Peace prize decision echoes world politics

Their names are records in history. Their words have inspired millions. Their accomplishments and sacrifices have changed our lives. Mother Teresa. Albert Schweitzer. Desmond Tutu. Dalai Lama. Martin Luther King Jr. Barack Obama.

Barack who?

In less than nine months, the U.S. has given birth to the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner. President Obama is now enshrined in the world's elite class of historical figures.

The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is selected by a committee made up of five Norwegians elected by that country's parliament. What makes this announcement so shocking is the fact that nominations for the award had to be submitted by Feb. 1. Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, just 12 days earlier.

Alfred Nobel, for whom the peace prize is named, stated that the award should go "to the person who shall have done the most for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

The Nobel committee had no love for former president George W. Bush. It repudiated the former president with the selections of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore as peace prize winners. How could they justify Obama's selection?

The first qualification is promote "fraternity of nations." No problem. In July 2008, then-candidate Obama made his Berlin speech, which was televised worldwide. He said, "There are times when our [America[']s] actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions," and "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world ... has become all too common," and "People of Berlin and people of the world: This is our moment. This is our time."

The next qualification is "reduction or abolition of standing armies." Obama made it clear that, if elected president, he would end the war in Iraq and bring American troops home. But there's the war in Afghanistan. Obama said it's a war of necessity, but he may have an out. The Nobel committee knows the president has to decide whether to escalate the Afghan war by committing up to 40,000 or 50,000 troops. But he's getting pressure from some advisers to avoid the next Vietnam War. Will winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize influence Obama's most important decision to date? The Nobel committee members have their fingers crossed.

The third qualification is "holding and promotion of peace congresses." Obama might have wrapped that one up with his speech about world peace and harmony last June in Cairo. Unlike his predecessor, Obama told the enemies of the U.S., "We are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect." He also said, "Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements and recognize Israel's right to exist." The committee had to be pleased. Even in his inaugural address, the president said, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

It appears Obama has made an eloquent case concerning world peace and engaging our enemies. But did the Nobel committee overlook the results of this strategy? How have Americans responded?

Iran spent the summer defending a fixed election while killing, beating and imprisoning its citizens. Obama remained relatively quiet. He didn't want to appear to be meddling. As late as Sept. 28 Iran conducted three rounds of long-range missile tests. Iran boasted its missiles could reach Israel, Europe and U.S. bases in the Mideast.

North Korea defied the world by continuing its ballistic missile testing in 2009. Its missiles are now capable of reaching U.S. territory.

In April, Hamas bragged about firing 20 rockets and 75 mortars at Israel. Since December 2008, Israel said, more than 200 rockets and mortars have been launched against it from Gaza.

The one promise Obama made to the world during his first 12 days in office was to close the Guantanamo prison by the first of the year. Attorney General Eric Holder on Oct. 6 said that promise probably won't be met. In August, Holder named a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of CIA prisoner abuse. This was done even after the president had said, "This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I want to look forward, not back."

Nine months into this president's administration, I don't see a safer America. What I see are enemies that seem even more emboldened. I see the arrests of home-grown terrorists while foreign terrorists are read their Miranda rights. I see a president telling the CIA it can no longer interrogate possible terrorists while saluting the agency for its service. I see ethics waivers for former lobbyists who hold high administration positions and advise the president on national policies. I see a country nearing bankruptcy as our national debt hits $12 trillion and the U.S. dollar continues to lose value. I see thousands of concerned citizens marching on Washington while politicians are so busy throwing slurs at each other they can't find the time to read their own bills.

The politics of the world are not different than the politics here at home. This was just proven by the announcement that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Where are his years of achievements? To include his name in the same sentence with Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King Jr. is a disgrace to previous winners and an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

The decisions that Obama will make in the years to come will determine how his legacy will be written. The decisions we make as citizens will determine our nation's legacy.

The Norwegian committee should change the name on the award next year to Nobel World Politics Prize.

William Piercey Sr. is a Cape Girardeau resident.