Last Friday's announcement of US President Barack Obama as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize has turned heads around the world. There's been an outcry, from the right, the left, and the centre, that Obama - a president barely nine months into his term - doesn't deserve this international honour.
And they are right. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military in the world, which is currently engaged in not one, but two full-scale wars. That alone should take him out of consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize.
But the argument goes further than that. Three US presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize since its inception in 1901: Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, Woodrow Wilson in 1919, and Jimmy Carter in 2002. Both Roosevelt and Wilson won the prize while in office for helping to end a major international war (the Russo-Japanese War and World War I, respectively), and, in Wilson's case, for establishing an institution dedicated to international cooperation (the ill-fated but well-intentioned, League of Nations). Carter won more than 20 years after leaving office in recognition of decades of work towards international peace.
Not only has Obama not yet ended a war while in office, he is actually planning on increasing the number of US troops in Afghanistan and scaling up the war there. While this is probably the right strategic decision, it's the exact opposite of what his predecessors have done to earn the prize.
While it's true that Obama's willingness to engage with Iran and his efforts towards Israeli-Palestinian peace are laudable, neither has been significant or successful enough to warrant this award. The most recent round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations broke down without much progress, and last Thursday Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that he believes a comprehensive peace deal with Palestine is impossible in the foreseeable future. The Geneva talks with Iran were a step in the right direction, but it is far too early to assume that there will be any slowdown of Iran's nuclear program.
Despite the fact that I believe Obama does not deserve this award, I also believe that it may have been a good thing. In his short acceptance speech at the White House on Friday, he admitted that he was surprised, and that he didn't believe he had earned the award, but was accepting it as a "call to action."
This is a good sign.
Obama needs to use this award as a momentum-builder to encourage his diplomatic team. Special Envoy George Mitchell is currently shuttling back and forth between Jerusalem and Ramallah trying to restart talks between Israel and Palestine; Iranian and American diplomats are set to resume negotiations later this month with no clear goal or solution on the table; the US military is facing the daunting task of withdrawing, and not withdrawing, from Iraq at the same time; and the war in Afghanistan is only going to get worse before it gets better. In the face of these issues, a little encouragement and positive reinforcement can only help Obama and his team at the White House and the State Department.
Do I think that there were better candidates for this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Yes. Nominees included French-Colombian hostage and activist Ingrid Betancourt and Chinese activist Hu Jia - among a total of 33 organizations and 172 individuals. However, no other nominee has as much potential to turn a win into concrete, positive action. This is a unique opportunity for Obama: he's getting a Nobel Peace Prize for what he can do in the future. Let's hope he earns it.
Tais McNeill is a U2 International Development Studies and Political Science student. You can reach him at tais.mcneill@mail.mcgill.ca
Be the first to comment on this story