PEACE PRIZE FOR OBAMA; IS A PREMATURE OR PREPARED DECISION?

Barrak Hossain Obama; Nobel Peace Prize Winner of the Year 2009

‘A prize without price/payment’ and ‘a prize for pressure’ are today’s two most popular buzzwords round the globe. Some other analysts argue that the Nobel Peace Prize, the most prestigious prize in current world, selection is nothing but ‘a prize without performance but for promise’. Yes, the selection of Obama, the much talked and most charismatic president of the USA, for Nobel Peace Prize was no less than a bolt from the blue for the unprepared mass of the world. The sudden jerk of the message made the inhabitants of the earth, indiscriminately any locality, country and even continent, flabbergasted for a while. But within a short while they started expressing, still are expressing no doubt will express, their reactions, remakes and recommendations targeting the selection. All the people, both from mob and professionals, are on their own track, be sure that like all other issues the number of tracks are countless, to justify the nomination. This justification, by some, some times gets so harsh and sharp that they put a question mark over the whole process of the peace prize. It is, however, not a new phenomenon for this year, according to some critics, but an old fashion of using the prize as a political tool in the way of managing dirty western interests. But this year, by the nomination of Obama, the criticism goes to a new dimension that suggests that the offering of the prize is a premature and unprepared step. There is, not surprisingly but obviously, another group who validates the selection by saying it as a right-time-to-click-the mouse type decision. Before penetrating the issue from the criticizing attitude it, in fact, will be an astute choice to scrutinize the Nobel Peace Prize selection criteria with impartial, unbiased and neutral goggles.

Obama; A New Craze for New Generation People

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, deals with only peace prize while five others are dealt by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, has been authorized to hit upon the real laureates for peace under the light of Alfred Nobel's Will. The will, given by Alfred and considered as guide line to select Nobel laureates, suggests, as a general outline for all fields, the prize “to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”. The Will further, particularly for peace prize, advocates “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. Neither the overall criteria, given in general for all fields, nor the particular criteria, said for peace prize only, admits Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate as the first one imposes time boundary ‘during the preceding year’ and the latter one enforces to halt an arms violence. The time boundary strictly forbids the prize based on future expectation. It also suggests counting the activities only for preceding year. What has Obama done in the preceding year? Election propaganda, a campaign for his own presidency was the only task of Obama in that particular time proposed for selection of the laureates in Alfred’s Will. Yes, Obama has not accomplished a year in his chair and, moreover, the selection process started before some months which can encircle only five or six months of his presidency. How can it be possible for a president to perform such gigantic operations in such a short period that may ensure him a Peace Prize? The second criteria articulated principally for peace prize stands strictly on the way of Obama to keep him away from the prize as it permits the prize only for those who have direct involvement in halting an arms conflict or in some other sectors i.e. disarmament, upholding human rights, fighting for democracy etc. Actually on the way of peace Obama’s achievements include some hasty activities i.e. a speech given in Cairo, Egypt, to the Muslims about making the relations based on mutual dignity, understanding and responsibility; starting a peace accord in middle east though the process is now under a decaying condition because of tricky steps taken by Israel and Obama is silent in this point; negotiation with North Korea, Iran; offering Sudan a lucrative proposal to accept American policy and most notable is to reach a normal relations with Europe and Russia on the question of deployment of missile in Europe on the nose of Russia. Oh sorry! There is another vital issue, uttered by Obama, the ambitious nuclear free world or complete nuclear disarmament. Yes the list now is well sufficient to get Peace Prize if one of them is materialized or, at least, goes to an end with satisfying way. But alas! All of them are only on the beginning point and probably none of them is going to be true but going to turn into a day dream like a book without page, a pen without ink and a ring without hole to pour on a finger. For these reasons there have been stated some connotations regarding the issue as ‘A prize without price/payment’ and ‘a prize without performance but for promise’. But what if promises are not fulfilled? How can you finalize students’ ranking based on only a few class performances without judging the examination script?

Dr. Md. Younus; a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate from Bangladesh

There is, however, another school that really shows no headache about Obama. According to them the Nobel Prize in general and Nobel Peace Prize in particular is nothing but a political tool for the Western allies. This group assumes that peace prize is awarded, without a slight exception, to those whose hands are red colored with the blood of immense common mass of the world. Henry Kissinger, the name related to Vietnam War which caused for limitless loss of life, Theodore Roosevelt, about whom one American news paper wrote “the wielder of the 'big stick' should be crowned as America's great pacificator, Woodrow Wilson, the silent cooperator of the treaty of Versailles which in the long run led to the second world war, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin two blood seekers of sinless Palestinians and Frederik Willem de Klerk are some of the Peace Prize laureates who have been directly responsible for the war, violence or repression. Citing all these names this particular group never minds who comes to the limelight of media for being a Nobel Peace laureate. For this reason they do not want Obama to be accused of killing Afghan people and attacking Pakistan with drone. When a nuclear free world is expected by a president who continues his assistance in nuclear projects of another country before her signing Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and based on merely this expectation the prize is awarded why there should be put an exclamatory sign!

