The principles of peace are the same whether it be in school, at home, in the community or internationally. These are primarily about how to solve our conflicts in win/win ways, i.e. in ways that meet all peoples' needs. My kindergarten teaching was thus good training for my international peace and disarmament work." While one can think of many leaders on the world stage who could benefit from a refresher course in kindergarten, our current president has not lost this wisdom.
President Obama could hardly find a more energetic, audacious, and effective partner in the nuclear disarmament effort than Mr. Ware. I would love to see what the two of them could do if they teamed up.
Speeches are important, too. The speech President Obama made in Prague on April 5, which made a big impression on Europeans including the Nobel committee, recommitted the United States government to the goal, albeit a distant one, of complete nuclear disarmament. In so doing, the president put the government back in the direction of compliance with international law, for disarmament is a legal obligation. It says so right in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the most important multilateral agreement governing the uses ("peaceful" and warlike) of nuclear power and a cornerstone of the current international order.
Article Six of that treaty calls on all states to "negotiate in good faith" on ending the nuclear arms race, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament. The phrase "negotiate in good faith," of course, contains some deliberate ambiguity; it enables the states possessing nuclear weapons to claim they are making earnest efforts regardless of the state of the perennially-deadlocked disarmament debate. Some of this ambiguity was resolved in July 1996, when the International Court of Justice issued its historic advisory opinion on nuclear weapons. The World Court was asked whether international law prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Its answer was yes, but only "generally"; however, the legal obligation to eliminate this class of weapons from the arsenals of all nations is definitive.
The court's intervention arose from a citizens' campaign called the World Court Project, which aimed to persuade a majority of states in the U.N. General Assembly to call for an advisory opinion. The lead organizer of the World Court Project was a young man from New Zealand named Alyn Ware, director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. With tireless behind-the-scenes advocacy and diplomatic panache, Ware and the team of lawyers and campaigners he led accomplished the task. Despite the heavy objections of Bill Clinton's administration, Tony Blair's British government, and all the nuclear weapon states, the NGOs forced the issue onto the court's agenda.
For Alyn Ware, it was only one of this brilliant activist's many accomplishments. To follow it up, Ware assembled a group of legal, technical, and diplomatic experts to draft a model Nuclear Weapons Convention, a realistic draft of a treaty to ban the bomb. Global conventions banning biological and chemical weapons are already in force; "nuclear—why not?" was the group's slogan. While the verification and inspection mechanisms required to safely enforce a prohibition on nuclear weaponry may be a bit more complex than the provisions of the earlier conventions, Ware's group proved that a global abolition treaty would certainly be feasible if and when it becomes a political possibility. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has promoted and circulated the draft to all U.N. delegations.
In 2002, Ware launched Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), an initiative to build political support, country by country, for national, regional, and global solutions to the nuclear question. Traditionally, government officials have been reticent to work with NGOs on sensitive disarmament and security issues. Ware is bridging that gap with patient diplomatic spadework.
On October 13, Alyn Ware was one of four people honored with this year's Right Livelihood Award, the "alternative" or "other Nobel prize." Other winners were David Suzuki of Canada, René Ngongo of Democratic Republic of Congo, and Catherine Hamlin, an Australian doctor permanently settled in Ethiopia. They will be honored in Stockholm on December 4, days before Barack Obama accepts the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
Ware has some important traits in common with the former community organizer in the White House. They're only seven months apart in age. Both of them are simultaneously bold visionaries and cunning strategists. Both are relentlessly positive thinkers who radiate inner peace and even temperament. Both men make a habit of reaching out to political antagonists and seeking common ground. Ware, a former teacher and peace education promoter, says, "The principles of peace are the same whether it be in school, at home, in the community or internationally. These are primarily about how to solve our conflicts in win/win ways, i.e. in ways that meet all peoples' needs. My kindergarten teaching was thus good training for my international peace and disarmament work." While one can think of many leaders on the world stage who could benefit from a refresher course in kindergarten, our current president has not lost this wisdom.
President Obama could hardly find a more energetic, audacious, and effective partner in the nuclear disarmament effort than Mr. Ware. I would love to see what the two of them could do if they teamed up.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
44 Comments so far
Show AllTryiong to justify the award to Obama is an exerciise in futility. It was strictly political.
Using the silly arguments in this article, Ronald Reagan was far more deserving of the Peace Prize, far more, he actually accomplished something.
