Obama’s Nobel Victory Fails to Persuade

Many people believe that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Obama is a major upset. It is true that the policy measures implemented by Obama since he took office on January 1 are different from those promoted by former President Bush; however, many of these policies remain in the conceptual phase of advocacy. They are not sufficiently convincing to confer a Nobel Prize.

Obama’s win has provoked discontent among the English and American public, but the criticism is mainly aimed at the Nobel committee. As for Obama, he has shown humility, admitting he is still not qualified to receive this prize, but he acknowledged that the Nobel committee wishes to promote the building of an ideal environment for a better world, and therefore he accepted the prize.

The Nobel committee has stated that the Nobel has been awarded to Obama to commend his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The committee believes that since becoming president, Obama has promoted a new international political climate, allowing multilateral foreign diplomacy to regain center stage, and emphasized the role of the U.N. and other international organizations. Dialogue and talks have been given priority in the resolution of international disputes. Obama’s long-range view of global denuclearizing has provoked disarmament and weapons control talks. Furthermore, the committee stated that the U.S. has been playing a more constructive role in the climate change challenge, and [there is more will for] “democracy and human rights … to be strengthened.”

Obama’s foreign diplomacy policies and efforts to reconstruct U.S. and international social relations indeed demonstrate an adoption of policy measures different from those of Bush. Obama has abandoned Bush’s unilateralism, emphasizing the need to resolve problems in conjunction with other countries in world. Obama has demonstrated good will towards the Islamic world, starting the peace process, urging Israel and Palestine to enter into talks, and extending an olive branch to Iran. He has also repealed Bush’s plan to build a guided missile defense system at Russia’s doorstep, thus mending U.S.-Russia relations.

When Bush was in office, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez often fiercely and mercilessly criticized Bush; in April, Obama used his participation at the Summit of the Americans to take initiative to show his good will towards Chavez. In terms of more concrete affairs, while Bush was indifferent towards the climate and reducing emissions, Obama has energetically promoted reducing emissions, responding to the challenge of climate change.

The above-mentioned are contrasts used by the Nobel committee to evaluate Obama. As such, they actually demonstrate what Bush did not do; and since Obama has done these things, he has therefore earned praise.

Obama has only been in office for nine months, so his political accomplishments are yet to be confirmed. Winning the Nobel perhaps reflects Western society’s indirect criticism of Bush’s mistaken trajectory. Despite this, during the press conference at which the winners were announced, the questions brought up by journalists mostly revolved around why Obama was awarded this prize so early. This represents much of the world’s reaction. Obama is the leader that everyone is focused on, and his policies and tendencies have an important impact on the world. Precisely because of this attributed level of importance, people have let him “graduate before victory,” triggering diverse opinions.

At the very least there are four points that should cause people to have reservations about the committee’s decision to award the Nobel to Obama.

First of all, among the policies that Obama is currently promoting, many remain, for the time being, in the conceptual phase of advocacy. For instance, Obama has only just started promoting his Middle East policy and Iran policy; there is no way to know whether they will yield results.

Secondly, the Nobel Prize committee commended Obama’s policy advocacy insofar as it can be universally applied, yet Obama himself does not dare to give firm promises. For example, in responding to problems concerning climate change and the reduction of emissions, Obama is unlike Bush only in terms of his attitude; since he is firmly committed to U.S. interests, it is still to be determined whether he can come to an agreement with other countries.

Thirdly, Obama’s handling of several situations is simply the outcome of political calculation. For instance, the Dalai Lama, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize, has visited the U.S. for the past 18 years, and has always been received by the U.S. president. Recently, when the Dalai Lama visited U.S., Obama did not “according to tradition” meet with the Dalai Lama, which can be attributed to his intention to visit China next month. However, after Obama has visited China, will he go back on his actions and renew the “tradition?” This is worthy of our attention.

U.S. domestic politics have always had a great influence on the country’s foreign diplomacy, and U.S. domestic interests are not easily altered by any U.S. president. Thus, the variability of Obama’s policies is very high; the likelihood that someday Obama could change on the basis of the situation and deviate from the spirit of peace prize would be quite ironic.

Finally, the U.S. is currently fighting two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan). When Obama was elected, he promised he would gradually pull out from Iraq, but, up until now, we still have not seen such progress. In Afghanistan, the U.S. is mired; recently, the U.S. army’s highest commander in Afghanistan, upon surveying the worsening situation, formally requested Obama to have the U.S. increase troops by 40,000.

These two wars have been left behind by Bush for Obama to clean up; however, if, on the one hand, the Nobel committee awards Obama, yet, on the other hand, he invests even more into these sites of war massacre, how can this not be considered a great irony in light of the Nobel Peace Prize?

According to Alfred Nobel’s testament, the objective in choosing a peace prize winner is that this person “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The Nobel Peace Prize has triggered several instances of controversy because of political inclinations. For instance: although Ghandi, the “sage hero” who used peaceful means to struggle against English colonial rule in India, received five nominations, he never received the prize. In more recent years, when U.S. former Vice President Al Gore, who has promoted awareness of global warming, was awarded the prize, not a few environmentalist groups and activists disapproved of the amateur nature of Gore’s conferred glory.

This time, when Obama received the prize, those who disapprove are not directing their criticism at Obama. He has achieved epoch-making success in becoming the first black American president, which is both a historical first and an important step in promoting racial harmony. However, the committee’s motivation for awarding the Nobel to him was not related to this, but rather the work that he is now doing.

I hope that the committee’s painstaking decision to “bind” Obama and encourage his efforts does urge him to promote the building of a new global order of peace.