In Pursuit of Peace - Netflix

Wed 13 September 2017

In Pursuit of Peace portrays the dramatic lives of three characters of three different families trying to survive in the Japanese occupied Singapore during World War II.

Type: Scripted

Languages: English

Status: Ended

Runtime: 120 minutes

Premier: 2001-03-09

In Pursuit of Peace - 2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Netflix

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a “new climate” in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world. The Nobel Committee's decision drew mixed reactions from US commentators and editorial writers across the political spectrum, as well as from the rest of the world. Obama accepted the prize in Oslo on December 10, 2009. In a 36-minute speech, he discussed the tensions between war and peace and the idea of a “just war” saying, “perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.” Obama is the fourth President of the United States to have won the Nobel Peace Prize (after Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, with Carter's honor happening after leaving office).

In Pursuit of Peace - In the United States - Netflix

Obama's winning of the peace prize was largely unanticipated and called a “stunning surprise” by The New York Times, though major oddsmaker Centrebet had in fact put him at 7–1 odds of winning, with Piedad Córdoba and Sima Samar at 6–1 and Morgan Tsvangirai at 7–1. In a USA Today / Gallup Poll conducted October 16–19, 61% of American adults polled responded that they thought Obama did not deserve to win the prize, while 34% responded that he did; when asked if they were personally glad that Obama won the award, 46% of respondents said they were and 47% said they were not glad (poll margin of error +/-3%). There was widespread criticism of the Nobel Committee's decision from commentators and editorial writers across the political spectrum. The New York Times published a mildly-supportive editorial which said the prize was “a (barely) implicit condemnation of Mr. Bush's presidency. But countering the ill will Mr. Bush created around the world is one of Mr. Obama's great achievements in less than nine months in office. Mr. Obama's willingness to respect and work with other nations is another.” It said that much remains to be done. Among those agreeing that the award was a criticism of the Bush administration were the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, as well as Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times. Today host Matt Lauer and Jonah Goldberg of the National Review said that less than a year into the first term, there have been “no major foreign policy achievements to date.” Goldberg added: “surely someone in Iran—or maybe the Iranian protestors generally—could have benefitted more from receiving the prize” while in CounterPunch, political journalist Alexander Cockburn said that, in historical context of other former U.S. Presidents winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the award to Obama “represents a radical break in tradition, since he's only had slightly less than nine months to discharge his imperial duties.” Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast called the decision a “farce”, while Noam Chomsky said : “In defense of the committee, we might say that the achievement of doing nothing to advance peace places Obama on a considerably higher moral plane than some of the earlier recipients”. Many were critical of the Nobel Committee. A Wall Street Journal editorial, noting Obama's comment that the world's problems “can't be met by any one leader or any one nation”, opined, “What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called 'American exceptionalism'. This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary. Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment.” Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson wrote that the committee members “have forfeited any claim to seriousness. Peace—the kind of peace that keeps people from being killed and oppressed—is an achievement, not a sentiment. [...] Intending to honor Obama, the committee has actually embarrassed him.” Commentary magazine's Peter Wehner wrote that the award, with past awards that seemed aimed at criticizing the Bush administration, showed the Nobel Committee “long ago ceased to be a serious entity; this choice merely confirms that judgment.” According to The Washington Post news analyst Dan Balz, “[E]ven among his supporters there was a sense of surprise and even shock on Friday [the day of the announcement], a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability.” An editorial in The Washington Post began, “It's an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree”, and compared the Nobel Committee's statement that Obama had “created a new climate in international politics” to a recent satirical skit on television. A Los Angeles Times editorial said the committee “didn't just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the prize itself”. Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times wrote, “It dismays me that the most important prize in the world has been devalued in this way”. Much of the commentary across the political spectrum involved describing the award as something risible, with the humor focusing on Obama's getting the award without having accomplished much. According to an analysis in The New York Times, “it [...] [is] striking how so many people seemed to greet the Nobel news with shock followed by laughter,” On the morning of the announcement, several of The Washington Post's opinion-page columnists, posting at the newspaper's “Post Partisan” blog, characterized the award as laughable or directly satirized it, including such supportive columnists as Ruth Marcus (“ridiculous—embarrassing, even”), Richard Cohen (who satirized the award), and foreign-affairs columnist David Ignatius (“goofy” and “weird”), and Michael Kinsley (whose satirical response came the next day). Other prominent commentators who often supported Obama but responded with ridicule included Peter Beinart and Ann Althouse. James Taranto wrote in The Wall Street Journal an article summarising various opinions on the Internet, concluding how the award was embarrassing for Obama. He said the award was a “staggeringly premature honor--the equivalent of a lifetime-achievement Oscar for a child star--makes yesterday's satire into today's news”. Fred Greenstein, presidential historian and author and professor of politics emeritus at Princeton University, told FOX News that giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is a “premature canonization” and an “embarrassment to the Nobel process.” Slate magazine blogger Mickey Kaus, New York Times columnist David Brooks and former U.N. ambassador John Bolton amongst others, called for Obama to not accept the award; pundit Michael Crowley argued that it was a “mixed blessing”. Subsequent to the award many Americans now consider that Obama did not deserve it in the light of following events. Opponents of the award cite the expansion of the War on Terror and the large increase in the number of drone strikes carried out under Obama, specifically in Pakistan. There have been a number of calls for Obama to either return the award or to have the Nobel Committee recall it, most recently in 2013. In April 2013 a petition was begun asking the Nobel Committee to rescind the Peace Prize. The petition garnered 10,000 signatures in its first day and nearly 20,000 by the end of its first week.

In Pursuit of Peace - References - Netflix