President Barack Obama has recently joined the prestigious league of only three American presidents to be awarded the Nobel Peace prize. Critics worked quickly to sway opinion against Obama’s receiving the award. In an official statement, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?'”
The issue as to whether Obama truly deserves the prize or not seems to have split the voice of the nation, with evidence from a recent Gallup poll showing that 61 percent of Americans believe Obama does not deserve the prize, including a 50 percent increase in African Americans over whites for Obama. The President admitted he does not feel he deserves to be in the company of those who have received the prize prior to him, however, in the current state of world affairs, it is hard to imagine who else the prize should go to or who would feel worthy of being in the company of the Nobel Prize greats. The statement from Obama boils down to simple modesty. Barack Obama has worked in all aspects of promoting peace and stands as both a figurehead for a new American image and as a symbol of diplomatic engagement rather than conservatism and isolationism.
When Alfred Nobel established the peace prize in his will he declared it go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
It would be in complete ignorance of the outside world to say that Obama has not worked to promote fraternity between nations. He has instituted a new image of America abroad. From his speech in Cairo reaching out for peace in the Muslim world to unfreezing diplomatic relations with nations branded as “evil” by the previous administration, Obama has strived for peace and fraternity on the world stage. Many have speculated that the prize has been given to President Obama because he simply is not George Bush, who set the bar relatively low in terms of likeability and the standards that Prize recipients uphold. He is a president who answers more to the world stage rather than just the United States and for this reason, those committee members in Norway see him as a responsible world force.
The military situation inherited by President Obama certainly has not warranted a reduction in “standing armies”. But it should be recognized that Obama’s aim is to do so in a way that would justify the United States involvement in a failed state and retain a sense of dignity in America’s image abroad. The reduction of armed forces both in America and in the world certainly is an ideological goal, but Nobel most likely did not anticipate the type of war that would be waged in the 21st century, which are not fought between large conventional armies but are seemingly perpetual involvements in extreme leaning states. Barack Obama is working with Iran to secure its nuclear program. He has scrapped the plan for a missile defense shield around Russia, has taken a harder line with Israel in its settlements in the West bank and partnered with Mexico to rid its embedded drug culture.
President Obama has put forth in his nine months of office more effort worldwide to foster peace in the world than most could ever hope to achieve. His unique international appeal has allowed him to restore America’s presence as a moral leader rather than a leader by force. After all these achievements President Barack Obama has made, why do the majority of Americans still disagree with him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
The most likely culprit is the media. If all the major networks and news channels had endorsed President Obama’s reception of the prize, then most people would be praising his achievements. If the masses were to investigate his presidency further they would most likely change their perception. President Obama has accomplished a lot as President of the United States after only nine months and deserves to be recognized for his efforts.