The Nobel Peace Prize was established in 1901 as a way to recognize the few individuals who have dedicated their lives to making the world a better, safer and more peaceful environment for everyone. The prize is awarded to "the person who 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." Given the lofty requisites for this honor, the audible gasps from the Norwegian crowd after the announcement naming President Barack Obama as the 2009 recipient are understandable.
I was every bit as surprised as those present in Norway when the winner was announced. As a matter of fact, Obama himself was surprised, as he made very clear in a speech last Friday. "I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee," he said. "Let me be clear: I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments … To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
I couldn't agree more with the president. Let's examine his remarks. What accomplishments are there to be recognized? In his 10-month tenure as president of the United States, what has Obama done to prove himself worthy of the world's most prestigious award? To quote Saturday Night Live's recent and unexpected jab at the president: "Nothing … almost one year and nothing to show for it."
According to the Nobel Committee, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." The phrase "extraordinary efforts" would imply a series of outstanding achievements made in the name of global peace and security. He has achieved no such thing. Aside from a speech in Cairo to the Muslim world in June and some angry words to Iran in the past few months, I see nothing but empty words in the president's quest for "diplomacy and cooperation."
Even more shocking than Obama being awarded the prize is the fact that nominations were due on Feb. 1, 2009, just 12 short days after the man took office. Aside from throwing a Super Bowl party at the White House, he accomplished nothing of note in this period, never mind any extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy.
Obama's second comment referred to the "transformative figures who've been honored" by the Nobel Peace Prize in the past; such figures include Holocaust survivor and pro-Israel author Elie Wiesel (1986), Mother Teresa (1979), U.S. Secretary of State and legendary diplomat Henry Kissinger (1973) and civil rights champion Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964). Strangely, the most notable advocate of peace in the 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi, never received a Nobel Prize, despite being nominated almost half a dozen times. For Obama to receive a Nobel Prize while Gandhi has not is a disgrace and a stain upon the reputation of the prize.
When presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama had the choice to decline it. The only hope left for the integrity of the prize would have been for him to do so. Predictably, however, he accepted it, even after admitting that he did not deserve it. I cannot say whether what happened on Friday morning speaks more to the President's arrogance or to the incompetence of the five apparently delusional Norwegians who selected him. Either way, we should be disappointed in both parties and the realization that the Nobel Peace Prize is apparently not as prestigious or reputable as the world thought.
Be the first to comment on this article!