As to what these two can do, nothing. The world pays little heed to rhetoric as this President will find out in the next few years.
"Since President Obama was named this year's Nobel Peace Laureate, there's been a fruitful debate about the degree to which the award was deserved or strategically useful."
Fruitful debate? Horsefeathers. The whole world is simply laughing at the award and its presenters, not to mention Obamas who looks like a deer in the headlights.
"Ronald Reagan was far more deserving of the Peace Prize, far more, he actually accomplished something."
Is this some kind of joke? Did you ever hear of Iran Contra?
I believe, although there might be none, as in Obamas case, he was referring to the Nuke treaties Reagan signed. Of course Reagon was horrible overall and Obama is just as bad or worse.
Look at the Nuclear Modernization Program in the USA and you will see more Plutonium Pits being produced and a new generation of nuclear weapons developed.
As usual Obama is saying good and doing evil.
You got it Glenn. And you are right about Obama. Lied about almost everything and is still hard at it.
"I won't provide you a preview of what I've been seeing or hearing. I will tell you that our principal goal remains to root out Al Qaeda and its extremist allies that can launch attacks against the US or its allies. That's our principal mission," he told reporters at his Oval Office yesterday.... But... but... Mr. Nobel Laureate, your defense secretary and under secretary said just a few weeks ago that there are only 100 al Queda operating in Afghanistan (and that, you probably know, is hyping it)...
If I had to choose, I'd take a criminal over a hypocrite.
If I had to choose, I would take an Atheist or an Agnostic over a Bible thumper!
Paul....you've been to the Bible belt!
Atheist and Agnostic's can be just as much a pain in the ass as Bible thumpers. Exteremists of any kind are usually fools.
Henry,
Do you also know something I don't? (see my reply to Glenn)
Only if you are saying Obama hassn't consistently lied, broken almost every campaign promise he made?
As to the unilateral action, I'd have to say....do you believe that has any effect on nuculear proliferation? One party action in my view is poor policy.
Henry,
My question was meant to be objective and Glenn answered it for you (so long as don't refute his position). As for the rest of your reply I think my main comment on this thread pretty much states my case.
" As usual Obama is saying good and doing evil". That is it in a nutshell Glenn, and that is the defintion of a con artist.
Paul,
do you know something I don't? (see my reply to Glenn)
glenn,
As of last June, Biden had blocked an effort by Gates and the DOD to reinvigorate the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The Obama budget for 2010 has also excluded funding for RRW and the Whitehouse has been pretty clear that any expendetures beyond basic upkeep costs are not consistent with anti-proliferation attempts. Do you know somethig I don't?
Thank You LOVE 1:15 --------------- Sounds like you may be correct Then one for Obama.
I live within fifty miles of the only Pit making facility and you may be correct that it is on hold. Have the computer simulation and virtual testing of new weapons designs halted?
"Have the computer simulation and virtual testing of new weapons designs halted?"
no - they've been offshored to Aldermaston, England.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/09-4
Not as big a joke as Obama's Peace Prize. Reagan actually achieved a reduction in Nukes remember? The Berlin Wall did actually come dopwn and Germany was reunited.
Though you are correct, my point was simply that based on the criteria they were touting I'd say Ronnie deserved it and Obama ABSOLUTELY did not.
'henry8'
What a marvelous 'exercise' in 'Conservative Re-Rhetoric' your statements are here.
"Reagan actually achieved a reduction in Nukes" "remember?"
In reality he accomplished nothing but the strengthening of the foothold the 'Plutocratic Oligarchy" has over the USA---he was a war criminal (although not the degree that GWBush was---but GHWBush was a Reagan accomplice in War Crimes just better at not getting caught than GWBush)---with little intelligence or skill; and (I just love to see those untouched photos with him in 'pink rouge makeup') NONE of the 'agreements' made during his presidency were ever 'verified' to have 'reduced' Nuclear Weapons .
And that 'part' about the 'Berlin wall falling down and Germany reunited' is extra rich. The fact that 'Ronny' had absolutely nothing to do with the 'collapse of the Soviet Union'---which gave the 'wall the nudge it needed to fall' with 'reunited Germans' there to 'sweep up the dust'.
