Friday, October 09, 2009

Protectionism Destroys Fraternity Between Nations

According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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."

The complete abdication by the Obama administration on trade should disqualify him from the Nobel Peace Prize. Free trade has lifted hundred of millions out of poverty worldwide and promoted a closer global society. But the Obama White House has been as protectionist as any in memory. Free trade is that the core of foundation of the post-World War II economic order.

~
Jimmy Pethokoukis

Good point, since protectionist trade policies like the tire tariffs work to destroy the "fraternity between nations" not promote it.

33 Comments:

At 10/09/2009 9:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama turned his back on the Iranians who took to the streets protesting for freedom. He embraced the wanna be dictator of Honduras and cozies up to the likes of Castro, Chavez and Ortega. He has left the people of Poland and Czechoslovakia vulnerable after they stood with us. And know he says that the Taliban - the stoners of helpless women - have a place in the government of Afghanistan.

Obama is a failure and a joke. How appropriate that he is awarded the same prize as Yassar Arafat and Jimmy Carter.

 
At 10/09/2009 10:14 AM, Blogger JimJinNJ said...

Surely no one needed any more confirmation this prize is a farce. BO has done nothing; that seems an odd criteria for getting a prize.
here's a quote from a Reuters story:
Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after Jimmy Carter won in 2002, Woodrow Wilson picked it up in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt was chosen for the 1906 prize.
You decide but for me that is a rather crappy roster. All are some form of "progressive" in worst sense of that term. We're lucky to have survived any of them.

 
At 10/09/2009 10:15 AM, Blogger JimJinNJ said...

oops. I left out my quotation marks. Here's the Reuters quote:
"Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after Jimmy Carter won in 2002, Woodrow Wilson picked it up in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt was chosen for the 1906 prize."

 
At 10/09/2009 10:47 AM, Blogger Colin said...

We're almost at 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell. Where is Reagan's peace prize?

And remember, in addition to signing the INF treaty Reagan also had the US participate in the Uruguay Round of GATT talks in 1986. Also the Canada-US free trade agreement.

 
At 10/09/2009 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sigh.

> Obama turned his back on the Iranians who took to the streets protesting for freedom.

In so far as supporting Iraqi freedom involved bombing them and killing them, then I guess so. Otherwise, finally making some diplomatic progress on Iranian nuclear ambitions is so 1945-2003.

> He has left the people of Poland and Czechoslovakia vulnerable after they stood with us.

Missle defence was an expensive joke. Even in the most contrived tests, it failed miserably. You want to make progress on Iran you need the Russians. BTW, there is no Czechoslovakia anymore, it's been the Czech Republic since 1993.

Finally, the only reason Taliban is still around is because Bush decided to re-deploy to Iraq, thereby allowing the Taliban back in control. After 6 years of Republican neglect and failure, it amazing how much the poor women of Afghanistan are suddenly on the minds of the right-wing - you know, after Obama has been in power 9 months.

Obama won the award because he's the anti-Bush. He didn't have to do anything except return the US back to a position of respecting international diplomacy. That, sadly, is the legacy of the neo-cons.

 
At 10/09/2009 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note that the committee views the world from a Norwegian point of view which is most definitely not the view of most of those on this board.
Note that Regan can't win the prize because you have to be alive to win the prize, so that argument is dismissed. (That why Black of the Black Sholes Merton options formula did not win the prize in economics).

 
At 10/09/2009 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's only been in office 9 months and already he has the Nobel Peace prize?

What are they going to do next year...make him Holy Roman Emperor?

 
At 10/09/2009 11:11 AM, Blogger Thoota said...

Did Obama make more impact on the world (in Intl Diplomacy) than Clinton and Tony Blair ?

 
At 10/09/2009 11:29 AM, Blogger ExtremeHobo said...

At least Jimmy Carter had the camp david thing. It may have ended up not being a success but at least it was SOMETHING. Obama hasnt done anything.

 
At 10/09/2009 11:43 AM, Blogger marketdoc said...

Interesting the deadline to nominate Nobel Peace recipients was February 1st-- about two weeks after the President took office. What a joke this award has become.

 
At 10/09/2009 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Obama's Nobel is more of a signal by the world that it is willing to follow the United States if we lead a peaceful path toward conflict resolution than it is an award for Obama having done so.

Heh, what's wrong with being a world leader?

 
At 10/09/2009 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone knows Obama got the Nobel prize from the Norwegians because he was their "favorite son".

He was born in Norway.

 
At 10/09/2009 12:03 PM, Anonymous gettingrational said...

At least they got Teddy Roosevelt right; his naval presence extended American influence on fuedual societies that have resulted in much greater freedom for billions of people.

 
At 10/09/2009 12:06 PM, Anonymous CompEng said...

"But the Obama White House has been as protectionist as any in memory"

Seriously?!?!? Welcome to the world of deliberate polarization. Despite moves like the recent bit on tires, that doesn't pass the giggle test of history.

Yes, "beggar thy neighbor" economics is abhorrent and doesn't have a great long-term success rate either. But if our fearless conservatives and libertarians actually gave a damn about a balanced view of anything they wouldn't continually lambaste the US (or the Democrats) on questionable grounds while giving the rest of the world a free ride. If they don't want to do that because they're afraid of stoking the flames, they might want to consider that their intellectual dishonesty (or excessive spin, whatever the case may be) has destroyed their credibility in the US. This is a much worse outcome, because on the issues where they could have been a voice of reason, they have relegated themselves to the roles of attack dogs and stoked the far more dangerous fires of demagoguery itself.

 
At 10/09/2009 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In so far as supporting Iraqi freedom involved bombing them and killing them, then I guess so.

What a troll.

