Politics

The Scandinavian Candidate

Andrew Beck

In 1959, Richard Condon delivered The Manchurian Candidate to an American public receptive to, and frightened of, the possibility that foreign powers were seeking to usurp their political power. This “Once Unbelievable, Now Unthinkable” tale, as a poster for the 1962 movie adaptation calls it, was unbelievable rather more for its psychology than its politics. Indeed, what else would communist China and the Soviets be doing other than undermining our sacred political institutions? This is what everyone believed and thought. What was unthinkable was that anyone might be the dreaded “sleeper agent” - a law abiding American one moment, a government overthrowing “pinko” the next.

Now, we really do live in an age of “sleeper agents” - ones who strap explosives to themselves and, well, the rest of the story is neither as unthinkable nor, unfortunately, as unbelievable as it might have been in 1959. And though the American public has been “awakened” to the palpable threat of domestic terrorism, they seem blissfully thoughtless about political influence.

Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, about nine months after taking office. This, predictably, has set off ripples of self-congratulation and scoffing. On the left: “Behold, ye who live in darkness! We have come, and our leader bears light! Bow before our awesome ideology!” On the right: “Oh, yes, do let's celebrate. Now that he and Al both have one, let's give next year's to Paris Hilton. She a celebrity too, and deserves at least as much.” I'm prepared to agree on the whole that both sides are ridiculous. However, beyond pure idiocy, what surprises me in this discussion is what I haven't heard - the suggestion that there may be ulterior motives involved.

Much of the criticism of the award has hinged on Obama's very nomination for the award, which occurred only two weeks into his term. This single focus ignores the fact that, whatever rules are in place for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, the committee members are probably well aware of world events, and it is highly unlikely that these had no influence over their final decision. So, let's review some of Obama's works of peace.

First, one of the major steps Obama has taken was to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. This showed the world his commitment to justice and human rights. This would be true if Guantanamo Bay weren't still operational. Not only is it, but significant road blocks have arisen to prevent its closure, not the least of which being that the international community is unhelpful in dealing with its current residents. So, let's proclaim this as something of a “wavering” on this potentially peace making issue. The outcome is, at least, uncertain.

A second major step was his strong anti-torture stance, again, championing human rights. But, as we all know, he at first declared that there would be no criminal investigations into the issue, and then later changed his position. Let's call this one another “waiver,” which happened to fall on the side of peace.

Another issue is Obama's apparent commitment to a nuclear weapon-free, therefore more peaceful, world. Here, Obama has made some progress. North Korea has begun to thaw, and Iran is smiling sheepishly with its pants down. Let's grant these to Obama, waiver free (although I harbor some doubts regarding his hand in all of it).

The final, most important issue is one of immanent currency and of direct relation to the goals and purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize - the on-going US war in Afghanistan. Obama has been and is in the process of deciding whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan. “Sending more troops” is the new euphemism of choice for “escalation.” The war in Afghanistan is an undeniably unpopular war in Europe, in part because of the large number of civilian casualties. It seems that there is a significant difference of opinion among Obama's closest advisors, and they have all sat down to a very careful, thorough review of the situation. This strongly suggests that escalating the war in Afghanistan is still an open option for this administration, a possibility which has a deep significance because it indicates that escalating the war in Afghanistan is not, strictly speaking, contrary to Obama's personal political ideology. It also isn't, strictly speaking, a peaceful act. So, that's a wavering, as well, and a big one.

Suddenly, it is October of 2009, and five people selected by the Norwegian government have a chance to themselves select a Nobel Prize winner. What do they do? How do they think? I sincerely don't know, but here's one possibility. Not only should the Nobel Peace Prize go to a peace maker, but the prize, itself, should contribute to bringing about peace. We could give it to somebody whose work is nearly complete, who is old and about to “retire,” but we already know they are peace makers. Giving them a prize won't help anyone, it would go to waste. But there is this president, Barcak Obama. We thought he would be amazing, and he certainly talked like he would be. He made a lot of promises that, if he perseveres in them, whether they come to fruition or not, would be worthy of this prize. He has even tried to follow through on some of those. But now, things look like they've stalled, and he's actually contemplating escalating a war. What's to be done?

Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You are a Nobel laureate. Now act like one!

To my knowledge, very few Americans have considered the possibility that this award was given, not really to honor good intentions, and not simply because of celebrity or to bolster liberal causes, but in an attempt to manipulate the course of government and the decisions of our president. I am fairly certain that Obama himself realizes this. He said as much during his “I don't deserve it, I'll try to live up to it” speech, but it's not as though he has any options available. The Nobel Peace Prize is just too tantalizing for even the most stalwart of politicians, and rejecting it would be as though to say, “No, I'm not peaceful.” But, I suppose, so would escalating a war.