The Nobel prizes for 'Peace''and all of the others', is and always has been a 'wonderful example' of the Plutocratic Oligarchy indulging in 'symbolic mutual masturbation' ; 'ole Alfred' having invented 'Dy-no-mite', helped to change the power base and it still is in the hands of those who abuse it. War makes money for the Plutocratic Oligarchy, and keeps everything in turmoil and confusion. The 'PO' is simply making the point that "THEY" are 'in control'---giving the 'prize' to a 'woman' 'FOR THE FIRST TIME' was simply just another demonstration of the "POWER" of the Plutocratic Oligarchy: she had to share it with a man.
Giving it to the first 'Negro President' of the USA, while he is engaged in three illegal wars of aggression, and mass murder and destruction on a fanatical scale that he 'inherited' from the 'conservative republican president' is simply more reinforcement of the 'power demonstration' of the Plutocratic Oligarchy. They were telling the 'voters' that no matter how much you want 'change', 'WE' are still in control. The recent ' warning letter from the insurance giants' to the american people is yet one more 'power demonstration'.
With the fanatical 'support' of 'Slaves' JUST like YOU, conservative thinking and robotic----the Plutocratic Oligarchy never has to work to keep control.
'There is nothing more shameful than a human that is a willing slave'
Shaka Zulu
And 'folks just like you' have helped make 'America Great'----and most deserving of this:
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
Your absolute refusal to read and understand what I write I will simply have to attribute to your personal dislike for me, for whatever reason you developed it.
Your constant "conservative" mantra is making you look a bit silly. Rethink it.
Yep...thats me the old robot.(lol)
It's all about perspective and degrees right.Did Michael Jackson deserve pedophile of the year award? Lots of people would say -- NOT -- He wasn't as bad as some of the other pedophiles. Who was the worst war criminal? Reagan Ford Obomba Clinton Bush stalin hitler? It's irrelevent, they all were war criminals simple as ABC so why split hairs. A duck is a duck. Who got the most enjoyment out of being a war criminal? Most of them are dead men now.
'henry8'
Actually there is no problem with reading and/or understanding 'what' you write.
The advise you give to 'rethink it' would best be coined in the phrase
"Physician heal thy self" since it seems that you do not understand 'what' you write, is simply the 'echos' of others. Little or no originality is all that can be expected from any conservative; in fact for a 'conservative' to have an 'original idea' they need to 'steal' it from someone else.
As for your advise about 'rethinking' the conservative 'mantra'; you are suggesting that I 'take advise' from a 'conservative' on 'thinking'.
This would be the 'mental equivalent' of asking a 'dog with copra phage' ---if he is advising eating 'fecal matter' on a regular basis, or just keep it as a 'treat' for 'special occasions'.
And as for a person to have a 'personal dislike' for a 'anonymous personage'i.e. 'henry8' is exactly what one could expect from a 'conservative', it would be absolutly ridiculous even to think of such a thing; much less write about it. In fact I derive a certain 'entertainment' from our 'verbal pugilistics' even though you 'never win'. I still 'just fight with one hand behind me'---but keep on trying, you might get a 'lucky punch' in---'maybe'.
You think far too highly of yourself, which is typical of every conservative I have ever met.
NO REAGAN DESERVED BEST ACTOR AWARD.SLICK CON MAN IS THE CRITERIA
NO REAGAN DESERVED BEST ACTOR AWARD.SLICK CON MAN IS THE CRITERIA
In truth, Reagan was more deserving of the NPP, because he set the most violent warmongering empire in the world on a course to bankruptcy and self destruction. Once that evil empire finally collapses and disintegrates into several countries, it will be a safer and better world. In a completely unrelated event, the Soviet Union also ran into difficulty during his term.
Right you are. To me it's sort of like OJ Simpson receiving the best babysitter of the year award. Certain actions preclude a serious or fruitful discussion, like appointing McChrystal, triple the funding for drone warfare. You can pretend on some intellectual plane that you're worthy of a prize like that but time will show that it's an utter sham.
Ronald Reagan was very deserving of the prize Reagonomics was a success cant you guys see the trickling down of the wealth, the deregulation of the airline industry has produced a better airline industry and lets not forget Iran/Contra and the fruitful spread of drugs throughout Americas Ghettos. Really? Reagan?
I would say that your satire about Ronnie is true, but I would add that if Obomba deserves the ignoble peace prize, then so does Reagan and Bush.
In addition to the nuclear disarmament speeches and the UN Security Council resolution this article discusses, the other two publicly stated reasons advanced by the Nobel Committee for the award to Obama was his renewed committment to use of bilateral diplomacy rather than sabre rattling (talk talk is better than war war) and his efforts to reopen dialogue between America and the Muslim world.
