On Friday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded President Barack Obama one of the world's highest and most distinguished honors, the Nobel Prize for Peace. The roster of Nobel Laureates includes some of the greatest humanitarians and human rights advocates in the history of mankind. As one works his way through the names, pausing at such luminaries as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela, it becomes strikingly clear that President Obama's resume is absurdly thin by comparison. All conscientious citizens of the world, regardless of ideology, should hope the President realizes his monumental potential to become the sort of transformative, life-saving figure worthy of this honor. But for now, his inclusion reeks of the sort of tone-deaf political showmanship that could ultimately cheapen one of the world's most honorable institutions. Rather than naively playing the pawn of Oslo's broader agenda, Obama should have politely declined the award, pledging to actualize his global vision before accepting any further plaudits.
As with Al Gore's controversial selection in 2007, the committee's decision is a transparent attempt to rebuke the Bush administration (and to a larger extent, the entire Republican Party), and to influence American politics. The Bush administration was widely criticized the world over for its head-in-the-sand approach to climate change (refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol) and its shockingly reckless go-it-alone, gun-slinging-cowboy foreign policy (Iraq, open disdain for the United Nations, etc.) as such, the committee likely elevated Gore and Obama above worthier candidates to use the credibility of the award to create momentum for saner policies.
Now let me be absolutely clear: Bush and the Republican Party deserve every criticism they receive from our European allies, particularly in light of their xenophobic propensity to bash Europe at every given opportunity, as well as their utter failure to lead as the global economic and political situation went to Hell in a hand-basket. However, the Nobel Peace Prize is not the appropriate forum to make such statements. The Prize exists to recognize and reward monumental efforts to make our world a better place not to take shots at foreign governments.
Furthermore, there is a second, less appropriate political intent hidden in this selection. In analyzing the committee's rhetoric in justifying their choice, it becomes clear that it is attempting to handcuff the Obama administration, by making it politically embarrassing to pursue any sort of escalation in Afghanistan or Iraq. Unfortunately, the decisions the administration will have to make in the coming days are far more complicated than "war versus peace." It may be that without further violence in the short term, those two governments, as well as that of Pakistan, will collapse, leading to the largest international security crisis since the Cold War. These are challenging problems, and the committee has no place inserting its self-righteous ideology into the discussion.
Making matters worse, the committee completely ignored the contributions to peace made by worthier candidates: French President Nicholas Sarkozy saved countless innocent lives and the continued existence of the Georgian state by brokering a peaceful end to the South Ossetian conflict; Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tvangirai successfully brokered a power-sharing agreement with corrupt and brutal dictator Robert Mugabe, ending years of heinous abuses and constant strong-arming, thereby giving Zimbabwe hope for the future. Both of these men, as well as many others, deserved far more consideration for their efforts and instead were relegated to historical footnotes. Such shenanigans cheapen the meaning and credibility of the prize, a terrible shame given its rich tradition.
President Obama is not naive. He knows exactly what's going on here, and he knows that he does not deserve the coveted prize. He may end up stopping Israeli encroachment in the West Bank, achieving diplomatic accords with Iran and North Korea, halting nuclear proliferation and saving Iraq and Afghanistan from the tailspin that the Bush Administration left them in. As of now, however, he has yet to accomplish any of those laudable goals. To be fair, the committee has put him in an impossible position: either he's arrogant for claiming an award he didn't earn, or cowardly for shrinking from the immense burden of pursuing peace. One day, when his legacy is more defined, Obama may well deserve this award and many more like it. That day, however, is not today.
