The Nobel Committee awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace prize to Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
Reacting to the surprise that Obama was awarded the prize after barely nine months in office, the committee members cited his diplomatic opening to the Muslim world, the cancelling of plans for a ballistic missile defense shield for central Europe, and initiatives with climate change and denuclearization.
We wonder if Obama really deserves the peace prize and also what effect this award might have on his political future and diplomatic efforts. Also will the prize actually promote peace?
If we compare the winners of Nobel prizes in other categories with Obama’s peace prize, there is clearly a big discrepancy in terms of life time achievement. The science and literature awards, for example, often come decades after the research or publication of significant work.
Most of the time, the recipients of the other awards are pretty much at the end of their careers. Thus the awards don’t have much impact on their future productivity.
However, the peace prize has evolved into a relatively present time award. Thorbjorn Jagland, the Nobel committee chairman stated “The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world?”
This focus on what has happened in the previous year is justified by a straight forward reading of Nobel’s will where he stated that the prizes should go to those “who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.”
So far as chemistry, physics, medicine, literature and economics go, we generally don’t know what impact discoveries and significant works of literature have in present time. We need the perspective of history to know who has made the most significant contribution.
The same thing is often true for peace efforts. This has lead to some strange anomalies in the peace prize. Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin won in 1994 for efforts to create peace in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. It hasn’t happened there yet.
In 1973 the prize went to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord. Although this ended the US combat role in the war, the conflict went on for two more years.
Clearly the Nobel Peace prize is not an acknowledgment of the achievement of peace. It’s an intervention attempting to promote peace. It’s not a life time achievement award so much as a recognition of a work in progress. It’s a kind of prophecy the committee is trying to make come true.
The present centered focus of the peace prize shows great spiritual intelligence on the part of the committee. For peace is a call from the future to act in the present for the sake of the future.
From a metaphysical perspective, it makes sense to act as though we were time travelers coming from the future into our present to improve a future that has already occurred. For we can clearly anticipate what our future will be like if we don’t act in the present.
From our personal relationship experience, we know whatever healing and peace we have been able to achieve came about because we were able to act in a timely fashion when opportunity opened for us.
The Nobel peace prize can be an effective means of promoting peace. The prestige and money that the prize confers can focus attention on some worldwide concerns that transcend narrow self-interests.
The Nobel prizes are one of the rare planetary awards we recognize outside of sports and media. Thus the attention can be on what serves the planet rather than the interests of individual nations or regions.
What the committee does is to send a message to individuals and sometimes institutions along the lines of “I believe in you.” This is exactly what we ought to be doing: cheering on those people and those institutions that have the potential to make a difference and are making a difference.
From this perspective, Obama really deserves the peace prize. His diplomatic initiatives are our best hope for peace in the world, at least in the immediate future.
Obama’s response to the prize shows he has things in the right perspective. He called the prize “a call to action” rather than a recognition of past achievement. Moreover, he asked the American people to join with him in his peace efforts.
What ultimately produces peace in any troubled area on our planet is a change in consciousness. Thus what each individual does either moves the cause of peace forward or holds it back.
The Nobel peace prize usually focuses attention on the actions of a single individual. Yet what ultimately promotes peace on our planet is what everyone is doing. We need a culture of peace. And we need some way to give recognition and acknowledgment to the thousands of peace heroes that quietly go about their work in our world.
Because the Nobel prize recognizes just one individual or small group of people, it is an award with tremendous prestige and responsibility. Obama has the right temperament to wisely use the political capital the prize gives him and also keep in perspective the obligation to live up to the expectations that the prize confers.
The prestige of the prize will help him with his international diplomacy efforts. On the home political front, it has the effect of disrupting the complacency that has settled in around Obama’s presidency. As the euphoria of having someone really different than Bush as our president wears off, we are vulnerable to losing sight of what an exceptional leader Obama actually is.
The prize also gives some fuel to critics. Those who think Obama stands for One Big Awful Mistake for America probably relish this increase in expectations for his presidency. The peace prize controversy is going to feed into the political polarization we will see in the 2012 time as reflected in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.
This will be coming in any case so the peace prize doesn’t change that equation to any meaningful extent. What I see happening for 2010 and 2012 is a Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck sourced hijacking of the Republican Party by the most conservative elements in it. This pretty much guarantees Obama reelection as well as a continued big Democratic majority in the Congress.
As already stated in a previous blog, my forecast is that Sarah Palin will win the Republican nomination for president in 2012.
In 2010, the conservative wing of the party, emboldened by their success in ousting the Republican candidate in the New York 23rd District in favor of a more conservative person, will militate for a slate of super conservatives in some of the House and Senate races. This will be another disaster for the Republican Party.
Success in the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey is a false dawn for the Republicans. There is a civil war going on in their ranks and the election outcomes in 2009 make this worse.