Raphael Vassallo | Sunday, 11 October 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Taking the Peace...

Great. So now we’re awarding people for no other reason than the simple fact that they exist. Not just any old people, mind you. Otherwise, hey! It could be you or I – and not just the occasional US President – to win a Nobel Prize every now and again. After all, we are people, aren’t we? And we do exist, do we not? So why... can’t... we...

Oh, all right, I admit it – it’s true. Neither you nor I have done anything tangible of late to actually end global conflict, and achieve lasting peace on Earth: both achievements being pre-requisites (at least, according to Alfred Nobel’s last will and testament) for Nobel Peace Prize winners to begin with.
Clearly, then, you and do not qualify as potential recipients of the same prize, and therefore can’t realistically claim to be ‘surprised’ or ‘disappointed’ by the Nobel Committee’s unreasonable and obstinate failure to ever nominate us for it. But, but, but, but, BUT... I may be wrong, but as far as I am aware, Barack Obama hasn’t done much of late to deserve it, either.

OK, I admit that I have been a little out of touch in recent weeks. Is it possible that the US President actually ended the war in Afghanistan while none of us was looking? And while he was at it, did he also withdraw all US troops from Iraq, as he promised to do last year? Has he made an iota of difference to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his none months as US President? And apart from a lot of pleasant-sounding words about the ‘need to reduce weapons of mass destruction, blah, blah, blah’... what tangible steps has Barack Obama himself so far taken to reduce his own country’s nuclear arsenal – easily the largest in the world – before lecturing other countries about theirs?

To answer my own questions one by one: ‘No’; ‘No’; ‘Are you kidding?’ and... um... ‘Nothing’. Not only that, but in case the Nobel Prize Committee was too busy ordering its Obama merchandise to pay any attention, what he actually did was increase the number of troops in Afghanistan – yes, that’s right, increase – while also expanding the theatre of war into neighbouring Pakistan. And unless I am much mistaken, he also plans to further increase American military presence in Afghanistan... by around 40,000 troops.
Is it just me... or has the definition of “world peace” changed at some point in the last nine months?

Ah, wait... I know what you’re all thinking. But he called off George Bush’s plans for a “Missile Defence Shield” in Eastern Europe, didn’t he? Surely that’s a step towards nuclear disarmament, as well as improving diplomatic relations with Russia while defusing prospects of a whole new Cold War...?
Erm... almost, but not exactly, no. Truth is, Obama did not quite ‘call off’ the missile shield programme. He merely relocated it, from Eastern to Southern Europe. It remains to be seen where these short-to-medium range nuclear missiles will now be installed. The US bases of Comiso or Lampedusa automatically spring to mind, but there are other options. Some international newspapers have even suggested a mobile launching pad in the form of US navy ships patrolling the central and eastern Mediterranean... in other words, smack bang on our own doorstep.
I suppose this would be hugely exciting news for all those military hardware loonies who populate Malta’s extreme rightwing fringes, and who would like nothing better than a great big rocket up our collective backsides.
Speaking entirely for myself, however, I have to say find the thought just a tiny bit discombobulating.

But there is another matter that seems to have escaped everyone’s attention in their reactions to Obama’s award. As I recall, “ending conflicts” was not the only promise that Obama has yet to keep in any tangible way. Nor is it the only way to make a contribution to lasting world peace.
If my memory serves me correctly, Obama also promised to “change the world”. This is one of the things I actually liked (and still like) about Barack Obama. He has precisely the sort of personality that enables him to say stuff like that without people like me wanting to kick him really hard in the taco. You see, I do not for a second doubt his intentions in this particular department. It is clear as daylight that Barack Obama wants to change the world... but then again, so do I (or at least, I did once upon a time) and so do billions of other people who also live on this planet, but who – unlike Obama – will never, ever, ever be considered for any prize whatsoever... still less the coveted Nobel.

