The Nobel Promise

When I came home from school last Friday, I walked through my front door and dropped my book bag on the floor, barely glancing at the TV on in the living room. I didn’t think anything of President Obama on the screen. His press conferences, whether on the new healthcare bill or on war in Iraq and Afghanistan, were so common that I didn’t bother to listen. When I read the headline that Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize later that day, I shared a question many people around the world were asking, “For what?”

This isn’t the first time the prize has raised controversy. In the past, recipients have been criticized for their status and views, or even for the validity of their contributions. For example, take American President Theodore Roosevelt, the first statesman to receive the prize. Roosevelt was awarded for negotiating an end to the war between Russia and Japan. Although many agreed that his accomplishment was substantial, others questioned if his previous actions, such as using military force in the Caribbean to establish the U.S. as a Great Power during the Spanish-American War, were even taken into consideration. Recent Peace Prize awards have also raised controversy. Al Gore, former U.S. vice-president and global-warming activist, became famous for his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Many commended him for his efforts when awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. But that was before Gore’s electricity bill was released. According to the Nashville Electric Service, his mansion, located in Tennessee, consumes more electricity per month than the average American household uses per year. It seems that the public will always find a way to criticize Prize recipients and portray them as undeserving, or even hypocritical. So what do they have to say about President Obama?

Obama was awarded the prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” But what does that really mean? Nine months into his presidency, many view the Nobel Committee’s decision as premature. Republicans quickly asserted that Obama had been awarded the prize for his potential, or promise of “change,” as well as his passionate speeches, rather than his actual accomplishments. It’s true that Obama’s presidency campaign slogan “Change” has sparked a new slogan for future generations. At a time of economic, political, and social instability, the American people were attracted to Obama, who offered the country change. However, with his slogan, and promise, came expectations. Many commend the relatively new president on his efforts to mend relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world, negotiate with Iran, and reduce nuclear arsenals. It is true that he has initiated these efforts for international diplomacy; however, others question if his efforts alone qualify him for such a prestigious award.

The Nobel Committee in Norway stated, “The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world, and who has done more than Barack Obama?” However, the question many are asking is if Obama really deserves the prize so early in his presidency. And is Obama really the person in the world who has done the most to enhance peace in the world? What about other, less famed people, those fighting for human rights, or striving to improve the world at local levels? The award may have been given for potential success, but people are tired of promises. What they want are real results.