Obama’s Nobel

Obama’s Nobel

Did the president deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize? No, of course not. But he still has a chance to earn it.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

As a former chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee explained in 2001, the award has always been a political act. In giving it this year to Barack Obama, the committee was endorsing the hope, and relief, felt by millions upon millions around the world at the election of America’s new president. The prize was clearly a pointed rebuke to eight years of unilateral recklessness by the Bush administration, which had spurned international organizations and diplomacy, opting instead for preventive war and establishing a network of secret prisons and torture centers. In welcoming Obama’s re-embrace of the global community, the committee was, in a way, honoring the millions of Americans who had voted for him–and who, in so doing, have helped redeem America’s image.

Did Obama “deserve” this honor? Judging by the conventional standards of accomplishment, the answer is no, of course not, as the president himself acknowledged in his humble acceptance. The committee’s official statement insisted otherwise, praising Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy” and attaching “special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” But a hint of a more strategic purpose was provided by the committee’s chair, Thorbjørn Jagland, who said, “It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic, but we cannot do that every year. We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik. It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world.” Jagland was signaling the committee’s recognition not simply of Obama’s promise but of his power–and that of the American people–to turn the world in a more peaceful direction. The award is thus not just a prize but a plea–to the American people as much as to Obama.

So the question for Americans to ask ourselves is, Do we, the people, deserve the prize? Does our country qualify as a peaceful force in the world? Clearly no, not yet. But do we have the capacity to change? To throw off the bellicose pretensions we have assumed as arrogant Goliath so we can develop a web of more rational and fruitful relations with other nations? That is the audacious proposition Obama has so often put on the table during the past nine months. He allows us to envision radical change in the conduct of our nation.

Repositioning America in the world is an awesomely difficult challenge. Perhaps the prospects for success are easier to see from a distance. Pierre Schori, a former UN ambassador from Sweden, eloquently described Obama’s accomplishments in a Swedish newspaper: “He inspires hope for many dispossessed, but also to us who are worried about how dangerous crises are handled…. He is a new kind of American president, a cosmopolitan with the world on his mind…. He did a great thing for peace, beating Bush and McCain policies…. With Obama in the White House, we are all better off and safer.”

None of this hopeful talk lets Obama off the hook for his wrong turns or omissions (see Naomi Klein on page 11). On the contrary, the prize raises the bar for him. May it strengthen his resolve to work for a nuclear weapons-free world; to truly engage Iran; to end rather than escalate the war in Afghanistan. That is where the people come in. Americans who take seriously their role as citizens have been empowered by Obama’s inspiring words, and by this prize, to judge him more seriously and hold him, and ourselves, accountable to his idealistic vision of what’s possible.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x