By Benny YP Siahaan
The announcement that US President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 has drawn praise and cynicism both in the US and abroad. Indeed, although President Obama’s efforts at international diplomacy have generally gained international support, questions have also been raised as to what he has actually achieved other than hosting summits and making rhetoric.
The Nobel Prize Committee defended their decision by stating that they want to support what Obama is trying to achieve since he has created a new climate in international politics. Obama himself remained humble in his public statement by saying that he did not consider the award as recognition of his accomplishments but that he would accept the prize as “a call to action” rather than an affirmation of his diplomatic achievements. Nevertheless, critics maintain that the prize should be awarded for actual achievements rather than as a token of encouragement.
For me, I am not sure whether awarding this prize to Obama will give any help to what he is currently trying to achieve. But I do share the view that the granting of this prize to Obama is further evidence that Nobel Peace Prize, have become increasingly politicized over the past years. In the case of Obama in particular, the logic behind the nomination clearly reflects Europe’s hate of the Bush administration. Thus, Obama appears like a liberator to Europe. Indeed, if John Mc Cain had been elected, I believe that this nomination would not have taken place, since Mc Cain would most likely have continued the policies pursued by Bush.
At the moment, Obama’s two most promising accomplishments in achieving world peace are in the two areas of bridging the divide among cultures, namely between Islam and the West, and resolving the Middle East conflict. On both these issues, I believe that the solution depends first and foremost on the US and Western Europe.
Firstly, the Obama administration has invested heavily into healing the divisions between the West and Islam. Recently, in the September Session of the UN Human Rights Council, this US stance has been rewarded with the adoption, by consensus, of its proposed resolution on freedom of expression. In particular, the resolution seeks to find an accommodation between the concept of freedom of expression and that of defamation of religions or incitement to religious hatred. However, as we know from a number of concrete cases in recent years in various Western European countries, the latter have not always been consistent in their treatment of the principle of freedom of expression. In particular, repeatedly insulting the followers of certain religions in Europe – witness the examples in Denmark and the Netherlands – will not help Obama in his efforts to bridge Western values and Islam.
Interestingly, while insults of this type against religious figures are frequent in Western Europe, there have been no similar incidents the US. Perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that the US is an immigrant country, hence there is greater tolerance and respect of fellow immigrants and their different values or what they perceive as sacred.
The problem is, however, to the outside world in general, the US is always closely associated with the Western Europe, and in fact they consider the US is the “leader” of the Western Hemisphere. Thus, if the Nobel committee members are sincere with their rationale in nominating Obama for the prize, they should also call the Western Europe countries to help Obama in his endeavors to bridge the misunderstanding between the West and Islam, particularly by halting any incidents or negative behavior that may undermine Obama’s efforts in this regard.
Secondly, concerning the resolving the Middle East conflict, the responsibility mainly resides in the US itself, since the US has a considerable leverage to end that protracted conflict. In my view, the solution lies in the independence of Obama administration towards the Israel lobby. As is well known, the lobbyists have an important role in the US politics particularly in influencing the US foreign policy. In this case, the Israel lobby is notorious for its active works in navigating the US foreign policy towards a pro Israel direction. As a result, Washington’s seemingly blind support to Israel has fueled Anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
This notion is corroborated in the studies carried out by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (2007), and John Newhouse (2009) which concluded that the activities of lobbies representing foreign interests, particularly Israel lobby, have contributed to the waning of the US’ credibility and influence worldwide.
Thus, one of the key solutions to the Middle East problem, as Walt and Mearsheimer suggest, the current US administration should be able (or dare) to make a new relationship with Israel: to treat Israel like any other normal state. It also includes giving pressure to Israel to abolish the expansionist settlement policy, including tearing down the “security fence”, while at the same time affirming the need to preserve Israel’s security vis-a-vis its adversarial neighbours. Failure to implement that will merely perpetuate the ritual carried out by most US Presidents in their efforts to address Middle East conflict --- to propose peace initiatives in their early years of administration but then to make no further serious and firm attempts at following up with realization until their last year of tenure.
Thus, the US is at an important crossroads. The onus is now on President Obama to demonstrate whether he is bold enough to depart from this pattern and to distance himself from the influence of the Israel lobby. If he can do so, then the rationale for awarding him the Nobel Prize will be fully justified.