Ronald Reagan coined the term "Evil Empire" as an epithet for use against the Soviet Union, and shook his fist theatrically demanding Gorbachev "tear down" the Berlin wall. (Note: The Russians never did; it was the people of eastern Europe who eventually achieved that noteworthy accomplishment). Reagan grotesquely increased Pentagon spending charged off on the national treasury credit card, partnered with the Pakistani ISI to unleash international jihad into Afghanistan and central Asia, thumbed his nose at the Boland Amendment to clandestinely and illegally fund a proxy war against the Sandinista government of Nicaraugua, and treated us all to overt wag-the-dog military strikes in Libya, Lebanon, and Grenada in order to help America "exorcise the ghosts of Vietnam", a cause Ronnie built his early political career upon as an virulent, domestically divisive partisan critic of the whole US antiwar movement.
Granted, the Nobel Peace Prize bar has been set remarkably low with Obama joining the likes of Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat, Menachem Begin, Yitsak Rabin, and the original "carry a big stick" macho Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt himself up on the ceremonial dias. But if part of the spin agenda here is to award a postumous Nobel Peace prize to a former US President of GOP political stripe, then I'd take Dwight Eisenhower over Ronald Reagan any day of the week.
Ike kept us out of Suez, signaling the death knell for restoring colonialism in the post-WW II world. He had the cajones to dispatch federal troops to quell a redneck insurrection in Little Rock, helping end Jim Crow. Eisenhower's farewell address warning about the dangers of the unchecked growing powers of the military industrial complex standing alone is far more noteworthy, and for more prescient, than anything Dick Nixon, Ronnie Rayguns, and both Bushes ever said or did, all rolled into one.
The three reasons given by the Nobel Committee for giving this year's prize to Barack Obama - a committment to nuclear disarmament, renewed use of international law and diplomacy, and outreach to the non-Christian world - speak for themselves. Obama was in the right place at the right time, and has said and done many of the right things. So what if he gets an early gold star for just not being an Axis of Evil demagogue?
In my opinion, the tentative steps forward Obama has taken in international affairs since assuming office are worth the recognition, given the stark contrast with how far backwards Reagan, Bush/Cheney, and his rabid neoconservative, neoliberal militarist predecessors in the Oval Office have taken the cause of world peace and social tolerance over the course of the last thirty years.
Bill from Saginaw
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/ robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html
"the tentative steps forward Obama has taken in international affairs since assuming office are worth the recognition, given the stark contrast ..."
Yes, of course, this is how the scam works. The good cop, bad cop strategy. The US empire knows full well what a powerful tool they have in Barack Obama. You don't think so? come on back here in a year or so. We'll still be arguing over the significance of the tiny bones that have been thrown our way. After all, what did Bush hand us?
For now, just stand back and look at the history of the two-party system. Remarkably, both parties have moved substantially to the right. Ordinary people have been losing - big time. The contrast you see serves the empire quite well. Sorry if I don't see it as distinct as you do. It's all in the presentation, the rhetoric, appearances.
Bill,
Your comment is a good one. That you included "the other two publicly stated reasons advanced by the Nobel Committee for the award to Obama" is exemplary. I do however respectfully disagree with your contention "that the Nobel bar has been set remarkably low". If there is fault to be found in the Committee's record of making some poor choices it is because they use the prize to empower and have thereby added an element of speculation to their task. It could be argued that Committee members are bias or empowering themselves selfishly or etc., but so far as picking "potential" deserving laureates is concerned they have done far more good than harm. The best example I know of is that of Joseph Stiglitz (different committee), Dr. Stiglitz' critisism of imperialistic policies would probably have been marginalized if not the for clout given him by the Prize for economics. I am not as familiar about Peace Prize winners but I can assure you that Dr. Stiglitz is making a very significant difference in the field of economics. This is maybe not the best forum to go into the EMH and supply-side theory but Dr. Stiglitz made what many economists consider to be the most important work of our time (asymmetrical markets), and there is no question that his work is antithetical to the interests of the plutocracy, and nobody has fought harder than Dr. Stiglitz for the rights of poor nations. So the Committee protected these works in a way that only they could. And the process is either speculative or too late to empower.
