The case for Obama's Nobel

It's safe to say that, when Barack Obama was announced as the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, it was a bit of a surprise. I don't think anybody, not even Obama himself, saw that one coming. Actually, I'm pretty sure that, when that member of the White House staff walked into the Oval Office and said 'Hey, Mr. President, guess what? Those folks from Norway decided to give you the Nobel this year', Obama's first reaction was to look for Ashton Kutcher and his hidden cameras: Get out of here... Really? Why?

The reaction around the world was similar: people with their mouths agape in disbelief, checking their calendars to see if it could be an April's fool joke. Not surprisingly, the strongest reaction came from the US, where some people (especially Republicans) were downright outraged with the selection. Among other things, the critics were saying that he didn't do anything yet (quite the opposite, that he's all talk and no action); that we should at least wait until the end of his term before passing judgment on his accomplishments; and that a man that is continuing to wage two wars could never win a peace prize.

There's a fair point behind much of the criticism. In fact, many people satirically suggested that he should split the money with George W. Bush, for it was his historically bad presidency that set the bar at an all-time low, meaning that anything other than invading Paris and setting Rome on fire would be seen as an improvement. It's because of Bush, they said, that people are so excited over so little work.

Be that as it may, just because the failures of his predecessor made Obama look good by default, it doesn't mean that this particular set of circumstances ceases to be relevant. By the same token, it is not because his victory was unexpected that it automatically becomes undeserved. The question is whether or not Obama was a valid choice.

When approaching the issue, it is important to realize that the Nobel Peace Prize is a political distinction and, as such, has the potential to be extremely controversial. People often bring up the fact that Henry Kissinger won it, whereas Gandhi never did, as an example of how skewed the selection can be. Nevertheless, in any given year there are over a hundred nominations for the Peace Prize (in 2009 alone there were a record 205 different individuals and organizations on the final list) and, unless there's a clear-cut front-runner, it is obvious that any consensus might be pretty difficult to reach. Unlike the other Nobel fields, it can be quite hard to assess breakthroughs in something as abstract as peace. Clinton lied (again!), there's no road map for that. It involves publicity; it involves charisma; it involves politics. In that sense, to second-guess the decision made by those five nice gentlemen in Oslo is, in most cases, to split hairs - someone has to come up with a name and their choice is as good as any. Unless there's a clear oversight by the committee or it becomes clear that the winner does not fill the criteria, it's a matter of picking favorites: you might have yours and I might have mine, but the Norwegian Storting is also entitled to theirs.

Analyzing what has been said against Obama's Nobel, I noticed nobody bothered to - or perhaps couldn't - come up with a different name, one that clearly should have won the Prize this year, which voids the hypothesis of an obvious overlook. If anything - as mentioned above - the race in 2009 was more diluted than ever, with a record number of nominees and an absolute lack of favorites. Instead, it was Obama's accomplishments (or lack thereof) that came into question and became the target.

Thus, to determine whether this world-class bowler fits the bill, we should turn to Alfred Nobel's will, the original document that created the whole thing and set the standards that should be observed by the committee. It says that the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses [...] in the preceding year". There are a few interesting elements in this definition that would make the case for Obama which seem to have gone unnoticed.

Firstly, the will mentions "the preceding year", meaning that the Nobel is an annual award, not a lifetime achievement one. History shows that this trait, particularly in the Peace Prize, is not always taken into account, probably because, when it comes to something as complex as world peace, efforts tend to take more than 12 months to yield significant results. Consequently, a considerable number of laureates received the Prize after decades dedicated to a cause, even if what they have to show for it is a series of steady improvements rather than one major breakthrough. Nevertheless, even though this tendency slowly changed the public's perception of what the Nobel is supposed to reward, it was never its founder's intention to award it to the best résumé. So it shouldn't matter that Obama just got here: if he did the best work in the previous year, he's our guy.

The second aspect of Nobel's will that is relevant to Obama's case is that it provides its own definition of what peace is. Peace is one of those words, like love or happiness, that mean different things to different people. For some it's the mere absence of conflict, for others it also involves the widespread rule of law and justice, or perhaps the end of social disparities. So, when people think of a peace prize, they usually go with their own concept of what that represents. However, for this purpose, the one definition that counts is Nobel's.

So, reading the will again, we see that he put the promotion of fraternity among nations and peace congresses on equal footing with reduction of standing armies; meaning that, to him, an abstract notion like fraternity was just as important as the actual reduction in the number of soldiers. In other words, the man was an idealist, who considered those who simply brought the peoples of the world closer together just as deserving of his award as those who accomplished more measurable feats.

With those two elements in mind, let's look back at Obama. During the past year, no man or woman on the planet was a stronger beacon for the hope of billions around the globe. Still as a presidential candidate, he reached out to the entire world and, with one campaign rally in Berlin, he bridged gaps in international relations in a way that eight years of Bush administration could not. 'Yes we can' became the motto for anyone who wished to change things for the better. As the first black president in the history of the United States, he made people believe that the ethnic disputes that hurt humankind for so long could be overcome. Like it or not, no name was a bigger synonym for fraternity and hope than Obama's last year and that, according to our friend Alfred Nobel, is Peace Prize-worthy.

That is also why it doesn't matter that his nomination occurred only 9 days after his inauguration or that he hasn't done much as a president. Many of the positive effects created by Obama in international relations were felt even before the election. Now, I can see why people, especially North-Americans, might have a difficult time separating his presidency from his Nobel nomination. I won't dispute that he has done much less than expected so far, as seen in a recent (and really, really funny) Saturday Night Live skit (although it could be argued that, in face of such lofty expectations, Superman himself would have to break a sweat). I can also see why the Republicans are really pissed off, after all this is an award that has little to do with his domestic policies and yet it gives him a major popularity boost. Still, it doesn't matter whether his healthcare reform is good or bad, or if he failed to get the Olympics to Chicago or whatever: those things are not decisive (or even relevant) to evaluate his contribution to fraternity among nations.

What could be said against him is that he continues to send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, which looks like a very non-peacelike thing to do. But then again, Obama inherited those wars, and pulling out of either country right now would most certainly sentence Iraqis and Afghans to years, if not decades, of civil war. I'm not really sure what he could do here. This is an admittedly low standard, one that might takes us back to the "give half of the Nobel to Bush" joke, but it is impossible to ignore the bleak outlook in international relations since 2001. When people openly talk about a clash of civilizations and start looking at armed intervention as the best option available, something as simple as someone in a position of power reaching out to the rest of the world goes a long way.

I guess the point is that, although one might have had another favorite to win the Nobel this year, Obama was not a bad choice at all and we have to respect that. When it is all said and done, the Peace Prize does not necessarily need to reward a successful policy or recognize a lifetime dedicated to humanity. It could very well acknowledge the importance of a symbol or endorse a worthy cause. You know what? You really started something there. We like what you stand for and we believe it makes the world a better place. Keep it up. Obama himself said that this award was a "call to action" and I think I'll go with that.