Author: Rachel Kaplan
Since President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, Oct. 9, there has been a firestorm about whether or not he deserves it. Although the criticisms of the committee’s decision have legitimacy, overall, those who harshly criticized Obama receiving the prize do not fully acknowledge the requirements necessary for receiving it. In actuality, Obama fits these requirements.
Critics claim that Obama should not have won the peace prize because he simply hasn’t done anything yet. He has made some lofty speeches, but he hasn’t gotten anywhere in terms of action in foreign policy. Another big argument that has been circulating is the basic fact that Obama won the prize because he is not Bush.
Originally, I agreed with these opinions. I thought that it was stupid to give the Nobel Peace Prize, such a prestigious international award for peace, to someone who has achieved no large accomplishments in trying to form such a world. Just because the world likes Obama does not mean he should be given such a big honor. However, Obama has been working to improve U.S. standing in the world, which, in turn, decreases violence through shrinking the levels of hatred toward America worldwide.
According to the L.A. Times, Alfred Nobel explained how to qualify a winner of the Peace Prize by saying it 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.”
After reading about how the prize recipient is chosen, I realized that Obama actually fits the requirements. Alfred Nobel only tells us that the winner must have done something successful for creating partnership between countries.
This is where the importance of the fact that Obama is not Bush comes in. Unlike Bush, Obama has reached out to the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world, and has made huge leaps in re-forming “fraternity between the nations.”
On June 4, Obama made a speech in Cairo where he said, “I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.” As his statement shows, Obama continues to express the need for cooperation, creating a less hostile international environment.
For the past eight years, the rest of the world has been angry with the United States because of the Bush administration’s policies. Our government showed little concern for the opinions of the rest of the world and acted like the superpower that just doesn’t care.
By telling the rest of the world that we want to cooperate and we want to be a part of the world picture, Obama has helped to spread peace.
It is true that nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were due only two weeks after Obama took office. And yes, right now foreign peace-keeping policy is not Obama’s top priority. There is no valid argument against the fact that Obama is continuing and increasing the war in Afghanistan. But the Nobel Peace Prize is not about judging the winner, it is about the impact the winner has made on the world. Actions may be important, but words are worth more than the credit we give them.
Rachel Kaplan is an undeclared sophomore. She can be reached at kaplan@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
