Okay, so I guess it's time to say something about this whole Peace Prize thingy. I've been talking to a few people here over the weekend and today, and even Americans agree that it's way too early for Obama to receive such an award. I haven't met anyone yet defending the choice of the Nobel Committee, and I must say I agree with them.
The pros: Obama has done a good job re-establishing US-Russian relations, and let's face it, that is pretty important for the stability of both economies and peace throughout. He's also promised to end the war in Iraq by xx.yy.20zz (can't remember the date), close down Guantanamo Bay, and this is all good and well. He has also singel-handedly cured AIDS and reunited the Korean peninsula, and rumour has it there has been established a direct line from the White House to Mars.
The cons: Obama was nominated 12 days (ooooooooh, look at me using the bold lettering for the first time) into his presidency. 12 days. Most people spend more time writing their term paper. Obama did enough to warrant a Peace Prize? And, last time I checked, he's still running two wars!! Peace Prize?
I was very confused by this decision until I saw who the members of the Nobel Committee are: Thorbjørn Jagland, whom I respect deeply, and then a bunch of old, conservative leftists. (Is that possible, you ask? In a social democracy, I say it is.)
It will be a good publicity stunt though, having the leader of the free world in Oslo for a day or two in December. But this award should (could) have come at a later time in his presidency, maybe in a few years time, when he has actually withdrawn from Iraq and closed Guantanamo. Yoy get back to me then...
Abonner på:
Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)
1 kommentar:
Just want to add that youre suppose to get the prize for what you did the year before.
Legg inn en kommentar