The first news I heard on Oct. 9 was that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize. I laughed. Let me make clear that I really like our president and voted for him. But this award is very premature and gives me the uncomfortable feeling that he is being set up for failure. I am sure he knows this too.

But the nomination itself made me laugh at the other issue: that there is a “world community” that has agreed-upon values. This is nonsense. There is a European elite community, with cousins in America, but it is really a minority that flatters itself that it represents “world opinion.” There are the Muslim public voices who objected to this award? Aren’t they part of the world too? And how about the millions of people living in the world who, if they have opinions, are not asked? Their governments (if they have them) tell them what to think. There is no “world community.”

I certainly agree that President Obama has set a different tone than we had for the prior eight years. In pragmatic terms, however, we are not a member of a viable world community. President Bush chose to rub that truth in our friends’ faces, which they hated. If you say “world community” often enough, perhaps people will believe it.

We collaborate with allies only when it benefits us, exactly as every other state does. Self-interest governs; we can only hope for enlightened self-interest.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as “international law.” Law without enforcement is toothless; it is an ideal only. We have a growing number of standards — most of them good — that must have voluntary compliance. Recognizing women as humans with equal rights is one of these. How well is that one doing around the world?

President Teddy Roosevelt’s advice from a century ago is still valid: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” This approach is effective. This appears to be President Obama’s mantra too, but I am waiting to see the big stick. Nice words without the stick are as airy as butterflies. We have the stick and had better learn to use it again.

I love the Nobel science awards, which seem to me valid beyond question. However, Nobel awards in the much less definitive worlds of literature and peace are much more problematic. I find it difficult to understand why Yasser Arafat received the Peace Prize and have to swallow hard when I remember that Jimmy Carter was also a recipient. The last credible American who received this award was Teddy Roosevelt himself, who mediated peace talks between the Russian and the Japanese empires — this at the debut of the Japanese as a new powerhouse. It was a good piece of work.

As for the Nobel Prizes for literature, I find their awards much more political than literary. That these gutless wonders denied the prize to Salman Rushdie for his undoubtedly brilliant writing appalls me. “The Satanic Verses” was overlooked because of threats of death and mayhem from the Ayatollah Khomeini. An award to the former and a contract out on the latter would have been much better for literature and the “world community.”

In addition, the announcement from a Nobel official that American literature is not worth this award shows where the bias lies. Too bad.

I have great admiration for the founder of this award system, Alfred Nobel. He invented dynamite and made a fortune from it — expecting it to be most useful in construction and building. That it became a weapon of war distressed him, and he used his great wealth to set up awards for the best human behavior, not the worst. He would turn over in his grave to see how his money is sometimes used.

•••

Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer and writer. You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com and www.globalthink.net. The opinions of columnists are not necessarily those of the Register-Pajaronian.



Share on Facebook