Should Obama Renounce the Nobel Prize?

In recent days, nothing has united the Western press quite as much as the collective skepticism about Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. American conservative critics are gloating because they believe the Nobel committee has clearly demonstrated that the critics were right all along. Obama is a pop star, an idol for Europeans, and not the American president - leader of the messianic nation.

Neutral observers shrug: what did Obama do to deserve the prize? Why was he chosen, when all human rights defenders have not yet received the award? And what should he do now? Cater to the five Norwegians and not bomb Iran, even if it gives him a good reason to do so?

Nearly everyone deemed Obama's award premature and concluded that Obama received it simply because he's not Bush. Some columnists (e.g. Ross Douthat of The New York Times) believe that Obama made a mistake when he did not decline the award. Is that true? Would it have been better to renounce the prize?

The award really does look premature. Obama has set himself no less than six major goals: defeating al-Qaeda, ending the Iraq war, closing Guantanamo, achieving peace in the Middle East, forcing North Korea's nuclear disarmament and forcing Iran to closely cooperate with the nuclear program. None of these problems have been solved yet. As Washington Post's Glenn Kessler rightly noted in his column, this prize was for aspirations rather than achievements. Obama really did receive the prize for not being Bush. But what does this mean?

Barack Obama answered that question himself, saying: "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." The American president shifted the focus from himself to all Americans, saying in effect: "This is not my award, but yours. I'm not the Messiah. It's the American people, starting with the founding fathers. I am a function, a manager, a temporarily empowered citizen. The Lord has given our nation a global mission. We are successfully accomplishing it, and everyone has acknowledged it."

In essence, Obama told Americans: "Look, the previous administration's actions made the whole world stop seeing us as the Messiah. As soon as we changed our face and voice, the world once again regained its sight." All of this sounds very pathetic. But this is the same pathos that Obama's critics say he's neglecting.

Like a soccer match, the Nobel Peace Prize always creates lively discussion. Everyone considers himself an expert. Many grumble, as though the Nobel committee took their money and gave it to Obama. If it were up to me, I'd award the Nobel Peace Prize to Daniel Barenboim. He founded the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, which has Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Egyptian and now Iranian musicians. But others would argue that while the orchestra is fine and dandy, there's no end in sight to the Arab-Israeli conflict. People would object to any candidate.

Obama winning the Noble Peace Prize should be seen as a very specific statement of alignment of forces and the distribution of global roles. Whether we like it or not, everyone - both friends and enemies - looks at America as the "number one" global player. Hence this increased attention to America's every movement, choice of words and gestures. In this situation, Obama should not renounce the Nobel Peace Prize. Why would he do so, if for him, this prize is a confirmation that he chose the right course?

Most importantly, the potential failure in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea does not necessarily discredit the new Nobel laureate. Now his main challenge is to convert this resource of trust (which is becoming apparent) into concrete, substantial support from Europe. Convert it into a collective responsibility - a joint effort inspired by the U.S. If there's no success, then everyone fails, not just the U.S.

It seems to me that this is what Obama had in mind when he made his public statements on Friday. It's what he meant, but apparently he was not fully understood. The American president - a master of rhetoric, awarded for this same rhetoric - perhaps for the first time could not find the right words. He will have a second chance when he receives the award in Oslo. Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman already used his New York Times column to write a draft for Obama's speech.