courtesy White House
In 1937, Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel prize. The committee didn’t cite the time Gandhi spent as a soldier in the British army. Instead, it snubbed him because he was “an ordinary politician.”
Today the news came that President Barack Obama won the Peace Prize, only eight months into his presidency, and an undetermined amount of time before he might do something substantial.
The committee cited the Cairo speech, to which the Arab reaction was mixed. Hamas, the group that former NP winner Jimmy Carter called indispensable to the Middle East peace process, said after the speech that Obama’s policy was no different than his predecessor’s. Sources in Oslo say Bush did not make the short list this year.
Previous winners, like Mairead Maguire have called the pick “sad,” because Obama has yet to actually end a war. In fact, Obama’s management of the wars seems rather similar to the Bush team’s strategy. And in some regards that just might be a good thing. Regardless of whether we should have gone in, the likelihood of endangering a large number of lives through premature withdrawal persists. The Nobel committee is unlikely to see the sustainment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as humanitarian efforts, but that may be due to a bias that favors finishing existing conflicts to preventing future hypothetical conflicts.
Foreign Policy recently did a spread of Gandhi and other famous Nobel snubs. But this year there was no clear-cut choice. The person most hurt by the selection was likely Obama himself. A friend pointed out that this year an economist might have been a solid choice. But again, the Nobel committee and humans in general tend to favor resolution over prevention.
Was there a better choice this year?
I think it was a premature decision. I’m seeing quotes all over the blogosphere about how Obama deserved this because of the hope he instills in people, and the direction he is moving the country in. While those characteristics may be true, I don’t believe that qualifies you for a Nobel Peace Prize. Wouldn’t it be a bit more prudent to wait more than eight months into his presidency, to see if his policies not only pursue, but promote peace, before we award him with such an honor?
I’m not sure there was a better choice this year, but I think the committee should have recognized that this was not the best year to choose Obama.
Do you think he should accept it?
Of course he should accept it. If he didn’t accept it, it would be an admission that he doesn’t deserve it, which would be a stupid move. His remarks Friday were perfect and helped him take control over how this is viewed. But more importantly, what is he going to do with the prize? The White House got a lucky break in that Tom Friedman already wrote the president’s acceptance speech: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11friedman.html
If only Obama would actually give that speech.
My guess — Obama doesn’t use the prize as a springboard for actual accomplishment. Just look at his speech to the gays this weekend, more feel-good rhetoric. At some point he’s gonna have to turn pretty words into concrete achievement.
It would be like if Henry Kissinger got the prize before the Vietnam War was even over.
In all seriousness, the prize is given “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.” Obama has done passably on the first count, and his nuclear work isn’t bad on the second. A little premature, yes, but the Peace Prize committee tends to be less about honoring a body of work and more about influencing current events.
I confess that I cannot think of a name who is especially worthy of the Peace Prize this year. Regardless, Obama is a silly choice for the prize. This is clearly an attempt by the Nobel Committee to egg Obama into pursuing the policies they want. If I was Obama, I’d consider declining the award.
If this is supposed to be influencing current events, the Nobel committee is going to be really embarrassed if Obama escalates the war in Afghanistan, is forced to deploy forces to an unforeseen contingency sometime in the next three years, and when he fails to get any traction on nuclear disarmament in Asia.
In fairness to the Nobel committee, the prize has been a joke for years anyway.
“In fairness to the Nobel committee, the prize has been a joke for years anyway.”
Fair point.
Its interesting turn of events.It is just like those Norwegians to keep us on our toes. I think we are all asking the wrong question here, instead of whether this Nobel Prize was justified or not, we should look at how it will effect Obama’s ability to achieve his agenda. Both parties will try to spin it to suit to their respective goals, but most Americans will realize it is still an honor to be chosen. The Baucus Bill in the Senate is looking good after the CBO estimtes, but it is still gonna be fight. At least there is a light at the end of tunnel. If we get any kind of bill on healthcare combined with a Nobel Prize, this could be a very good month for Obama.
Swedish, Ajay. Swedish.
Careful, Seth – the Nobel Prize, thanks to some goofy personal union of Norway and Sweden during most of the 19th century, is awarded in Oslo.
Not only that, but the committee which selects the Peace Prize winner currently consists of five ex-politicians from Norway’s major parties who probably all want Obama to come and visit them.
BBC news:
“Speaking at the White House hours after the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee named him as a surprise winner, he said the award should be a ‘call to action’.”
Link to full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299824.stm
I knew I read somewhere that they were Norwegian.
New York Magazine called it the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee as well, if it makes you feel any better.
*As does the New York Times. So there you go.
Now I see where I got off track. The prizes for Physics, Literature, Medicine, Chemistry, and the pseudo-prize for Economics are all awarded by Swedish panels, and are awarded by the King of Sweden in Stockholm. The banquet for all the prizes is in Stockholm.
The Peace Prize, however, is the odd man out. I was wrong, and as an act of contrition, will go one day without saying “syncretic.”