Adrian Gibson

First published in The Tribune on Friday, October 16, 2009 under the byline, Young Man's View.

PRESIDENT Barack Obama is the outward manifestation of a desire of the American electorate to walk a different path in world affairs ad return America back to the realm of civilised nations. Although his presidential reign is young, Mr Obama’s selection as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is merited and well deserved.

Indeed, in accordance with dictates of Alfred Nobel, the Swede who established the prize in 1895, the Nobel jury’s choice of Mr Obama is warranted as he has, thus far, led the charge in fostering peace in the world and moving America from the negative image it acquired from the Bush administrations unilateralist approach that thought of the UN as a relic of the past, showed contempt for the orderly ways that civilized governments approached war and resorted to preemptive “shock and awe” strikes and essentially adopted a “my way or the highway” approach when dealing with other nations. In the short period of time that he had been president, he has already begun the conclusion of the Iraq incursion with the draw down of combat troops, encouraged dialogue with North Korea and Iran about their nuclear armament/ambitions, has agreed to send additional troops to Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and al-Qaeda in pursuit of peace, reached out to Muslim nations in order to reduce hostilities and resolve conflicts, demonstrated a new approach by the US to addressing climate change and has jump started and renewed in developing international accords aimed at reducing and eradicating nuclear weapons. Hopefully, this also speaks to a reduction in America’s nuclear arms.

It amazes me how everything surrounding this man of late—someone who has galvanized to world towards greater cooperation and diplomacy and is seen as an international pacesetter—is being attacked and criticised by political rivals, talking heads and persons whose fervent wish is to see him fail!

Now, the peace prize has set off a war of words between his administration/supporters/Nobel Committee and those detractors whose jealousy, obstructionist desires, inherent and/or hardly disguised prejudices and zeal to see him fail clouds any form of objective thought and hinders them from even being able to congratulate him for such an award or even offer constructive criticism that doesn’t amount to hate-mongering. Sadly, there are some critics who have even latched on to his efforts to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago and unjustly and frivolously criticised him for even this noble gesture when the world body that decides upon the site of these games decided otherwise (in favour of Brazil).

Since the Bush Administration, Obama has been a fresh air on the landscape of American/World politics. Some of his merits/accomplishments range from being a young man who pulled himself up by the bootstraps and worked his way through school while leading prominent school organizations, refusing to take the high paying jobs but instead choosing to serve his community; using a united message to not only defeat forces within his own party to become the Democratic presidential nominee but also to inspire billions and achieve what was once said to be the impossible and become the first black American president; galvanizing the world community during his campaign and today having reduced tensions around the globe via his diplomacy and international outreach programmes, as well as having a global mindset that has shown respect for other people's cultures; helping to restore the once lost trust and respect in the UN, an organization that the reckless Bush administration rode roughshod over; addressing the internal crisis in the US by seeking to revamp the economy, pass an all inclusive health care bill that gives all Americans some form of healthcare , developing a new approach to schools and education in America, and so on.

The Obama Administration has accepted the need for dialogue and for radical change in American foreign policy; therefore, it appears that the Nobel Prize committee is seeking to recognize a trend in world affairs that must be encouraged. Although there is a danger when such a prize is seen to be given too early, that is, if a person turns out to be a warmonger, I doubt that Mr Obama will take such a dark path. Frankly, the peace prize is a seal of approval of President Obama. Obama’s award highlights the significance of his administration’s return to a much more civilised way of conducting international diplomacy.

Mr Obama is a young President, who has inspired the world and shown men and women of color that they too can reach the pinnacle of public office, particularly in a predominantly white country. While some appear to think that he can turn water into wine, he has only been in office since February and has been confronted with a plethora of problems since day one.

What more, pray tell, do the naysayers expect from this man in such a short period of time? These days are truly the age of political knuckleheads who take every opportunity to criticize merely for the sake of criticism and perceived political mileage.

Indeed, Mr Obama being bestowed with such an award may be seen as premature in the sense that he is a new president and yet has a long way to go in the first term of a potential two-term presidency—however, it is really a prize to be shared with the electorate, an award to be shared with the freedom fighters and members of the civil rights movement who came before him and, in some instances, died in their pursuit of equality and peace. Frankly, such an award should be bestowed posthumously on Rosa Parks, Mahatmi Gandhi and Marcus Garvey.

As he would have himself noted in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama is the materialization of the American electorate’s yearning to return America to its once glamorous stature as a bastion of hope and success.

Ivoine Ingraham: PLP Convention

Ivoine Ingraham, the social activist and a contender for the FNM chairmanship during the governing party’s upcoming convention, has spoken out about the “cowardice” shown by sitting Members of Parliament and others in the PLP hierarchy who have thus far shied away from launching a full-frontal challenge of former PM Perry Christie during their next convention next week.

“Those persons running for deputy are only doing so because they are afraid out of their wits of challenging Christie. They seem to be pure cowards and this is a sampling of the kind of men at the fore of local politics. They don’t really want to be deputy, but they will go for it while hoping that Mr Christie walks away or dies—otherwise, he will lead forever,” Mr Ingraham said.

He went on: “The deputy leadership is a disguise—it appears that they don’t have the balls to say they want the leadership for fear of being ostracized by Mr Christie. Anyone who openly challenged the leadership was cut down and banished to Siberia from the time of Pindling, with their families having t endure great hardship. They are hiding behind the deputy moniker.”

As it relates to Jerome Fitzgerald, a newcomer and PLP senator, Mr Ingraham said:

“Mr Fitzgerald just saw an opening, an opportunity while the PLP is in its weakest state.” Frankly, the outspoken challenger did not qualify Mr Fitzgerald as being a worthy candidate.

The challenger for the FNM chairmanship asserts that the “only real man” in the leadership race is Paul Moss because he was “man enough” to respectfully write Mr Christie and openly challenge him. When asked about the downside of Mr Moss’s campaign, such as his recent joining of the PLP and his failure to have even secured a nomination thus far, Mr Ingraham likened it to the arrival of current Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s entry into the FNM, stating that “Mr Ingraham came in, and he came as leader—he wasn’t in for five seconds before doing so, so there’s no excuse why not.”

However, contrary to the chairmanship candidate’s assertion, Paul Moss is rather disadvantaged and PM Ingraham’s ascension to leadership are hardly parallel. Moreover, the political heavyweights within the FNM lured PM Ingraham in because they knew that he was their only hope of electoral victory in 1992 and that he was a seasoned politician who had repeatedly won his seat and had previously served in leadership positions—eg, PLP chairman and government minister.

“Christie’s votes will be split up in many ways, in spite of the fact that he has stacked the deck with stalwart councilors. He is not hearing the rumblings as there is serious disquiet about his leadership, plus he is getting old. And, what is his present medical state? Mr Christie’s belief that he’s the best causes him to be blinded and not to listen to the wise in his party, thinking that he’s better and smarter and that people would vote for him just because he thinks that way,” he said, laughingly.

Mr Ingraham continued:

“ Mr Christie is his own greatest enemy. He will not listen to Michael Jackson who said and showed that if he wanted to make the world a better place he, like Mr Christie, had to look for the man in the mirror. However, it seems that Mr Christie just doesn’t get it, he’s not seeing the man in the mirror and hearing the calls.”

With Mr Ingraham in the FNM’s chairmanship race in November, I have no doubt that the race will be quite colorful and hotly contested.

E-Mail Adrian.