Via the CBS write-up on the award (President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize), comes two statements that are worth noting, as I think they cast light on the decision.
First:
Defending their surprising decision, the committee chairman said they sought not just to reward the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, but to “enhance” the recipient’s actions – to promote peace.“We do hope that this can contribute a little bit to enhance what he is trying to do.”
That does make some sense (although I still find the award surprising and premature at best). As Dave Schuler at OTB wrote this morning “This award is clearly as much aspirational as anything else.”
Second:
“I don’t think anybody expected this,” CBS News chief Washington correspondent and “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer said on Friday’s “Early Show”. In his mind, the prize decision was more of a commentary on the previous administration than the current U.S. President.“It’s almost as if they’re saying, ‘We’re giving you this prize for winning the election,’” said Schieffer.
This, too, strikes me as being great deal of the reasoning.
Of course, apart from trying to figure out what the Nobel committee was thinking, the reactions to the award are going to be highly political in the US (as was the case with the Olympics business). Two quick examples here and here.
But, of course, the award itself is (by definition) political.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am
He was the 12th caller (Bill and Hillary were 1-11)
October 9th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Wondering what the Nobel does to the Afghanistan troop decision!
October 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
It is not the first time the Nobel Peace Prize has been “aspirational.” Oscar Arias won the prize for aspiring to peace in Central America, long before it was achieved (through a mechanism rather different from the one Arias had initiated). For that matter, Yasir Arafat won the prize. Enough said.
Unlike the real Nobels (physics, chemistry, etc.) or the political science equivalent (the Skytte), the Nobel Peace Prize is not (necessarily) a lifetime achievement award.
October 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
To build on Shug’s comment: the Willy Brandt prize in 1971 was also quite aspirational.
I was trying to think of other people who may be deserving over the past year, but had a hard time–I mean, Morgan Tsangrai doesn’t cut it; there really isn’t anyone in the “lifetime achievement” category who hasn’t gotten it yet (maybe Mary Robinson?).
Mohammed Nasheed from the Maldives might have been a choice or Yvo de Boer–head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat.
But Nasheed is just as new on the scene as Obama and de Boer will get it next year if a deal is struck in Copenhagen.
Thus, in the absence of any other potential candidates, Obama makes sense.
I saw someone say that Obama was basically a proxy for the American electorate–which I think is about right.
Since most Americans are so insular and non self-reflective, I think it is hard for most of us to appreciate the extent to which Bush made the country an international pariah. My European friends gave us some slack for his first term given the weirdness of the electoral college and then 9/11; but most of them thought we would “correct” the situation in 2004.
When Bush won with a majority of the electorate in 2004, that really hurt our image.
The fact that we are such an important country geo-politically and that Obama’s explicit message of multilateralism helped him win a blowout against McCain really did signify a change in the eyes of people concerned with global peace.
Some of Obama’s critics have poo-pooed the award because they think Obama has been more of a “talker.” What they don’t understand is that the rhetoric and words of a US president really DO MATTER–much more so than leaders of other countries.
In that regard, I think it’s a great honor for Obama and the US that he’s won the prize. And richly well-deserved, frankly.