IT was not only Americans who were surprised at the announcement of US President Barack Obama's name as winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. Nigerians were also just as dumb-founded: what has he done in less than a year of his Presidency to deserve a Nobel Prize for of all things peace? America is still at war in Iraq, despite Obama's campaign promise that he will bring that war to a quick end. Although President Obama has opened a window of opportunity for dialogue with Iran, the relationship between both countries remains uneasy. In the Horn of Africa, the Philippines and in Afghanistan, the United States is still involved, under Obama, in various shapes of war. President Obama had promised to intervene in the Middle East crisis, but not much progress has been made, with the parties to the conflict appearing ever so unwilling to engage in dialogue.
The effect of President Obama becoming Nobel Laureate Barack Obama was further dampened with his own expression of shock. Nominations for the Peace Prize closed within two weeks after President Obama's assumption of office in 2008. So, there seems to be no empirical assessment of work already done. Ever so humble and a master of special moments, Obama was quick to go on record in the following words: "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honoured by this prize." But he does not intend to reject the prize: "I will accept this award as a call to action," he said. "This award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity."
Obama is the third American President in office to receive the Nobel Peace prize after Theodore Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919). Former US President Jimmy Carter won the prize in 2002, for his humanitarian work. Should the Nobel Committee have given the prize to Obama? In his will, Alfred Nobel the founder of the prize had directed that there should be emphasis on "achievement". And indeed in all the other categories, chemistry, physics, economics, literature, medicine, the reason for the award is hardly ever in doubt even if the Nobel Committee over the years has overlooked some of the most accomplished men and women in history (James Joyce, Mahatma Ghandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Edison etc). Obama was given the award for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation among peoples." Thus, the Committee has given the award to encourage Obama to endorse his vision. And I guess, to tie his hands. The award of the Peace Prize is subjective after all.
But one message that the choice of Obama sends out this year is that the Nobel Prize Committee plays politics with its choices and that it is not just excellence that impresses it. While this may hurt less in the Nobel Peace Prize category, it could do much damage to the integrity of the prize if this were to be the case in the other subjects. But let's just say, this year, the Nobel Prize Committee has been caught by the bug of "Obama-mania." Why the haste? Obama still has plenty of time left as US President. If he were to be awarded the prize in two years and the same reason is given, there would have been millions of people across the world endorsing the choice and Obama himself will not feel embarrassed. But this year, nobody is celebrating. The prize looks like a non-prize: the controversy that it is generating is taking the shine off the other prizes where distinguished intellectuals are being celebrated.
Some commentators have pointed out that the Nobel Peace Prize has always been awarded for political reasons, or that it is the only category where achievement does not always count. I beg to differ. In assigning a part of his estate to the promotion of peace, Alfred Nobel did not talk about "efforts" or "politics" but actual work in that regard and so he wrote on the peace prize, about giving "one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Has Obama in the last nine months done the best work that Alfred Nobel asks for? This is the question that the five-man committee in Sweden must seek to answer convincingly.
The truth is that in most of the previous cases in this same category, the reason for the award has not always been this doubtful. Let us consider a few examples: The Red Cross (1944); Martin Luther King (1964); Amnesty International (1977); Anwar al Sadat and Menachem Begin (1978); Mother Teresa (1979); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1981); Lech Walesa (1983); Desmond Tutu (1984); International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (1985); United Nations Peacekeeping Forces (1988); Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk (1993); Medecin Sans Frontieres (1999); United Nations, Kofi Annan (2001); Mohammed Yunus, Grameen Bank (2006). In each of these instances, at the time of the award, concrete achievements in the direction of peace and its promotion or the extension of its frontiers could be properly identified. Martin Luther King preached non-violence; Amnesty International has been a consistent defender of human freedom, Sadat and Begin signed the famous Camp David Accord (1977), the first major breakthrough in Egypt-Israeli relations; Obama's 2009 award is based on "hope." To be fair however, there are perhaps a few other recipients who like Obama were given the Nobel Peace prize to encourage them. Two veritable examples in this regard are: the award in 1991 of the prize to the Burmese opposition leader, Aung Suu Kyi; and in 1994 to the trio of Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."
One more point to consider is this: Could it be that Obama has been given the prize because he is the first black man to be President of the United States, and since it would be politically incorrect to say so, it is better to hide under the euphemisms of international diplomacy and cooperation? For if the truth be told, Obama's emergence and the colour of his skin ( a black man in the White House?) has done a lot more for international co-operation than we can imagine. The singular event of his Presidency has given hope to all marginalized groups in the world. It has reduced the scope of human alienation and reaffirmed hope in the oneness of humanity. It ranks among one of the most phenomenal events of the last century. Add to this the fact that Obama is the most international American President in more than 100 years.
He is loved across the world; and with his charisma, he inspires not just marginalized groups but also the younger generation. The power, symbolism and proven magnetism of his message: "Yes, we can" project one of the most effective battle cries of the age. And that, in addition to the colour barrier that Obama's ascendancy effectively destroys, is good for world peace, for humanity too. So why doesn't the Nobel Prize Committee say so? In playing politics, I guess the wise ones in Sweden needed to be seen to be correct. But did they need to be political? Obama won't be the first black man to win the Nobel Prize for Peace; emphasizing the historicity of his election and presidency can do no harm. He will be joining in this prize category, Albert Luthuli (1960), Martin Luther King (1964); Desmond Tutu (1984), Kofi Annan (2001) and Wangari Maathai (2004), but his prize would have been in a special class of its own if properly defined.
