OBAMA AND THE PRIZE

Despite my reluctance to do so, I would not be a pundit worth my salt if I did not comment on President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

My first reaction when I heard the news was shock. For a few moments I thought I might have been in a deep sleep for months and I awoke on April 1. But no.. it was still October 9. It took me a while to digest the story. So what do I think?

I think that most rational people will have been very surprised by the announcement. The President apparently was. They will also think that the President does not deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize, at least not now. This seems also to be the President's own assessment. You do not win peace prizes for talking about peace. It's like someone winning the Nobel Prize for Literature because they have a really good idea for a book. I really don't think this is a debateable point.

Having said that, I do not think this choice qualifies as the Committee's worse selection for the prize. Al Gore winning the peace prize in 2007 over Holocaust heroine Irena Sendler, for his narration of a film on global warming, far outdoes this selection in terms of its stupidity. Obama is at least in the peace making business, even if he has not yet achieved anything which advances its cause. What Al Gore's skill in narrating a video on climate change had to do with advancing the cause of peace in the world still eludes me.

The Committee did the President no favour by awarding him the prize. I think this was evident in his sombre "acceptance" speech. For one thing, it focuses everyone's attention on what is probably the President's most vulnerable point; i.e. that he is all talk and no action on many issues. The question that everyone will ask when they hear about this award is: "why???". "What has the President actually done to advance the cause of peace in the world?". This is a question which the President probably does not want asked over and over again, at least not at this point in time in his Presidency.

It also comes at a terrible time for Obama. Difficult decisions have to be made about troop levels in Afghanistan, engagement with Iran, and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Does the President really want the peace prize hanging over his head if he decides to send more troops into Afghanistan, or increase sanctions on Iran. Will these be seen as the actions of a "peace maker"? If, on the other hand, he decides to back off from his commitments on these issues, will this be seen as weakness in his desire to prove to the world (i.e. the Europeans) that he really deserved the peace prize?

Perhaps one can argue that the Committee awarded Obama the prize precisely in order to try to influence him on his thinking about what to do about Iran, Afghanistan and other hot spots. Here again I think the President's "acceptance" speech signalled that he is aware of this potential Nobel Committee strategy, by his making it somewhat clear that there are dangers in the world which must be dealt with before peace can be achieved.

All in all, this was a most unexpected selection, which will have a lot of our tongues wagging for quite some time.