With ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing tension between Iran and North Korea on nuclear weapons, and ‘battles’ over healthcare, the economy and the environment, the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most well-funded military managed to win a Nobel Peace Prize. The irony is worthy of a Shakespearean drama.

While I appreciate the irony, I don’t necessarily agree with the criticism of the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision. The problem is that this prize in particular is not based so much on achievement as it is on the hopes of achievement.

Even late-night comedians like Jay Leno chided about the prize. ‘That’s pretty amazing, winning the Nobel Peace Prize,’ said Leno, ‘Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far … winning the Nobel Peace Prize.’

The discussion about this Nobel Peace Prize has been framed as one of style over substance. President Obama deserves the prize, not because of his long list of achievements on par with former laureates, but precisely because of the reasons given laid out by the Nobel Committee: ‘Obama as a president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position… Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.’

Obama has traveled around the world in his first nine months in office, creating a new kind of international popularity towards the American president. He has drastically changed the way in which the United States is viewed by other countries by promising to offer a hand where other nations shake their fist.

He has given speeches in Cairo and Turkey about the future of the Muslim world, visited Ghana to speak on the progress of Africa, met with Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London, hosted the twenty largest economies in Pittsburgh and became the first U.S. president to preside over a session of the U.N. Security Council. These are all remarkable feats worthy of praise for making the United States a leader in diplomacy once again.

Most likely the tipping point in the Committee’s decision to choose Obama was his commitment on nuclear non-proliferation. In Prague, during his whirlwind European tour, Obama said, ‘I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now, we too must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.’

Although I agree with the Nobel Committee to a certain extent, it becomes difficult to back their decision when looking at the problems facing the United States military across the world, especially in Afghanistan. A debate is underway about whether or not to intensify the war in Afghanistan by committing a greater number of troops. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as well as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, both recommended that more troops be committed to Afghanistan. The administration has been weighing both sides of the issue.

Obama should earn his new prize through creating lasting peace in Afghanistan and Iraq. He should not necessarily be rewarded for being an advocate for the United Nations or a new policy of engagement with other countries.

Obama was humble on this point. In his speech at the White House Rose Garden announcing that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize he said, ‘I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. 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.’

The Nobel Committee has it backwards. They should reward the President when and if he creates a more peaceful world, not before he makes peace.

Andrew Swab is a sophomore magazine and international relations major. His columns appear weekly. He can be reached at ajswab@syr.edu.

Published on October 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm