Why the Nobel Peace Prize makes sense

People, mostly in the United States, are expressing shock and incredulity at Pres Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. “What,” they ask, “has he done to earn this? In so short a time?” What is lacking here is an understanding of the Peace Prize itself and how often it has been awarded on the basis of hopes and expectations rather than actual accomplishment.

2007: Al Gore and the IPCC won the prize without actually fixing global warming. Hell, Gore couldn't even get his own country to do a damn thing other than buy Priuses.

2005: The International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed Elbaradei were given the prize for their work to keep nukes from being militarized — a task that comes close to being a current failure.

In 1998 John Hume and David Trimble won for the Northern Ireland peace treaty. However, in 1976, Betty Williams & Mairead Corrigant won for their work establishing the Northern Ireland Peace Movement. They did not see actual results for another 20 years.

Mother Theresa won in 1979 for not ending poverty.

1989: the Dalai Lama was the winner of the prize, and, today, Tibet is further than ever from liberty. Nor has he brought world peace. Jimmy Carter (2002) has a similar record of failure, although he, at least, has built a few houses and tried to make a few elections more fair.

Aung San Suu Kyi has completely failed to end Burmese repression despite her 1991 recognition.

The prize has been given several times for “advances” in Mideast peace. That’s worked out really well.

In 1962, Corvallis’ Linus Pauling won for his work to end nuclear weapon testing. While his work was successful, it did not stop some from trying to prevent a new middle school being named after him.

The Red Cross has won several times and people continue to die because of natural and other disasters.

One of the few times the prize was given for an actual accomplishment? Henry Kissinger & Le Doc Tho, for “ending” the Vietnam War.

Rarely is the award given for the reasons the other Nobel Prizes are. Peace is something we do not actually accomplish; it is an attitude, a perspective. The Buddhist saying is “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.” Most wars end through the defeat of an enemy, not through outstanding acts of diplomacy. Bill Clinton ended the bloodbath in Croatia, but he had to kill people to do it. He did what was necessary to end that conflict, but he was not able to do it peacefully. That’s the norm. That’s what is expected, especially in our country. The ability to give the award for “doing something peaceful” is pretty difficult in this world. What we can do is celebrate those who work towards a more peaceful world.

That appears to be the mission of the Peace Prize Committee: to encourage what is difficult to reward. Has Barack Obama achieved world peace? No, but by beginning his presidency by immediately proving the United States was going to follow a new path, he demonstrated that the United States was ready to be part of the 21st Century. Yes, the war in Afghanistan continues, and we still occupy Iraq, but the world knows he is seeking ways to bring peace to both regions. They know he seeks a peaceful resolution with Iran. They see the United States not only re-engaging in the Mideast, but acknowledging the equal standing of the Palestinian people. Torture has been repudiated and ended. Dialogue is now America’s #1 tool of international diplomacy, not force. This means something: to simply be a different country with different attitudes and approaches to the rest of the world.

Obama deserves the award for representing these changes, for making them possible. His award is completely in keeping with many the Committee has awarded over the years, awards given not in recognition of accomplishment but in recognition of possibility. The prize is given to let the world know that here is a leader and cause we can join with in common cause. Gore, to combat climate change. Williams and Corrigant for peace in Ulster. Democracy in Burma. An end to nuclear terror. Stopping landmines. Great causes that were no more than possibilities when awarded the Peace Prize — causes that are still little more than hopes and dreams — but worthy of the honor.

Barack Obama, on behalf of our nation’s greater possibilities, is without doubt a worthy honoree. And as perhaps the most famous person on the planet, arguably the most influential politician today, there was probably no better person for the Nobel Committee to honor. No one else has the capability to do with this award what he can.

What he will.