The Meaning of a Nobel

There is no doubt that the person who was most surprised by the announcement that the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to Barack Obama was the resident of the White House himself. In fact, yesterday he was sleeping peacefully when one of his advisors woke him to give him the news. The American president did not appear on any of the most detailed lists of candidates where there was, for example, Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba. However, as has happened on past occasions, the commission in charge of granting the prize opted for the unexpected and proclaimed that on December 10 in Oslo it will present Obama with the plaque and the check for $1.4 million, which corresponds with the award.

Only three other American presidents have received the award: Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, Woodrow Wilson in 1919, and Jimmy Carter in 2002. This is a circumstance not without paradoxes, since the first was a soldier who did not hesitate to invade sovereign countries in his neighborhood. On the other hand, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who successfully faced the threat of the Nazis during the Second World War and saved the future of Europe with his support, did not receive the prize.

The committee (who in this category is not only Swedish, but also Norwegian) distinguished the American leader “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” They added to such virtue his efforts “in the vision of a world without nuclear weapons,” his “constructive role” in facing the challenges of environmental change and, in general, having created “a new climate in international politics” to amend the divisions that had separated the United States from the United Nations and other international institutions.

Without discrediting the great things that Obama has demonstrated, and which we happily celebrate, it seems a little bit premature that, when hardly eight months into his position of power, the Nobel Institute extends a recognition reserved for more established government workers. There is no doubt that the ex-senator has marked an important shift in international relations, above all in comparison with his bellicose predecessor. However, his goals still belong in the territory of hopes and must overcome powerful obstacles. We note three. First, it is possible that he will be forced to send more troops to the increasingly long and degraded war in Afghanistan. Moreover, he will have to control North Korea and Iran, which are not yielding their nuclear pretensions. And finally, it is incoherent to fight global climate change without fixing concrete limits on the emission of polluting gases in his own country, which will soon be negotiated in Copenhagen.

Obama himself, whose image as a good speaker corresponds to an acute sense of opportunity, has recognized in his acceptance speech of this prize that, more than himself, the distinction applauds a vision that reflects the calling of his country to lead a better world. Thus, he proposes to all nations that we see this as “a call to action” in facing the challenges of the twenty-first century. After enumerating some of these challenges, among which is “a new beginning for people of different faiths and religions,” the awarded recognized that many of the problems cannot be resolved during the duration of his administration and others would not be accomplished during his lifetime. But the message is that “they can be solved” if citizens of the world unite in their efforts.

We reiterate our enthusiasm for the good will of President Obama, expressed in such an articulated manner in his speech. But we understand that what Oslo really wanted was to give the Nobel Peace Prize to the American people for electing a black pacifist as their president. In this, it was quite right.