Last Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the current President of the United States, Barack Obama. Like many others around the world, I am shocked that the award was given to Obama so early in his tenure as president and as he is overseeing two ongoing foreign wars.
President Obama joins three other U. S. presidents - Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter - as recipients of the prestigious accolade. But does he deserve it? Has he even had enough time to build a political or humanitarian resume that would qualify him for such an honor?
The will of Alfred Nobel, the patron whom the award is named after, states that the annual award should be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Previous winners have been storied philanthropists and humanitarians, such as the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, and Oscar Arias Sanchez, who fought to bring peace to Central America when it faced constant warring between guerilla forces and the national governments of El Salvador and Guatemala.
Has the president stopped or prevented any global conflicts or made any significant effort similar to those who have been granted the award before him? In my opinion, no, he hasn't.
So why was President Obama bestowed such an honor that, generally, is given to those who have made extraordinary efforts to further the cause of justice and world peace?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which is responsible for granting the award on behalf of the estate of Alfred Nobel, said that President Obama was given the award for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation among peoples."
I think if the president can succeed in getting the American people to agree on the raging health care issue, he would certainly demonstrate "extraordinary efforts to strengthen⦠cooperation among peoples." Despite all of the power and potential to better the world that his office holds, he has neither had the time nor done enough to accomplish a global peace goal, which I believe is necessary to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
I think it is also telling that the nominations for the award had to be submitted only twelve days after President Obama took office! Twelve days is a very short time to initiate, let alone establish, a true change that leads to the furthering of world peace anywhere in the world. Those reasons, and the fact that the president has only made the usual political rounds in meeting with various world leaders and verbally condemning the expansion of nuclear weapons programs, leads me to believe that this great award was given rather prematurely.
When discussing this matter with my roommate, I was given what I believe to be some great insight as to why the president was given the award despite possibly lacking the necessary credentials. I was informed that by giving President Obama this award, he will be looked at as a patron of peace and will be expected to always further its cause first and foremost.
I believe the president recognized this himself when he said that the award was a "call to action." This "call" is for him, the leader of the most powerful country in the world, to utilize his position to promote the efforts of international peace and he is in the most opportune office to do so.
It is possible that by granting the president this award, world leaders will be more inclined to come to the table and talk with the United States about potentially creating initiatives that would indeed promote the furthering of world peace in various parts of the world.
This, of course, would be a tremendous benefit, and if this does indeed happen, I would then say that the president is better qualified to receive the prize.
Even though granting him the award with the hopes that the collaboration of world leaders peace talks will ensue is a noble effort, it is speculative, to say the least. It relies solely on President Obama's future endeavors, which are already difficult enough to predict.
In a way, it seems that the president's path has been laid out before him. I'm not saying that he is unworthy or worthy of the award now, but I certainly hope he lives up to the reputation that it most undoubtedly demands.
Edit Desk: Peace prize is premature
By David Craig
Issue date: 10/16/09 Section: Opinion


Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
TJ Max
posted 10/15/09 @ 4:01 PM EST
Boring, but one of the better written editorials I've read in quite awhile.
Olivier RTD Lewis, 'O7
posted 10/16/09 @ 9:23 AM EST
Let us not forget to add Henry Kissinger to the list of recipients.
Cardiovascular Health
posted 10/18/09 @ 11:57 PM EST
Many people feel this way. I think that the committee is this time trying to encourage history instead of just commenting on it. There is nothing wrong with encouragement. (Continued…)
Post a Comment