New Era

Peace is undoubtedly fundamental to every living person, and vital to the pursuit of human happiness. It was probably in recognition that peace is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness, that prompted Alfred Nobel to come up with the idea of rewarding those making extra-ordinary efforts to promote peace.

Alfred Nobel, in his 1895 will, stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

The choice for the Norwegian Nobel Committee this year to bestow a Nobel Peace Prize reaffirms the uphill battle faced by Barack Obama in his efforts to restore his country's image in the world. The award is in recognition "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

Yet the announcement was greeted with mixed reactions. Some people applauded the decision to bestow the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Obama, but others raised more eyebrows and questions "what has President Obama actually accomplished"? Some of these questions came from his fellow countrymen and women including the chairman of the US Republican National Congress, Michael Steele. This prompted the Democratic Party's response: "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists". Interestingly, the GOP appears to be in agreement with the Taliban, that Obama does not deserve the award. Even former Polish President Lech Walesa, also Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1983) expressed doubts as to whether Obama has really made any contribution to peace.

Another Polish Zbigniew Lewicki, a political scientist and Professor at Warsaw University, also added: "For the first time the prize was given to someone who has plans, but no achievements. This is a purely political decision that could also be called a perverse verdict." One of the standards stipulated by Alfred Nobel in his will is the abolition or reduction of standing armies. However, Obama is not thinking of abolishing or reducing the US Armed Forces, he is considering sending 40 000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Why then so many people question the bestowal of 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Obama? Do they all have valid points or just part of human snooping? No matter where one stands in this debate, clearly, Obama has managed to capture the imagination of many people across the globe, no wonder that some critics refer to his award as a "Nobel Peace Prize for Hope".

The answers to multiple questions are partially revealed by personal efforts Obama has made since assuming office as President of the United States. The nominations for 2009 were probably received before or shortly after Obama became President. Yet, being President is not a requirement to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, he has been in office less than a year, but his accomplishment should not merely be measured by the length of time he has been in office, but rather by the sense of purpose and a depth of personal conviction to create a new climate in international politics. His efforts resonate well with the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jnr, (1964 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate), that "the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy".

Obama has been tested by multiple challenges less than a year since assuming the Presidency, but has resolutely stood by his principles. Obama has raised hope beyond the aspiration of a single nation and embraces issues of common human legacy. Martha L. Minow, who taught Obama at Harvard Law School describes him thus: "Obama has an amazing ability to combine vision with analysis, emotion with reason and hope with good sense". All these attributes were perhaps early indicators to his lifelong mission, which probably earned him the White House and ultimately the Nobel Peace Prize.

However, some people may think that the Nobel Peace Prize imposes a heavy responsibility on his conscience and actions as a sitting President of the US. Since becoming president, Obama has been under the lenses of observation about the change that he promised to deliver; now a new lens has been added through which his actions would be judged. One thing is crystal clear, he has taken an oath in terms of Article II, Section I of the US Constitution "to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". That oath is binding on his conscience than the Nobel Prize, which probably only appeals to his moral inclination. Nevertheless, the world would certainly expect more than moral consideration. Judging from the way he manages diplomacy with others nations, one is disposed to agree that his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation has given many people reasons to hope for a better world.

How will then Obama tackle his twin challenges as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and the sitting US President with two wars still raging? There are genuine questions as to whether a President whose country is currently waging two wars in two different foreign countries deserves a Noble peace prize. Obama is the third US President to win the award while in office. But for his two forbearers, the world was different from what it is today. President Theodore Roosevelt then aged 48, same as Obama, won the 1906 prize for his work in the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Portsmouth and ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the 1919 prize in recognition of his Fourteen Points peace program and his work in achieving inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. What differentiates Obama from the two men is probably the fact they had achieved tangible results reflected by Treaties they helped to negotiate, while Obama "has plans, but no achievements". But the depth of moral conviction and sense of purpose of the three are almost equal. Certainly, there are foreign policy matters that are likely to pose a stiff challenge to Obama's ability to act should his moral inclination be dictated to by the Nobel Peace Prize as opposed to the pursuit of his country's vital interests. There is nothing however, which indicates that the Nobel Peace Prize is going to hamstring him, but his opponents at home and abroad are likely to judge his conduct through the prism of the prize, albeit with different conclusions. His opponents at home are most probably going to accuse him of being hamstrung by the prize and as a result they would perceive him as soft and likely to jeopardize US interests.

