The Nobel Peace Prize has always been somewhat of an enigma, when compared to more straightforward Nobel prizes, such as those in medicine and physics. Certainly most winners of Nobel Peace Prize in physics had a pretty good idea that they were in the running, as this prize rewards more tangible achievements. However, the Nobel Peace Prize awarded by a committee in Norway, instead of a Swedish one, can in some respects be considered a different prize altogether when compared to other Nobel prizes.
While humanitarian work comes about through a selfless dedication to others, and is done by many of millions of people worldwide, it seems odd in a way to single out one person above all others. However, when I think of the Nobel Peace Prize I think of Mother Teresa, who won the prize in 1979 due to her work with the poor and sick in India. If the Nobel prize is given for selfless dedication to humanitarian efforts then why was Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres awarded the Noble Peace Prize in 1994? Part of the official explanation for the this decision was “to honour a political act which called for great courage on both sides, and which has opened up opportunities for a new development towards fraternity in the Middle East.”
Men of power and war, in addition to catholic missionary nuns, have also been singled out for the peace prize, thus making the winners of the awards more heterogenous than for any other Nobel category.
While there have been several attempts to start a peace process in the Middle East, that region of the world has, and is, viewed by many as a tender box which could ignite at any moment. The nobel peace prize committee however obviously wanted to reward diplomatic efforts in the Middle East which promised to provide opportunities for further peace and understanding. In this way the Nobel Peace Prize can be much less concerned with rewarding past efforts, but with rewarding those who are by all appearances making an effort to spread peace and understanding around the world.
Indeed, it would be a miraculous and inspirational story if awarding the Nobel Peace Prize actually changed current events or encouraged peaceful efforts. The awarding of the 1994 Noble Peace Prize to leaders in Middle East may, or may not have, prevented future escalations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most people around the world recognized what the Nobel Peace Prize committee was trying to do by awarding the prize in 1994 based more on hope of future accomplishments, than on past deeds. However, when compared to Mother Theresa’s work, it is obvious that the Noble Peace Prize in the past has been given both to politicians who are publicly talking about peace, in addition to bona fide humanitarian crusaders.
While many are surprised by President Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, it fits in with a long tradition of rewarding the Noble Peace Prize to leaders who are, or have been engaged in wars, and whom have also argued for peace. While many voters in 2010 will forget Obama’s diplomatic overtures during 2009, it is apparent that the President actually believes much of the high minded rhetoric that was used during the 2008 Presidential election. Here is why I believe that President Obama is deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize:
1. President Obama has asked, in effect, for a new beginning with muslim nations, to reassure those practicing the muslim religion that he is not at war with them, but rather against radical religious fundamentalism and terrorists who plot to kill westerners while acting as warlords in unruled regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This does not come without some political backlash as some of the conservative right in America no doubt would enjoy making Obama look as though he is being somehow subservient to countries with muslim majorities. In this aspect, President Obama has bravely put some of his political capitol on the line to diffuse worldwide tensions between muslims and western governments. I am sure this has not gone unnoticed by the Nobel Peace Prize committee.
2. President Obama has called for a more civilized discourse in politics in America, although he did vocally attack and criticize President Bush’s policies during the 2008 campaign, he did it in a somewhat civilized manner, more so than other democratic politicians. In this President Obama has civilized and elevated the political debate in America.
3. President Obama has, and is, advocating for health care reform in the United States, which could conceivably extended health care insurance and health care to millions of Americans. If successful this would be an accomplish similar to what Mother Teresa did, but on a much larger scale. Indeed, President Obama achievement could be equal to the humanitarian work done by several thousands Mother Teresas (if it were possible to quantify humanitarian achievement and the inspiration that Mother Teresa gave the world) by the time his first term is finished.
Mostly for these reasons I believe that President Obama is worthy of the Noble Peace Prize. Many complain that the Noble Peace Prize Committee is trying to influence the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although the Peace Prize may influence the President’s sentiments on the wars, it is unclear how this would change any decisions he has to make. However, I think it was for the other reasons listed above that Obama has been singled out for a Peace Prize. Although it is difficult to be a war time president, Obama has done much to promote cooperation between countries, and might be the best person to bring the war in Afghanistan to a peaceful close.
Sources:
List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureastes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates
Nobel Peace Prize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
