Brontides

Renard Sexton and FiveThirtyEight has made the most credible attempt I’ve seen thus far at justifying the bizarre inclusion of Barack Obama into the pantheon of Nobel peace laureates.

The justification for the prize, while certainly unexpected and a bit tenuous, is indeed rooted in fact. Obama has long been a booster for non-proliferation, and his speech and lobbying at the UN General Assembly and Security Council proved to be quite successful.

On climate change, the Obama administration has taken the toughest line against carbon emissions of any White House so far in terms of concrete regulations by Federal agencies [...] Though cap-and-trade or other large scale programmes are clearly the purvue of Congress, the executive branch’s efforts in the realm are likely to be a major portion of the US effort.

Regarding diplomacy, the committee was likely in part referring to the re-elevation of Susan Rice’s post, the US Ambassador to the UN, to a cabinet level post, as well as his public addresses and promised strategic changes toward diplomatic action over rapid military decisions – such as Iran. The G5 plus one meeting with Iran, where Undersecretary of State Burns officially met with the Iranian negotiator, and found a way forward on nuclear energy processing was the first concrete outcome of this strategy.

Sexton’s analysis is spot on – while the Committee’s claims are indeed justifiable, they are too stretched and too abstract to really be credible. When viewed through the prism of today, in which Obama has largely failed to steer effective climate policy through Congress, has largely failed to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons and has largely failed to improve the image of America outside of its traditional western-European and Arab-petrostate clientelle, this award seems to be designed to reward effort and intent rather than achievement. Viewed through the prism of January 2009 – which was when Obama was innaugurated and, two weeks later, nominated for the prize – it looks farcical. The above rationale evaporates when you consider that Obama’s nomination came before his agreement with Russia to cut nuclear arsenals, before any hint of engagement with Iran, before Susan Rice had been appointed to the UN and before any significant moved had been made on emissions.

More importantly, like the award given to Al Gore two years ago, it represents a direct attempt on behalf of the Nobel Committee to promote an agenda within the domestic affairs of a country – an idea that is both intuitively and strategically a bad idea. Those who disagree with the Nobel Committee’s decision will regard the brand as tarnished; those, like me, who have a degree of personal approval for Obama but would rather that prizes were given for achievements rather than intentions will regard the Nobel Peace Prize, sadly, as having irrevocably jumped the shark. The Peace Prize was was never designed to be a political tool; it was intended to reward peaceful policies, not further them. Its credibility to do either is now severely diminished.

Stephanie Flanders is not alone in treating these modern Tories with a degree of curiosity.

Let’s be clear: this is not the limit of the Conservatives’ ambition with respect to budget cuts. We may or may not get details of the rest of the squeeze this side of the general election – but you can bet there will be more to come.[...]

Labour says it’s too risky to cut while the economy is still weak – the Tories say that borrowing is too high to risk delay.

I’ve been surprised how willing the Conservatives have been to confront this argument head-on. [...]

The trouble, for the Tories, is that Labour have intuition on their side on this one. Most people assume, understandably, that lower public demand in the economy must mean slower growth overall.

The Tories are doing the sensible thing. Like most people in this country, they have realised that – scandal or catastrophe excepted – there is very little credible probability that they are going to lose the next election; they have been dominating the polls and the news cycles for too long for this to be anything other than a neatly-tied package. So they are making hay while the sun shines. They are in the enviable position of being able to run for election while not actually having to conceed anything to the electorate; and, when elected, they can claim a mandate for a cutting agenda.

They have a good lead; by resisting the urge to make it a landslide and instead fixating on preparing the ground for some of the unpopular changes they will need to make in government, they are showing a political maturity that is admirable. If only their policies were equally so…

Dominique Strauss-Khan has become the latest member of the prestigeous shoe club.

The Fund’s managing director was addressing students on the campus of Bilgi University when a student took aim with a white trainer, chanting “get out of the university, thief IMF.”

Television footage showed security guards shielding Mr Strauss-Kahn and hustling the bearded student, who wore a white t-shirt and sleeveless jacket, out of the room.

Mr Strauss-Kahn later shrugged off the protest. “It is important for us to have an open debate. I was glad to meet students and hear their views. This is what the IMF needs to do, even if not everyone agrees with us. One thing I learned, Turkish students are polite. They waited until the end to complain,” he told reporters.

Other illustrious members include George W. Bush, Wen Jiabao, Indian Home minister P. Chidambaram, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if the internet whisper factory is to be believed. Displaying, or striking someone with, the sole of the shoe is a serious insult in the Arab world (although in the west it evokes little more than an inane reference to a Mike Meyers movie) – I’m glad to see it catching on, however. America may lead the world in cultural exports but the Arabs have the market for creative political protest cornered.