Is he America’s Asoka?

S Gurumurthy
First Published : 12 Oct 2009 12:19:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 12 Oct 2009 12:49:12 AM IST

The Americans seem shocked and embarrassed instead of celebrating at the choice of Barack Hussein Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. The US media, instead of celebrating the award for its president, is consequently in splits as to how to handle the embarrassment of the award to the new and untested president. “It is an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honouree”, said The Washington Post almost feeling shy at the choice. It continued: “A more suitable time for the Prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit; that barely nine months into his presidency, his goals are still goals”. The Los Angles Times, among the first to endorse Obama’s candidature, asking, “whether Obama deserves the Prize”, commented that “the Nobel committee didn’t just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the Prize itself.” The Time said that “the last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise” saying that he has so far only made promises and has done nothing.

It cited that former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace laureate, has, while responding to Obama’s prize, asked “So soon?” and said, “Too early. He has no contribution so far”. Some in the US seem to be more surprised that Obama, who they had first thought would politely say “No” to the prize, chose to accept it, albeit with such riders as “not deserving it”. Never before in the history of Nobel Peace Prize, the country of the honouree had acted with such contempt for the award as well as the awardee.

Some in the US even feel that geopolitical strategists with left leanings in the Norwegian Parliament have fixed the US. What have geopolitical strategists with left leanings to do with the Nobel Peace Prize? The reason is that unlike the other Nobel Prizes for which selection is made by specialised bodies, it is a five-member committee of the Norwegian Parliament that selects for the Nobel Peace Prize. The present parliament has a leftist slant and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee mirrors it. It has three members with left of centre and two with right of centre leaning.

So according to some in the US, the choice of Obama, despite being claimed as unanimous, is political and is intended to embarrass the US. It has thrown up such momentous issues at Obama and US as what will the US do to contain Iran’s nuclear advancement, or, North Korea’s? Can Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, bomb Tehran’s, or Pyongyang’s nuclear facility even if it is in US or global interest? Can he continue the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq without embarrassment? Can he continue to raid the tribal areas of Pakistan and hunt down the Taliban? If he does, disregarding the Nobel Peace Prize, the award may lose credibility. If he does not, he will. Will Obama not be left to choose between his Nobel Peace Prize image and his duty to US itself?

But the most surprising question is: why was Obama chosen in the first place? He is barely into the tenth month of his presidency; and in this entire period, apart from delivering beautiful speeches in and out of America, he has only been fire fighting at home. More than the fact that the award was given when he had just been nine months in his office, the rapidity with which he seems to have been nominated within days of becoming president shocks one even more. He was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009 and the deadline for the nominations for the Peace Prize was February 1, 2009. It means that he must have been nominated within 10 days of assuming office as US President and the basis of the nomination could only be his election speeches. Who nominated him? Under the rules of the Nobel Committee, that is kept as secret for 50 years; so only in 2059 the name of Obama’s proposer will be revealed.

But, what do the selectors, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, say on their choice of Obama? “Attaching great importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons”, the committee has decided “to award the Prize to Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. It is Obama’s efforts and not accomplishments, which constituted the basis of the choice.

Going back in history why did Alfred Nobel institute the award? Nobel’s Will of 1895 directs that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and formation and spreading of peace agreements.” Obama has accomplished none of these. Even those who selected him speak only of his ‘efforts’ to do, and not anything done by him. As a presidential candidate Obama had promised that he would reduce the US involvement in Iraq but is obviously unable to turn his promise into action. In contrast he is considering intensifying US involvement in Afghanistan. He is unable to push the Middle East peace agenda, despite his Cairo talk of ‘US-Muslim bhai bhai’. Even according to the media in the honouree’s country, the US, the efforts are oral, in beautifully articulated speeches; with no firm action on the ground. So how far the choice of Obama for the Prize is in line with Alfred Nobel’s testament which stipulates doing something and not promising in the cause of peace? Obviously Obama’s words are not what Alfred Nobel had in mind: he wanted some accomplishment to deserve the award. The gap between Nobel’s stipulations and the actual choice seems to question the motive of the Norwegian politicians in choosing Obama. There is no doubt that there is more politics to the choice of Obama than peace.

The only ruler in known history who gave up war and stood by peace was emperor Asoka in India. Neither before, nor after, has anyone in history dare take such a decision and remain true to it. The modern wars have been several thousand times more violent than the Kalinga war, which made Asoka give up wars altogether. Asoka was the kind of honouree-statesman that Alfred Nobel must have had in mind when he wrote his Will for the Peace Prize. Can a country like the US with a history of wars afford a leader of peace? Sometimes even wars are for peace. Again America is a country, which has one of the largest stocks of nuclear warheads, with over 10,000 in position and 20,000 plus awaiting dismantlement. Its military capability is the most powerful in the world. Can such a country afford an Asoka at the helm? If it does, the US will not be US. If it does not, Obama will not be Asoka. So unless the US ceases to be US, Obama cannot be Asoka. Will he then be the Asoka of US at all?.

comment@gurumurthy.net

About the author:

S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues