Slow Year for Peace

If the Nobel committee is going to give President Barack Obama this year's Peace Prize, they should probably go ahead and give one to former president George W. Bush, too.

How ironic, since the mention of Bush and his violent policies is more likely to evoke phrases like "endless war" and "needless waste of human life." But Obama has yet to do anything other than merely ride their momentum. 

At February's Munich Security Conference, Vice President Joe Biden outlined the new administration's intentions for international policy.  And though the world may have been thrilled to hear from anyone other than Dick Cheney, the lasting conclusion is that the new administration means to follow in the footsteps of the old. 

Despite publicly offering to "push the reset button" in regards to Russian relations, the Obama administration quietly maintained the Bush administration's commitment to the principle of NATO expansion.

Similarly, Biden stated that the Obama administration is prepared to enter talks with Iran, provided that Iranians end their nuclear weapons program and stop supporting terrorists (meaning Hezbollah and Hamas).

And while this willingness to talk may seem refreshingly anti-Bush, these terms are identical to the ones laid out by the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, Obama chose to retain U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who is unlikely to reverse directions on the Afghanistan-Pakistan policies he himself formulated.

It would be, perhaps, most accurate to describe the transition from Bush to Obama as a re-branding. Obama's administration is an old product with a new logo.

When exactly, in this continuation of Bush's aggressive policy, is Obama promoting peace? Not only are these policies not promoting peace, they are facilitating even more death and destruction around the globe. 

At least when Woodrow Wilson received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919 for his participation in the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles, both institutions still sounded like good ideas. They hadn't yet collapsed or inspired a raging fascist regime in Germany.

According to the Nobel committee, Obama has established a "new political climate" and yet the U.S. media is buzzing with demonization of Iranians and 60 percent of Americans now support military action against Iran. What kind of improved political environment is this?

Sure, he aspires to achieve world peace. I have dreams of world peace too and, unlike Obama, I haven't been implicated in the deaths of anyone, directly or indirectly. Can I please have a Nobel Peace Prize? 

The Nobel Peace Prize is historically presented for accomplishment, and yet it has been presented to Obama seemingly prematurely. Even if he has the will and drive to promote peace, will he have the capability? The overwhelming power of corporate America is a mighty hurdle to overcome and there are no guarantees that he will be able to surmount it.

He might have high potential for world peace, but for the moment, all Obama has is potential-and a lot of blood on his hands.

How sad that this is the most peaceful act the Nobel committee could find, out of the whole world over the course of an entire year, to endorse.

I voted for Obama, and I stand by that choice. But I am disappointed in how carefully his message of hope seems to be calculated. Snagging the Nobel Peace Prize just seems like the latest great triumph of marketing.

Rather than recognizing an individual who has made bounds toward world peace, the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten embroiled in political endorsements and Obama's "celebritization."

Maybe this shouldn't come as a surprise, since Ghandi was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and never won. But then again, maybe Ghandi should have gotten a better a PR manager.

This commentary was originally published in The Star, Sonoma State University's student run paper.