It has just been announced that President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, for his administration’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
This is a remarkable decision, and though I’m just about as entrenched an Obama supporter as a common citizen can be, it may not be remarkable for the right reasons. Champions of diplomacy as a (the?) primary vehicle of statecraft, particularly those who are eager to criticize the previous U.S. administration’s tendency to rely upon the inevitability of unilateral force, must recognize that diplomacy will be judged by its results, both in the near term and within the historical narrative. By this measure, Obama’s recent successes at the United Nations provide the most obvious gauge, and plaudits are generally owed to the public and hidden efforts that made these moves possible: scaling back an aggressively-positioned missile capability, forcing increased scrutiny towards questionable nuclear proliferation, and committing to a two-state policy in Israel/Palestine.
Nevertheless, there remains more than one plank in the eye of American policy. Two American wars still rage, and those affected by them — civilian populations and combat troops — can surely attest that this is not the face of peace. Neither, obviously, is the alternative, yet such is the nature of the beast. Fleeing from the responsibilities to justice that are inherent in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq is simply unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances that have led to the present state of uncertainty. Once some ascertainable notion of peace becomes apparent in fact, the honor will be a matter of course. As things stand, I fear that the Prize is yet unwarranted, for the burden of state lies in reality.
Update: It should be noted that Martti Ahtisaari was awarded the prize in 2008 for “his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts.”
good thoughts on the award.
check Tom Friedman’s thoughts as well in the 10/10/09 NYT.
Thanks!
I must admit that I’m not a big fan of Friedman, and in this particular case he seems to have made no effort to engage in anything but historicism, framing the last century as a universe of chaos swirling around and being brought into order by the shining light of the American sun. Perhaps I’m blessed (or cursed!) but I have a hard time sharing in the hyperbolic certainty to which Friedman’s stock is pegged. My reluctance to embrace his praise for military peacemakers on the one hand is perhaps a response to his flippant appeals to raw militarism on the other. I concede that this reaction may be more to the style of the delivery than to the substance of the message, but…
Two words: Friedman Unit!
agreed, TF’s over-the-top delivery not only detracted from my appreciation for his message but I think gave his column more of a spam-chain-email vibe than ought to be used for reasonable and considerate thoughts.