Friday morning the “Leader of the Free World” woke up “deeply humbled” by his newly awarded Nobel Peace Prize. He may have been a bit confused as well.
As Commander-in-Chief of two wars, President Barack Obama has joined the ranks of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela in their mission of the “abolition or reduction of standing armies […] and promotion of peace congresses” — in less than a year in office. When considering the short body of work that this most prestigious prize recognizes, it becomes clear that this Nobel Prize is symbolically a rejection of President Bush’s foreign policy and a down payment of President Obama’s future visions.
Most surprising and possibly historic is the quickness with which the Nobel Committee awarded the Prize. Critics have had a field day pointing out that submissions for nominations closed only 12 days after President Obama took office. It is odd that with a record number of nominations, the Nobel Committee selected Obama after less than a year in office.
Despite the initial shock in the White House and around the world, the chairman of the Nobel committee insisted that the decision was “unanimous”, citing the president’s efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. But as the man responsible for the big red button connected to perhaps the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, President Obama’s efforts have been focused outward on incremental progress. So far, his successes in promoting peace and a nuclear free world have been rhetorical — in Berlin, Cairo, and Prague — but not yet brought to fruition. Indeed, with North Korea openly defying the President’s nuclear free ambitions, his greatest success has been in restarting nuclear talks with Iran.
Previous U.S. presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize while in office, but usually for more tangible results. Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel for negotiating peace in the Russo-Japanese War and Woodrow Wilson won after founding the League of Nations. More than 20 years after leaving office, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Prize for his “untiring effort” towards peace. In his acceptance speech, Obama self-consciously admitted that he did not feel that he “deserved” to be in such accomplished company.
So, if Obama’s accomplishments after only a year seem less deserving of the Prize, why did the Committee take the controversial step in selecting him?
The best possible answer seems to be that the Prize was an acknowledgment and approval of Obama’s ideas and values, but more importantly, a motivation towards their realization. Already blessed with strong international support, Obama is further bolstered by one of the world’s most prestigious awards. Recognizing that Obama is slated to deal with Iran, attempt to broker a Middle East Peace and grapple with North Korea’s defiance, the Nobel Committee has strategically granted Obama a bargaining chip. And with much of his political capital already spent at home, the Nobel Peace Prize may provide political cover and encouragement for Obama to accomplish his vision.
Presidents are traditionally more independently powerful in foreign affairs than domestic because negotiations and executive agreements do not require the advice and consent of the Senate (only treaties do). While Obama may worry about how his style of negotiation impacts his popularity, he likely does not need Congress’ approval or its three ring circus. Instead, his main concern is the amount of political capital he brings to the bargaining table. Having been bestowed an international endorsement, President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama will have more clout and appear to represent a more unified international front.
Obama seems to understand the intention behind the award, describing it as a “call to action” that serves as “an affirmation of American leadership.” He must now uphold his end of the bargain and ensure this translates into political capital (domestically, it may not; Republicans quickly dismissed it and spun it against him). Critics may be right that Obama has not yet earned his Nobel. But we should see the Prize as what it is: an investment to convert Obama’s rhetoric to action, incentive to pull Obama out of the domestic political mire, and a tacit disapproval of the previous administration’s foreign policies.