Peace Prize or Appeasement Prize?

So, the Nobel Peace Prize of 2009 has gone to . . . Barack Obama?  His nomination would have had to have been made within 11 days of him becoming President of the United States.  I’m sure for some that’s enough time to accomplish great things, but most of us consider our accomplishments of lasting import to have required a little more of us than 11 days.  Of course, within that period he gave some great speeches . . .  and words are the weapons of progressives, after all.


According to Francis Sejersted, chairman of the Norweigan Nobel Committee in the 1990s, “Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”  Many of us thought as much, but our suspicions have now been solidly confirmed with the current award.  After all, this is a man who has spent his first months in office trying to force policies on an unwilling public which would make us look a lot more like those who resent us because they wish they could be us, and weaken much of our competitive advantage in the world.  Even for many of those who support Mr. Obama and his progressive agenda, this is just one step too far in throwing themselves at the feet of an unproven secular savior, and the honest just aren’t willing to go there.


Gier Lundestad, secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said in 2001, ” . . . the committee was  . . . prepared to intervene . . . in regional conflicts around the world in the hope that the Nobel Peace Prize could not only award deeds done, but also provide an added incentive for peace.”  Does anyone see here an obvious attempt to influence Mr. Obama and his dealings with other countries?  He is currently considering whether to follow the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, who has asked the White House for 40,000 more troops and warned that without them, we will likely fail in that country.  Is the awarding of this prize one of those “incentives for peace” spoken of by Mr. Lundestad?


Of course, “peace” is an interesting debate for another day.  I don’t know of a single individual, outside of some Muslim extremists who want to kill all who disagree with them, who doesn’t want peace.  The question is one of whether or not we do the hard things to ultimately achieve it and whether we’re willing to acknowledge that hard things sometimes must be done; things that appear, on the surface, to be anything but peaceful.  You know, it’s kind of like shooting the intruder in your home just before he rapes or kills your wife – not really a peaceful act in and of itself, but one that ultimately provides more peace than the alternative.  This requires the ability, though, to think and see beyond the immediate, Beyond Stage One.


The awarding of this prize is simply an accolade for a man who is greatly loved around the world by those who resent us, the United States of America, for being the last great bastion of freedom in a world clamoring for nurture at the hand of big brother government.  The anger is palpable toward those in this country who fight against the policies of progressivism, and who want anything but to become like another European state.  After eight years of a man who wasn’t afraid to stand up to evil and extol the virtues of the American way of life, those who despise everything that has made this country exceptional have at long last found their ally, in one of our own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *