|
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 01:17 AM by Tierra_y_Libertad
The Nobel museum sits on Oslo's beautiful waterfront, with banners blazoned with the slogan, "From King to Obama", referring to an months-long exhibition about the early US civil rights movement. I toured the museum a few weeks ago, during anti-war meetings in Scandanavia.
The "From King to Obama" summarizes the evolution of the American civil rights movement into the successful presidential campaign of its heir, Barack Obama. Their the comparison ends, the linkage jarring. Perhaps it has been taken down.
Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1964 after being stabbed, beaten, and jailed across the American South. President Obama becomes the Nobel recipient only ten days after he began rushing 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan and signing an order approving secret CIA operations in violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. The difference could not be more complete.
This is not only about Obama, but Norway as well. The Oslo government represents the core leadership of NATO and the United Nations . Rather that questioning the contradiction of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invading South Central Asia, Oslo has sent 600 troops and $350 million to the Afghan occupation. Obama now is lobbying NATO for 7,000 more troops, despite strong public opposition in Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Somehow NATO leaders believe that Europe's Muslim communities - an underclass composing six percent of Europe's population while completely under-represented in Europe's parliaments - can be held in check by bombing their homelands in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The real reason NATO is in Afghanistan was once expressed by Gen. James Jones, now Obama's national security adviser, when he was NATO's chief: "In commiting the alliance to sustained ground combat operations in Afghanistan, NATO has bet its future. If NATO were to fail, alliance cohesion will be at grave risk. A moribund or unraveled NATO would have a profoundly negative geo-strategic impact." (See Ahmed Rashid, Descent Into Chaos, Viking, 2008, p. 373)
Does it occur to Obama, as he flies overnight to receive this sacred prize, that it is morally unjustified to patch together Western unity by leading a military occupation of impoverished Muslim countries which will only result in blowback? Does he feel any irony in Rudyard Kipling's White Man's Burden being carried by the first African-American president?
It is reported that the president is "intrigued" by studying the lectures of two previous honorees, Nelson Mandela and Dr. King. One hopes the lesson will be profound, for the similarity ends only with style. Mandela survived 27 years in the cold cells of racism before becoming his nation's president. King was rebuked, terrorized, and later stood up against the Vietnam War despite establishment displeasure.
Instead of further compounding the hypocrisy all around, Obama could refuse the Nobel prize until he deserves it. Then he could express a painful regret at sending additional troops, and pledge absolutely to end these long American wars and lead a global effort against global warming even if it costs him the presidency. He then might return to Copenhagen next week to take the rightful mantle of being an environmental president.
Instead, majorities of people in America, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will have to continue the search for a leadership that reflects their will and acts on their aspirations.
For the Nobel committee it is an ignoble time, and for Obama a moment of hypocrisy that will haunt him.
Tom Hayden
The Peace and Justice Resource Center
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
