‘honour’ and ‘burden’
NO Government of the Caribbean Community has yet responded (not publicly anyway) to the very surprising choice of President Barack Obama as the world’s latest recipient of the most prestigious and coveted Nobel Peace Prize.

It is not a case of ANY of the 15 governments disagreeing to a hotly debated decision, announced last Friday (Oct 9), by the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, and currently being projected, internationally, as “an honour and burden” for Obama.

Rather, this public silence seems to reflect a shared preference to suppress enthusiasm among the President’s worldwide admirers for cautious optimism of his capacity to deliver on the enormous expectations he has so passionately aroused–from  his election campaign right into the nine months of the world’s most powerful seat of authority.

The familiar refrain,  among admirers and cynics, is that the award is “premature”, and questioning the Nobel Prize–for what?

A short answer could be – for those in our region of the world and elsewhere not too critical to appreciate – is the inspiring promise Obama boldly and sincerely holds out for that elusive international peace that’s desperately needed to transfer resources from wars and conflicts to combat poverty, illiteracy and promote ethnic and religious harmony.

CRITICISMS
The ‘burden’ his presidency bears with the ‘honour’ bestowed by the Nobel Peace Prize is to make a reality of the complex peace initiatives he is vigorously pursuing on various fronts at present – Israel/Palestine endless bloody conflicts; Iran, North Korea, and Syria (all involving the dangers of nuclear warfare) while seeking to win cooperation, if not friendship, in our own Greater Caribbean region (Cuba and Venezuela).

His detractors want to know how a President, currently locked into an escalating war in Afghanistan, and still doing the merry-go-round in Iraq, qualifies for the Nobel Peace Prize.

They also point to his enunciated policies to shutdown Guantanamo Bay as a torture centre and for the prisoners to face court trials in the USA; ending the practice of torture as a weapon by the US intelligence and  military forces; as well as moving to reverse the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the Bill Clinton era to keep a promise to gay Americans serving in the US military.

Like the much bigger and challenging issues such as working for a nuclear-free world, achieving peace in the Middle East, all of  the above remain works in progress.

They are signposts of very good intentions for achievements to come.

So what’s so wrong with good intentions supported, in Obama’s case, with more than sketched policy outlines and personal initiatives to achieve his laudable international objectives—even as he remains steadfastly engaged with a herculean battle at home for enactment of legislation on healthcare reform?

‘POSITIVE’ APPEAL
It would appear that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, in remaining faithful to the Will or mandate of Alfred Nobel, figured that although nominations had closed just 12 days after Obama’s inauguration, sufficient had been assessed of his intentions and initiatives as President of merely nine months, to justify conferring on him the great honour of the Prize that every American President certainly covets, but so far won by only two – Woodrow Wilson (1919) and Jimmy Carter (2002). 

Fidel Castro, that revolutionary nemesis of successive US administrations that, from John Kennedy to George W. Bush had maintained for 47 years the most punitive embargo against Cuba–and which Obama has, under existing laws, had an obligation to extend for another year – may well have captured a wider sentiment when he carefully wrote in support of the Peace Prize award:

“I don’t always share the positions of that institution (Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, but I am obligated to recognize that in this instance, it was, in my judgement, a positive measure…”

“Many will say”, added the retired Cuban President, “that he still hasn’t earned the right to receive such a distinction. We (Cuba) prefer to see in this decision, more than a prize for the President of the United States, a criticism of the genocidal policies that not a few Presidents of that country have followed…”

In London, Secretary-General of the 54-member Commonwealth Kamalesh Sharma (of India), currently finalising arrangements for Trinidad and Tobago’s hosting next month of the Commonwealth Summit, quickly dispatched congratulations to Obama.

He declared that his award of the Peace Prize “strikes a tremendous chord” in recognition of his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples…”

Let the third US President to have the honour of being a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, have the last word in today’s column:

“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather an affirmation of American leadership on  behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations…To be honest”, he humbly declared, “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…”

Normally awarded for a lifetime of achievements since its creation in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize is currently worth US$1.4 million. 

President Obama will travel to Oslo later in the year to receive the prize. He has already decided to donate the money to charity and made it clear that he “remains a long way” from achieving his list of goals.