Before we jump into this week’s topic brief, check out the official video from NobelPrize.org’s YouTube channel on their rationale for the selection of Barack Obama as a 2009 Nobel Laureate.
By Logan Scisco
When people first heard the news about Barack Obama being awarded the Noble Peace Prize they probably thought it was some kind of joke. I can admit to having this reaction. The reason is not that Obama is a failed president or I have some type of anti-Obama bias. It is simply because the Nobel prize traditionally has awarded individuals based on their actions, citing concrete achievements and progress as opposed to hopes for what might happen in the future. With President Obama having been in office for only nine months and without any significant changes
The Nobel Peace Prize is an award that comes from the estate of Alfred Nobel, the creator of dynamite. Nobel created five awards, given for peace, chemistry, literature, physical science, and medicine. The peace prize and these other awards are determined by a Norwegian committee. The criteria given for the peace prize, which carries with it a $1 million reward is the following: that a person should “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Obama’s victory in the prize came as a shock to many and has prompted a debate over the merits of the prize and sparked a small political controversy in the United States. The controversy might be the only thing that unites conservatives with Hamas and Hugo Chavez. This brief will examine the justification behind Obama receiving the award, the reaction of the globe and fellow politicians in the U.S., and how this prize could play a part in Obama’s future agenda.
Justification
It was telling that even Saturday Night Live had fun with Obama winning the award. To many, the award came as a shock because of Obama’s brief term in office. This short time has seen him give speeches in the Muslim world, engage Russia on a more even level, win a strong resolution against nuclear proliferation at the United Nations, and do a better job at repairing America’s relationships with its Latin American neighbors.
Obama is the fourth U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Teddy Roosevelt won the award in 1906 for playing a major role in ending the Russo-Japanese war. Woodrow Wilson won the award in 1919 for his work in creating the League of Nations, despite the fact that America refused to join the League upon its refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002 due to his commitment to human rights, strengthening international relations, and work in trying to find peaceful settlements to some of the biggest international conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian issues and North Korea.
Obama’s award was given because of Obama’s “reset” of the dialogue America has had with its neighbors and the rest of the international community. Obama’s being hailed internationally for a more open effort to win the war on terrorism and by putting more of an emphasis on multilateral engagement as opposed to unilateralism. Obama chaired a recent meeting on non-proliferation at the UN Security Council, the first time an American president had ever chaired a meeting of that body. The act cannot be mistaken for its symbolism: that America now had a president who saw the UN as an essential tool for its foreign policy making rather than an institution to be looked upon with heavy suspicion. Not since Jimmy Carter has America had a president that is more trusting of international institutions.
Aside from this, the committee said that Obama’s agenda needs to be continued during his presidency and they hope to see him continue his multilateral engagements, especially in conflict regions like Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, an extemper could argue that the award is meant to endorse Obama’s foreign policy direction.
Reaction
In the United States, there was much criticism from the media and conservatives over Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Conservatives have long had a problem with the Nobel committee’s direction. They have argued that Carter and Obama won their Nobel prizes because the committee is now more interested in making political statements than it is in actually awarding excellence. For example, when Jimmy Carter won in 2002 conservatives argued that despite Carter’s other accomplishments he won the award because the committee was making an anti-Bush statement on the eve of the Iraq war. Conservatives also interpret Obama’s award as a very anti-Bush stance by the committee, as it is a rebuke of Bush’s more confrontational attitude with the rest of the international community.
Another argument against Obama getting the award is that despite his engagement with the international community he still has no concrete achievements and America is still engaged in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the winner of the Nobel prize is meant to solve these conflicts, it makes little sense for Obama to receive it when America is engaging in hostilities. After all, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger only won the award after the Vietnam conflict was brought to a conclusion. Critics argue that Obama has not resolved the conflict in Afghanistan, not successfully resolved the conflict in Iraq, has not deterred Iran from continuing its nuclear activities, has not gotten anything out of North Korea that did not require President Clinton, and blame him for failing to pressure Netanyahu enough to halt settlement construction. Faced with these obstacles, to critics giving Obama the peace prize is laughable.
However, not all reaction to Obama winning the award has been critical. Former Nobel winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu hailed the committee’s selection and former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, who won the prize in 2006 for work on global warming, also said that Obama was very deserving of the award. Obama’s presidential opponent John McCain also said that Obama was worthy of the award, a remark likely to irritate the conservative base of the GOP even more. To his credit, Obama has said that he does not feel worthy of the award, but that he does feel the committee has presented a call to action for future international diplomacy and hopes that the rest of the world is willing to heed that call.
Future Policy
Extempers always need to focus on the future because that is where post extemp questions guide the speaker over the course of their performance. Future questions about Obama on this will center on two prominent themes: does he deserve it and how he should go about justifying the award. Coaching in high school and college I can already tell extempers that I have seen both types of questions already appear on the college level so they may be making their way to a tournament near you.
Obama is unlikely to adjust his new policies in light of the award because they were already on the path the committee would like them to be on. One area that might be affected by Obama’s policy is Afghanistan, where he has to decide what to do with General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops. Some critics worry that the Nobel prize will encourage Obama to not bulk up troop numbers, which they say will put the combat mission in jeopardy. To these critics, Obama will be more overwhelmed by the adoration of his personality than making difficult decisions.
Obama could do much to justify the award in the future. Taking a more proactive line on the Israeli-Palestinian matter would greatly help, since Obama has made this a focal point of his foreign policy agenda. Also, if the U.S. is able to win concessions from Tehran on the nuclear program then Obama’s prize is well deserved. However, extempers should keep in mind that this assumes things that might happen. This is the crux of the argument against Obama, that the committee based it on things that might happen as opposed to what actually has. Critics argue that activists in Afghanistan or Morgan Tsvangirai were more deserving of the award based on things that they have managed to fight against and secure for the people they represent. They also argue that Obama is not on the same level yet as someone like Nelson Mandela, who endured a lengthy jail sentence in the quest to ensure racial equality in South Africa.
Overall, any speech about Obama and the Nobel prize should encompass knowledge about the prize’s intentions, why it was awarded to Obama, and how he can put it to good use. An extemper might also be wise to make comparisons to other Nobel prize winners, which can be used to support or reject the position that Obama deserved the prize after all.