The Promise of Peace is Enough?

I don't think I was alone in the world being stunned by the news that President Obama had been declared the winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. This marks the fourth time that a sitting US President has won the award but the first time that the sitting President has won during his first term. What is even more stunning (to supporters and critics alike) is that Obama was sworn in as President a mere two weeks before the February 1st deadline for nominees. According to officials on the Nobel Prize committee in Oslo, a great motivator for his being nominated (and subsequently voted as the winner) was the promise of change towards world peace and efforts that he spoke of when he was running for office and was visiting the world leading up to the elections nearly a year ago.

I think it speaks volumes about Obama's popularity overseas given the fact that he's won the award despite the fact that there is no definite way forward being publicly presented on the war in Afghanistan, the ending of the war in Iraq is not a done deal and the fact that negotiations with Iran over their nuclear weapons program are still a bit dicey. So then my question is that whether the promise of wanting to make change and lead the world in peace is enough to warrant winning a prize as prestigious as the Nobel. I can't say for certain but I can certainly come to some conclusions about decisions like this and what they say about the opinion of the world.

The previous administration of George W. Bush had (rightly or wrongly) put forward a stance that if you weren't with the United States then you were either against it or just plain stupid. Now perhaps I'm being a bit unfair to the Bush Administration but I don't believe I'm that far off the mark. During the Gulf War in 1991, war with Iraq was fought by a coalition of Allied nations that supported the rationale and reaons for going to war. Contrast that with the invasion of Iraq the second time around and see how different it was with nation's not believing what the second Bush Administration was spewing when it came to rationale for going to war. I don't think there was doubt that the attack on Afghanistan was justified given that the plotters and leaders of al-Queda were thought to be hiding there however when that war was more or less marginalized, world opinion seemed to skew towards thinking that this was just a smokescreen to at least show that something was being done in Afghanistan (which was justifiable) while plans were made for Iraq.

In the years since 9/11, opinion of Muslims in the world has degraded to the point that they are often cast in a negative light even if they're trying to be positive. Case in point were the protests against a Muslim assembly attempting to pray before the Capitol. But what does this or any of the previous discussion have to do with Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Simple. He at least is willing to talk and hear what non-Radical Muslims are trying to say when it comes to their views and their ideas for how to deal with the more radical portions of their community. Rather than speaking softly (or not speaking at all) and carrying a big stick like Teddy Roosevelt, Obama has at least tried to implement dialogue with the world as to what to do to try and promote peace.

When the rest of the world accepted scientific proof of global climate change, the Bush Administration didn't really believe it and stated that it was a natural cycle of the Earth. I suppose that members of the Bush Administration had been around during the last Ice Age and spoke from experience thus not requiring scientific knowledge or backing. What did the Nobel committee do? They voted and awarded the prize for the environment to Al Gore, the former Vice President and opponent to Bush's run for the Presidency in 2000. Now in contrast to the go-it-alone attitude of the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration's efforts to at least start on the road to peace in a joint manner has gotten him a lot of world support already even if he hasn't had tangible successes as yet.

I think it's a bold statement by the Nobel Committee and the world at large. The promise that perhaps Obama will really live up to all the things he's been promising is something that could definitely impact the course of our world in the future. His win sends a message that the world leaders and influential personalities around the world believe in him so perhaps our leaders in the US need to pause and rethink their opposition to him. I'm not saying that it should be treated as a pass for him but neither am I saying that he should be opposed merely because he's not in your party (and yes I'm speaking to Republicans here). After Gore won the Nobel Prize for his work towards the environment the US finally started taking things seriously with regard to global climate change. Perhaps we'll see a change and increased momentum towards peace in the world with Obama winning too.