Nelson Mandela. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Mother Teresa. Barack Obama.
What do all of these individuals have in common? Other than being the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, not much. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison and overcame numerous hardships fighting apartheid, before becoming the first South African president to be elected in a fully representative democratic election. Martin Luther King Jr. also spent time in jail, incurred numerous death threats and led millions of Americans in peaceful protest to successfully bring about civil rights reform. Mother Teresa spent over 45 years among the deeply impoverished in India and her order, “The Missionaries of Charity,” was responsible for the operation of 610 charities at the time of her death.
President Obama has given speeches.
Since when did the Nobel Peace Prize committee hand out awards like Halloween candy? Apparently, all someone has to do is dress the part and say the right words, and he wins a prize, which happens to be one of the most prestigious achievement awards in the world. Give some speeches about peace, and the world is suddenly a better place – at least in theory.
It is hard to discern exactly what concrete actions Obama has taken that merit the award, considering the deadline for nomination was Feb. 1, less than two weeks into his presidency. Apparently those 12 days were very impactful. Perhaps his inauguration ceremony brought peace and prosperity to all who watched it.
It is important to note the fault lies not with Obama, but the Nobel awarding committee. Upon learning he was the recipient of this prestigious honor, Obama was “most surprised and deeply humbled.” He also stated, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.”
Many contend awarding Obama the Nobel is a symbolic gesture; it was made in hope of what is yet to come. According to the Associated Press, “awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.” This is like awarding the Oscar for Best Picture to a director for his “vision” of an epic blockbuster, even though he has yet to begin production.
Others interpret the award as a rebuke of the policies and presidency of George W. Bush, whose approach to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Nobel Prize Committee strongly disliked. That explanation seems to be the most plausible, because the award certainly wasn’t based on merit.
Lest we forget, we are still engaged in not one, but two wars in the Middle East with the possibility of a troop increase in the near future. Despite many talks with Iran’s leadership, Iran has recently disclosed the existence of a nuclear facility in Qum, which would be able to produce one to two bombs per year, according to the New York Times. The United States hasn’t even cleaned up its environmental act, yet. Despite his uplifting and compelling rhetoric, the world is not more peaceful under Obama. But, it seems, there’s still a prize for that.
