I know I should be attending more to my car repairs and house repainting (I was a victim, too, of the recent massive flooding of Metro Manila, thanks to Cyclone Ketsana) than mull over whether Obama deserved his N— Peace Prize, but there’s something I have to get out from the far recesses of my flood-clogged brain and mud-addled heart.

I don’t – and personally can’t – begrudge Obama of his N— Peace Prize. He’s got a lot to show more than I can. I can only boast of swimming in rushing 20-foot floodwaters at the height of the deluge last September 26.

The Nobelization

The pomp and pageantry, ritual and ceremony, award and 1.4 mil USD all demand something in return: Great Expectations. So, while he’s at it, it would be most welcome if he dips his fingers into:

1) Darfur - where he should really sack his envoy there for not giving him the complete picture of things. Sudan is about to self-destruct in 2011 with a referendum that will allow South Sudan to vote on severing its ties with the North and declaring independence. As everyone expects, the South will vote overwhelmingly for independence from the abuses of the Khartoum Islamist government. (While he’s at it, he can also look into how al-Bashir can possibly wear impunity on his sleeve, while sauntering in all-white outfits).

2) Zimbabwe - to ease some of Tsvangirai’s burdens as he slams against Mugabe’s government-cum-criminal syndicate. It’s the least he can do to Tsvangirai after bumping him off the prize.

3) Guinea - where women were recently raped in public, in broad daylight by the Guinean soldiers, etc.

And because we are all saying now that he just has to earn his Nobel, and that he was awarded based only on potential and promise, he might as well look into:

1) The eviction epidemic in Phnom Penh.

2) The ties that bind Rumsfeld and Tamiflu, as well as the real origin of swine flu and its unleashing in Mexico. Also, how Rumsfeld was able to buy the biggest shares in Gilead, the manufacturers of Tamiflu, for USD18 billion.

3) Why Putin and Medvedev may no longer be blood brothers, which could ultimately affect this nuclear deterrence thing, knowing full well that Putin is a leftover of the old Cold War being a former KGB spy

It would do Obama a world of good (and his Nobel, too) if he:

1) Lessens a bit his worry over the nuclear hardware technical cooperation between Russia and Iran, because would Russia really want a nuclear bomb-capable Iran? Besides, forging friendship with erstwhile arch-enemy Russia looks a lot more like peacekeeping than aiming to have pleasantries with braggadocio-inclined Ahmadinejad. Also, there’s the entire UN Security Council to clip Ahmadinejad’s lofty nuclear flight. He must also let Ban Ki-moon work more lest Ban goes boating through the Antarctic and Arctic ice once again.

2) Summons the Holy Spirit to truly give him light as to the right decision concerning NATO’s request for 40,000-60,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. (Not that the Taliban’s condemning of his Nobel really matters.) He should really think deeply about the US counter-insurgency strategy of ‘protecting the population rather than killing the enemy.’ Where his thoughts lie is also how his Nobel will be deemed in the next few weeks.

3) (And most importantly, now that he has a N— Peace Prize) Starts thinking that there’s more to the world than the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. PEACE, after all, is pro-active. The award should make him go beyond troubleshooting and proving to be un-Bush.

Riding on the Crest of this Debate

Of all the pros and cons that I have been willingly swamped with via news and opinion from media as to the Nobelization of Barack, two things struck me the hardest:

1) That Obama’s Nobel is premature
2) That past US presidents had won it, too, but only after some proof of peacekeeping

“Obama’s Nobel is premature.”

Because they were the ones that gave the award, we just have to believe the Norwegian Nobel Committee that “Obama was the person to contribute the most to peace in the last year — a key criteria of Alfred Nobel’s will — by putting emphasis on multilateral diplomacy, rather than unilateral military action.”

After all, he did “improve international climate and emphasized negotiations and dialogue.” He cheered the Iranians via a surprise video, and generally reached out to the Muslim world. He backslapped with Medvedev. He guffawed with Hugo Chavez. He did not issue any stern look when Berlusconi gave Michelle the Berlusconi eye. Even Fidel Castro cheers his Nobel.

