The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award President Barack H. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize has no doubt effectively stirred a hornet’s nest of criticism about whether or not he deserves the award.
You’ve probably heard the arguments already, but let me point out the big ones.
The opposition’s first argument is the committee selected Obama too early within his presidency to truly measure the merit of his efforts to bring forth the domestic and international change he campaigned for almost one year ago.
Opponents also maintain the Norwegian Nobel committee members were simply too star-struck by Obama’s past speeches on foreign policy to make a truly unbiased selection.
As a vocal supporter of Obama, I must admit such arguments even made me ponder whether he was worthy to be noted in history with Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. After all, the president has not had enough time to bring forth any of the reform or “change” he promised within his term.
But then I realized the award speaks more for what the world (at least the European part of it anyway) expects of American diplomacy rather than what it expects of Obama.
Let’s look at it from the view of our allies. For the past eight years, our allies had to deal with a presidential administration which implemented unilateral “Lone Ranger” policies which in turn marginalized international organizations such as the United Nations. Nations who vocally objected such American policies were ostracized. (Remember the French boycott and “Freedom Fries”?)
So when Obama emerged with the promise to transform America’s tarnished international reputation by seeking advice and cooperation from allied nations through multilateral participation, the world saw this as the restoration of an American diplomacy reminiscent of what the world saw under fellow laureates Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee explains further in its press release, “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. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes which are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
Obama and his administration have indeed begun the process to restore America’s good name in the world through direct conversation with both our allies and opponents. The president’s June speech in Cairo, Egypt, is a prime example of such conversation.
In June, the leader of the most powerful nation in the world chose to take unprecedented steps by vocally extending a hand of friendship and participation to Middle Eastern countries with large Muslim populations while setting down the goals of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of global warming within his term. Is such an act of international diplomacy not enough to qualify Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize?
After all, the Nobel prizes were created to award those who develop or implement new ideas or strategies which will ultimately benefit the world in a significant manner. Not to downplay the criteria in the award process, but there is no requirement of age or past successes.
So why criticize the Norwegian Nobel Committee for giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize based on his dedication to transforming America’s international image or for acknowledging there are standards in foreign diplomacy should be improved?
Furthermore, why is there such a frenzy by the media to question whether people are qualified to receive such awards? We didn’t question whether former Vice President Al Gore deserved the Nobel Prize award in 2007.
Nor did we question whether 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus’ concept of microcredit to poverty-stricken entrepreneurs would economically or financially end the plight of developing countries in the long run.
Are the committee members wrong to award a president who has globally instilled hope in an America with a more appealing international policy? I think not.
Vick Warnsley is a senior majoring in economics. He can be contacted at [email protected].