Obama and the Peace Prize: Too Much, Too Soon

There is nothing like a preemie Nobel Peace Prize to set the polity ablaze. I'm sure Barack Obama smelled the political smoke when awakened with the news this morning that the Nobel committee had essentially named him "Worldwide Statesman Most Likely to Succeed" - and White House sources tell me his initial reaction went pretty much like this: "Whaaaaa?!"

The President is a smart enough politician to understand he'd been slapped into a pretty neat box by those well-meaning Europeans spending down the old arms maker's endowment. Despite calls to contrary, he had to accept the Nobel - anything less would have been far less than gracious. So he handled it pretty well, with statements like this one:

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 -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

Exactly right. Obama clearly didn't deserve the Nobel, which should be awarded not for aspiration but for real accomplishment. But it's not Barack Obama's fault that the Nobel Committee went goofy. The White House was entirely blind-sided by the announcement, understanding perfectly well the day-to-day challenge of transforming the President's inspiring electoral victory into the kind of real change he promised for nigh on two years on the stump. Even hard-core Obama supporters like Gara LaMarche spoke plainly:

I am delighted for any good thing that comes to Barack Obama, and people need to look at this in terms of the sea change it represents in international opinion about the U.S., but giving it for aspiration and effort at such an early stage is, let's admit it, a bit weird.  Attention,  Pulitzer Prize jury:  I've sketched out the opening pages of a novel I'm thinking of writing...

As Richard Kim wrote in The Nation,  whose covers last year seemed permanently devoted to an iconic notion of the candidate, the committee's sentiments on the President's small body of work "are aspirational in my view. Obama doesn't deserve the prize, yet." The shorter version from Peter Beinart: "I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce."

Yet the natural reaction of some was to try and counter the predictably screeching hellwraiths on the right - "He's basically emasculating this country and they love it!" screamed Limbaugh - and perhaps the desire to rationalize the Nobel choice overcame common sense. It certainly pushed the DNC into throwing terrorism around lightly. There was a bit of strain in the reasoning. Some voices on the left actually stooped to point out that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. hadn't yet witnessed the signing of the Voting Rights Act when he won his Nobel, or that Bishop Desmond Tutu hadn't yet seen the formal end of Apartheid. But those arguments diminish Obama by easy and simple comparison; it does the President no favors to call to mind 1950s Birmingham and 1980s Johannesburg in the context of his inspiring - but hardly revolutionary - political career in Chicago.

I think the prize will stick to Obama, and not in a good way. Sure, you can observe that the Nobel committee was rewarding the passing of the neocon era and the end of a foreign policy run on arrogant think tank dreams of American "exceptionalism." But any thinking person knows it's too much, too soon. It puts an even brighter target of expectations on a President in his first year and on an Administration struggling to pass health care reform, sort out Afghanistan and put millions of unemployed Americans back to work. On his Philanthrocapitalism blog,  the Economist's Matthew Bishop argued that President Obama should defer his acceptance:

At first glance, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is absurdly premature. Beyond his fine words, it is hard to demonstrate conclusively that President Obama has yet added a net ounce of peace to the world, and although hopefully he will ultimately do so, the record of past US presidents, including well-intentioned fellows like Messrs Carter and Clinton, suggests that they do more for peace once they leave office.

The world may be happier with Obama than his predecessor, but it also appears to me that the Nobel machers were a little late to the big rally. It's like they showed up a day late for the blow-out party, ringing the front door and holding out a shiny gift to a bewildered host who's more than a bit hung over and already finished sweeping up the confetti. Like the rest of us here on Planet America, the New Yorker's George Packer has long since moved past the slogans, the balloons and all the glorious hoopla:

This seems like a prize for Europeans, not Americans, and I worry that at home it will damage him politically by reinforcing the notion that he is--and will be--a world icon rather than a successful President. I don't mind him being the former, but I most want him to be the latter.

 

 

Follow Tom Watson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tomwatson

Comments

[overd0g1]

True. It's not his fault. He should donate the proceeds to the UAW, his chosen charity.

[World Citizen]

Did they publish the 200 nominees? Did Obama deserve to win more than the other candidates? Did he maybe win this because of his position as the President of the United States, and therefore, his 'capacity' to contribute to making peace in the world?

