Many people were dismayed when Barrack Obama was announced as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Questions regarding what Obama has contributed to world peace, or even domestic reform, began swirling soon after the news from Oslo. Health care reform is still stuck in Congress. The American economy remains the dullard of the industrialized world. Afghanistan and Iraq continue to be conflict zones, and Gitmo stays stubbornly open.
Yet Obama has brought about a significant amount of peace building in his short time as president. He has accepted the fact that the United States can no longer unilaterally project its power, and he has sought a total elimination of nuclear weapons. He has re-engaged the United States with Russia, and though significant differences still exist between the former Cold War rivals, Russia appears willing to work with the U.S. on major issues such as a nuclear Iran and North Korea.
Naysayers might argue these warm and fuzzy feelings are irrelevant, as they have brought about no actual change. But in the case of Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for a change in tone, as it has been given in the past. Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik was in its infancy when he won the Nobel Prize, and Al Gore’s win was more about a movie than results on climate change. Kellogg and Briand won the award for their pact that simply renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy.
Yet war has continued, just as the climate continues to warm. This doesn’t mean that Gore, Kellogg, and Briand’s wins were not deserved. These prize-winners all introduced concepts to the international community that altered the status quo. Obama’s presidency has brought about a significant shift in how the U.S. engages with the rest of the world, and how the world views the United States. No longer do people (well, except for Republicans and FOX news) throw eggs at the presidential motorcade or curse the American president. If that change isn’t deserving of the Nobel Prize, I don’t know what is.
