Did President Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Much of the world was stunned to learn that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 was awarded to President Barack Obama. What will be outlined on the following pages are reasons why this decision by the Nobel officials in Oslo damaged the historic meaning of the Peace Prize and seemed to have presented it to a popular political icon, rather than someone with years of experience in preserving or otherwise advance the cause of peace world-wide. The subject of this essay is not to denigrate the popularity nor the future potential of President Obama but rather to focus on the original premise for which the prize was created- years-long dedication to a peaceful world.

Perhaps because of this year's decision, some of the luster of what is presumably the most prestigious world-wide award has been dimmed. What is the history this Peace prize? "After Alfred Nobel's death in 1896, his executors discovered that the inventor of dynamite had secretly set aside about 35 million Swedish kronor (about $225 million today) for the creation of five annual prizes to honor those who bestowed the "greatest benefit on mankind" in science, literature and diplomacy: (Suddath 18). As Ms. Suddath explains, there are very specific guidelines for awarding the Peace Prize. At least, prior to 2009: Nobel's will made it quite clear that whoever is the recipient of the annual award should be the one person who has performed the "best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" (Suddath 18). The recipient, voted on from a large number of nominations is determined by a five-member committee appointed by Norway's Parliament. Every year, the nominations are solicited from an undisclosed number of contributors which may include past winners as well as some prominent institutions. The winner is decided by a simple majority vote.

Of course, there is more than just deciding on one recipient based on a large number of nominations. Even though no one actually has revealed just how deliberations go on, there is some there are some who see a certain pattern.

Just what is the purpose of the Nobel Peace prize? Perhaps author Christopher Hitchens sums up the past recipients and their "categories" which had given some meaning to the prize, historically. He cynically sees five distinct types for such awards. The first he calls "For service to diplomacy and realpolitik. In this category might fall Theodore Roosevelt" (Hitchens para. 3). His other four, with examples, include the following:

" For service to cynicism, opportunism, and hypocrisy .

Here we find Yasir Arafat and Henry Kissinger, along

with their Israeli and North Vietnamese counterparts.

For service to human rights. Few would doubt that Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr. honored the spirit if not

the letter of this...

For service to random but vague feelings of good will.

You might have thought that 1946 would have been a good

year for Mohandas K. Gandhi...

For fealty to supranational institutions and to the

United Nations and its cadet or satellite outfits. The

International Red Cross-which assumes that war is

inevitable and has no position at all on peace' won

the award in 1917, 1944, and 1963" (Hitchens, paras.

4.5.6.7.8).

The history of the Nobel Peace prize gives us some interesting insight into the situations ion the world. "Since its inception, the Nobel website reports thatNobel Peace Prizes have been awarded since 1901. "It was not awarded on 19 occasions: in 1914-1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939- 1943, 1948, 1955-1956, 1966-1967 and 1972" ("Facts" para 2).

The reasons given, according to the website, that the Prizes were not awarded in those years was simply no one was felt to be qualified, so the prize and its monetary award would be held over until the following year.

President Obama, in his forties, is not the youngest Peace Prize recipient. According to the Nobel website, that honor goes to three women, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, both in their thirties, who were awarded the prize in 1976, and Roberta Menchu, 1992 who was 33.

The reaction to this year's announcement was rather sudden: "Within hours of Friday's announcement that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, commentators and politicians all over the map were denouncing the award as 'absurd'" (Rutten A 33). Rutten correctly pointed out that the 2009 prize was awarded for words and not deeds. But, he is also correct in producing some evidence that many of the Peace Prize recipients tried but were ultimately unsuccessful in most of their endeavors: "Considering the 89 Nobel Peace Prizes that have been awarded since 1901 is a melancholy experience. By and large, they're the chronicle of a blood-soaked century's fitful hopes and consistent failures" (Rutten A 33). He provides the opinion, based on fact, that with the exception of a handful of organizations such as the Red Cross, the American Friends Service Committee, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees all of whose good efforts still continue, the list of Prize winners seems to be largely a number of individuals involved with forgotten peace initiatives, abandoned agreements and ultimately ineffectual treaties. Perhaps the ultimate proof of this is that the world continues to be at war on nearly every continent. It goes without saying, then, that for many the Nobel Peace Prize is a political popularity contest and not necessarily based on reality.

Obama cannot really be added to this list because, to date, there is no evidence of success or failure of any of his policies, other than to prove that the wars he inherited in Afghanistan and Iraq continue. In fact, he has just announced an increase of some thirty thousand additional troops to deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan where no peace is in sight. However, there are many around the world, and conservatives in the U.S. who see this Peace Prize as a slap at former president George W. Bush. "The prize was clearly a pointed rebuke to eight years of unilateral recklessness by the Bush administration, which had spurned international organizations and diplomacy, opting instead for preventive war and establishing a network of secret prisons and torture centers" (Obama's Nobel" para. 1).