‘Multilateral diplomacy’ was the ace that bagged Obama the prize. This is right smack into the Norwegian group’s ideals. The Nobel Committee is composed of former members of government and parliament, and these people will naturally prioritize efforts that ‘impact on current political processes and will want to see progress on issues as diverse as nuclear disarmament, the conclusion of a climate treaty in Copenhagen or the increased use of multilateral institutions like the UN — which Norway is very supportive of — as a tool for international diplomacy.’

The Nobel Committee wants talk and diplomacy, and that’s what they saw in Obama.

But while Obama thought of sending his Secretary of State to precarious Pyongyang, the Secretary of State’s husband stepped in just in time make a trip instead. It would really test Obama’s mettle if he sends the same Secretary of State to meet with the Taliban, Hillary being one boisterous laugher who is also wont to wear bright-colored clothes and high heels – things that the Taliban aren’t fond of.

Therefore, we can hardly argue with the award-givers who firmly said, “We want to emphasize that he has already brought significant changes. All these things have already taken place and this already has had a very significant impact on international relations. We do of course hope that there will be many concrete changes over the years, but when a president makes all these changes on these ideals, which are the ideals the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had for 100 years, we felt it was right to strengthen him as much as we can in this further struggle for these ideals.”

Case closed.

“Past US presidents had won it, too, but only after some proof of peacekeeping.” (while aiding the flourish of modern America’s age of war)

1) Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919. ‘He brought America into the carnage of the First World War’ that ended in 1918. Wilson won the award a year after the war ended.

2) Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 ‘as reward for sponsorship of the Spanish-American war and ardent bloodletting in the Philippines.’

The Philippines did not exactly gain its freedom from Spain. America bought the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam from Spain for a paltry few million dollars which could very well match the amount Imelda Marcos used to single-handedly spend on her spring wardrobe.

On December 10, 1898, the signing of the Treaty of Paris gave the United States control of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The Treaty of Paris officially ended the Spanish-American War.

After many Filipinos died during this war (that the US was desperate to wage to show to the world that it was ready to wrest ownership of countries from Spain, in fulfillment of the proverbial and infamous Manifest Destiny), the US staged a mock ‘Battle of Manila Bay.’ But it was all a show of cannon work because behind the scene, cash had already earlier changed hands.

Teddy Roosevelt received his Nobel ‘not long after he’d displayed his boundless compassion for humanity by sponsoring an exhibition of Filipino “monkey men” in the 1904 St Louis World Fair as “the missing link” in the evolution of Man from ape to Aryan, and thus in sore need of assimilation, forcible if necessary, to the American way. On receipt of the prize, Roosevelt promptly dispatched the Great White Fleet (sixteen U.S. Navy ships of the Atlantic Fleet including four battleships) on a worldwide tour to display Uncle Sam’s imperial credentials.’

3) He would have been president but missed the post. Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the same year he started his term as the 56th United States Secretary of State. ‘’He had been diligently slaughtering people across the world for years.’ He has been accused of war crimes for the policies he promoted during the Vietnam War. He played a significant role in the establishment of dictatorial regimes in Latin America, such as:

In 1970, Salvador Allende, a socialist, won the presidential election in Chile. Three years later, Allende was removed in a coup and murdered and the fingerprints of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Henry Kissinger were all over the plot.

Kissinger gave the go ahead to Suharto’s invasion of East Timor and subsequent massive war crimes and genocide there.

Kissinger may very well rival Pol Pot for the title of “Butcher of Cambodia.” Either one has the dubious honor of being the person responsible for the death of the largest number of innocent people in South East Asia. The wholesale slaughter was eagerly facilitated by Kissinger. The United States and its allies gave economic, military, and political support to Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. The “secret bombing” of Cambodia by the Nixon-Kissinger tandem may have killed as many Cambodians as were executed by the Khmer Rouge. The U.S.-imposed holocaust was a “sideshow” to the Vietnam War.

Knowing all these, I heave a sigh of relief that Obama was awarded based on promise and potential. Hail, Barack! And, Nobel, thank you for changing your tack.

Postscript:

For those who think that the Nobel Peace Prize is idiotic, just think of it this way: you can murder thousands of people – Vietnamese, Timorese, Chilean, Argentineans, Germans, Cambodians, Filipinos, Europeans, even Americans, and, oh yes, Afghans, and still win a Peace Prize.