Okay, let me just get it out of the way and say I think Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is goofy.
Not that I don’t like Obama. Not that I don’t think he’s done some good things so far, including on the Peace front. But … well, let’s turn to the committee itself on why he got this:
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
That’s all very nice — but, my God, has the world been so terrible that behaving in a civilized fashion, encouraging dialog, and acting multilaterally for a few months is all you need to get a Nobel Peace Prize?
Well, yeah, compared to the last eight years that’s practically disarmament (to hear the Neocons). To a very large extent, Obama is getting this for making it very clear that he is not George Bush or Dick Cheney — and to encourage him to continue (emphasis mine):
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
[…] Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as “support and a commitment for Obama.”
“And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament,” she told The Associated Press in a rare interview. Members of the Nobel peace committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama’s efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners’. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
“Some people say, and I understand it, isn’t it premature? Too early? Well, I’d say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now,” Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. “It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.”
Again, all very nice, but why just send him a note of appreciation — “Keep up the good work, and we’ll get back to you in a few years.” Unless there was really a dearth of candidates, this strikes me as inappropriate so early into his term, and only further dilutes the meaning and quality of the Nobel Peace Prize itself.
Inappropriate but not apocalyptic, which seems to be the reaction from the Far Right. I mean, you have the “See, they’re all socialists and atheists over there” crowd. You have the “See, yet another piece of th Anti-Christ puzzle falls into place” crowd. The “See, they only give awards to people who hate Israel” crowd. And, of course, the crowd that says Obama hasn’t had time to do anything substantive for peace even though with the next breath they note he’s managed to “destroy everything that is Good about America” in the same limited time frame.
At any rate, it’s done. The best we can hope for (thought this is no small thing) is that it will encourage Obama to continue to fight for peace, for international comity and multi-lateral resolution of crises. God knows he’s going to have plenty of opportunities in the years ahead to actually earn that medal.
It’s almost as goofy as Kissinger and Le Duc Tho getting the prize in the 70s.