The following is an essay I wrote a few weeks ago...Hope you enjoy reading it...
‘All that glitters is not gold. Many a thought remains untold. Men have reached the Moon, yet our actions cannot be foretold’
Our opinionated planet was divided this January by the decision of The Nobel Committee to award newly-elected US President, Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize. In some quarters, this decision prompted severe criticism of the Committee to such an extent as to even question their credibility. However, there remained an adamant school of thought who backed their decision wholeheartedly. Personally, I was shocked at how the President of a nation, clearly the antithesis of Peace - The United States, could be given such an accolade and justifiably so.
In the United States of America, the President’s decisions reflect the country’s policies. The fact that the country is involved in armed conflicts should be enough to rule him out of the running for such an award. If that isn’t reason enough, the fact that he has broken several promises made to the American people (evident through the plummet in his popularity ratings) should have prompted the Nobel Committee to have made a wiser choice.
The reason cited by his supporters was the ‘Hope’ he created during his campaign. Hope is not a tangible thing, worthy of a Peace Prize. The fact that he replaced George W. Bush is the main reason for the euphoria and joy among the people. Their celebration was for the outgoing villain, not the incoming one. After eight years of Bush’s tyranny, the world desperately wanted a change in leadership in the USA and that is why he received unlimited goodwill from around the world.
Obama is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians and has failed to bring peace to Iraq. Also, his sanctions against Iran and North Korea, have affected world peace. He has also supported international terrorism through his support of Israel - a criminal nation and a violator of basic Human Rights? Furthermore, Guantanamo Bay is still a centre of vicious American brutality-and several promises to close the prison down have been broken time and time again.
Can such atrocities merit a Peace Prize?
I acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama is a great orator, an inspirational leader and an efficient Senator. Perhaps people expected more from him than he is capable of, and that plays to his disadvantage. As the saying goes –“Actions speak louder than Words” Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based solely on his words. I sincerely hope that in the remaining years of his tenure, we see a drastic change in US economic and foreign policies so that we may live in a safer world, Insha’Allah. To conclude, I would like to point out that Barack Obama’s actions does not merit his mention in the same breath as some of his illustrious Nobel Peace Prize winning counterparts like Nelsen Mandela and Mother Theresa. If he were to win the accolade three years down the line for “outstanding progress towards achieving World Peace”, I am sure the international community would have no issues.
‘All that glitters is not gold. Many a thought remains untold. Men have reached the Moon, yet our actions cannot be foretold’
Our opinionated planet was divided this January by the decision of The Nobel Committee to award newly-elected US President, Barack Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize. In some quarters, this decision prompted severe criticism of the Committee to such an extent as to even question their credibility. However, there remained an adamant school of thought who backed their decision wholeheartedly. Personally, I was shocked at how the President of a nation, clearly the antithesis of Peace - The United States, could be given such an accolade and justifiably so.
In the United States of America, the President’s decisions reflect the country’s policies. The fact that the country is involved in armed conflicts should be enough to rule him out of the running for such an award. If that isn’t reason enough, the fact that he has broken several promises made to the American people (evident through the plummet in his popularity ratings) should have prompted the Nobel Committee to have made a wiser choice.
The reason cited by his supporters was the ‘Hope’ he created during his campaign. Hope is not a tangible thing, worthy of a Peace Prize. The fact that he replaced George W. Bush is the main reason for the euphoria and joy among the people. Their celebration was for the outgoing villain, not the incoming one. After eight years of Bush’s tyranny, the world desperately wanted a change in leadership in the USA and that is why he received unlimited goodwill from around the world.
Obama is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians and has failed to bring peace to Iraq. Also, his sanctions against Iran and North Korea, have affected world peace. He has also supported international terrorism through his support of Israel - a criminal nation and a violator of basic Human Rights? Furthermore, Guantanamo Bay is still a centre of vicious American brutality-and several promises to close the prison down have been broken time and time again.
Can such atrocities merit a Peace Prize?
I acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama is a great orator, an inspirational leader and an efficient Senator. Perhaps people expected more from him than he is capable of, and that plays to his disadvantage. As the saying goes –“Actions speak louder than Words” Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based solely on his words. I sincerely hope that in the remaining years of his tenure, we see a drastic change in US economic and foreign policies so that we may live in a safer world, Insha’Allah. To conclude, I would like to point out that Barack Obama’s actions does not merit his mention in the same breath as some of his illustrious Nobel Peace Prize winning counterparts like Nelsen Mandela and Mother Theresa. If he were to win the accolade three years down the line for “outstanding progress towards achieving World Peace”, I am sure the international community would have no issues.
Shoaib:
ReplyDeleteIt is a well written article though I do not agree with its conclusions. You have to remember that the US was already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and would probably be at war in Iran if we had elected another jingoistic guy). He cannot just bring the soldiers home. It would be seen as a sign of weakness throughout the world and a number of tinpot dictators and despots would take it as a sign that they can do anything they like. The wars have to be ended responsibly and the fact that so many stories are coming out about the corruption in Afghanistan and the difficulties we face in putting a responsible govt. in place.
Mansur
Continuation of the previous post.
ReplyDeleteshow how difficult if not impossible the task is.Also the fact that Iraq has not been able to put a govt. in place 6 months after the election does not bode well for the future of the country. We agree that the war was waged under false representations and at tremendous cost but if it ends up planting the seeds of democracy which sprout up and end up infecting the entire Arab world, maybe, just maybe it may be worth it.
Mansur