Last autumn countless Europeans said they wished they could vote in the American election. The Nobel committee acted on that wish yesterday, albeit eleven months later.
Thomas Carothers at the Carnegie Endowment offers a reminder of what winning the Nobel Peace Prize has meant over the years. Many American reactions overheard here in red territory have been pissy and ignorant in the extreme, while out there in blue-land there's a lot of discomfort and defensiveness.
What else is new. Both reactions are narrow in view and lazy.
Carothers' rationale in the New York Times shows a longer and wider view of the award. What many Americans saw as just another in a long string of eloquent speeches (yawn), the rest of the world saw a breathtaking and world-changing event when President Obama gave that speech in Cairo. From then on, it was a matter of keeping the promise Obama offered alive rather than picking at the speed of his accomplishments. Peace isn't a goal; it's a job that never ends. The committee that awards the Nobel Peace prize understands that.
Kofi Annan’s prize in 2001 came in the first half of his tenure as secretary general of the United Nations, possibly aiming to fortify him for what the Nobel committee expected would be hard times ahead for international peace in the aftermath of September 11.
The award to Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi in 2003 was not simply a recognition of her past accomplishments defending human rights in Iran. It aimed to boost her future efforts at a time when Iran’s reform movement was losing steam and troubling political waters clearly lay ahead.
We think of him as "our Obama," for better or worse. We forget that the rest of the world -- which doesn't want anything to do with our hawks -- has embraced Obama with gratitude and relief. Free of the pettiness of our politics, they see him as a peacemaker, not as the mere mortal Americans seem increasingly determined to destroy.
Peace is pretty elusive when we're dealing with so many power brokers -- from Washington to Tehran and beyond -- who strike down efforts at reconciliation as soon as they get started. Money chases war, not peace. Carothers reminds us of the fate of other Nobel Peace Prize winners. For every decent, beleaguered diplomat, there are hundreds of power brokers who want to destroy them.
Kofi Annan locked horns unsuccessfully with the Bush administration over the invasion of Iraq. And despite Shirin Ebadi’s continued valiant work, human rights in Iran deteriorated steadily after 2003.
Neither Annon nor Ebadi got the support they needed. We might want to rethink whose side we're on. We've gotten into the habit of making the power brokers our default leaders. Is that what we want?
