American Electorate Is True Winner of Nobel Peace Prize

The Noble Nobel

Alfred Nobel, the famed industrialist who among other accomplishments invented dynamite, bequeathed roughly 31 million Swedish Kronor (today around $200 million USD) upon his death in 1896 to establish 5 prizes for outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. (The prize for economics is actually awarded by Sweden’s central bank in memory of Nobel and was only started in 1969). He willed that the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) appoint five members on a committee to award the prize to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” One caveat is that the person is supposed to have done this most or best work in the preceding year the award is given out – a seeming disqualifier for President Obama’s win that we would like to address.

Officially, the Norwegian Nobel Committee granted the 2009 award to the 44^th president of the United States, Barack Obama, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” What this prize really represents is the ‘Old Europe’ dismissed by the previous administration reaching out for a freedom fist bump with their friends across the pond. In 2008, the year in which nominees’ actions are eligible to be considered for the 2009 prize, Barak Obama was only President-elect, an idea and concept endorsed by the American electorate; ratified, but with four years (not a 24-hour news cycle) to be carried out. It is his election and what he represents that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and by proxy, the American people.

Too many times in the second half of the twentieth century, America fought wars that were more convoluted and harder to justify than ever before. And this century, we have been engaged in a pre-emptive war in Iraq since 2003 and a war in Afghanistan since October of 2001. Candidate Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and he is on track to pull combat troops out by the end of 2010. He also promised to reinvigorate our fight in Afghanistan, the staging ground before 2001 for terrorist networks bent on the destruction of America and Americans. He argued that the war in Iraq pulled valuable resources from Afghanistan and crippled our goals to stabilize the country and root out terror networks. His administration is in the thick of trying to come up with a strategy to salvage the effort there. These were his positions on the issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well known in the campaign of 2008 and part of his platform as president.

That the prize was awarded even with this plan of action made plain by President Obama is encouraging; it shows that the concept of Just War is not outdated and that perhaps, America can rely on NATO to see the long fight through to the end in Afghanistan. Allies put differences behind them where it matters most and work together when reasonable parties come to the table.

So all Americans should be proud as the collective was gifted with this most prestigious prize for taking a chance on a leader with centrist, yet idealistic leanings in foreign affairs (see calls for global nuclear disarmament). That is a powerful combination as it unites dreams with pragmatism to accomplish truly great things. And we all need a bit more of that in these times.