The Nobel Peace Prize Committee Plays the Futures Market

To many people’s surprise, current U.S. President Barrack Obama defeated many promising candidates and won the 2009 Nobel Peace Price.

As the first black president and a prominent figure in world politics, economy and the military sphere, as well as a well-known public relations expert, a media darling and a pop star, Obama should not seem to be an unexpected winner. But in terms of the Nobel Peace Prize criteria: actions “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,” Obama who took office less than a year ago still has not reached these criteria.

He proposed a timeline for military withdrawal from Iraq, but the situation since has not been completely tranquil; he reiterated the Middle East Road Map but there was not substantive improvement in the Israel-Palestine situation; in Afghanistan, after a succession of hesitations he finally brought forward the vague possibility of withdrawal, but had to increase the number of soldiers in battle; the situations in North Korea and Iran have worsened and become more complicated even though Obama has taken a clearer stance than previous presidents.

U.S.-Russia relations have been full of twists. Although Obama dramatically gave up the European anti-missile defense program, NATO’s eastward expansion and the Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence processes have not been ceased, the Caucasian Powder Keg situation remains the same after many years, and Russia’s nuclear submarines have appeared terrifyingly close to the American east coast.

In many international appearances Obama has advocated “denuclearizing” and revitalizing the “zero nuclear weapons” blueprint, but for this grandiose but impractical program to work–whether for nuclear countries, near-nuclear countries or potential nuclear countries–they will need to put aside their own interests.

Although Obama has banished former president Bush’s “global war on terror,” the only thing really gone is just the phrase. Attacks on or by U.S. soldiers will become the front-page news soon enough.

By choosing Obama, but not Sarkozy or some peace or human rights advocate, the Norwegian committee that chose the Nobel Prize recipient did not intend to praise past achievement and accomplishment, but intended to buy into the future. In other words, they have high expectations for the future achievement of the prizewinner.

Objectively speaking, in the cause of peace, Obama has more speeches under his belt than achievements. This is not because of his lack of intentions, but is because he has been in office for only a short time and the tense domestic economic situation and domestic affairs, such as health care reform, have been taking up most of his political energy. For a politician who has been singing the pacifism song since the campaign, he has done relatively little, giving the impression that he talks big but does not act big. We do have to admit though, that as the leader of the world’s most powerful country, Obama is indeed the person most likely able to promote world peace on the premise that he is willing to do something about it.

Although his selection is stunning and the Nobel Peace Prize committee has stirred up controversy, their gamble on picking futures makes some sense.