Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com

Wealth of Nations

SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, October 09, 2009 12:03 PM

How Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Surprise Is Being Received in the World's Hot Spots

Katie Paul


Click here for our photo tour of Obama's rise from Barry to Barack. (Photo credit: Gerald Herbert / AP)

Barack Obama's big surprise win this morning produced more than a few "huhs?!?" heard 'round the world. Our personal favorite came from Lech Walesa, the 1983 Peace Prize winner and Poland’s president from 1990 to 1995, who told reporters in Warsaw: “Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast—he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet.” Of course, the head-scratching most relevant to this particular prize is happening in places like Jerusalem, Peshawar, and Harare. Here's what folks there have to say on the matter:

Afghanistan/Pakistan: Not such a popular call here, naturally. A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai had kind words for Obama, noting that "his hard work and his new vision on global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at a global level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize." That, of course, is somewhat at odds with other reports on his increasingly chilly relationship with the new administration. Meanwhile, from an undisclosed spot somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan, a spokesman for the Afghan Taliban movement told the Financial Times via satellite phone that, as the targets of drone attacks ordered by Obama, they considered him more deserving of a "war prize" than a peace prize. Another spokesman was on the line with Reuters, mocking, "The Nobel Prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians.' " Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the senior leader of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party pronounced the prize "a joke." "How embarrassing for those who awarded it to him because he's done nothing for peace," he said. "What change has he brought in Iraq, the Middle East or Afghanistan?"

Advertisement

Palestinian Territories: A Mahmoud Abbas spokesman went the painstakingly diplomatic route, while Hamas was, well, characteristically Hamas. "President Abbas congratulated President Obama on winning the Nobel Prize," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat. "The president wished that President Obama will achieve his quest for peace throughout the Middle East by establishing an independent Palestinian state in the 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem." Meanwhile, in Gaza, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told reporters after his Friday prayers, "Unless real and deep-rooted change is made in American policy toward recognizing the rights of the Palestinian people. I would think such a prize would be useless."

Israel: Jerusalem was also split. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio the award would enhance Obama's ability "to contribute to establishing regional peace in the Middle East and a settlement between us and the Palestinians that will bring security, prosperity, and growth to all the peoples of the region." President Shimon Peres, who won the prize in 1994 for his efforts to strike an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, also praised Obama as deserving of the award. "Very few leaders, if at all, were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such profound impact," he wrote in a congratulatory letter to his American counterpart. But Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, with the conservative Likud Party, was less enthusiastic. "It's very strange that Obama won," he said, voicing concerns "that [Obama] might force Israel into a peace deal now that he has won the award."

Iran: A spokesman for President Ahmedinejad took a more passive-aggressive approach. "We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice to the world order," he said, adding a predictable dig in noting that Obama would be especially deserving of the prize if he were to remove U.S. veto power in the United Nations Security Council. "We are not upset, and we hope that by receiving this prize he will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world," he said. A rousing endorsement, indeed.

Zimbabwe: If anyone has set an example of graciousness, it's Morgan Tsvangirai. He didn't lose his cool when he had to yield the presidency to a madman, alongside whom he then had to work as prime minister. Now, after he was slated as a frontrunner in this year's Nobel contest, he's had his party put out a statement praising Barack Obama's win as "deserved," saying his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples make him a perfect candidate for winning this award." On the interwebs, however, his fans the world over are more blunt: “Yo Barack, I’m really happy for you and imma let you finish, but Morgan Tsvangirai was one the most peaceful dudes ever.”

Check out other reactions from the right and Twitter.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: SIDMAC (October 24, 2009 at 11:00 PM)

I'm amazed at the extent, so many people around America and the world have assumed

ownership of the prize.  How many of the those who have expressed either a favorable or

unfavorable opinion on the award are (1) named Noble, or (2) put up  the 1.4 millions dollars to

the winner.   SIDMAC


Posted By: Tan Boon Tee (October 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM)

By awarding the peace prize to the US president, could the Nobel committee’s underlying objective is to deliberately coerce him to fulfill the promises he made in the presidential campaign – a nuclear-weapon-free and war-free world?

But will he really make it? Please do not forget, dreams and realities do not match, always.

Perhaps, the awarders might have been as dreamy as the awardee.


Posted By: DePetris (October 11, 2009 at 12:00 AM)

Considering that President Obama has promised a great deal to the Arab world in general, it is quite understandable that some distinguished foreign-policy statesmen are feeling both skeptical and bewildered over his Nobel Prize victory.  It does not take a genius to figure out that Mr. Obama's hopes for the region have been drastically curtailed by the debacle in Afghanistan...as well as other domestic priorities that are high on his administration's agenda (i.e. health care reform and fixing the national economy).

Scholars such as Marc Lynch and Stephen Walt have already pointed to his lack of progress on substantial issues relevant to Arabs worldwide.  President Obama's vision for a genuine and long-lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is perhaps the most effective illustration.  

In the first few months of Obama's presidency, the White House essentially re-formulated its entire perspective with respect to the conflict.  Palestinian grievances would be heard with open ears and respected with an open mind; Israelis would be pressured into making concessions that they have never made before; and Arab nations would be expected to moderate their behavior to further the prospects for peace.  The key was to depart from the status-quo of the George W. Bush years, when U.S. support for Israel was virtually unlimited and unquestioned.

Months later, what has been accomplished on the Israeli- Palestinian front?  The answer, of course, is nothing; unless you count Washington's regression back under the same old "we work for Israel" banner.  Obama, for reasons I still do not understand to this day, has decided that caving-in to Prime Minister Netanyahu's settlement policy is more important than working towards a comprehensive agreement...not only exacerbating the already horrendous living-conditions of the Palestinian population but diminishing the optimism that so many Arabs wanted to experience.  U.S. policymakers are once again viewing Israel as a "reliable" partner, re-inflaming the same hostility that President Obama hoped to eliminate in his Cairo speech.  The "say one thing and do another" approach is once again the microcosm of American foreign-policy  

Perhaps the biggest blunder to Mr. Obama's Mideast peace plan is the fact that he has lost a considerable amount of support from the Arab world.  While the 44th president still enjoys widespread international support (hence the Noble Peace Prize), people may be slowly realizing that he has no intention of backing-up his “yes me can” rhetoric.  

Iran is another case in point.  Despite the President's pledge to limit Iran's nuclear capability (a key issue among Arab populations), Tehran continues to produce uranium at an unprecedented speed. Yes, talks between Iranian representatives and western powers are gradually gaining fruition on both sides; the idea that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is willing to export uranium for further enrichment is by no means a minor breakthrough.  Yet, as everyone knows, this is certainly not a show-stopper.  

There is a very real possibility that Obama's premature acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize could translate into his own demise, undermining his credibility and ruining his legacy.  With the Prize in hand, the President is now placed with a tremendous amount of pressure on his shoulders.  With more power comes more responsibility, and if the White House fails to live up to its end of the bargain, the United States may very well return to its previous position: the most hated and unpopular nation on earth.  

Of course, one cannot solely blame the President for these failures.  After all, the man has only been in the Oval Office for the past nine months.  No leader, however transformational on the global stage, would be able to successfully complete all idealistic objectives in such a short period of time.  

Nevertheless, Arabs are losing patience.  At least George W. Bush lived up to his philosophy.

http://depetris.wordpress.com