Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama

[inked]

And speaking of faux Nobel prize winners, Al G is back in the news with his bombastic pseudoscience in Denmark:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece

Too bad the scientist refuses to acknowledge the crap, even from a Nobel laureate!

Do people on the prize committee ever pay for the consequences of their choices? Only in having to endure them, I suppose!

[Valandil]

Hey inked... you keep putting the Global Warming stuff here in the Nobel Peace Prize thread! Two different topics!

[romeo.juliano]

well.. i dont know what obama did...

[Valandil]

If a Nobel Peace Prize were to be awarded to a US President from recent memory based on what they DID, I think Ronald Reagan should be the recipient.

One of the great results of his Presidency, though it actually happened shortly after he left office - was the fall of Soviet Communism and the end of the Cold War.

We have all slept much more peacefully for the last 20 years. Especially Europe, I suppose.

[Valandil]

PS: But despite that, would the Nobel Prize Committee ever have considered giving one to him? I don't think so...

Which tells me something, both about the validity of the Prize and the true qualifications for receiving it.

[Earniel]

Val, honey, your republican side is showing.

And something tells me you wouldn't have had such a problem with it if this was an American prize instead of a European one.

[Valandil]

Oh no. I have no problem with this award coming from a European nation - none at all. My reference to Europe was meant to highlight that. After all - much of the Cold War planning - the considerations of what might happen if it became a 'Hot War' or developed into World War III - centered around what happened in Europe, and advances one way or another across the Iron Curtain.

My own politics aside, just ask yourself the following questions:

1. Was the fall of Soviet Communism and the end of the Cold War in part due to the presidency of Ronald Reagan?
2. Was this significant enough that he should have received strong consideration for a Peace Prize?
3. And if so to both, then why was he not given this award for bringing this about.

My own answers to the first to would be 'certainly'. My answer to the last would be to think it might very well be because of his politics. That they were not what the NPP Committee cared to promote.

But looking back over time, think what a major accomplishment of his that was. And think what a great contribution to world peace!

I just thought Europeans would be in a position to appreciate that. Having already had two World Wars greatly centered on their own continent, and the threat of a further, even greater and more destructive one, now removed.

I suppose it's something most people, by nature, just don't think about though. The 'threat removed' may quickly fade from our conscious thought.

[The Gaffer]

But, Val, you should know by now how ungrateful Europeans are

1) Marginal at best. He stood upright, gave one speech and outspent them, that's about it IMO.
2) No.
3) Let's ask the people of Nicaragua...

Of course, Obama has done even less to deserve it, but that's another issue.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Valandil

PS: But despite that, would the Nobel Prize Committee ever have considered giving one to him? I don't think so...

Which tells me something, both about the validity of the Prize and the true qualifications for receiving it.

Why do you say that? The committee review and consider the nominations they receive. In fact both Reagan and Gorbachev were hot candidates for a joint Peace Prize in 1988. Reagan was likely up for consideration in the years to follow as well.

Originally Posted by Valandil

I just thought Europeans would be in a position to appreciate that. Having already had two World Wars greatly centered on their own continent, and the threat of a further, even greater and more destructive one, now removed.

Careful Val

While it is nice to no longer live under a looming shadow of war, that is however not the essence of it all. What I'd say is most appreciated about the fall of communism amongst Europeans, is the fact that the peoples of Eastern Europe became free.
With the exception of the Cuba crisis, I'd say most Eastern Europeans had their minds focused on their situation right now rather than on some possible war in the future.

And while acknowledging what Reagan did, let's not forget the contributions of the Eastern Europeans themselves. The Pope for instance (he was Polish after all and never got the Peace Prize either) as well as Lech Wałęsa (who did win the prize in 1983) both did a fine job.

In short, there are more perspectives on the fall of communism than the American one

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Why do you say that? The committee review and consider the nomination they receive. In fact both Reagan and Gorbachev were hot candidates for a joint Peace Prize in 1988. Reagan was likely up for consideration in the years to follow as well.
:
:

I was not aware of that. I'll have to look up who actually got it that year and in those following years.

None of what I said was meant as a slam on Europeans - mainly critique of the Nobel Prize Committee specifically.

I think it's simply human nature to forget previous threats - which are no longer threats - and to move on. The Europeans are no more guilty of a human nature than are we Americans. And yes - while others significantly contributed, without RR's Presidency, I don't think it happens.

I think the significance of all this didn't even totally register on me at the time. But looking back... my, my - what a great change to this world.

Gaffer - yes, the US outspent the USSR in those days. But that's far preferable to out-shooting them, I would say.

[Earniel]

I see Jonathan has beaten me to the facts.

All in all, I do think Gorbachev deserved his prize. But hey, maybe I'm just an ungrateful European. (Okay, not ungrateful, but growing a bit tired of constantly having to prove that gratitude.)

I also like to add one more consideration, that while Reagan was one of the parties that brought the Cold War to an end, I do believe he also was instrumental in getting the armament race of the Cold War on the road in the first place.

[The Gaffer]

That was the point about outspending, Val. (I agree: it IS better than fighting.)

I do wonder, though. What makes do you think that Europeans have "forgotten" about communism?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

:
:
I do wonder, though. What makes do you think that Europeans have "forgotten" about communism?