There is also a fourth reason. Not much has been made of this, for fear of causing panic I suspect, but the largest flow of flight funds to ever leave a nation was the flight of capital from the U.S. over the last year or so. Much of that wealth is coming back though and the Obama team has granted a period of amnesty which ends soon(date?). The bailout provided an opportunity to put pressure on the Swiss as an effort to eliminate safe havens for illegal fund flows, and for reasons I am not privy to, the Swiss and others have complied. I know the UBS bail-out had some affect but I think the business of haven-banking has become untenible as part of the globalization process and there was most likely a broad consensus that applied the necessary pressures (It will come out eventually). And the elimination of safe-havens for capital flight funds will be the biggest step toward progress that has happened in a very long time. This is about much more than just tax collection. The wealthy use the threat of capital flight as a tacit form of leverage and the loss of this bargaining power looms large on the potential for wealth redistribution and the effeciency of capital allocations. This will also of course give a new meaning to "development" loans,(literal). All imperialism will also be subjected to the bright lights of accounting and so on. Broadly put, the elimination of safe-haven banking will make all significant transactions accountable.(It is very possible also that Wall Street is currently being given the rope to hang themselves with.)
One could argue I suppose that Bush created the economic environment that made all of this possible; and maybe Reagan should get an honorable mention as well; and perhaps too it could be said that Obama is just lucky. But it is just about making progress. And only those who do not understand how complex the problems are, think that progress comes easy. And it seems quite likely that the Nobel Committee knows that not all efforts to make progress are shared with the public.
Bill
While I agree with you about Eisenhower, I'm surprised that you don't give credit where credit is due. You really believe that the people of Eastern Germany pulled that wall down all by themselves. That all of a sudden, Russia was afraid of them and took no action? RR may have been a stinkerr in many ways, but its silly to pretend he did not affect that outcome.
And Obama has a real problem with the NPP because its made him a laughing stock. It has reinforced the perception that he has little or no substance.
If you don't know that the NPP was given for political purposes, you aren't half as bright as I thought you were. Its the same as Gore's except they had the excuse of his film at the time. Purely political.
REAGAN had "something to do with" "mr gorbachev , tear down this wall"
in germany in the sense that Reagan had PERFECT TIMING - the PERFECT ACTOR - coming in on the PERFECT second to take the spotlight, just like the actor that he was, so america could take credit for the "collapse of the berlin wall" and "the achievement of freedom by the east germans".
when in reality -- the writing was on the wall for the collpase of the Soviet Empire for decades since it was involved in the COLD WAR - which the USA INSTIGATED.
so in a sense, the USA DID "defeat" the soviet empire by continuing to UP the stakes - in militarism - which RUSSIA - under KRUSCHEV EARLY recognized was UNSUSTAINABLE..
Kruschev actually propose the limiting of militarism LONG AGO - through the United Nations and directly to Kennedy - but the Americans REFUSED.
so - when reagan went to say "Mister GOrbachev, tear down this wall" it's as if MOSES parted the waters miraculously.
but the "opening" of the east under communism was ALREADY under way BECAUSE of GORBACHEV. it was gorbachev who was the TRUE visionary, NOT reagan.
reagan and the USA taking credit for "defeating communism" or Russia or USSR - leading to the "fall of the berlin wall and advent of freedom in the east"
is like the USA taking credit for "defeating HITLER"
when in fact - it was THE RUSSIANS - sacrificing 12 million of their own that DESTROYED Adolf Hitler's GREATEST divisions - the CORE and BACKBONE and MEAT of his Nazi empire -
and rendered HITLER's "western front" IMPOTENT to defend itself from the Allies.
by the TIME the Americans and Brits Landed in Normandy in the great , all-out, do or die assault, the bombings of Berlin, Munich, Dresden, landings in the south in Italy
the RUSSIANS HAD ALREADY DESTROYED HITLER effectively.
REAGAN and the USA taking credit for "freedom" in the east is like the USA taking credit for "beating hitler".
it's far from the truth.
the USA - in WW2 and in reagan's speech at the berlin wall
are like the JOHNNY COME LATELIES surveying a battlefield ALREADY won by SOMEONE ELSE..and then taking credit for it.
My point here was not to send kudos to the president; I actually tried to skirt the question of whether he deserves the Nobel. I think the Nobel represents a problem for Obama, in light of how little his progressive agenda has advanced. My idea, which I guess this piece didn't express clearly enough, was that buddying up with a real disarmament maverick such as Alyn Ware could help him solve his Nobel problem. Alyn can do at least as much for BHO as vice versa. And since they'll be in Scandinavia at the same time picking up awards, it wouldn't be hard for BHO to reach out to him, if he had the will. They're the same sort of person and I'm sure they'd hit it off.
