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