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!”