I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for officially invalidating your most prestigious honor twice in the same decade! While I’m sure this is not the first letter of congratulations you have yet received, I should hope that it is the first to recognize your political pandering.
Listen: I was understanding when you handed Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change an award, theirs was at least a cause which merited serious attention and had yet to receive it. But really? Barack Obama? The man has been in office for less than seven months, hasn’t sat down with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, hasn’t made any tangible progress on North Korea, hasn’t actively spoken out against Chinese oppression in Tibet and Taiwan, hasn’t done anything (really) to merit anything more than, “Good Morning, Mr. President, would you like your eggs scrambled or poached today?”
So, in the lifetime of current college seniors, here’s a list of some notable causes/spokesmen who have won your little accolade: the current Dalai Llama, Mikhail Gorbachev (for finally agreeing to end the Cold War), Nelson Mandela, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jimmy Carter (call this a “lifetime achievement” award), the IAEA (that’s International Atomic Energy Commission, for non-proliferation efforts), and, of course, Al Gore and Manbearpig…err,…the International Panel on Climate Change.
Why the President then? Supposedly “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, but I ask you: What conflict has ceased since BO took his constitutionally required Oath of Office? Go ahead, name one that he’s actually solved. Iraq? Nope, still battling Islamo-Fascists and Extremism there. Afghanistan? Nope, Taliban rebels are flooding in from Pakistan. India-Pakistan, maybe? They’ve been settled down for awhile but that could go at any minute. China-Anything? Nope, the PRC is still treating everyone in the region like their plaything/red-headed-step-child. Pirates, maybe, some guys in dinghy’s with Kalashnikov’s? Nope, they took over a French anti-piracy ship this past weekend.
It seems to me that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded not because of anything BO has actually done, but for who he wasn’t: George Bush. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some bacon-egg-and-cheese-biscuit at McDonald’s on a hangover-belly, but not enough to give someone $1M and a prestigious award. (By the way, he has yet to announce where that money’s going…)
With the most sarcasm I can muster on a Friday,
Kyle C. Lincoln
This is my favorite take on the whole situation…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/snarking_it_up_at_foggy_bottom.php
Although in general I agree with the idea that Obama hasn’t accomplished much yet, and that just about anyone after Bush could easily improve international relations merely due to the fact that s/he is not Bush, you do seem to have a bit of exaggeration, and some pretty large ideas, as to what Obama “should” accomplish (I am amusing from you statements that you would have preferred Obama do these things first, and then get the Peace Prize)
For a sloppy, hurried, and simplified analysis:
“Chinese oppression in Tibet and Taiwan”—
Tibet is Chinese territory. I am fully aware that some are some Tibetans that would rather not be under Chinese rule (and I am actually of the personal opinion that Tibet should be an independent state), but the fact remains that legally Tibet is within the People’s Republic of China. Any attempt to change the situation in Tibet would be going against Chinese sovereignty, and sovereignty is one of the keys of the international system. Taiwan? Taiwan is not receiving any oppression from the (mainland) Chinese government. No mainland military presence has been there since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, and relations are actually pretty good between Taiwan and the mainland at the moment, with economic ties bringing them closer and closer. I would recommend educating yourself as to the details of a situation before taking a stance on it.
Forgive my insolence, but it seems to me that while Tibet and Taiwan may enjoy the “privileges” of Chinese political franchise, they deserve their innate right to “alter or abolish” that franchise when it becomes abusive of their inalienable rights. Color me revolutionary, but Taiwan is receiving oppression in that their own self-governance, their autonomy is being denied to them for the neo-Stalinist reason that “there is only one China”. I respect your point on sovereignty being the international lingua franca, but this doesn’t change the point that no less of men than the current Dalai Llama and the previous two Popes have agreed on such a matter. I don’t expect anyone to submit to my tequila-lubricated spirituality, but I think that those two offices have considerable auctoritas when it comes to matters of human sovereignty. I may resent your expert’s opinion on the matter, but I believe that to deny a people their autonomy (yes, even Scotland and Quebec) when they chafe at the bridles of their oppressors is foolish, inhumane, and in blatant violation of the foundational principles of this nation. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…