From the 108 months of 6 August 1990 to 6 August 1999, using the United Nations estimate, a total of 1 million Iraqi civilians died as result of the sanctions. Of these, as many as 567,000 of the casualties were children. That is a rate of 9259.259 deaths per month… 5.337 times greater than Bush’s death rate. (Clinton actually only gained the Presidency on 20 January 1993, but the sanctions also lasted past the date of the UN estimate - to 22 May 2003, while Clinton stepped down on 20 January 2001.)

Video of Madeleine Albright justifying the deaths of more than a half million Iraqi children under Clinton's policies

I guess that's just the price leftists, like you, are willing to pay.

 
At 10/09/2009 12:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I guess that's just the price leftists, like you, are willing to pay.

Ha ha. I'm not a leftist, that's the funny part. I'm not even an American. Perhaps you should go read an article on how the internet works. But your argument on about how your right-wing govt only kills Iraqis on the same level as your left-wing govt is fantastic. Congratulations! Enjoy your trip to the bottom.

 
At 10/09/2009 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not even an American.

Thank God for that!

 
At 10/09/2009 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and one last thing, the U.N. blessed both the sanctions and the liberation of Iraq.

 
At 10/09/2009 1:27 PM, Anonymous Cannon said...

Whatever one thinks of George W. Bush's policy is irrelevant. This award, in my estimation anyway, shouldn't be about a previous president. Obama was nominated two weeks after taking office. He hadn't had a chance to do much as president at that point, and there's not much to point to that he'd done as a senator. He really hasn't accomplished anything in the world arena except talk. Those speeches focused a lot on the awful things the U.S. has done. Maybe, that's what the Nobel Committee is looking for.

If winning the prize involves a U.S. president ignoring all the good that this country has done in order to better rub elbows with global elites, I hope a president never wins again. The whole affair is ridiculous.

 
At 10/09/2009 3:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Bush had won the Nobel Peace Prize and others would have criticized the Committee for awarding it, the conservatives would have called the critic unamerican.

We need all the soft power we can get.

We can lose it too.

 
At 10/09/2009 3:23 PM, Blogger QT said...

"2 weeks"?

Is this the IOC?


Speaking of Afghanistan, the "good war" that Obama was in theory committed to winning...looks like another foreign policy disaster looms large on the horizon.

 
At 10/09/2009 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Thank God for that!

You should get yourself a passport and try to see the world instead of watching it pass you by on Fox News.

 
At 10/09/2009 3:56 PM, Anonymous Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

Nobel "peace" prize? The voters thought they were voting for the Nobel appease prize. Obama deserves that one!

 
At 10/09/2009 4:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, is the Nobel Committee going to be pissed when we invade Iran later this month.

 
At 10/09/2009 5:07 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

After 25 years of lagging behind the U.S. badly (under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush), the Western Europeans are hopeful they'll continue to gain political and economic power at the expense of the U.S. They want an E.U.-centric world, or at least an equal partnership with the U.S. in setting the world order.

I heard an economist say Western Europe is still in a feudal system, except the landowners have been replaced by government, while the serfs or peasantry serve government.

 
At 10/09/2009 5:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"finally making some diplomatic progress on Iranian nuclear ambitions is so 1945-2003."

Puh-lease!

The Iranians basically said "We will talk, but the nuclear program is not up for discussion"

There has been no progress and there will be no progress in the talks with Iran.

I don't know where you're from, but they certainly let you smoke some pretty good stuff.

How naive. If you think the Iranians are willing to negotiate, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Obama won the prize because he's a left-wing twit and the Norwegians are left wing twits.

That's it.

He has done nothing.

 
At 10/09/2009 6:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you consider the people who were passed over for Obama, you get a sense of the complete moral bankruptcy of the international left.

 
At 10/09/2009 10:05 PM, Blogger QT said...

Anon.,

Fox News? Hello...time to get out more often.

What about London Times or The National Post (Canadian Paper)? It is common knowledge that many people were shocked by the choice.

The only people who seem to think this is a great thing tend to be self-confessed members of the cult of Obama, self-flagulating white men trying to atone for racial guilt, partisans who hated GWB, or European brain dead liberals. Could you explain what accomplishments this person has achieved aside from the purely rhetorical to merit an award from any internation organization save the Toastmasters?

 
At 10/10/2009 3:07 AM, Anonymous london said...

President Obama has been awarded from Noble Peace Prize ... its such a great joke.

 
At 10/10/2009 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Could you explain what accomplishments this person has achieved aside from the purely rhetorical to merit an award from any internation organization save the Toastmasters?

Every time I have one of these conversations I get over the incredible insularity of those on the right. It's difficult to over-emphasize the profound sense of relief that the US has decided to abandon under this new administration it's disastrous unilaterial approach to international relations, re-engage the world diplomatic community, and pledge itself once again to the rule of law. Think of the Nobel Prize for Obama as a welcome back to civilization.

 
At 10/10/2009 11:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Everyone knows Obama got the Nobel prize from the Norwegians because he was their "favorite son".

It's depressing to read stuff like this because it shows how dumbed down the right in the US has become. The Nobel Prize is not Norwegian. It's awarded by the SWEDISH NATIONAL ACADEMY in STOCKHOLM.

 
At 10/10/2009 10:50 PM, Anonymous gettingrational said...

An Anon. above has stated how dumbed down the right in the U.S. is because the Nobel Peace Prize is Sweden's to give not Norway's.
The Nobel for Peace is awared by Norway because of Sweden's militaristic tradition.> A big dumbed down DUH to y'all.

 
At 10/11/2009 3:00 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


We're almost at 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell. Where is Reagan's peace prize?

Firing and blackballing ~12,000 workers for cheap right-wing political points has consequences.

Try for a PATCO II, get a more determined person to negate both.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home