Immediately after President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize on Oct. 9, a hurricane of media criticism exploded. The dominant attitude was that Obama did not deserve the award, due to insufficient activity in peace processes. But the rationale for selection is much deeper than many critics observe.
The history of the Nobel Peace Prize has been largely positive, with occasional controversies regarding the winners. Although the award tries to recognize important peacemakers, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has seen its share of misses. Notable persons including Eleanor Roosevelt, Pope John Paul II and, as incredulous as it sounds, Mahatma Gandhi, all failed to receive the award.
But many winners are not without controversy. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger won in 1973 with Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho for signing the Paris Peace Accords, ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Kissinger, however, played an integral part in the covert invasion of Cambodia, resulting in civil unrest, the Khmer Rouge seizing power, and the genocide of one to two million people in the 1970s. In 1994 Middle East leaders Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin won the Peace prize for their Israeli ó Palestinian talks. Fifteen years later and that situation is still far from solved.
So why Obama? The Nobel Prize committee points out many recent winners were awarded the prize not just for accomplishments but for further encouragement. Although Israelis and Palestinians have used violence consistently against each other, Arafat, Peres and Rabin chose the much harder route of negotiations and the prize committee saw these devoted attempts admirable. In 2007, Al Gore did not take his award as a conclusion to his efforts on climate change; rather, it can be seen as emboldening him to continue his position. Obama fits this mold. He has appealed to the Islamic world in several ways, including speeches in Egypt and Turkey, a video message to Iranís leadership and inhabitants, and allowing his first presidential interview to be by the Muslim network Al Arabiya. His international concerns dwarf his predecessors, becoming the first U.S. President to preside over a meeting of the U.N. Security Council, and on his first day in office, calling the leaders of Palestine, Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
Many argue Obama won largely because he is simply not his predecessor George W. Bush. To the rest of the world, that is a legitimate reason. Journalist Joseph Palermo of Huffington Post suggests this award is a teaching moment for America, to show Americans how scared the international community was concerning Bushís militant foreign policy. It is a reminder to curb the hegemonic rule America prevails over the world, to not preside over an aircraft carrier proclaiming ìMission Accomplished” while sectarian violence threatens civil war in the country in question, to understand diplomacy is an alternative to force. Foreign policy struggled under Bush, and the nations of the world have been waiting to look up to a charismatic leader capable of coordinating U.S. involvement that promotes global peace.
Barack Obama may not have accomplished the goals he set out; Politifact.com claims he has kept 47 of his promises, broken seven and has not acted on hundreds more. Itís a tall order in a dire situation of economic downturn, two wars and a debt which the past eight years made astronomical. The committee recognized these factors working against him, and implored Obama to orchestrate international affairs in a peaceful and successful way. Probably the best defense comes from the committee itself. ìOnly very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.” As globalization brings the world closer, national leaders play increasingly important roles outside their own countries. Obama plays a pivotal role in making it all work out. It may take a while, but hope goes a long way.
John McGovern is a regular contributor to the Voice. He can be reach for comment at JMcGovern12@wooster.edu.