Questing for Atlantis

Back when Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize I argued in The Liberty Bell that he didn’t deserve it since the policies he advocated would likely increase international tensions/resentment by pitting the developed world against the developing.

With President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it is clearly unquestionable that the committee deciding the winners has forgotten the stated purpose of the prize.

and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

Now, admittedly Obama has done some things a bit better than Bush has on the foreign scene. But as Doug Bandow notes, we’re still in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threat of war with Iran still looms, the situation with North Korea isn’t all that different, and we may well be sending even MORE troops to Afghanistan and have been talking about levying sanctions against Iran.

And then there’s the disastrous trade policy I haven’t really seen anyone point out with regards to the decision. First there was the Buy American debacle with the stimulus, and now there’s the tire tariff against China. Anyone care to explain to me how a trade war is good for “fraternity between nations?”

I don’t think there are many reasonable people convinced Obama totally deserved the award. In fact, as James Joyner is pointing out, the skepticism cuts across the aisle. But that being said, it’s not Obama’s fault he was given the award.

Which is of course why I really like Radley Balko’s suggestion that he refuse the award. It would be classy on his part and it might serve as a wake-up call to the Nobel Committee to get its act together and make the prize mean something once again.