Even those who consider themselves supporters of President Obama see some risks in the awarding of the Peace Prize: "The Nobel Peace Prize, presented prospectively--a triumph of hope over inexperience--threatens to become a central metaphor of Barack Obama's turbocharged political career. He seems fated to be feted for who he is not (George W. Bush) and who he might turn out to be, but not for things he has actually done. This is dangerous stuff, politically" (Klein 23).

There are others in volatile areas such as Pakistan who also see politics rather than achievement in the awarding of the prize. One Pakistani is even quoted as saying "If the category is peace, he doesn't deserve the peace prize" (Rodriguez A 21).

Pakistan in particular is still leery of Obama's achievements, if any: "For Pakistanis, a key yardstick for measuring Obama's ability to bring about peace is how he deals with the volatile tribal areas along the Pakistani-Afghan border, where Taliban militants and Al Qaeda fighters are entrenched. And Pakistanis vehemently oppose Obama's reliance on drone missile strikes to take out militants because they say those attacks also kill civilians" (Rodriguez A 21).

There are many reasons- and hardly any of them ought to be considered strictly political, why the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for reasons that have little or nothing to do with actual peace creating efforts. Here is just an overview of what Obama has NOT accomplished in the way of assuring world peace:

(1) Iraq is still smoldering from tribal faction warfare and the government is still not totally stable which means that U.S. forces still must remain there. Insurgencies continue to plague both U.S. troops and Iraqis. Suicide bombers continue to plague and kill Iraqis, and U.S. private contractors are soaking the treasury for literally billions of wasted or kickback dollars. While some troops continue to be pulled out of Iraq, chances are some troops will remain there for the foreseeable future. That means, potentially for years. Call them "peacekeepers" if one prefers, but remember, the U.s. still has troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea, literally generations after the cessation of hostilities there.

(2) Afghanistan's recent election which kept Karzai in office was so fraudulent that is opponent withdrew from a recount opportunity, knowing that the outcome would be rigged. Taliban forces are increasingly strengthened and willing to fight the current American and NATOI forces there. The poppy trade continues. The population feels threatened not only from their own government as well as the Taliban, but consider Americans as "occupiers". The new surge of thirty-thousand troops will remain there, at least until mid-2011, and there is no guarantee of a total pullout even then.

(3) Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, and still hates India (also a nuclear power) but now faces insurrection in Kashmir and even close to the capital of Islamabad, by Taliban fighters who have overrun some areas. The government seems unable or at best unwilling to make a 100% effort to eradicate Al Qaeda and Taliban units near its borders with Afghanistan. The real threat here is that, somehow Muslim ultra-conservative fanatics may seize power, gain control of nuclear weapons and use them against the U.S. and the West. For many observers, the weakness of the Pakistani forces to rout the Taliban and Al Qaeda units and to not be effective in the dangerous border regions (where it is believed Osama bin Laden is hiding) also provides serious problems.

(4) North Korea continues its occasional nuclear threats about firing more rockets, and to date there has been very little mutual diplomatic conversation about some sort of entente.

(5) Iran's nuclear threat is perhaps more dangerous than North Korea's. "The Iranian government approved a plan yesterday to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion, in defiance of UN demands that it halt the program" (Dareini para. 1). There is no doubt that Iran is ready to defy the Western allies, and neither Russia nor China seem to be effectively trying to halt Iran's nuclear program. Even with some anti-government protests in Tehran and other cities in Iran, the government's decision to move ahead is obviously a tactic to prove to the Muslim world that the U.S. and other Western nations have no right to interfere in the domestic activities of Iran. "Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran's... president, said after he was elected in June that Iran had a right to a nuclear program. In August, Iran also resumed sensitive nuclear work at some of its facilities, bringing two years of negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear program nearly to collapse" (Pan para 3). Iran's anti-Israel stance and its development of more nuyclear plants and other experiments have caused a re-thinking of Mid-East strategies in both Israel and the U.S. Of course, the more aid the U.S. gives Israel, the further they become estranged from conservative Muslims, Palestinians and Arabs.

(6) Israeli-Palestinian conflicts continue. Despite Obama's sending special envoys, even Secretary of State Hillary Clonton to negotiate with both israel and the Palestinian Hamas governmment, no compromises have been reached. Israelis continue to build settlements, and wall out or take over Palestinian territories. Benjamin Netanyahu is a staunch conservative unwilling to give even an inch. And now, emboldened by a perceived threat from Iran's nuclear potential, the Israelis feel that the world's attention needs to focus East rather than on the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

(7) Africa remains a powderkeg. Tribal warfare considered as much a holocaust as the 1940's slaughter of millions of Jews in Germany and Poland. Darfur, Somalia, Congo, Kenya, Eritrea: these are now not merely obscure placenames on Africa's map, but dengerouos killing fields. Combine the fighting for gold and diamonds with the continuing spread of AIDS, and Africa remains perhaps the most dangerous place on earth.