Unlike the other nobel prizes that are awarded based on quantifiable achievements, the Peace Prize has always somehow been based on debatable opinion. Indeed, considering that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini have all been nominated one time or another for the Nobel Peace Prize, one would think that the Norwegian Nobel Committee would do all it can to achieve better credibility.

[cdiasmd]

My money was on Morgan Tsvangirai...and we won't know all 205 nominees till 2059.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/nobel-peace-prize-nominees-2009-list-not-available-till-2059

There have been some names released of the 2009 nominees however.

This included Colombia Senator Piedad Cordoba, Sima Samar, Chinese dissident Hu Jia, and Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Morgan Tsvangirai.

Other nominees are believed to be French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Ingrid Betancourt, the Cluster Munitions Coalition, Zivko Popovski-Cvetin, SOS-Kinderedorf International, Greg Mortenson, Thich Quang Do and Pete Seeger.

There is no official list however at this time.

As specific examples of the work that led to the award, the Committee highlighted "efforts to promote nuclear nonprolife­ration,...­" which makes me wonder why Superman didn't win after Superman 4: The Quest for Peace.

[World Citizen]

Superman... that was a good one.

[LeftLeanWing]

This award was less about accomplishment and more about the resetting of the Tone in geoPolitics Obama through speeches and engagement has made the rest of the world feel less pondering of:

"America,Self Proclaimed Protector of the World..... Who shall protect Us from America ? "

It's an intentional sending of a message:

" Everybody.. get on board with this young fella..because if we Don't the WORLD could end up with more malevolent American NeoCon leadership from the likes of Bush and Cheney or John Bolton or * gasp * Sarah Palin.

He's setting the Tone... and is facing intense opposition for the very people that took the world to the brink of another massive conflict over the last decade

He can not do this alone......

People all over the world
Join Hands
Form a Love Train .... Love Train
"

[Kevins]

When Obama gets the Pulitzer Prize for his acceptance speech--
you won't like that either, huh?

The Nobel Peace Prize is not a lifetime achievement award. It is awarded for making a change in the world for peace in the prior year. I agree with the committee: the world improved the hour President Obama entered the White House. The environment--and prospects for peace--changed.

One ship sails the east
The other west,
While the self-same breezes blow.
It's not the gale,
But the tilt of the sail,
That guides them where they go.

When the Nobel Committee asked themselves who had enhanced world peace more than Barak Obama over the prior year, they voted unanimously...no one had.

[LeftLeanWing]

"

The Nobel Peace Prize is not a lifetime achievement award. It is awarded for making a change in the world for peace in the prior year

"

Fanned !

[mapmaker515]

the world improved the hour President Obama entered the White House. The environment--and prospects for peace--changed.


Bingo....fanned.

[PorkyDomesticus]

Watson is right in this, and it amazes me how little thinking is being done by my fellow liberals. You guys are all running around trying to find even the slightest justification for this absurd prize, citing “promises” and “strong stances” and the idea that he must deserve it because the committee says so! (Gandhi never got it “because the committee said so”, hence I guess he didn’t deserve it!)

The fact is that Obama has done nothing to deserve this, he may turn out to be a great Prez, he may turn out to be another false beacon like Clinton, but so far we don’t know! I tell you what, lets give Tom Cruise the Oscar, he hasn’t earned it but he may in the future so lets save time!

As for King winning before the Voting Rights Act, he had been deeply involved in civil rights for many years, going back at least to The Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955, so that’s at least nine years of good work recognized, not a few months of hopin' and prayin’
Same with Tutu, he had been fighting apartheid since the seventies and received the prize in 1984, not after a few months!

With the left as with the right, just not enough thinkin’ goin’ on.

[SimianNation]

"...another false beacon like Clinton."

I guess we know which way your wind blows.

[TaurusRose]

yeah, toward accuracy.

[LeftLeanWing]

as Kevins states in the comment above:

"
The Nobel Peace Prize is not a lifetime achievement award. It is awarded for making a change in the world for peace in the prior year
"

With Obama's outreach to the world and especially to the Middle East and to our Allies this is exactly what he has done - Made a Change in the World For Peace !

[SimianNation]

Yup!

[AnneMarie27]

You have a right to your opinion. After all, it's your column or blog...whatever. The sentence I object to is, "But any thinking person knows it's too much, too soon."