Roger -
I really don't understand how getting the Nobel Peace Prize creates a "problem" for Barack Obama, other than in terms of the very short term, personality-based, myopic mainstream news cycle. The right wing yammers about how he has actually accomplished nothing. The left wing very correctly points to the new administration's shortcomings on ending Bush's GWOT mindset, closing Gitmo, prosecuting those who enabled torture as official US policy, and ending (rather than fighting) the two wars he inherited. The talking heads give fair and balanced nods of the head to both viewpoints, urging viewers to make up their own minds.
So what's Barack's "problem" in getting a premature Peace Prize for the stands that he has taken as President on nuclear disarmament, creative use of diplomacy, and seeking dialogue with the Muslim world? He catches some expected, rather deserved criticism for awhile from both ends of the partisan spectrum, but then flies off to Scandanavia a few months later to make another fine speech from perhaps the greatest speaker's platform in the world. Where's the "Nobel problem" from Barack Obama's long term perspective?
I agree with you entirely that Barack would benefit by teaming up with someone like Alyn Ware on the global nuke threat, just like I would like to see him pull up a chair for Joe Stiglitz at the big table when it comes to economic policy, or for Andrew Bacevich on Pentagon matters. I'm not, however, holding my breath. When the music stopped at the inaugural cake walk, the progressive forces instrumental in Obama's primary and general election victories were largely left standing on the outside looking in.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill-
I don't know, the Nobel problem I see could stretch into the long term. The gap between rhetoric and results is already creating, and will continue to create, distance between the president and his base, and for a liberal leader who came in on the strength of a movement audaciously hoping for change we could believe in, neither he nor we can afford for the gap to widen. For him to fail to "earn" the Nobel between now and 2012 will exaggerate his pol. problem. The Nobel increases his pressure to deliver, or at least make a good case to the base that he's delivering. That's a cunning reason for them to give it to him now.
Of course, I am determined to avoid cynicism in my viewpoint: I think the president's success and our success as a country are very tightly linked right now. So I'd like to think in terms of using the Nobel and using the "problem" to push for policy action.
Roger, OBOMBA "liberal leader who came in on the strength of a movement" LA LA LAND TALK.ONE BILLION dollars of campaign funding,came directly from the boys who surround him today,the Zionists and wall street.Then don't forget the media propaganda's,always can be counted on, manipulative role in duping the dumbed down to believe, they were somehow part of some MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE.He is expanding the USSA nuclear program!LARGEST MILITARY BUDGET IN HISTORY! NO BAGRAM/GITMO CHANGE.STILL A MILLION DOLLARS PER MINUTE FOR THE WAR WAR, HERE A WAR,THERE A WAR, EVERYWHERE A WAR WAR DOCTRINE.THE GAZA CAST LEAD GENOCIDE HE ENDORSED BY HIS SILENCE!I think your logic is insulting to Alyn. MR K What are you blathering about? How about getting a clue.The real president is not the windup toy ,it is President Rahm.Did you happen to miss the coup.
Did the UN resolution go beyond touchy feely to some actual quantifiable demands in the tangible world?
I think his having more troops warring than Bush ever had and continual demonization of Iran and suppressing the Goldstone report speaks louder than any exhalations.
Mr Smith Apples to onions! Alyn Ware is probably profoundly genuine whereas OBOMBA is a charlatan .In the first days in office he murders 700 people (oops unmanned drones not OBOMBA himself so it doesn't count right))Alyn ware, is unlikely to be in the same league as the sadist psychopath.You think!
ARE YOU SAYING THAT OBOMBA NEEDS A MENTOR in someone who is NOT a psychosadist?"buddying up"
Even if Obama stopped the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and the next generation virtual design and testing program..
His silence on israels 200 nukes and his desired sanctions on non nuke Iran is criminal.
A blockade and embargo is an act of war and there is no rational or legal reason for the act of war.
Unless "approved" by the UN Security Council which in the case of Iran is not forthcoming.
The fundamental flaw of the Nobel Peace Prize is that not a single living person knows what actual peace looks like. The labor movement of the 10th and early 20th century knew that peace involved not only the absence of war/violence but also a more just economic and social system than capitalism. Since President Obama believes that our current system is OK his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Price is an insult to working people.
Truman got rid of all his A-bombs.