Anyone who fails to see the irony in The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize at a time when he is deliberating about possibly the most important military decision of his young presidency just isn't paying attention.
This isn't the only reason the committee's award is so questionable, and it's not just conservatives who are shaking their heads in disbelief.
There are a multitude of reasons why Obama is unfit for the prize, but the most glaring one is that he has accomplished virtually nothing in the way of international peace-keeping. As my colleague, Pierre Tristam (About.com's Guide to Middle East Issues), points out, Obama hasn't even been president for 10 months, and his record on peace-keeping is sketchy at best.
Sure, Obama has given a lot of fancy speeches about his hopes for peace, but they're based primarily on broad platitudes to which most of us cannot help but agree. After all, who among us does not wish to see peace come to the Middle East? Sure, the president's policy statements are grand gestures focused on promoting peaceful relations throughout the world, but what new president hasn't had that goal in those bright, sparkling days just following his oath of office? Even hawkish President George W. Bush, who campaigned upon a platform of "compassionate conservatism," was desirous of creating worldwide peace during his first months in office ... those noble plans ended, however, when terrorists flew our own planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
More than 205 nominees were considered by the Nobel committee, according to its web site. For all those people who have an actual demonstrated record of accomplishments, the committee's decision can't be seen as anything other than a slap in the face. In its announcement, the committee claims the basis for its decision was Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." These efforts have been largely based on one thing and one thing only -- words, not deeds.
Interestingly, it is Obama's status as president which has given him the world-wide stage upon which he has launched these so-called "efforts," and which has afforded him the opportunity to reap the Nobel Prize. In terms of concrete results, there is very little to validate the Nobel committee's bewildering decision.
Obama has actually done more damage to the diplomatic process than many people realize -- especially as it relates to the Middle East. His soft approach toward Iran has actually emboldened that nation's erratic leadership and his hands-off policy toward North Korea has given its unstable leader free reign to rattle his nuclear saber at the entire world. Meanwhile, the president's shrinking-violet approach has put an icy chill on relationships with traditional American allies like Israel and China.
The consequences of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama so early in his presidency may actually have negative repercussions for the prize itself. While many of the committee's recipients have been either obvious or forgettable, none have been quite so dubious. The committee had better hope Obama's diplomatic efforts work, or that there isn't another terror attack on US soil, because if his approach to international affairs should waver or the fickle international climate should change (as it so often does), there is no way the committee can repossess its most sacred prize.
Regardless of what happens, the committee's decision to honor Obama with the peace prize already devalues the awards given to previous recipients like Mother Theresa, Eli Wiesel and Nelson Mandela, whose unquestionable credentials, unwavering commitment and long list of peaceful accomplishments has traditionally set the standard for the award. By giving the peace prize to a man whose greatest accomplishment in life was winning the 2008 presidential election, the Nobel committee has lowered the bar for its future nominees.
Perhaps the greatest measure of a man is the way he takes care of his domestic responsibilities, and while Obama may have impressed many outside the US with his savoir faire and ability to read a teleprompter, his popularity in America has reached its lowest point yet, according to the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll.
Which basically means that people around the world can give Obama all the awards they want ... they don't have to live with him.
Join Me on Facebook | Get My Twitter Updates 
Nobel Prize Photo © Ragnar Singsaas/Getty Images
Israel Photo © David Silverman/Getty Images
Also:
- Does President Obama Deserve the Nobel Prize? -- About.com: Environmental Issues
- The Dark Cosmic Joke: A Prize with Blood on Its Hands -- About.com: Astrology
- Who Should Have Won the Nobel Peace Prize? -- About.com: World News
Comments
Justin –
If a visitor from outer space had only your blog to learn about American politics, he would wonder why Glen Beck had not been given the Nobel Peace prize.
Obama does not desrve it. I agree. He said as much this morning. Nevertheless, let’s hope that someday he does deserve it, or else we will all be in deep kimchi. Possibly the Nobel electors thought that the Prize would be a proper consolation for Chicago not getting the Olympics. Or for Arizona State not giving him an honorary Phd. Either way, some people, some where, have a much higher opinion of him then you do. Possibly because he is not George W. Bush.
BTW, re the picture. Do you honestly believe that Barack Obama is an “anti-Semite” and a “Jew hater”?
The prize is premature to say the least, but it isn’t just the folks abroad who appreciate the breath of fresh air Obama represents. After 8 years of cowboy unilateralism we are finally engaging with the rest of the world. Put that in your war pipes and smoke it, neocons!
Justin –
“Meanwhile, the president’s shrinking-violet approach has put an icy chill on relationships with traditional American allies like Israel and China.”
Israel has no better friend in this world than America. Would that the converse were true. Israel does what is in Israel’s best interests. If that requires spying on the US with Jonathon Pollard or stafing an unarmed American ELINT, Israel will do it. Without apologies.
BTW, how long has China been a traditional ally? I must have missed that memo. Did you mean “Japan’?
No, I don’t believe that, nor do I imply that with that image, RT. The purpose of the image — if you look at it contextually, is to underscore the eroding support from our biggest ally in the Middle East — Israel.
No, I meant China. Since China reclaimed Hong Kong in 1997, relations between America and the Chinese have improved dramatically. In fact, China has come to rely heavily on the US — and vice versa — in all aspects of political and economic life, from trade agreements, to financial investments to political support. In fact, over the course of Chinese-American relations, many scholars believe we have reached a zenith in international cooperation with China. Although there have been stressful periods between the two nations — particularly over Taiwan — America has its stressful periods with all its allies. In the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, relations with China became better than ever before. High-level meetings between American and Chinese leaders helped reaffirm the commitments between them and ensure stability for years to come. Regardless of whether it’s been written in any memos, China is clearly an American ally.
That said, the relationship between China and North Korea has historically been tight. China has intervened a number of times to keep America from imposing harsh sanctions on its people, and the Chinese government — on more than one occasion — has helped keep Kim Jong Il in power. Nevertheless, according to the Council on Foreign Relations:
“After Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006, experts say that China has reconsidered the nature of its alliance to include both pressure and inducements.”
In fact, there have been private discussions between Chinese and American leaders about America taking a harsher role in dealing with North Korea. China can’t be seen to be the aggressor or the supporter of any proposed sanctions because of its geographic juxtaposition to North Korea. Obama’s hands-off approach to North Korea since taking office has privately disappointed Chinese leaders who since 2006 have come to rely on the firm approach America has taken with North Korea to keep relations between the two countries stable. Obama’s timidity over North Korea could actually create a rift between China and America that could seriously threaten its relationship.
Yes. I understand that Obama’s popularity is as low as 4% in Israel, mostly due to pressure that he’s put on them to end the settlements.
Re: China. I’m not so sure. Possibly you’ve heard of the Chinese super freighters? The largest in the world. They arrive here full and leave empty. Larger than our largest aircraft carriers. And they are warships, if economic warfare were ever to break out. Just because we have economic ties with a country, does not mean that they should be considered an ally. However, if we are ever going to make headway with NOKO, China will have to be in the lead. They’ve finally gotten nervous about their client state.
Interesting. Would Russia also fit your definition of a ‘traditional ally’?
All I have to say is….OMG.
“Frankly, I would’ve given it to George Bush,” – Sean Hannity, on the Peace Prize.
The same guy that had McCain with 300 electoral college votes on election night.
I am proud of our President for winning the prize and wish him all the luck in the future.