Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to President Obama. America: "Huh?"
To sum up the the universal reaction, what the heck? (Or, as a morning e-mail put it, "Really?")
Adam may have said it best: "No joke, Obama should turn the Nobel Peace prize down until he's finished with his two wars." Obama is doing pretty well as president, but it hasn't even been a year yet! On the international peace front, he has made "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” but they are only efforts thus far. Far better to wait unto those efforts pay off to give him the prize. Make no mistake, though, the odd timing of this award isn't Obama's fault.
For the White House, what to do? Accepting it seems destined to play into accusations of hubris, but turning down the slightly-less-distinguished-than-they-were-yesterday Nobel Committee isn't very ... diplomatic. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama rejects the prize, but then again, a platform is always useful for a president. Obama should accept the award on behalf of the United States and then recognize 10 or 15 underappreciated people working for peace around the world -- anything to take the focus off his personality and recognize real accomplishment. He could even surprise the world community -- and soften his domestic critics -- with a demand for more foreign military assistance in Afghanistan and public pressure on the world's diplomatic hard cases, from Iran and North Korea to Israel and Palestine.
The committee's decision reflects a lot of impulses. One may simply be to show appreciation for U.S. efforts that are slow-going, urging both an administration and a people who might get impatient that the world appreciates the work thus far -- welcome back to constructive play. There is a precedent for that kind of approach. It may be a final put-down to the previous administration, which earned itself a lot of enmity abroad. Here is the official justification, which is somewhat...persuasive, to be honest:
“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” [Norwegian Nobel Committee Chair Thorbjorn] Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with communist Eastern Europe.
“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” said Mr. Jagland. “The same thing is true of the prize to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, for launching perestroika. One can say that Barack Obama is trying to change the world, just as those two personalities changed Europe.”
If you take the premise that the U.S. is the premiere foreign policy actor in the world, and that Obama is trying to fundamentally shift the U.S. approach to foreign policy, then I suppose, in the tradition Jagland cites, this makes some sense. But it still feels too early. Meanwhile, the Taliban and the American Right join together, once again, to condemn the prize.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (9)
Best comment I've seen so far is over at Cannonfire:
He deserves it, just like Pia Zadora.
Posted by: mara | October 9, 2009 9:28 AM
I think the Gorbachev analogy is a solid one. When the leader of a major world power repudiates lawlessness, aggressive warfare, and torture, that policy shift for the country is itself a contribution to the cause of world peace (and human rights, which it seems to me has been sort of unofficially included in the NPP's criteria).
If a new leader did for Chinese policy what Obama did for U.S. policy, he'd probably get the prize and nobody would question it. And when a leader of the Soviet Union made a comparable shift in Soviet policy he *did* win the prize for it.
Americans aren't used to seeing the U.S. as a major threat to world peace, but recently, it has been. Reversing that trend really is a major achievement.
P.S. It may also be an attempt to tie Obama to his own rhetoric: accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his goals will make it hard to back down from them. By putting a global spotlight on the planned shifts in U.S. policy, the committee may hope to increase pressure to make them real.
Posted by: chris | October 9, 2009 9:43 AM
He's got to refuse it (please, please, please refuse it, Obama!). If he accepts it, no matter how gracefully done, it starts making me think that he is indeed arrogant. I've always thought he was confident but appropriately humble, but this could change my mind. The Nobel committee may have wanted to encourage and further Obama's goals, but they obviously have no inkling about American domestic politics.
Posted by: polthereal | October 9, 2009 10:14 AM
You bet he should accept it! He should accept it on behalf of the American people who voted him into office -- to the relief apparently of the entire world.
We put him in but the Noble Committee doesn't give away 300 million of these things.
Posted by: leo | October 9, 2009 10:38 AM
This is great news. I am very happy that he won. He deserves it.
I have to admit that I am having a lot of fun reading the reactions of people on these blogs. Too funny.
Win the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes we can.
Posted by: Chris R | October 9, 2009 12:42 PM
A little over a year ago the US was talking about nuking Iran and had alienated Europe, Russia and the Muslim world. The US was also actively promoting torture, on a global basis. Obama was ridiculed by Clinton and others for being willing to talk to Iran. The far-right rhetoric dominated the conversation, nationally. Even the Dems bought into Bush's foreign policy, if only because they were afraid to look weak.
Not only is Obama not Bush (a huge step for peace), he also defeated McCain-Palin. McCain was not only singing bomb-bomb-Iran, he also wanted to go to war with Russia over Georgia.
Posted by: Ian | October 9, 2009 12:43 PM
Not only is Obama not Bush (a huge step for peace)
I think a lot of tortured and torturers would disagree with you...not to mention Afgan civilians.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2009 2:29 PM
I think the Nobel Prize is an honor for the President, he was very gracious about accepting it.
Posted by: Lisa | October 9, 2009 11:31 PM
It is Obama's fault that he is accepting the Nobel Peace Prize!
Should genuine scrutiny be dismissed? NO. It is very much akin to a War Metal or honor given to a soldier without having done anything to earn it!
Is it true that Obama had only been in office for two weeks when the nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were presented?
Posted by: Patricia | October 12, 2009 6:15 AM