Politics over Ethics

American President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday [sic] 9 October. Bertrand Badie, a political scientist and professor at Sciences Po in Paris, believes that “the committee tried to (…) reinforce the moral authority of the president at a time when it seems to be weakening with respect to international realities.”

Why Award the Nobel Peace Prize to a President Elected Less Than a Year Ago?

Barack Obama has distinguished himself with his stress on vision and breaking with American foreign policy. Currently, he is in a delicate phase. He has few intermediaries in the international arena and is paying a price for his solitude. It seems to me that the goal of the Nobel committee was to strengthen the moral authority he is trying to establish. The committee tried to compensate for his solitude by reinforcing the moral authority of the president at a time when it seems to be weakening with respect to international realities.

At this time we are witnessing the intellectual redefinition of American foreign policy. It is about profound questioning: questioning the unilateralism advocated by the neoconservatives, questioning the belief in the systematic use of force, questioning the superiority of the West and of western democracy over the rest of the world. What is truly new about Barack Obama’s position is a moderation of tone and a refusal to hold the practices put together in the 1980’s over all others.

And yet, Obama is supported in his efforts by words, but is seeing very little action from the international political actors, notably a Europe that remains entrenched in more traditional positions, which resemble a form of “soft Bushism.” The American president needs strong support from international civil society, and the Nobel Committee has bridged the gap.

Isn’t it Problematic for a Sitting President to Be Set Up as a Moral Authority?

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is a gamble. Granting it to a sitting president is fairly uncommon, and it has historically not brought luck to the recipient, who feels obligated by the authority entrusted to him. The Nobel committee is in a certain way forcing Barack Obama to hold fast to his positions and to remain on the trajectory that he has chosen up to now. This prize establishes his position as a moral leader, but it also holds him back from a return to realpolitik, which is still possible. It all comes back to validating a foreign policy that is still not well known, but that will be difficult to move away from.

The prize is also a way of giving Obama some weight in the heart of his own country. There, his politics are paradoxically approved by a large majority and threatened by skeptical public opinion and a Republican counter-offensive on both domestic and international policy.

This prize can encourage Obama to pursue his plan in the Middle East, where he currently finds himself failing, but also towards Iran, where his policy of dialogue is being threatened, and in Afghanistan, where he is being pushed towards escalation. Obama is now to some extent reinforced in his initial choices and spurred to defer any possible escalation in Afghanistan.

Is this Choice Justified if one Considers the Other Nominees, Who Seem More Accomplished?

We should be prudent in our interpretation of the Nobel Prizes. Justice is not the most determining element. The committee is comprised of human beings, and the prizes they award have political significance above ethical significance. It is impossible to determine who the person or organization that works the most for global peace and justice is at the present moment. The Nobel Prize should be considered like a stateless international actor, the representative of a certain kind of international public opinion, a bit like the large NGO’s – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.

When the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Benin and Sadat, it meant that a certain approach to the Middle East question merited being maintained. When the prize was awarded to Gorbachev, it was more of a political gamble than a moral gamble. The choice of Barack Obama seems sensible to me because we need to define the world in which we live. For the time being, we only know that we are in the “post-1989” period, that’s all. We do not have the courage to alter our diplomatic practices, but Obama is moving more towards redefining them than anyone in the political world. The Nobel committee is saying that this direction is good. It is a political stance that one can share or not, but which makes sense.