The truth behind Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

Avi Davis and Christian Whiton of the American Freedom Alliance explain what's really behind President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, and why Americans shouldn't be happy about it.
The reality is that the President’s policies have made long-term peace in the world less likely. Prolonged international negotiations with Iran, which started not with Mr. Obama but in fact have gone on throughout the decade, have actually given the Tehran regime time to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities while wars are fought through proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Similarly, the rhetorical and real concessions the Obama Administration has made to Moscow have yet to yield anything tangible in return other than modest verbal praise. The price paid for this volte face recently rose with the betrayal of two friendly governments—those of Poland and the Czech Republic – countries that had made the unpopular decision to host missile defense facilities at America’s earlier request. They must now be content with an expanded future missile threat from Iran, and also an emboldened Russian neighbor. It can’t be too far from the thoughts of the Polish and Czech leadership that just last year Russia invaded a country it borders. Skeptics are right to wonder how any of this contributes to long-term peace and security.

Perhaps the Nobel Committee’s most unjustified claim is that because of President Obama, “[d]emocracy and human rights are to be strengthened.” This is not even a claim typically made by the President’s most ardent supporters. Indeed, the unapologetic promotion of human rights and democracy that has had a place in a long succession of U.S. administrations has been disavowed by the Obama Administration. Secretary of State Clinton spelled out the rationale for this in her inaugural trip to China in February: “Our pressing on [human rights] issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.” Just this week the President refused to see the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington, the first time in eighteen years the renowned human rights advocate has not been received by a president. The President also refused to support pro-democracy protesters in Iran after the June elections there. Whether one advocates or opposes these policies, it is hard to believe that one can strengthen human rights and democracy while ignoring those actually fighting for them.

What then was the Nobel Committee’s criteria, if not quantifiable achievements for peace? Unfortunately, a look at more recent Nobel Prize recipients shows a bias toward trendy political causes and icons.

...

Any true gauge of the reasons for this Award must necessarily produce some very disturbing truths: The Norwegian parliamentarians awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama because they feel he is one of them. His unwillingness to prosecute a vigorous American foreign policy; his apparent absence of belief in American exceptionalism and his penchant for apologizing for American actions abroad, all seem very much in keeping with a Euro-centric view of the world. For this crowd he is the ultimate un-George Bush, less jingoistic, more calm in temperament and much more likely to act in the pacific, multicultural and appeasement vein they so appreciate.
'
posted by Carl in Jerusalem