Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Supports Human Health

Today's announcement that President Obama won this year's Nobel Peace Prize not only strengthened the peace process, it also benefited human health worldwide.

Many of President Obama's efforts thus far to reduce and eventually eliminate the global stockpile of nuclear weapons could prove more beneficial than any other action in preventing the ultimate public health disaster: nuclear war.

We know that nuclear war is not winnable; it is also astoundingly deadly. Millions, even billions of people could perish in a 'limited' nuclear exchange; say one between the nuclear-armed and adversarial nations of Pakistan and India. Such a catastrophic event could lead to nuclear winter, worldwide crop damage, and cause billions of people all over the world to perish from starvation. Acknowledging President Obama's efforts to stop the arms race, as the Nobel committee did today, also salutes our president's efforts to protect human health.

Some say this award is a bit premature for a world leader in office less than one year. While I disagree with those naysayers, it's important to review what President Obama has accomplished so far, since even before taking office, to promote peace and protect human health.

Seven years ago, then-Illinois State Senator Obama proclaimed his opposition to invading Iraq at a rally in Chicago. The Iraq war has led to more than 100,000 deaths, mostly of civilians. Obama has opposed this conflict from the start, an important effort to promote human health and safety.

Since taking office, President Obama has wasted no time in addressing the threat to human health posed by nuclear arms. On his first trip to Europe as President, Obama called for a world free of nuclear arms. "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," he said on April 5, 2009 in Prague.

A few months later, President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia met to sign an agreement to start scaling back nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Last month, he became the first U.S. President to ever chair a United Nations Security Council meeting on nuclear disarmament, and was able to convince other states to agree to a UN Security Council Resolution to strengthen nuclear nonproliferation policy globally. President Obama also has big plans for a summit next spring that will lay the ground work for securing loose nuclear weapon material globally.

"There are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: We know where that road leads... Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, and accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it."

President Obama has been calling for peace, diplomacy and for a way to ban nuclear arms from the planet to protect human health. The Nobel Committee justly acknowledged his foresight when they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize today.

Comments

[lfrancis61]

No question that eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons remains the holy grail of world peace. If President Obama has reignited the dialogue in this regard, the payoff will be tremendous in the long run.

[eic]

With all due respect, Dr. Lovinger, awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize effectively 10 days into his presidency (nominations were due in early February), minimizes the heroic work of so many others. How can the committee say that Obama is as qualified to receive this award as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Nelson Mandela, a major force in eliminating South African apartheid? Or Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines? Or Mother Teresa?

Obama has made some great speeches and some fantastic promises, both during the course of his campaign and since his election. The problem as I see it is that it's way too soon for any of those promises to have been delivered upon, which was even more the case in February. If Obama delivers on his promises, which given the polarization that exists in this country seems a mighty big IF to me, then and only then would it be appropriate to award him something as significant as the Nobel Peace Prize.

Finally, one last comment. What is done is done. Now, we the people must make sure Obama delivers on his promises. The weight rests on our shoulders to push for disarmament, bringing troops home, and significant strides made in addressing climate change. If all of these things are accomplished - and again it's a big IF - AND our government begins to address the many ills that plague our own populace, I'd suggest they invent a new award.

[Raphae1]

Yes, Obama has opposed this the Iraq war from the start, but after he became POTUS, he has promised to stay there for another two years. He almost doubled US forces and pays 68,000 contractors (such as Blackwater) in Afghanistan. He excused torture, reinstated the military commissions act, kept the Bush gulag intact and opposes habeas corpus for the prisoners. He voted for the patriot act and chose to extend the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan. He increased the military budget and didn't even bother to change the secretary of defense. In the Bush era people knew that the Iraq war is all about oil. Now that Obama tells the Bush lie of spreading freedom and democracy, people start to believe it again. The US anti-war movement is almost dead, and I consider that a result of Obamas excellent promises. But has he earned a Nobel peace price for that?

[sweetartt]

Thanks Sarah...well said....well done!!!!!