The Nobel Prizes, awarded this week, offer a confusing geography of merit. Named in honor of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, and presented on his birthday, the prizes recognize the most prestigious contributions in several sciences and economics. The Swedes choose the winners, who receive their awards in Stockholm. But, strangely, the Nobel Peace Prize, the most exclusive of all, is chosen by Norwegians and presented in Oslo. So the record number of American Nobel laureates this year will be celebrated in a different Scandinavian capital than their president, Barack Obama.
President Obama will face an intriguing dilemma in international protocol during his Oslo trip. Immediately before the Nobel ceremony, he will have an audience with King Harald V, the king of Norway. Traditionally, a head of state does not bow to another head of state, especially when one is a monarch and the other is a democratically elected leader. But Obama has been following his own protocol this year. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, he has bowed to every monarch he meets, following local custom.
It began with his curt head nod to Queen Elizabeth in April, after shaking hands, which hardly seemed a bow at all. Yet this gesture is exactly what is suggested for men by traditional English etiquette. (That women still curtsy seems odd, and Michelle didn't.) What really blew me away on that same trip was Obama's deep and almost subservient bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied there was a bow at all, arguing that the tall president was merely trying to establish eye contact with the much shorter king, but news cameras showed otherwise.
Perhaps the brouhaha would have died out, had not President Obama offered yet another deep bow to the Emperor of Japan in November. (The Empress received a shorter bow, the depth of the bow reflecting rank in Japanese society.) Was this supposed to be a cover-up bow after the flap about the Saudi king? Whatever the reason, it now appears that President Obama will have to bow to every monarch he meets or insult somebody -- which was a big reason not to bow in the first place.
Official protocol, like its common cousin, etiquette, is designed to let everybody know what is expected of them, so nobody risks hurt feelings or international incidents. Normally, the Chief of Protocol, an ambassador-level position in the State Department, travels with the President to make sure all the steps of the official dance of statehood are followed on both sides. Yet this position was not filled in the Obama administration until August -- and then by Capricia Marshall, a veteran aid to Hillary Clinton both in the White House and her presidential campaign.
It's easy to imagine some turf battles between Obama's uber-social secretary Desiree Rogers and Marshall, herself a former social secretary in the Clinton White House. But for whatever reason, President Obama has chosen not to travel abroad with Marshall, who would traditionally have her own seat on Air Force One.
Of course, everyone in the administration serves at the pleasure of the president, so he is entitled to choose whomever he pleases. But Obama's protocol gaffes make me wonder if he is getting the veteran advice he deserves, whether from Marshall or somebody else. This administration represents the American people, not just any particular president, and the respect the office requires is no trivial matter.
Follow Linda R. Monk, J.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LindaRMonkJD
James Bradley: Obama's Nobel More Deserved Than Teddy Roosevelt's?
Theodore Roosevelt won the Peace Prize for bringing the Russians and Japanese to the negotiating table to end the bloody Russo-Japanese War. In fact, Roosevelt did little to abet peace.
The Peace Prize is perfect in this case because it is given to somebody who is militarily involved but involved for the right reasons: to vindicate basic human values. I think the Nobel Prize simply proves that Afghanistan is everybody's fight, not just Dick Cheney's.
My previous post didn't get in. It basically said Obama is devoting 24 hours to this event which is sufficient. They don't expect him to stay in Oslo 3 days for one medal. However, if I were O I would check the weather and if there is good skiing in the middle of Oslo he could take the girls and let them ski around town, have lunch with the King - insist on seafood, there will be no regrets, I wouldn't miss that meal. Years later the girls can reminisce about their trip to Oslo to see their father receive the Peace Prize Medal which is a prize people really treasure and the O's will cherish it long after they are out of office. Hope this post gets in.
I agree with you about supporting the women of Afghanistan, but I think we are relying too heavily on military means to do so.
It is obvious that they are concerned that Obama should start thinking about actually brining peace to the planet. That is why there is so much "minimizing" of the event.
I am not suggesting the Prez spend 3 days in Oslo for one medal. On the contrary, I would fly out in the PM EST, arrive morning Oslo, go sightseeing (for crowds and photo ops in the snow, etc. if there is any), have lunch with the King, accept the prize, give a speech and go home.
The whole point is the ceremony. Instead it seems he has some appointments with functionaries - for what? He has a chance to mold opinion with a grand event and instead it seems that all is to be minimized, people are to be offended, he is to humilitate himself with self derogation next to mother Theresa and Mandela, etc.
It's all so stupid one wonders, as Casey Stengel wondered about the amazin' Mets, can anybody around here play this game? (Answer: Yes, but they have other fish to fry).
tm
From where I sit.....Obama makes war largely on behalf of the corporations that own him NOT on behalf of you or I.
Speaking of reality, what portion of the 30,000 "new" troops to be sent to the Afghan war will be serving (along with their familes) their 3rd, or 4th, or 5th combat deployment, do you figure?
What a cruel irony it is for these families to have survived Bush's wars of aggression...only to have these sevicemen and women sent to their deaths under Obama's noble experiment in nation building.
I campagned for and contributed to the President in his bid for the Presidency, and still support him in many of his endeavors.
That does not make it my job (or yours) to mindlessly cheerlead for his every desicion....particularly one that will result in the deaths of many American Servicemen and untold numbers of Afghans......many of whom will be innocent civillians.
Actions that were wrong under a despot like Bush..remain wrong under Obama,...no matter how altruistic his motives, or good his intentions.
As a citizen I belive it IS my job to stand up and say:............... "NO!" That's MY reality.
STOP THE WAR
US OUT OF AFGHANISTAN
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES
BRING 'EM HOME
tm
Of course, the mission is worthy............what was it again?
regards
tm
I did remember that part about GW starting the war....................much like I remember that Ike & JFK "started" the VietNam war....
I particularly, (and PERSONALLY) remember the part about Johnson RADICALLY expanding the war...much like Lyndon Bains Obama has done in Afghanistan this week.
First rule in "cleaning up a mess" ........... stop making it
tm
I'd say more but the "two minutes hate" is coming up in just a sec.
BTW.....do they seem to be coming up more frequently to you too?
regards
tm
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
--Dylan 1963
As somebody who supported Obama very early on, and worked hard for him to be elected, I care very much about his success. Perhaps you are right that it's a negotiating strategy to charm the royals into agreeing with him, not that they have real political power anyway. The question is: does it ever stop?