The announcement last Friday by the Nobel judges that US President Barack Obama had won the 2009 Peace Prize came as a huge shock to a world that is hard to shock these days. The man himself said he was “surprised and humbled” after landing the prize, which will see him collect US$1.4 million in Oslo in December. “I do not deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures who have been honoured by this prize,” he said. Obama says he’ll give the money to charity.
The question many are asking is this: what has Obama done to deserve the award? The committee’s citation said that the prize had gone to Obama for “capturing the world’s attention” and offering “hope for a better future”. So the judges are investing in the future success of the American president when it comes to global peace and security. But the point is Obama is in charge of a country, which, as we enter the 21st century, is not prepared to support global peace and security.
The US is on a war footing and its strategy for the 21st century is to create instability in regions around the world so that no part of the globe is stable enough to start challenging American power. This is how the US is going to undertake global geopolitics, according to George Friedman, head of the world’s leading global intelligence and forecasting company.
In his latest book, The Next 100 Years: A forecast for the 21st century, he lays bare US strategy. He writes: “Grand strategy is not always about war. It is about the processes that constitute national power. But in the case of the United States, perhaps more than for other countries, grand strategy is about war, and the interaction between war and economic life. The United States is, historically, a warlike country.
“The United States has been at war for about 10 per cent of its existence. During the 20th century, the United States was at war 15 per cent of the time. In the second half of the 20th century, it was at war 22 per cent of the time. And since the beginning of the 21st century, in 2001, the United States has been constantly at war.
“War is central to the American experience, and its frequency is constantly increasing. It is built into American culture and deeply rooted in American geopolitics. Its purpose must be clearly understood.”
It is in this climate that Obama will have to handle his Nobel Peace accolade. He will definitely be fighting a losing battle. The US military-industrial complex is too powerful for any president to counter this power. With the Pentagon dispensing trillions of dollars each year to contractors within the military-industrial complex, the incentive for warmongering among Americans is too great; as long as the conflict is fought in faraway places.
The relatives of soldiers who die in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones who might think otherwise. But for the powers that be, these deaths are not enough to dissuade them from putting a stop to American aggression. Friedman was frank to admit that the 5,000 American deaths in Iraq so far did not matter. After all, during the Second World War, when 50 million lost their lives, the figure for Americans who perished was just 500,000. And the reward for the US was “global pre-eminence”, noted Friedman.
How can Obama, therefore, square his award with the geopolitical intentions of American strategists? Will he be able to achieve peace in the Middle East? I doubt it? What about the tensions with Iran over nuclear weapons? Will a Nobel Peace Prize winner unleash American weapons on Iraq, knowing full well that innocent lives will be lost?
What about the human rights issue? Already, pressure groups are egging Obama on to redeem America’s image in so far as human rights are concerned. US-based Human Rights Watch has called on Obama to now act decisively to end abuses in US counterterrorism policy, promote accountability for serious human rights crimes wherever they occur, and push for the protection of human rights defenders worldwide.
Indeed, although Obama has attempted to tone down the Bush administration’s rhetoric on the global war on terrorism, he has stressed that the US would continue to take a tough stance against its enemies. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly,” Obama said after signing Executive Orders to right the wrongs of the Bush administration two days after being sworn into office.
These Orders called for the closure of the Guantanamo detention camp within one year; one which ordered a comprehensive review of America’s detention policy in the interest of justice; and one which required that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to be applied to the interrogation of individuals detained by US forces in an armed conflict and which required the Central Intelligence Agency to close its secret detention camps.
So, as you can see, the so-called global war on terrorism allowed the US to contravene international law. By ordering US forces to abide by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions governing the conduct of war, Obama is implying that Bush, who sanctioned torture of prisoners, is in fact guilty of a war crime. Now this is interesting. Will there be calls for Bush to face trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where all the cases so far involve Africans? I doubt it. But, surely, a war crime was committed? One must point out here that Bush was acting on the advice of his law chiefs. But the buck stopped with him.
Since Obama’s Executive Orders, however, he has backtracked significantly from his promise of reform by resurrecting the failed system of military commissions and suggesting that his administration would continue to hold some prisoners in preventive detention. Human Rights Watch said Obama should end the practice of arbitrary detention by abolishing Guantanamo. Simply moving the prisoners from Cuba to the US, as his administration has signalled it may do, will not solve the problem, but rather give it a new name, the watchdog argues.
“As a Nobel laureate, President Obama has a special responsibility to speak up for activists jailed and persecuted for promoting human rights,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “The president will honour his Nobel Prize when he puts a meaningful end to the debacle at Guantanamo, by trying or releasing all of the prisoners held there.
“Justice is a critical component for lasting peace, because impunity for perpetrators of serious crimes fuels further violence,” said Kenneth Roth, “President Obama should use his leadership to press for justice for all victims of human rights abuses, wherever they live.”
This is easier said than done. So, the way I see Obama’s Peace Prize is that it will become a millstone around his neck.
Desmond Davies is Editor of African Prospects, a monthly digital magazine. Http://www.exacteditions.com/african_prospects
By Desmond Davies
ADVERTISEMENT