1
There are a number of comments about the prize being an incentive for Obama to live up to his rhetoric, to create an equitable peaceful world (although fewer than those that I could find wondering why he received it at all). That may well be true, and Obama may well believe it, but for me, it all comes back to the difference between the spoken word and the actions on the ground. Obama's rhetoric about the Middle East, about world peace and cooperation all sound mighty fine. The tools that he has used so far to try and accomplish this are the same old militaristic tools that have always been part and parcel of U.S. foreign policy. Unilateral invasions, occupations, threats of invasion, covert actions against governments, hostile actions against civilians all go against international law - more decidedly they go against common sense that violent military actions will somehow create a peaceful world.
I would be happy to have Obama live up to the expectations (hmm, but what really are the expectations of the Nobel Prize Committee?) of the prize, to realize his rhetorical grand visions of world peace and harmony. However, unless he can stand up against his own advisors, unless he can go against the grain of the established Washington perspective of the world, unless he can face down the Israeli political machine, not much will change.
A farce is a pretence or mockery. It is the dismal humour of human tragedy. The human tragedy here is Obama's sparkling rhetoric allowing him to receive a peace prize, while providing a thin veneer over the illegal and hostile actions the U.S. promotes for its own geo-strategic purposes around the world.
1 | 2
