The 2009 stillborn Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, has violated all three of Alfred Nobel’s stipulations for the award.
Instead of working for the “abolition or reduction of standing armies,” Obama has done his best to reduce the American armed forces, at the same time the Chinese, Russian and Iranian forces have increased.
Instead of doing “the best work for fraternity between nations,” since entering office, Obama, has done more than anyone individual or group to destabilize nations, especially in the Middle East. This has caused the violent death of hundreds of thousands of civilians and millions to seek refuge in neighboring countries and further abroad.
Nobel’s will sought to honor those who promote peace. And while the Norwegian Nobel Committee noted “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Obama’s foreign policy mistakes may rob the future of more than 410 million people in the Middle East.
And there is more. Obama’s special outreach to the Muslim world, which was praised by the Nobel Committee in 2009, has caused the escalation and spread of violent sectarian friction to intensities rarely seen before.
In its press release on October 9, 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated: “The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons,” and praised his “promotion of nonproliferation.” Yet, Obama has just legalized the nuclear proliferation agenda of the terrorist Islamic Republic of Iran. And to add insult to Nobel’s intentions, Obama’s bonus to Iran, in the form of $150 billion, will not only strengthen the Mullahs’ authority in Iran, but will also be used to arm its insurgencies abroad, such as those of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and many other new Islamist terrorist groups that the regime would initiate, train and fund as it sees fit to advance its global influence.
If that were not enough, in what could be best described as the most brazen farce, Obama has asserted his worry that “we’ll still have problems with Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism: its funding of proxies like Hezbollah that threaten Israel and threaten the region, the destabilizing activities that they’re engaging in, including in places like Yemen.”
To square every circle, Obama boasted, “not only have we pushed back ISIL,” which unfortunately is not the case, but incredibly he takes credit for creating “an environment in which Sunni, Shia, and Kurd are starting to operate and function more effectively together.” Yet, it is the urgent need to fight ISIS that brought these groups together.
Nevertheless, his claim would probably please the Nobel Committee, which in 2009 foresaw Obama’s unusual capacity for “Dialogue and negotiations …as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.”
Obama’s “hope…that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave,” is akin to the Nobel Committee’s hope in 2009 in awarding him the prize, because his “diplomacy…[is] founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.” Yet, Obama’s diplomacy followed the dictum of a Shiite radical minority values and attitudes.
Once again, this contradicts Nobel’s stipulation the prize should be awarded to those “who, during the preceding year” have done the most to promote peace, not those who hope to do so.
One doubts Nobel would have shared the Committee’s opinion in 2009, or now.