A thought provoking discussion from Paul Rogers (of Bradford University's Department of Peace Studies, and the Oxford Research Group) of the Nobel peace prize recently awarded to Barack Obama.
Whatever your views, it's worth reading the route by which Professor Rogers reaches his conclusion:
“It is easy enough to argue that the award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama is at best premature and at worst a wasted opportunity. Putting it in context, though, and relating it to the possibility of progress on two of the crucial issues of the day - nuclear proliferation and climate change – it is far less clear that it was a bad decision. If, instead, it turns out to be one further factor that aids progress on these issues, then the 2009 Prize may turn out to be a much more far-sighted decision than many people believe.”
- Paul Rogers, P., "A prize worth having?" in International Security Monthly Briefing 2009/08 (5). ORG.
1 comment:
I agree. The Prize affords Obama's efforts toward nuclear nuclear disarmament a certain gravity that will serve him in good stead if he ever gets around to addressing it. That is, it will probably help getting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by the US Senate, one of the biggest blocks to moving forward on this issue. The other, of course, is Israel's arsenal of 200+ weapons. I think the latter is the bigger nut to crack.
Post a Comment