Children; Celebrating Nobel Prize Giving Ceremony With a Smiling Face

There really can be drawn a unique but reasonable argument supporting Obama as an awarded person where Bush can play great role. Yes, don’t get confused! It is Bush, and not Bush senior but the immediate past President Bush junior, who has helped and contributed at a large scale in gaining peace prize by Obama. Oh no, why are you considering this a great joke? It is such a reality that can’t be ignored from real point of view. Under Bush administration the world experienced such bitter conditions, so many humiliations of human dignity that only a slight escaping of the situation is considered as a peaceful state and such Obama is awarded the prize. The blood shedding occurred in different parts of world in such a gigantic degree that only a minor reduction made every one so excited to offer the prize. When children can think a day without a new front of war, when a news paper does not need to have its headline with a threat of a new war, when a child does not shiver in fear in its mother’s laps and when one can open his eyes with birds chirping not a sound from drone why all these people would not let Obama a Peace Prize winner. When people become assured that there should be, at least, a negotiation instead of a harsh warning, there should be shown respect on opinions grown internationally, there should be given an experiment of using nonviolent tools before going to violence; people get a notion of relief from fear of bombing or at least they get a chance to dream of war free world. All these phenomena help Obama to get the prize whenever it becomes a slap for Bush, who knows he understands it or not. Though the scenario is not changed in a large scale but there is a fundamental change in the situation and that is under the previous presidency we did not have a chance to have a dream of war free day whenever now, under Obama’s presidency, we at least can hope for dream of war, threat and warning free earth. This is the only justification which can not be taken under a question mark against Obama’s Peace Prize award. So why Obama got the prize! The simple answer is- “Not for being a peace maker but for not being Bush!”

THE AFGHAN ELECTION; FACTS BENEATH THE DEBATE

Hamid Karzai, The President, Casting His Vote

There lies a strong supposition ‘Democracies do not fight’, given by the western philosophy hawkers to excavate causes of war. Like many other pseudo assumptions this special one also opens the wings of question what the relations there may be drawn between two separate dynamics i.e. democracy, an internal affair of a country, and war among states, an external factor. After making a deep thinking on the argument you will find the real connotation of the assumption but, alas (!), with a slight variation in its inner sense e.g. ‘Democracies need not fight’ or, at least, ‘Selective democracies do not fight’. Are you confused regarding all the three statements given above such as democracies do not fight, democracies need not fight and the last one selective democracies do not fight? Is it clear to you what the difference between first two suppositions as democracies do not fight and democracies need not fight? Do you know what sense gives the term selective democracy? If you can explain all those assumptions and term, it can be assured that ins and outs regarding election in Afghanistan are completely luminous to you. Contrary to that, it will be a task of finding a needle from a dune if you do not have a clear cut idea about those things described in above. So let us first discover the real meaning of them.

The first supposition which is originated, propagated, and campaigned by the western philosophers, suggests that if there are two democratic countries there would never happen war between them. They give a nonsense explanation about the war preventing power of democracy. They prophecies that as a democratic government is to think about the welfare of the people they have no time to commit war and they also have no mandate to war as most of the people are peace loving and real mandate lies in their hands. This interpretation regarding war curbing power of democracy never is in the position to be accepted or believed as there are huge examples where, you will see in third world countries, lots of democratically elected governments turn into autocratic characteristics within a short while of their election. So to get the real explanation there may be suggested another assumption, as there has already been given, democracies need not fight. Why wars occur? When a state can’t achieve its interest because of unwillingness of another state, there may arise a war situation. But with taking full advantage of money-media-muscle power a strong nation can easily shape and reshape any government in a weaker state. In this way the stronger state can achieve its all interests from the weaker state by managing the government of that country. So war, most of the time, does not become a means of obtaining interest as it did in the past. In this circumstances we can make a corollary that democracies need not fight. But when a democratically elected government does not fulfill the requirement of a big power there come the questions of selective democracy. Yes! This is a special type of democracy which is created, nurtured and nourished by massacring or, at least, ignoring a real democratically elected government. Look at the behavior of USA’s treatment with HAMAS, democratically elected government in Palestine, and Musharraf’s government in Pakistan. In these two cases selective democracy was the means to gain interest. This is the fact what is working in case of Afghan election. Before going to beneath of the result and process of the election you must have to go to the real target of the USA and its alliance in this region. The USA along with NATO wants to continue its presence in Afghanistan to slaughter China, and probably India if need in far future. But justifying this presence is not an easy task for the USA without fitting a reasonable excuse. Only an unrest, turbulence and instable Afghanistan can assure a rational justification for the western ally to stay in the region. In such a situation a peaceful Afghanistan is never expected to that party who is critical and real playmaker of the region. Thus it is quite clear to all that only a selective democracy can be expected and must be implemented by that clever and coercive client of the region. Let us make a quick glance to the Afghan election with the goggles that particular perspective.