-----
Geneva, 11 October 2009
The announcement that US President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 has drawn praise and cynicism both in the US and abroad. Indeed, although President Obama’s efforts at international diplomacy have generally gained international support, questions have also been raised as to what he has actually achieved other than hosting summits and making rhetoric.
The Nobel Prize Committee defended their decision by stating that they want to support what Obama is trying to achieve since he has created a new climate in international politics. Obama himself remained humble in his public statement by saying that he did not consider the award as recognition of his accomplishments but that he would accept the prize as “a call to action” rather than an affirmation of his diplomatic achievements. Nevertheless, critics maintain that the prize should be awarded for actual achievements rather than as a token of encouragement.
For me, I am not sure whether awarding this prize to Obama will give any help to what he is currently trying to achieve. But I do share the view that the granting of this prize to Obama is further evidence that Nobel Peace Prize, have become increasingly politicized over the past years. In the case of Obama in particular, the logic behind the nomination clearly reflects Europe’s hate of the Bush administration. Thus, Obama appears like a liberator to Europe. Indeed, if John Mc Cain had been elected, I believe that this nomination would not have taken place, since Mc Cain would most likely have continued the policies pursued by Bush.
At the moment, Obama’s two most promising accomplishments in achieving world peace are in the two areas of bridging the divide among cultures, namely between Islam and the West, and resolving the Middle East conflict. On both these issues, I believe that the solution depends first and foremost on the US and Western Europe.
Firstly, the Obama administration has invested heavily into healing the divisions between the West and Islam. Recently, in the September Session of the UN Human Rights Council, this US stance has been rewarded with the adoption, by consensus, of its proposed resolution on freedom of expression. In particular, the resolution seeks to find an accommodation between the concept of freedom of expression and that of defamation of religions or incitement to religious hatred. However, as we know from a number of concrete cases in recent years in various Western European countries, the latter have not always been consistent in their treatment of the principle of freedom of expression. In particular, repeatedly insulting the followers of certain religions in Europe – witness the examples in Denmark and the Netherlands – will not help Obama in his efforts to bridge Western values and Islam.
Interestingly, while insults of this type against religious figures are frequent in Western Europe, there have been no similar incidents the US. Perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that the US is an immigrant country, hence there is greater tolerance and respect of fellow immigrants and their different values or what they perceive as sacred.
The problem is, however, to the outside world in general, the US is always closely associated with the Western Europe, and in fact they consider the US is the “leader” of the Western Hemisphere. Thus, if the Nobel committee members are sincere with their rationale in nominating Obama for the prize, they should also call the Western Europe countries to help Obama in his endeavors to bridge the misunderstanding between the West and Islam, particularly by halting any incidents or negative behavior that may undermine Obama’s efforts in this regard.
Secondly, concerning the resolving the Middle East conflict, the responsibility mainly resides in the US itself, since the US has a considerable leverage to end that protracted conflict. In my view, the solution lies in the independence of Obama administration towards the Israel lobby. As is well known, the lobbyists have an important role in the US politics particularly in influencing the US foreign policy. In this case, the Israel lobby is notorious for its active works in navigating the US foreign policy towards a pro Israel direction. As a result, Washington’s seemingly blind support to Israel has fueled Anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
This notion is corroborated in the studies carried out by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (2007), and John Newhouse (2009) which concluded that the activities of lobbies representing foreign interests, particularly Israel lobby, have contributed to the waning of the US’ credibility and influence worldwide.
Thus, one of the key solutions to the Middle East problem, as Walt and Mearsheimer suggest, the current US administration should be able (or dare) to make a new relationship with Israel: to treat Israel like any other normal state. It also includes giving pressure to Israel to abolish the expansionist settlement policy, including tearing down the “security fence”, while at the same time affirming the need to preserve Israel’s security vis-a-vis its adversarial neighbours. Failure to implement that will merely perpetuate the ritual carried out by most US Presidents in their efforts to address Middle East conflict --- to propose peace initiatives in their early years of administration but then to make no further serious and firm attempts at following up with realization until their last year of tenure.
Thus, the US is at an important crossroads. The onus is now on President Obama to demonstrate whether he is bold enough to depart from this pattern and to distance himself from the influence of the Israel lobby. If he can do so, then the rationale for awarding him the Nobel Prize will be fully justified.
-----
Geneva, 11 October 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment