Obama gets Nobbled with Nobels

Barack Obama got the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize because he is not George W Bush. It is hard not to come to this conclusion given he was nominated for the award after only eleven days as President of the United States.

That was my immediate reaction. Yet if this was the case, would Hillary Clinton have been a shoe in had she won the Presidency? Would John McCain have received the prize for his patchy but mostly good record in legislating against torture? As there are some doubt as to the likelihood of these alternative scenarios, I no longer see my initial reaction as a sufficient explanation.

I suspect Obama gained his nomination based on his campaign for President, and the positive response of the American people to his message of 'hope'. Indeed the Norwegian Nobel committee pretty much cite his 'hope' campaign slogan.

"Only rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

The committee also congratulate Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons".

Obama's speech in Cairo may have been an important change in tone with regards to relations with the Middle East, and his abandonment of an unworkable 'missile defence shield' in Eastern Europe is welcome. That said it still feels like he received the award for his performance in the opening credits, when the major plotlines of his Presidency are still to be revealed.

Obama patently fails to meet one of the criteria set for the Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel wished to acknowledge the person who has done the most for 'the abolition or reduction of standing armies'. Obama has increased troop numbers in the war in Afghanistan and is currently considering a further increase, despite the many examples of unsuccessful 'conquest' of the country. Why send armies to defend Hamed Kazai's dodgy record of electoral fraud and legislation that appears to condone the rape of women within marriage?

A real peacemaker may have instigated a process that sought to bring the waring factions - even the Taliban - into a negotiated settlement, perhaps even a form of shared government, safe in the knowledge that not many guerrillas manage the transition into long term legislators, and can fade away as a result.

It is unfortunate for Obama that the 2009 Peace Prize is likely to be compared with the 1973 award which was controversially won by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for negotiating the ceasefire in the Vietnam war.

The ceasefire was signed on 23 January 1973, which would have been only a week before nominations would have closed for the Nobel award for that year. Like 2009, the 1973 award was also described as a work in progress. Vietnamese representative Le Duc Tho refused the award on the grounds that peace had not really been restored in South Vietnam, and he was right - the ceasefire failed to hold and the war did not finally end until 1975. Le Duc Tho increased his standing by refusing the award, whereas Kissinger accepted with 'humility'.

Yet in the same year, Kissinger "helped" a military coup in Chile that violently removed a democratically elected government. Clearly the Peace Prize is for pieces, and not the whole of ones actions.

Given that Obama has said that he does not feel he deserves "to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize", I wonder if he may have done more to increase his standing had he refused it "at this time".

Many Americans have high expectations of Obama as President, as do many others across the globe. Many politicians are keen to keep in check the expectations of the electorate, yet I am coming to the conclusion Obama attempts to use high expectations to his advantage, even with the inherent political risks of disappointment.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has increased the stakes again.

Iraq can be a St Paddy's day issue

On Saturday I joined the anti-war march in Auckland. Scoop has a neat little video with extended coverage of the march here.

There was also the St Patricks Day parade on at the same time, so we had to wait until the paddy costumes had cleared Queen St. As I mulled over the possibility of us cheekly joining in the end of the St Patricks Day parade, even though it was going in the opposite direction, I began to consider the comparisons that can be made between centuries of English imperialism in Ireland and US imperialism in Iraq. The US controlled Green Zone of Baghdad is a modern equivalent of the Pale, the small area around English controlled Dublin in the 14th-15th century. The English phase 'beyond the Pale' has very anti Irish overtones.

The English policy of 'plantation' of Protestant settlers, now has its counterpart in the way the US is lining its multinationals up to take the oil, and the no bid contracts for 'services' in Iraq are nothing but a modern form of Elizabethan patronage. I might add that such practices are now considered corruption.

But then I made the mistake of thinking a St Patrick's Day parade had anything to do with a celebration of Irish Independence. A friend told me they specifically banned any 'political' floats some years ago - meaning the parade was only a 'celebration' of things Irish that have been co-opted by consumerism. So not very Irish at all.

While the Irish eventually got rid of the British in the South, the Americans arrived after World War Two as a brand new bunch of Normans.

The US also currently uses the Irish airport at Shannon to fuel its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Terror (wherever country that is). This may endanger Ireland's claim to be a neutral power. In April 2003 the High Court of Ireland ruled that for Ireland to be a Neutral Power under international law, it must prevent "belligerents from making use of neutral territories and neutral resources for their military purposes". Wikipedia also reports:

On 6 December 2005, the BBC programme Newsnight alleged that Shannon was used on at least 33 occasions by United States Central Intelligence Agency flights, thought to be part of a US policy called extraordinary rendition, referring to the non-judicial transfers of prisoners to other jurisdictions, including those where interrogation routinely uses torture. The New York Timesreported the number to be 33, though referring to "Ireland" rather than Shannon, while Amnesty International has alleged the number of flights to be 50, a figure they published in response to Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern, who had pledged to investigate rendition if presented with evidence.

Helen's support for Bush's wars

NoRightTurn notes yesterdays announcement by Helen Clark and Phil Goff to "extend" New Zealand's military commitment in Afghanistan. In particular he criticises the decision to continue to operate a New Zealand frigate in the region at the same time US President George Bush is making noises about bombing Iran.

The Government Press Release today says "New Zealand will also again deploy a frigate to join the Maritime Interdiction Operation (MIO) in the Arabian Gulf. The frigate will join the MIO for just over a month in mid 2008 as an extension of a planned deployment to the South/South East Asia region."

There is actually a more fundamental reason why New Zealand should not have a frigate in the Gulf at present. A New Zealand frigate on non-combat duties gives the US and the UK the opportunities to deploy more of their frigates on more active roles, in other words helping to kill the population in Iraq, Afghanistan and (possibly) Iran. So, to the people of the Middle East New Zealand sending a frigate for non-combat duties is as good as dropping the bombs ourselves.

We sent the Te Mana frigate at around the time of the Iraq invasion - perhaps an indication that while NZ publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq, Helen still felt she had to give penance to our so called 'allies' who were bullying all in sundry for "support" for their illegal invasion.

Helen Clark's announcement would not have anything to do with meeting with George Bush next week would it?

PS: Tried to post this last night, but Woosh Internet slowed down to a crawl. Not at all impressed with the speed or reliability of their service, and phone calls to customer service can be left waiting for 30 minutes with no answer. I have no qualms calling from a cellphone!

PPS: The new blogger spellcheck is a big improvement and much easier to use.

Peace Researcher Article 'The Fog of Iraq' now online

My article 'The Fog of Iraq' from the March 2005 edition of "Peace Researcher" is now online. I examine some of the frank conclusions contained in the November 2004 report of the Defence Science Advisory Board (DSB - Strategic Communication'), a report highly critical of the Bush Administration's efforts in the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority [of Muslims] voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

I also look at the work of Boston Globe journalist, Molly Bingham, who spent months in Iraq researching the makeup of the Iraqi resistance. She concludes:

The composition of the Iraqi resistance is not what the US administration has been calling it, and the more it is oversimplified the harder it is to explain its complexity....My objective is not to romanticize the fighters or their fight, but merely to better understand what our realistic choices are in Iraq and the Middle East.

Read the article