Maybe just those who give out the Peace Prize... if Gorbachev received one, I think Reagan's contribution was overlooked.

As to the armament race - that was on from the end of World War 2 - with some ups and downs along the way. I don't think the ending would have been so peaceful if the West had relaxed and been outspent by the East.

[Earniel]

Who knows? But I think Jonathan has a very valid point about not overlooking the contributions of the Eastern Europeans themselves.

[Valandil]

Yes, very important. I think particular Lech Walensa. He and Gorbachev were each recognized by the Nobel Committee though.

It WAS nice to hear that Reagan had received serious consideration back at that time though.

(EDIT: But I guess that still makes the contrast rather striking - Conservative Republican US President who does a lot to end the Cold War: Nobel Peace Prize - No / Liberal Democrat US President who has only just begun his first term and has not yet done anything of great significance toward world peace: Nobel Peace Prize - Yes)

[GrayMouser]

I think Reagan certainly deserved consideration, though not for his role in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which as the Gaffer pointed out was marginal at best.

After all, the main point of "Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was that it was adressed to Mr. Gorbachev. If it had been addressed to Mr. Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko, the reply would have been "Yeah? And what are you going to do about it if we don't?"

Reagan's accomplishment came during his second term when he reached out to Gorbachev by going to Reykjavik and by signing the INF Treaty. This gave Gorbachev political cover back home, undercutting the hard-liners in the Kremlin who might otherwise have forced him to back off or even overthrown him.

And of course Reagan was blasted for this by his erstwhile friends on the right, labelled an appeaser and likened to Chamberlain at Munich by people like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, among many others.

The USSR would have gone some form of upheaval anyway, but it could have been much much worse. In fact the fall of both the Communist bloc and the apartheid regime in South Africa were amazingly bloodless- not many people would have predicted such peaceful outcomes- something to remember to bolster a bit of optimism when the world sometimes looks hopeless.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Maybe just those who give out the Peace Prize... if Gorbachev received one, I think Reagan's contribution was overlooked.

As to the armament race - that was on from the end of World War 2 - with some ups and downs along the way. I don't think the ending would have been so peaceful if the West had relaxed and been outspent by the East.

Quite possibly. I didn't mean to underestimate the importance of the arms race. I agree with GM. I remember the Reykjavik summit, and I remember raising a reluctant glass to the gipper with my commie CND buddies.

But I think it's important to remember that many in Europe have direct experience of communism and many have a different perspective on it. It was too "close" to dismiss in an "us v them" duality. The Greeks voted them in on numerous occasions, for example, as recently as the 1980s. Much of this is down to the communists' prominent role in fighting fascism.

There are even people who are nostalgic for it. Putin has ridden this kind of throwback emotion (though in his case it's as much about nationalism as communism I suspect). You can understand why, when the collapse of communism brought about a massive contraction in the Russian economy, millions impoverished and rampant crime.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

The USSR would have gone some form of upheaval anyway, but it could have been much much worse.

Indeed. The concept of rewarding peace by promoting an arms race seems incongruous to me. Especially when the arms race you are talking about is of the nuclear variety and just one little hiccup could result in colossal devastation (and still could! Much of the material is still out there and many of the scientists who made the bombs for the soviets found themselves out of a job and looking for cash opportunities when communism fell in Russia).

And if your notion is that we should reward Reagan for "spending" his way to peace than conservative venom toward Obama for spending his way out of economic crisis seems incredibly hypocritical. And Obama doesnt even have an Iran/Contra to blemish his legacy yet...

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And if your notion is that we should reward Reagan for "spending" his way to peace than conservative venom toward Obama for spending his way out of economic crisis seems incredibly hypocritical. And Obama doesnt even have an Iran/Contra to blemish his legacy yet...

No, I don't think Reagan "spent his way to peace"- I don't think the 80s defense build-up (actually started by Jimmy Carter) had much to do with the fall of the Soviet Union at all, despite conservative myth-making to the contrary.

I said he should have been considered for reversing his original policies and- during his second term- reining in the arms race by

- meeting with Gorby and publicly committing to a nuclear-free world, which horrified the security establishment back home

- signing the INF treaty, which withdrew intermediate range missiles from Europe, and

-initiating START I, the treaty to cut the overall level of American and Russian nukes.

And all of that was met with bitter complaints from right-wing politicians, including Maggie Thatcher.

A good summary, showing how the process was actually driven by the anti-nuclear protest movement:

"Reagan and Nuclear Disarmament"
http://bostonreview.net/BR25.2/wittner.html

[The Gaffer]

Nice link GM. Definitely agree re: spending. Although the military spending definitely was a huge strain on the Soviet Union.

It's also important, I think, to remember that at no time during the 80s did anyone say "Let's spend them into submission!" Whether or not that was what happened, it wasn't the plan, so to give credit for it is perhaps over optimistic.

(What a waste of money! Surely historians are going to look back at that period and marvel at the huge amounts of resource that were poured down the drain.)

It's a bit like the argument with the Iraq war where people say "At least we have engaged the terrorists overseas, so they don't come and attack us here." At the time of the invasion, no-one was putting this forward as a justification. People would, rightly, have been disgusted.