though not the loony left:

October 9, 2009 -



Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
Michael Binyon




The award of this year's Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met
with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably
deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It
was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing
European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the
election of America's first black president and hope that Washington will
honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in
its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely
begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for
peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr. Obama's decision to "strengthen
international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". Many people will
point out that, while the President has indeed promised to "reset" relations
with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world,
there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any
change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America's
vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make
any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and
the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose
principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in
Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr. Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize
that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would
be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to
40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed
in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace
is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared
to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace
campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was
clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster.
But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be
negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of
Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to
Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin - although it could be argued
that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at
least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr. Obama's prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most
contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho
for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a
warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the
Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never
intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack
South Vietnam.

Mr. Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The
committee said today that he had "captured the world's attention". It is
certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his
supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they
can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all
previous winners have been diminished.