Now, on the details of the five-man committee's own declaration, what are the issues? There is no doubt that President Obama has given some of the most impressive speeches and taken a few symbolic steps on world peace. In the past nine months, he has been very vocal on the issues of nuclear arms proliferation and disarmament. He has led the campaign on the floor of the United Nations on climate change. He has spoken passionately about bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians to the path of reason. He wants to take America out of Iraq and put an end to the mistake that the Bush men made. He wants to stabilize Afghanistan . Wants... Hopes... Promises. The only thing we can hold on to so far is Obama's charisma and eloquence. From Europe to Egypt to Ghana , he has wowed audiences, firing up the popular imagination with hope that the world can be a better place. Under George Bush, America was one of the most hated countries in certain parts of the world, but now Obama's active engagement with the rest of the world is making America popular again and the American Presidency more approachable. Many of those who didn't like George Bush are in love with Barack Obama.
But whereas it is the truth that America 's engagement with the world has always oscillated between isolationism and openness, no one should be in any doubt that America 's interest in the world is first and foremost all about America. Not even Obama can change that. His mandate is to promote human freedom, democracy, American business and American exceptionalism: everything is about America not necessarily the world. So the American President may collect the $1 million Nobel Prize money and make a great speech in Oslo in December but that is not likely to change much in terms of the real planks of American diplomacy. For example, will Obama's America submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)? Will America agree to a reform of WTO rules to favour developing countries more? Will Obama's America reduce its own nuclear weaponry to promote global peace? What Obama does about hunger, and poverty in the world is as important as what his presidency does to reduce the spread of war.
What is possibly certain is that the Nobel Prize for Peace will tie Obama's hands, put him under pressure and compel him to live up to the expectations of the prize. It is a subtle kind of blackmail. And so, we should ask: Does Obama need that? Giving a man a prize because he has the potential to win it is rather patronizing. Chairman of the award committee, Thorbjoern Jagland says: "I hope it will help him...Obama is the right man at the right time, and that's why we want to enhance his efforts." See? They want to help him!
Too many men and women of talent have been derailed by too much early praise and help. It is a pitfall that Nobel Laureate Obama must watch out for. Now that his right-wing critics have been offered fresh ammunition for stalking him, when and if he falters on the question of peace later in his Presidency, they will be out with daggers. Good enough that he has the good sense not to celebrate. But that may not be enough. He should reject the prize, this Greek gift, from Sweden. And he will not be the first person to do so. In 1973, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger were both awarded the Peace Prize for brokering the Paris Peace Accord on Vietnam. Tho turned down the award saying there was no peace in Vietnam. Earlier, in 1964, Jean Paul-Sartre also rejected the Prize in Literature on the ground that it would make no difference whatsoever to the quality of his art, and that he would rather not be turned into an institution in any form. In the end, President Obama will be judged on the basis of actual performance, not his fine speeches, not what a five-man Nobel Prize Committee thinks he should do.
We Must Not Forget Jude Igwemezie
IT is important that you know a compatriot of ours called Jude Igwemezie. He is the Nigerian engineer who has won a contract to build a monorail network in Iraq worth $500 million under the auspices of a company called TransGlobin International. The proposed rail network will link the city of Najaf with three Islamic holy sites in Shale, Kufa and Imam Ali. Before going to the Iraqis with his proposal, Igwemezie had first approached the Nigerian authorities. Out of patriotism! He wanted to build a standard gauge rail from Calabar to Lagos. But the Nigerians in power only tossed him up and down. "As a diaspora person, I kept coming back, knocking to help Nigeria. On the other hand, I can't keep knocking forever, " he lamented.
In the end, our man took his skills to Iraq where the authorities seeing the value of his effort and track record signed a Memorandum of Understanding with him in two months! By the time Igwemezie's project in Iraq is completed, with Iraqis benefiting from the ingenuity of a Nigeria-led team, Nigeria will still be busy trying to figure out a solution to its transportation crisis. This is the Nigerian story all over again. It is one of the reasons we are a failed state. Nigeria has many outstanding achievers in different fields of human endeavour in the world. But we are unable to make use of their talents.
When they come home, seeking to help, the mediocres within the system shut them out. If they are truly determined and refuse to go away, they could be confronted with funny stories about religion, or ethnicity and if that doesn't work, they could be poisoned or bumped off. Nigeria runs a system that resists talent and excellence. It is a country where mediocrity thrives. Sadly, we keep giving to other countries what we lack at home. Nigeria 's railway system for example is dead. In the last eight years, so many billions have been invested in it, and there is nothing to show for all that. And yet, Nigerians continue to die and groan on terrible roads. Can anyone blame Jude Igwemezie if some day, he decides to change his nationality? We must rebrand our country first by making it accept the best and the brightest
No comments:
Post a Comment