The surprise decision to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize had much of the world scratching its head, even among the president’s most ardent fans. Less than a year into office, the young president has made lofty promises, committed his administration to diplomacy, and convinced the world that a less belligerent America is in the offing.
But one should not forget that the man is also the commander-in-chief for the Afghan and Iraq wars, as well as ongoing low-scale military operations in Pakistan, Africa and Philippines. Despite all these wars that US has forced on the international community in the not so recent past, he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If I may, I think he has been awarded the prize for “not being George Bush”!
By the end of George Bush administration, America’s international standing had hit bed rock. Obama’s decision to negotiate with Iran over it’s nuclear program in addition to the promises to reinvigorate the Israel-Palestine peacemaking process has propelled the US into much admired zone throughout the world. Especially so in Europe, where his decision to cancel the planned missile shield system in eastern europe has been widely praised. The decision has also calmed down the russians a lot! His recent speech at cairo university, reaching out to the muslim world was very well received in parts of the world where US enjoys the lowest popularity ratings.
I would like to think that the 5 member Norwegian committee that picks the annual peace-prize winner had something more in mind than giving Obama a $1 million hi-five for being such a popular guy. If one studies the history of Nobel peace prizes, one would notice that unlike other Nobel prizes, which are awarded for a lifetime of generally undisputable achievements in areas like physics, chemistry, and economics, the peace prize has always been awarded more in hope than in hindsight, with an eye nudging to world events. For example, the 1996 peace prize to Carlos Belo and Jose Ramos Horta — both prominent campaigners for East Timorese independence from Indonesia — put a spotlight on their cause and helped create the conditions that led to Indonesia’s pullout from the country in 1999. The controversial awarding of the 1994 prize to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzahk Rabin, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat was less successful. Though the three men eventually signed the Oslo Accords that seemed to have the two nations on a path toward peace, that effort eventually broke down.
Maybe the committee was right at some level in thinking that the nobel peace prize, which symbolises Obama’s winning over the world’s opinion can help. It frees goverments of other countries to respond positively to his calls, telling them to assume their responsibilities in the greater good. Also, the rogue leaders are put under pressure to mend their ways. But if it turns out that Obama ends up being “adored but ignored”, the nobel committee will have done no favors to world peace. On a personal note, I think its a mockery of the esteemed Nobel prize to award the peace prize to a man who has just made public his decision to send 40,000 soldiers to fight a war in Afghanistan. The number of people being killed in collateral damage remains the same. The war in Iraq does not seem to be nearing an end soon. And America’s war on terrorism seems to have taken a beating in the hills of pakistan-afghanistan border, which has led to a 3 fold increase in America’s funding to Pakistan, taking it to a whopping $7.5 bn! Given such figures, I hardly think awarding the Peace prize to Obama was a smart decision.
As always, oder personal opinions are more than welcome.