So far Obama has managed to argue respectfully and assert the US interests in a more civilized manner. The pursuit of US foreign policy in the past nine months has been based on realistic and pragmatic approaches as opposed to idealistic emotions and misguided outlook of imposing the US views on other nations. Admittedly, there are of course issues that are likely to hamstring Obama, not necessarily because he has won the Nobel Prize, but as benchmarks of his personal commitment. In the first place, his vision for a nuclear-free world, which was cited by the Nobel committee as among issues considered before he was awarded the prize, is a Herculean task. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Strategic Survey 2009, "during the election campaign, Obama came out in favour of the new movement for nuclear abolition recently championed by a group of American elder statesmen, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry, Sam Nunn and Max Kampelman". When Obama undertook his April 2009 trip to Europe, he repeated his vision for a nuclear-free world before a huge crowd of well-wishers in Prague, though he expressed doubts of the likelihood in his lifetime. Even though a nuclear-free world may not happen in his lifetime, he is likely to be judged on how he pursued his vision rather than on whether he lived to witness the realization of this vision.

Secondly, Pakistan which has nuclear weapons is almost at the threshold of becoming a failed state. Although Pakistan still has strong state institutions, which would unlikely put the country in the category of failed state, nevertheless the security situation in Pakistan today has deteriorated to a point of grave concern. The question asked by every security expert is what will happen to the nuclear weapons - are they secured? What if the Pakistani nuclear weapons fall into the hands of a group with different attitude towards human life?

Saturday, October 10, 2009, that scenario came close to reality when the Taliban fighters attacked the Pakistani Army Headquarters in Rawalpindi, avenging the death of their leader Baitullah Mehsud who was killed in a CIA drone attack in August this year. Such a scenario will to a certain point likely to persuade an impartial observer to concur that the Nobel Peace Committee was probably right in awarding the 2009 Nobel Prize to Obama. One only hopes that one day the US will exercise leadership to get rid of its nuclear arsenals so that others could follow.

Another problematic area which is likely to cast a shadow of doubt on his conscience as a Nobel peace recipient and sitting US President is how he will mediate the Israel/Palestine peace.

Will Obama succeed in bridging the gulf of opinion between the Israelis and Palestinians? When Obama became US President, the Middle East Peace was facing serious challenge as a result of Israel's aerial bombardment and incursion into Gaza strip, home to more than 1.5 million Palestinians. The attacks left thousands of innocent Palestinians, mostly women and children, dead. This horrific incident was followed by February 10, 2009 elections, which brought the right wing Likud Party into power. Presently, the US and its partners in the Middle East are trying hard to portray Iran as a negative force in the region, while the Israeli government is being portrayed positively as always. Obama needs to draw a line and impress upon the Israeli government to commit itself to peace and avoid taking counterproductive steps.

When Obama delivered a speech in Cairo Egypt on June 4, 2009, which was aimed at the Muslim populations in the world, it was welcomed with unprecedented enthusiasm.

Through his speech, Obama presented himself as a pragmatist stressing the need for a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim world.

He reminded his audience that "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity". Mohammad Ali Abtahi, former Iranian Vice President under President Mohammad Khatami, called the speech "compensation" for a hostile environment created by Bush.

Why President Obama dropped a demand for an Israeli settlement freeze is not all that clear and whether this makes his efforts easier or difficult is equally hard to tell. His affirmation acknowledging Iran's right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes appears to have earned good dividends. At a meeting earlier this month in Geneva, with Five Permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, Iran agreed to open its newly disclosed nuclear plant to UN inspectors. On the contrary, while the US and its allies exert pressure on Iran or North Korea, it maintains a decades-old US policy on Israel of "don't ask, don't tell".

The US administration of Obama will not force Israel to state publicly whether it has nuclear weapons provided they do not conduct nuclear tests or reveal it publicly.

This contradicts his stated vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has just added to his rÃ©sumÃ©, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, therefore, at this proud moment in his life, he must be congratulated. At least he has succeeded in what Dr Martin Luther King Jr said "to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope".

"¢ Jeroboam Shaanika is a Namibian civil servant. However, the views expressed here do not reflect that of the Namibian government, but are entirely his own.

Back to Top