If we look at the election process and its continuous story from top to bottom with a white eye we can describe in that particular way. The second presidential election in Afghanistan under the present constitution of Afghanistan was held on August 20, 2009. Elections for 420 provincial council seats were held at the same time. In accordance with the announcement of the NATO officials given in May 2009 that 15.6 million voters had registered to vote, roughly half of the country's population; 35 to 38 percent of registered voters were women. These registration numbers have been disputed, however, by the Free and Fair Election Foundation of Afghanistan and media reports, which suggest widespread fraudulent activity in the election process.

Under the 2004 constitution, elections should have been held no later than 60 days before the end of President Karzai's term in July 2009. The Independent Election Commission (IEC) originally recommended that the poll be held at the same time as the 2010 parliamentary balloting to save costs. However, politicians in the country were unable to agree to the details. Concerns about accessibility to mountainous areas in spring 2009 and the ability of getting adequate people and materials in place by then led the IEC to announce the elections would be delayed to August 2009.

The opposition accused Karzai of attempting to extend his power past his term. In February 2009, President Hamid Karzai called on the Independent Election Committee to hold the election according to the country's constitution. Thereby forcing the IEC to reiterate the August date, and silencing critics, who fear a leadership vacuum between May and August. Some potential Afghan opponents complained Karzai's move was an attempt to clear the field of challengers, most of whom would not be ready to campaign for the 2009 election. After the IEC and the international community rejected Karzai's decree, Karzai accepted the date of August 20, 2009. The Supreme Court of Afghanistan announced in March 2009 that Karzai's term would be extended until a new leader had been elected. His opponents called the decision unconstitutional and unacceptable, pointing out that it put Karzai in a position to exploit the office to secure his electoral victory. After all these occurrences there have been played the play of an election where Karzai got the office of presidency by obtaining the minimum required votes with lots of complains i.e. manipulating the result, showing fake vote centers and using governmental mechanism to unsure victory. Moreover boycott by Taliban has also brought the acceptability under question. Low vote casting rate is also another aspect of disqualification of unacceptability of the election.

Now the fact comes first in our mind why the father of democracy, at least according to their demand, is playing such a critical play in Afghanistan’s election. Why Karzai is now under their severe pressure though he is the man who in near past was selected as the savior of Afghan people? Is he not their expected and exclusive choice now? If not why they gave him a chance to exploit his power in influencing election? All these questions require a single answer- selective democracy, already argued above. They usually want to keep pressure both on Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah to get bargaining power with them. They want to inform Karzai that if he is not satisfying their demand(s) and going out of their rudder he will be thrown away as election is not accepted to the world’s mass. In this way Abdullah Abdullah, the opposition of karzai, is being used by them as a triumph card. In the same time they also are trying to eyewash world mass to justify their presence in Afghanistan in the name of instability and disorder and, of course, reestablishment and resettlement of firm democracy. Taliban is, obviously, a genuine excuse to continue their presence but nowadays they are, in fact, tired with war. So Talibans are not to be an option for them. They want their presence ensured without war what can only be justified with an Afghanistan full with political turmoil and chaos.

In such a situation Hamid Karzai, a puppet of western block, will ascend in power through a shabby, shaky and trembling rope which in any time may tear or to be cut with the tricky scissor, Abdullah Abdullah the real name of the scissor. If they can serve the purpose through their puppet government, no matter Karzai or Abdullah, why they will let the war with Taliban, once created and nurtured by them to hunt Russia but letter denied to serve their purpose. As a result Afghanistan is going to be a place of selective democracy, selected by the USA, to ensure western interest without war and at the same time to confirm their attendance in the region to tight, and teach China. If a selected democracy in Afghanistan permits the USA to contain a foreseeable foe, namely China, without any excuse why they will not let it happen. Who keeps it unpracticed to kill a bird keeping the gun on others shoulder?

A woman is casting her vote