One of the first comments I read relating to Mr Obama being awarded the Nobel prize, came from Lech Walesa, former leader of Solidaritet (the Polish Trade union). He aptly remarked, "Too soon. Too fast." I personally lost faith in these awards when the Peace Prize was given to the former PLO gangster, Arafat. How long will it be before they are honouring Mugabe?
I am taking the liberty of reproducing an editorial in today's Times, with the hope that the future decsion makers of the Nobel awards do not continue to bring the future of the foundation into more ridicule
"When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the satirist Tom Lehrer remarked that he saw no further need to perform as the award had made satire obsolete. By offering the world’s most prestigious political accolade to Barack Obama, a man who has held office for barely nine months, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is in danger of putting the entire comedy industry out of business.
The committee has put hope above results, promise above achievement. The prize undermines the selfless triumphs of earlier winners. Indeed, the award’s obvious political intent looks partisan, a signal of European relief at the end of the Bush presidency.
The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s action in “strengthening international co-operation between peoples”. That is a worthy aim and America’s re-engagement in multilateral diplomacy has been warmly welcomed by its allies. But it is hard to point to any substantive results yet. Much was promised to the Muslim world in the President’s speech in Cairo; on the ground, the failure still to achieve any tangible progress towards a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians has left all sides disillusioned. In Moscow, the talk of pressing the reset button in relations was welcome, as was Mr Obama’s abandonment of the US missile shield in Europe. But so far none of this has led to the scrapping of any more nuclear warheads.
The nomination of Mr Obama, among more than 200 other contenders, had to be made within weeks of his inauguration. Was this a message of support for the election of America’s first black president? Or was it a self-defeating way of trying to align the peace committee with the excitement that marked his first few weeks in office? Mr Obama yesterday responded with characteristic eloquence and modesty in announcing his acceptance. He would, however, have done better to have let it be known to those sounding out the White House beforehand that he saw the prize as premature, ill judged and embarrassing at a time when he is preoccupied with fighting a war in Afghanistan.
There have, of course, been previous awards that have been widely condemned as undeserved. The most contentious was probably the 1973 prize to Dr Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their talks on an end to the Vietnam War. Dr Kissinger had just backed the US bombing of Cambodia, and Le Duc Tho — the only nominee to reject the prize — negotiated in bad faith while the Communists prepared plans to invade South Vietnam. Some awards, especially those to Arabs and Israelis, have proved overoptimistic; others, such as the 2005 prize to Mohamed ElBaradei, have been politically partisan.
This year there was no shortage of qualified contenders, men and women who may not have the glamour of Mr Obama but who have easily fulfilled the criteria of individuals who have done their utmost, often at great personal cost, to promote peace, reconciliation and human rights.
Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwean Prime Minister, may seem naive in his faith in sharing power with President Mugabe. But no one can doubt the courage of a man who has been tortured and imprisoned for his actions in defence of democracy. Denis Muwege is a physician in war-torn Congo who has opened a clinic to help the many victims of rape. Senator Piedad Córdoba has mediated in Colombia’s civil war. Greg Mortenson is an American former US army medic who has made it his mission to build schools for Afghan girls in places where warlords and drug dealers kill people for trying. All would have been worthy peace prize winners.
This year, however, no prize has been given for peace. Instead, this is a Nobel prize for politics."
The Times 10.10.2009
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Britain betrayed over Lisbon referendum
Amid the continuing brouhaha over what the Tories should do next, this central betrayal should neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
The British have traditionally been suspicious of referendums. Although we have had half a dozen in the past 40 years, they are widely considered inimical to our idea of parliamentary democracy, whereby policies are debated during election campaigns and decisions then taken by our elected representatives. In 1975, the Conservatives were opposed to a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the Common Market. Margaret Thatcher, newly installed as the party leader, denounced the concept as a constitutional monstrosity devised simply to keep the Labour Cabinet together.
However, Mrs Thatcher recognised then that this might not be a position that would hold for ever. She believed that it might be necessary to call for a referendum on an issue that divided the nation, but not the parties, making a general election an inappropriate instrument for settling it. A V Dicey, the great constitutionalist, also saw a role for the referendum in the British system: “It is the people’s veto; the nation is sovereign and may well decree that the constitution shall not be changed without the direct sanction of the nation.” At the Tory conference in Manchester yesterday, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, proposed making it a binding statutory requirement on future governments to hold a referendum whenever new competences or areas of power are transferred to Brussels – though this may no longer be necessary once the wide-ranging provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have taken effect.
In recent years, Labour has staged referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution, to endorse the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, on regional government in the North East and even to ask Londoners whether they wanted an elected mayor, hardly a matter of great constitutional moment. What they all had in common was that they involved a transfer of power on which the people should be consulted, as they should have been before the United Kingdom ratified the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty was pushed through by the Labour Government, not only without a referendum, but without any popular debate that might have justified leaving the matter to Parliament: during the 2005 general election campaign, all discussion of the latest great leap forward in Europe (then known as the European constitution) was considered unnecessary because the matter was going to be put to a referendum. The fact that it never was is not the fault of the Conservatives, but of Labour, which reneged on its election pledge. Amid the continuing brouhaha over what the Tories should do next, this central betrayal should neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
Daily Telegraph. 05 Oct 2009
The British have traditionally been suspicious of referendums. Although we have had half a dozen in the past 40 years, they are widely considered inimical to our idea of parliamentary democracy, whereby policies are debated during election campaigns and decisions then taken by our elected representatives. In 1975, the Conservatives were opposed to a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the Common Market. Margaret Thatcher, newly installed as the party leader, denounced the concept as a constitutional monstrosity devised simply to keep the Labour Cabinet together.
However, Mrs Thatcher recognised then that this might not be a position that would hold for ever. She believed that it might be necessary to call for a referendum on an issue that divided the nation, but not the parties, making a general election an inappropriate instrument for settling it. A V Dicey, the great constitutionalist, also saw a role for the referendum in the British system: “It is the people’s veto; the nation is sovereign and may well decree that the constitution shall not be changed without the direct sanction of the nation.” At the Tory conference in Manchester yesterday, William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, proposed making it a binding statutory requirement on future governments to hold a referendum whenever new competences or areas of power are transferred to Brussels – though this may no longer be necessary once the wide-ranging provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have taken effect.
In recent years, Labour has staged referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution, to endorse the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, on regional government in the North East and even to ask Londoners whether they wanted an elected mayor, hardly a matter of great constitutional moment. What they all had in common was that they involved a transfer of power on which the people should be consulted, as they should have been before the United Kingdom ratified the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty was pushed through by the Labour Government, not only without a referendum, but without any popular debate that might have justified leaving the matter to Parliament: during the 2005 general election campaign, all discussion of the latest great leap forward in Europe (then known as the European constitution) was considered unnecessary because the matter was going to be put to a referendum. The fact that it never was is not the fault of the Conservatives, but of Labour, which reneged on its election pledge. Amid the continuing brouhaha over what the Tories should do next, this central betrayal should neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
Daily Telegraph. 05 Oct 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
