Too Much, Too Soon?

The Nobel Committee surprised the world last Friday with its decision to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to American president Barack Obama. This year’s award might turn out to be the most controversial in many years. As Mr Obama follows in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter Jr., many wonder if he has actually deserves the award.

As political commentators in the United States condemn and ridicule the decision, claiming the president is receiving the prestigious award more for promises than actual achievements, state leaders around the world join Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in congratulating Mr Obama; they claim that he has lowered global aggression during the last year, taken a firm stance on nuclear disarmament with the scrapping of anti-rocket shields plans in Europe, and approached middle-eastern countries with tones of increased respect and dialogue.

“The committee’s decision shows a realistic view of the dynamics of global politics” Mr Medvedev said as he congratulated his American counterpart on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr Obama's decision to cancel the building of a US anti-rocket shield planned in the Czech Republic is said to be the main reason for the committee’s decision. Russian leaders have long argued that the planned rocket shield was a threat to their security and an infringement on their country’s sovereignty—the dispute long being a source of antagonism between the two powers.

In scrapping these plans, the US might have put itself in a convenient political position. The possibility that America has some Russian goodwill and support coming its way might prove useful with regards to the question of agreeing on new sanctions against Iran.

As Mr Medvedev publicly congratulated the president on his award, he was also taking the opportunity to show the world that Russia is serious about playing its part in changing the political climate. In the Bush era, US-Russia relations froze to a post-Cold War low, especially with Russia’s decision to invade Georgia. According to the Russian president, the award might stimulate further cooperation between the two world powers.

However, Mr Obama has been in office less than a year, and whilst he certainly has changed the tone of the American executive, he still has little to show in terms of actual achievements. Thorbjørn Jagland, leader of the Nobel committee and former Norwegian prime minister, explained that although it might seem premature, it was important to do it now as the changes which are taking place under Mr Obama are too big to ignore.

Many are now asking themselves how a man in charge of a country fighting two deadly wars can be awarded this prize. Mr Jagland believes Mr Obama’s war strategy reassessment is action enough: “When something goes wrong, you need to ask yourself why it goes wrong”. Ågot Valle, another member of the committee, said she hopes the awards can be seen as “support and commitment for Obama.” But there is little doubt many will continue to see the award as inappropriate as long as the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan continues.

The somewhat liberalist political policies pursued by the White House have clearly proved popular in Oslo, but such Obama-mania might put the president in a position where expectations are too big to fill—a position he should avoid. The award could prove a political liability as, amidst conservative outcries that he cares too much for European opinion, many Americans are asking themselves what their new president has actually done for them and the world. Whether the honour will prove a political asset or liability for the American president is yet to be seen. One thing is for certain: having been awarded a prize that normally entails accomplishment, Mr Obama now has to show the world that yes, he can do more than just talk.