If it was a Peace Prize, its timing could not have been more unfortunate. And the burden of this clearly showed on Obama and hence his defensive "what else can I do" acceptance speech.
Here's what I think he could have done. Decline to accept the Nobel.
An Obama who then explained that yes, he was the Commander-in-Chief of a nation waging two wars, and there was that part of his responsibility as the President of the US of A that he is bound to execute, even as he stays hopeful and works towards a solution for peace, would have kept alive the vision he attempted to define through his oratory. He would have done much better to decline, 'for now', the Nobel and offered to pick it up when his dream and vision actually translate to reality. That would've really turned things around for him everywhere.
Oh well, I guess the big medal was a bit too much to resist. He's human, too, after all.
.jpg)
1 comment:
The Obama-Nobel Peace Prize issue has been blown out of proportion in some respects. From Obama's point of view he didn't ask for the Nobel. There was a supposedly neutral committee that decided his eligibility. He has a job to do; he's answerable to his own political party and his own nation at the end of the day. Now coming to the selection committee and my reasons for calling them supposedly neutral: The reason they stated when picking Obama is open to interpretation in many different ways; to me it wasn't a solid enough reason that they gave. Secondly, the nobility of this Nobel Peace prize itself is doubtful when considering the number of candidates they've declined over the years, including Gandhi, Nehru and many others ...
Post a Comment