And besides: do any of you remember where Obama said he would start his “world-changing” operations? Africa, as I recall. That’s right: the son of a Kenyan exchange student told us all that one of the fundamental aims of his Presidency was the elevation of his father’s pariah continent into somewhere its own inhabitants might not be all desperate to vacate. I need hardly add that my ears pricked up when I heard him say that... for two reasons above all others.
One, because with the possible exception of such unlikely “world-changing” characters as Bob Geldoff, Jovanotti, U2’s Bono or AD’s Stephen Cachia, nobody has ever made quite such a bold (and/or foolhardy) political commitment with quite as much conviction and self-assurance.
Two, because unlike the Iraq war, the Afghan conflict, the Israel/Palestine question, and even the soon-to-be-on-our-doorstep Missile Defence Shield, the improvement of Africa’s economy would have an immediate and direct impact on one of our more insoluble national conundrums – irregular immigration.

It was partly for this reason that I, like so many others around the world, was privately thrilled when Obama (and not McCain) won that US Presidential election last November. But that was last November, folks... and Obama himself was only invested in January.
Well, it is now October 2009, and Obama has been in power for the grand total of nine months. If there has been any lull in immigrant arrivals since that time, it has had nothing to do with the “economic improvement of Africa” – still less with anything Barack Obama himself has said or done to achieve that goal – but only because our friendly neighbours to the North have decided to flush the Universal Charter of Human Rights down the toilet once and for all, and flout international law by forcibly deporting asylum seekers to Libya without even assessing their eligibility for protection.

All things told, then, Barack Obama does not deserve to win the Nobel Prize, any more than Joe Debono Grech deserves the Nobel Prize for Good Manners, Marisa Micallef for Political Consistency, and myself for the Proper Maintenance of Facial Hair. But he won it anyway, and this alone speaks volumes about what both Barack Obama and the Nobel Prize itself have come to represent in the collective imagination.

Starting with Barack Obama: the fact that he could win this award on the basis of promises he has yet to even keep... well, it only goes to show how successful his entire electoral campaign strategy has proved to be. Obama has now transcended his human form, and now exists in the popular imagination as almost an embodiment of the Divine. He inspires hope and confidence not on the strength of what he actually does, but only on the vague prophecy of a “future peace” which I, for one, will only believe is possible when I see it materialising.
But like all articles of faith, the cult of Obama despises sceptics such as myself. To the believer – in God as in Obama – it is the hope alone that counts, not whether this same hope is founded upon fact or merely wishful thinking.
Likewise, it is not the fulfilment of a prophecy that matters... it is the prophecy itself, regardless of whether it ever becomes reality or not.

As for the Nobel Peace Prize: well, what can I say? Ever since Henry Kissinger won the damn thing in 1978 for “ending the Vietnam War” – overlooking the fact that he also started a whole separate war, this time in Cambodia – the same prize never quite regained its former sheen.
Add to this the fact that both George W. Bush and Tony Blair were also nominated for their “contribution to world peace” in 2004... the same year they illegally invaded a country on the basis of wilfully distorted intelligence, toppled a government without any clear idea of what to put in its place, dismantled the country’s entire infrastructure, and began a conflict which has since cost hundreds of thousands (some say over a million) lives... no offence or anything, but my only suggestion at this stage for the “Nobel Peace Prize” would be to and insert the words “Taking the... ” after “Nobel”, and shorten the vowel sound in the word “Peace”.
Just a thought...

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.

All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.

EDITORIAL


The game’s afoot

---

MT Surveys

Budget 2010 – Raise taxes or cut benefits?

FREE FALL

So near and yet so different

Only 35% will be taking a holiday this summer

The wiser, grey pound

Shopping in the City

Corned beef? a matter of class

Labour poised for absolute majority

Turnout drops to 79%

Labour Party heading for absolute majority

EU MEMBERSHIP – FIVE YEARS LATER

---

INTERVIEW


Joseph’s amazing Technicolor coalition