Obama and the Nobel committee

My friend Mickey Nardo, writing at http://1boringoldman.com, had this to say about the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Obama:

[Alfred Nobel's stipulations for the Peace Prize begin with this phrase:] " . . . to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations":

In a world where the largest military power has invaded two countries in its last Administration - one for cause and the second as part of a policy of preemptive war undertaken unilaterally with the express goal of asserting its place as the world policeman [with an ulterior motive to gain access to the invaded country's natural resources]. In such a world, what would be "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations" possible? I would think that if someone were to succeed in changing the foreign policy of that country to one that emphasized diplomacy and cooperation with the charter and mission of the United Nations - that would be an accomplishment of immeasurable worth to the cause of peace. And if the offending nation were to have a policy of torturing its prisoners of war, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, and that policy was abandoned and the validity of the Geneva commitments reestablished as the law of that country - that would be another major accomplishment in the pursuit of peace.

So what if a single person were to check the militarism of the world’s largest pugilist? Would that justify giving that person the Nobel Peace Prize? If I were one of the five persons chosen to select a prize winner, I’d select the person who did the things I just mentioned. It’s hard to accept that our country really is the biggest pugilist on the planet. We don’t think of ourselves as having a policy of world domination, but that is exactly what we’ve had for the last eight years. It’s called the Bush Doctrine and includes preemptive military strikes, unilateral military action, strength without peer, and actively promoting our form of government [throw in terms like American Dominance and Regime Change]. And many of us worried that our government would bomb Iran, rather than talk to them.

So we are still involved in two leftover wars and closing our torture center in Cuba is going slowly. So what? At least, the world doesn’t have to watch our every move to be sure we don’t go off half cocked for the flimsiest of reasons. The world doesn’t have to deal with the fact that our Ambassador to the U.N. didn’t even believe in the U.N. In one single day [January 20, 2009], the world regained a member of the family of nations - having lost that valued member for almost a decade.

Barack Obama, a minority candidate in a country still in the throes of a conservative mood and deep in the middle of a financial recession, was able to change the course of history by being elected President — to tame a growing monster. That’s the biggest accomplishment in the service of peace possible in 2009. All it takes to understand is to look into a mirror and see what we had become…

This is the best rationale I have read anywhere for why Barack Obama is the choice for the Peace Prize. Others have cynically made this same point, but with a negative valence, in saying "He got it for being non-Bush." Well, that's true -- but that sounds petty and political. Mickey's statement reminds us of the vitality and profundity of what that actually means, not only to us, but to the world.

Ralph