(8) Russia remains destabilized with the curent President Medvedev and former President Putin in a fight for control of some regions which have, or want to, pull away from Russian influence, such as Georgia and Ukraine.

(9) Mainland China's war is economic, not military. As the largest holder of U.S. bonds which makes America tremendously in debt, China is seeking all sorts of economic inroads and willing to overlook the world's disapproval of human rights violations, billion-dollar musikc and motion picture piracy and near sweat-shop working conditions whereby the end product undercuts nesrly all domestically produce American goods.

(10) Rebels continue to harass the government in various islanmds of the Philippines, and there continuer to be bloody battles with the Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka.

(11) The so-called "war on drugs" goes on seemingly unstoppable. Along with illegal immigration this is a major continuing source of problems with neighboring Mexico. Over a billion dollars has been allocated for helping Mexico fight the drug cartels, but according to an L A Times article, "just $26 million hd been spent by the end of September, or 2% of (what) had been allocated" (Ellingwood A 34). Many more millions of dollars' worth of armoed vehicles, helicopters and other supplies are scheduled for delivery soon. So, where is the peace here?

Just these few examples of disturbances worldwide, give the bery notion that "world peace" is more or less an oxymoron; and that, given the unstable conditions worldwide, providing a Nobel Peace prize to Barack Obama is simply not a reasonmable recognition of what he has and has not achieved to date. This is an especially notable time-line, since the committee that awarded Obama the prize had to make its decision within weeks of his inauguration. One must remember and requote the basic reasons Nobel had for this Peace prize: "The condition Alfred Nobel set forth for the Peace Prize was that it should go to 'the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'" (DuBord 44). So, one really has to wonder at the miracles the White Hoouse performed. Did President Obama really squeeze all of that into his first two weeks in office?

One must take note of President Obama's age and basic accomplishments to date. The Peace Prize shoould be, and usually has been, a recognition of hard work and at least some progress in stabioliziong the nations and peoples of the world. It has not always been politically motivated, despite such disparate nomnees and reciptients as Henry Kissinger, Lu Doc Tho of North Vietnam, and the duo of Begin and Arafat. Mother Tereesa surely was not a peace maker, by definition.

Therefore one must conclude that Obama, as mentioned earlier, was cited for his potential. Even there, the world remains in doubt. Other than improving the stature of the U.S. in many foreign nations ignored or overlooked by George W. Bush the current Administratioon has little to boast about globally. So, what was the Nobel Committee looking at? One answer seems to be their background statement which inferred that The Committee focues on what they considered President Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. The idea here is also that he is more willing to include the united Nations in the effort for a nuclear-free world than President Bush was, although given the present state of the American economy, it is doubtful that the millions supposedly owed the UN by the U.S. will be forthcoming anytime soon.

Perhaps in the coming years President Obama will truly achieve some breakthroughs in the regional and international battles that infect the 21^st Century world. Maybe there actually will be a nuclear freeze that every nation large and small will strive to observe. But today this is not happening. Peace in the world is a hope but sdeldom a rerality. So, it is unfair to those in history who have earned the award, to give the Nobel Pewace Prize to Barack Obama.

References:

Dareini, Ali Akbar: "Defiant Iran set to build 10 new

nuclear plants" The Independent World Nov. 30, 2009

www.independent.co.uk/.../defiant-iran-set-to-build-10-new-nuclear-plants

DuBord, Sharon: "Obama's Ignoble Peace Prize" Appleton WI:

The New American.Nov 9, 2009. Vol. 25, Iss. 23; pg. 44

Ellingwood, Ken: "U.S. Drug War Aid Slow in Coming" L A Times

Dec. 4, 2009, p. A 34

"Facts on the Nobel Peace Prize" Dec 4, 2009

nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html

Hitchens, Christopher: "Underqualified for the Overrated"

Newsweek Oct. 19, 2009, vol. 165, issue 17,

Klein, Joe: "The real Peace Prize" Time Magazine,

: Oct 26, 2009. Vol. 174, Iss. 16; pg. 23

"Obama's Nobel" The Nation. Nov 2, 2009. Vol. 289, Iss. 14;

pg. 3

Pan, Esther: "Iran: The nuclear threat" Council on Foreign

Relations, Sept. 6, 2005 www.cfr.org/publication/8830

Rodriquez, Alex: "THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: BARACK OBAMA;

PAKISTAN; 'If the category is peace, he doesn't deserve' it

Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10, 2009, p. A 21

Rutten, Tim: "Prized for his noble words" Los Angeles Times

Oct. 10, 2009, p. A 33

Suddath, Claire: "Nobel Peace Prize: A Brief History"

Time Magazine, Oct 26, 2009 v174 i16 p18