MEDIA REACTION: RESPONSE OF NEPALI PRESS TO OBAMA'S NOBEL PRIZE

UNCLAS KATHMANDU 000945



SIPDIS



STATE FOR SCA/INS, PM/CBM, PM/PRO



STATE FOR SCA/PPD, PA/RRU



E.O. 12958 N/A

TAGS: KMDR, KPAO, PGOV, OPRC, NP

SUBJ: MEDIA REACTION: RESPONSE OF NEPALI PRESS

TO OBAMA's NOBEL PRIZE



1. SUMMARY: Nepali media commentators expressed

surprise at the Nobel Committee's decision to award

President Obama with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Reactions were mixed, with some commentators

claiming that Obama's actions did not yet merit such

an award. Many commentators concluded that the award

was in recognition of Obama's promise rather than

his achievements. END SUMMARY.



--------------

Positive

--------------



2. Centrist vernacular daily RAJDHANI (Oct 11) ran

an editorial titled "NOBEL PEACE PRIZE" that

commended Obama for his efforts to establish good

relations with the international community and his

remarks on world peace, destruction of atomic

weapons, and nuclear non-proliferation. Translated

excerpts:



3. "... He [Obama] started an effort to establish

cordial relations with the international community

that had been given second-class treatment by George

Bush. However, his leadership is under the scanner

vis--vis the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the

relations with Iran that he inherited from Bush and

other predecessors. ... It is natural for the

Muslim world and other countries to expect a

positive change from somebody who was able to

influence the American 'mindset' in favor of change.

However, promises, expectations, and their

fulfillment are different matters. ... He has made

commendable remarks on world peace, destruction of

atomic weapons, and nuclear non-proliferation. But

along with that, America carries the image of an

intervening imperialist. It has forced itself and

its allies into untoward wars, affecting world peace

and independence. Before this image is erased or

before a meaningful evaluation is done in this

regard, if the chief executive wins the worlds' most

important recognition or prize, then it would

continue to be an issue of debate in the days to

come."



4. "... Maybe the Nobel Committee wants to keep

itself in a moral capacity in favor of change and

peace in the world. A hasty decision can sometimes

bring the wrong result. But Obama has himself

addressed this skepticism. May the prize be an

inspiration for him. Unshaken continuity of his

campaign, improved worldview of America, efforts to

win respect and trust of the Third World, and

American assistance to the wars against hunger,

disease, and poverty should be the yardsticks [of

success] for 'Nobel Laureate' Obama. Debate

continues as to whether or not he deserved the

recognition. And Obama knows it. That is the best

part of it."



5. Independent English daily REPUBLICA (Oct 12)

published a letter to the editor titled "NOBLE

OBAMA", by a Nepali reader: "I am happy that Barack

Obama, the US president, was the recipient of Nobel

peace prize this year. He certainly deserves the

honor because Obama is a man of character and

talent, who wants to advance peace throughout the

world."



--------------

Skeptical

--------------



6. Independent vernacular daily NAGARIK (October

11) ran an opinion piece by its OP-ED editor titled

"PRIZE IN ADVANCE." The piece was skeptical of the

award decision.



Translated excerpts:



7. "... All these (international diplomacy and

remarkable efforts in enhancing community-level

assistance, work on making a nuclear-free world, the

emphasis on 'multilateral dialogues', efforts to

develop understanding with Muslim community, efforts



to make climate change a global agenda under United

Nations) are definitely praiseworthy and important

issues. Still, the prize seems to be given in

haste. Obama did 'great work' by deciding to

withdraw troops from Iraq. ... Obama's commitment

toward peace will be tested by his decision on

Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an issue that could not

have brought him the prize."



8. "The Nobel Committee's decision to award Obama

appears to be influenced by his leaning toward

European viewpoints rather than his contribution to

world peace. Non-liberal Americans, especially

Republicans, consider the world to be 'uni-polar'

under American leadership after the end of Cold War.

Europeans including Russia, Germany, and France had

found it hard to accept the American hegemonic

claim. Obama has calmed this dispute by promoting

the United Nations. Maybe the fulfillment of the

European 'ego' is another cause for the prize

selection. Besides, is it possible that the prize

decision came to 'erase' the blames of 'racism'?"



9. "It is not that Obama has done nothing. He has

given hope with his special effort to bring

international diplomacy in favor of and closer to

people. Obama has contributed in directing the G-20

leaders, who used to forsake the greater interest of

the world for the sake of national interests, toward

a new path of consensus and dialogue. Obama's

effort to reinvigorate the fading and waning United

Nations is also praiseworthy. But these were not

enough to bring him the prize. Therefore, this

prize appears not to be in recognition of his

achievements, but in an effort to encourage his

potential. To keep the dignity of the Nobel Peace

Prize, Obama faces the additional challenge of

strongly advancing his agenda of developing world

peace and understanding."



10. Centrist English daily THE KATHMANDU POST (Oct

12) ran an opinion piece by its former editor Shyam

KC, titled "OH OBAMA" that argued Obama did not

deserve the prize so soon after assuming office.



Excerpts:



11. "... The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize this

year to U.S. President Barack Obama has predictably

raked up controversy as never before. ... Obama is

the first black president of the world's most

powerful country. But is that a qualification for a

Nobel Prize? And if so, the U.S. Democratic Party

that nominated him and the people who voted for him

deserve the kudos more than he does."



12. "... The domination of Europe and the United

States in the share of the Nobel Peace Prize is all

too clear, and bespeaks of the political

considerations rather than actual merit that go into

the selection process. Great figures like Mohandas

Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) were bypassed.

In 1991, the prize was awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi

of Myanmar (Burma),one of the very few Asians to be

so honored. And this gave rise to a lot of

questions here in Nepal as to why she should have

been awarded the prize when our own Ganesh Man Singh

was in no way an inferior choice, having made more

sacrifices than she did, and having brought down in

1990 the Panchayat system seemingly so firmly

entrenched. Surely political considerations rather

than actual achievements were the key considerations

of the Nobel Peace Prize committee then as now."



13. "... It is no surprise that the present choice

should meet with controversy. I am personally an

admirer of the present U.S. president, but think

that he did not deserve the prize so soon after

assuming office and without bringing about

substantial, meaningful and sustainable changes in

global politics and matters relating to global

ecology and climate change. But oh to be Obama.

Words rather than deeds are enough."



14. Centrist English daily THE KATHMANDU POST



published a letter to the editor, titled "OBAMA'S

NOBEL" by a Nepali writer: "... The peace prize

should go to someone who has done something to make

the world a more hospitable place. Obama promises

plenty, but talk is easy, it's action that counts.

Isn't it paradoxical that the Nobel for peace is

going to the leader of the country whose troops have

been responsible for the deaths of thousands of

innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, we

don't see any concrete steps by the U.S. to combat

climate change even while it is the biggest energy

consumer in the world. I doubt the peace prize will

change the U.S. outlook on the rest of the world."



MOON