In that case, there are a millions who are 'non-thinking' people, at least on this subject. Is there another way to state your case without insulting a major portion of your audience?

[pghnappyrhino]

the claim that the dnc is "throwing terrorism around lightly" leads me to believe you must not have been paying attention to the 2008 presidential race.

it's about damned time the dnc started to fight fire with TRUTH and fire.

why DO they hate america so much?

[Tom Watson - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh, I think you'll find I was paying close attention. Didn't like the tactic at all when the GOP used it: dishonest and cheap.

Seems the same now.

[Kevins]

I do think Limbaugh--arguably the Republican Party's de-facto leader--
invites Americans to wonder why Republicans hate America
when he wishes us failure,
and suggests the Taliban and Iran have the right view of our American president.

Lately, Limbaugh has been acting like the official speech-writer for Ahmadinejad.
That, after earlier claiming that Ahmadinejad, Kim Jon-il, and Chavez had President Obama in their pocket and were toasting his election....

Clearly, what Limbaugh--and Republicans--really hate is America's President. The way they go about expressing that--and the fact that they are blindly against anything good for America that is suggested by the President--does mean, it seems to me, that they ultimately care much more about the US President failing than they care about the US succeeding. If they don't hate America, they sure don't like it as much as they hate the choice of American voters.

Actually, I think they DO hate America. I think they blame us for dumping them from every branch of US government.

[DUSAA-1775]

I really do not believe that the DNC does hate America. One might get that impression from some of their top politcians, but i do not believe it is a fair impression.

[seriousstuff]

My, someone thinks highly of his himself and his unconsequential opinions.

The Committee has decided and they picked President Obama, live with it.

[Indra]

You are wrong. Obama has earned the peace prize just for having the guts to say what he has said and attempting to do what he is doing. I find it sad that people cannot see what he has already done for this country. The Nobel committee was correct in their award.

[Truid]

This award inspires partisanship, not peace.

KISSINGER won it.

As committing war crimes is not a deal breaker for winning this award, the prize can symbolize anything to anyone. Its a big deal to people who want to take a side for or against the winner.

I am not keen on Obama's policies (Afghan/Pak war, Iraq, Israel, Colombia), nor the right wing attacks. This award doesn't seem like a meaningful event to me.

I think people discussing this issue should realize how they are using this event to stroke their own partisan leanings, that may or may not have anything to do with actual peace initiatives or policies.

[NotMcCain]

Obama is a model of "turning the other cheek",, even under the most vicious personal attack.

He is a model of respectful, collaborative problem soolving, whether on the community level working to get a local center or on the global level working to reduce nuclear weapons.

He has reached out to opponents (Clinton, McCain, Biden) in meaningful, not just symbolic,, ways. And he has redefined relationships around the world--with Muslim countries, with Russia, with Cuba, with Europe, even offering an olive branch to Iran.

His accomplishments in transcending race (even in a country that has only had THREE black U.S. Senators in our history) and repeatedly demonstrating admirable character even when being lied about and mocked, has contributed to making him a role model and an inspiration to millions, maybe to billions.

If a man like this doesn't DESERVE the Nobel Peace Prize, who does?

[ailbhe]

He talks peace but continues and expands on existing wars. Afghanistan has already received an extra 25,000 troops and Obama is sending 40,000 more. The drones sent in to bomb Afghanistan and Pakistan are resulting in the deaths of many innocent people as they are unable to tell the difference between a terrorist camp and a village. He has said the US will remain in Iraq until there is no more violence (which will go on forever).

Obama did not start these wars but he would have huge domestic and international support if he chose to finish them. Over 70% of the American people want to end these military occupations. So it is not like the neocons would have the power to ruin his presidency if he did, the majority of the population would support him.

Afghanistan has brought down many an invading empire, the US needs to get out before it is too late.

Obama does not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize while he continues to bomb other people's countries. It is an insult to the victims who have been blown up.

[blueshield]

This sounds like the provincial American whose approach to foreign policy is "I can see it from here".

The rest of the world has a far different view of things. America - and it's President - influences world events, conflicts, and peace in ways no other nation or individual can. And with the recent spread of religious fanaticism, nuclear weapons, runaway global economic chaos, regional genocide, arms-sale-fueled regional tyrants and the emergence of US isolationism and militarism, the enormous shift produced by Obama is both tangible and laudable.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the world's greatest fear for peace is that the leader of the United States will not make it his utmost priority.

Instead of second guessing the Nobel Committee, try listening to former Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He said, "Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation".

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity."

[Tom Watson - Huffpost Blogger]

You wrote: "You seem oblivious to the fact that the world's greatest fear for peace is that the leader of the United States will not make it his utmost priority."

That's pretty damned US-centric.

[blueshield]

I can't think of another individual on the planet with more influence over the course of conflict or peace than the POTUS. More to the point, from my travels and contacts around the world, it is always driven home how strongly people outside our country see Obama, and the likelihood of peace.

[pghnappyrhino]

considering what the leader of the u.s. has at his disposal, and how we've behaved before, seems pretty accurate.

[Easyrollins]

Too you is the word you used. I think, to think otherwise is US-centric, For a lot of the world, as goes the US, so goes the world in a lot of ways

[Kevins]

Have you noticed that the US arsenal--many times that of the rest of the world combined
--makes US dedication to peace...desirable?

US-centric?
Or a recognition that the vast majority of armaments are "centered" here.... Or maybe you think the rest of the world should think that a bellicose US has no bearing on prospects for peace?

[firsty]

blueshield, your quote by el baradei is valid in the sense that it confirms that the nobel committee was referring to real things in the praise it used to award the prize.

the problem is that those very real aspects of obama's real leadership and global relationships is not, in the opinion of many, enough to justify his winning the nobel peace prize — and this is based on the way it has been awarded in the past.

obviously they can give the prize to whomever they wish. it is theirs to give. i think the point is that, because of what makes obama different from past winners, there is reason to disagree with the selection, and there is reason to worry about what it means.

making peace a priority is the least of what intelligent americans already expect of ALL of our elected leaders. we appreciate that this is a significant and meaningful commentary on the difference between bush and obama, but, living in the political climate of this country, we are still very aware that it takes more than making peace a priority in a handful of speeches to have any real impact on policy.

[NotMcCain]

The Nobel Committee has -many times- given this award for a lifetime of achievement, not just for one accomplishment or another.

Obama's lifetime achievements, including this year in particular, are tremendous and unquestionably in my mind make him deserving--and fitting company for those who have come before.

I don't know why so many Americans aren't more impressed by what this 47 year old African American has achieved. Maybe we are just too close to it, and without enough reflection on his place-already--in history.

[SharpDressedMan]

Tom Watson,

You stated your case for President Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize but I am not convinced. More deserving recipients may exist but at the end of the day, the decision is up to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

In your reply to MyrtleJune's comment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-watson/obama-and-the-peace-prize_b_316156.html?show_comment_id=32580361#comment_32580361

you listed several who outrank President Obama in the context of this Prize. One of them is Lech Walesa. He received the Prize in 1983 after the Soviet controlled communists in Poland ousted him from the shipyard. During that time, Poland wasn't anywhere near a democracy and its future seemed destined to continue being a Soviet satellite. Walesa led an illegal labor strike group in 1978 and the strikes began in 1980. Eventually the government granted legal formation of labor groups but far short of western style trade unions.

Walesa is another Nobel Peace Prize recipient who at the time had a short record of achievement will little impact before he was awarded in the Prize in 1983. Walesa's greatest work and impact occurred afterward.

I agree with your comment that President Obama isn't in the same league as Mandela, King, Tutu and perhaps Wiesel. But parallels exist between Lech Walesa's and President Obama's duration and level of achievement. If Walesa deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, and he did, so does President Obama.

[beartrap]

It is amazing. People respond to what Obama says, and see no contradiction in what he does or does not do. Excuses are built in for every instance in which he fails to deliver on his rhertoric.

When I hear him say the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity not choice, I think I am hearing George W. Bush. Obama is between a rock and a hard place in that the NeoCons will nail him for being weak in the defense of the country if he does not committ to the surge, while those who opposed the war in Iraq want us to take the Biden approach to scale back. The indictation now is that he is going to try and please both sides by not scaling back, but not adding more troops. His leadership has been lacking. He seeks compromise but talks a good game. He is continuing the renditions of the Bush regime. and getting away with it.

He may wish for peaceful solutions, but sounds just as militaristic as any other president. No way did he deserve the Noble Peace Prize.