Give Obama a Break

President Barack Obama might look upon his Dec. 10 trip to Oslo, where he is due to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, as something of a reprieve before he arrives for difficult negotiations at the Copenhagen climate summit. However, his time in Norway will hardly be a holiday in the sun.

When the U.S. president lands in Norway, we will likely -- again -- get dragged into an unfortunate conversation detailing the innumerable ways he is undeserving of the honor. The bottom line for most critics, regardless of political affiliation, is that Obama has not done enough for peace.

Then again, if you review the history, and hold some previous American peace-prize winners to the same lofty standards as modern critics would hold Obama, you'll realize that they hardly have unassailable track records. In one sense, the Nobel Peace Prize has always been aspirational -- commemorating what an individual stands for and might achieve, not always what has already been accomplished.

Theodore Roosevelt became the first American Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1906. He received the award for his role in the negotiations of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. But how much credit does Roosevelt really deserve? Both parties were already looking to cease hostilities. Russia was on the verge of defeat, and Japan was running out of financial resources to wage war. Roosevelt can be credited with ushering in a new era of diplomatic negotiations -- multitrack diplomacy -- but he did not succeed in achieving anything other than a fleeting peace agreement.

Next up: Woodrow Wilson, who received the award for founding the League of Nations in 1919. On the heels of World War I, the Nobel Committee lauded the idea of collective security. Nevertheless, Wilson's vision quickly turned illusory; the league was powerless to prevent Europe from falling into the abyss of World War II.

And Al Gore? His 2007 prize recognized his efforts to put global warming on the international political agenda. That was a noble step, but as yet, only a first step. With greenhouse gas emissions on the rise and an enforceable international climate code still the stuff of dreams, the international community certainly has no peace of mind yet about how it will cope with climate change.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

SCOTTGOOSE

12:18 AM ET

December 9, 2009

Oh come on

Even if Nobel Prizes are applicable to great aspirations, as the author put it, every example he use cites a substantive result. A. Whether Roosevelt was even a significant factor in the Russo Japanese treaty is irrelevant, because the point is: he achieved at the minimum a treaty and aided peace negotiations. On the other hand, Obama has disrespected allies, cowered to despots, and failed to even bring the Olympics to Chicago. Even the idealist Woodrow Wilson created an ethos, albeit a utopian one, not to mention created the LoN. Irrespective of its quixotic and ineffectual nature, at least Wilson built a multilateral body and taught the world how a global framework shouldn't look like. Case in point: even if the prize is given on a partial achievement and other part less tangible factors like aspiring the world to be a better place, there was a convergence of these two factors (aspirations AND something to show for it). Obama has only met the first requisite, and through coercive disillusionment that Utopian change can arise. Therefore, his credentials don't match up to the examples you cited, let alone the much more deserving candidates this year. All indecisive talk but no action: hardly the traits of a person achieving the highest honor a leader can receive.

NAZIA

1:17 PM ET

This time this noble award

This time this noble award showed its reaction other than nobility and peace and instead of peace Obama made a choice of putting more fuel into fire.If US don't bother about her sons and daughters and wants to throw in war zones without any specific reason and goals of peace process so its better for US people to at least stick to their standard of truthfulness and force president to return this noble peace award and then does what he wants with his light and tight heart to escalate war.

IAN

2:33 PM ET

He doesn't deserve it... yet

I agree with the first posters comments. He hasn't done anything to advance peace. He's laid off of Isreal, he's sent 30000 more troops to Afghanistan. He backed down from strong stances against dictatorial regimes. He is looking like Chamberlain, really. Humming and hawing and making really great speaches. Too bad his talk isn't followed by a walk.

But, you say, he's got aspirations. Look at his speeches of reconciliation. What has that done? Say the Cairo speech. Yes, it was brilliant, an excellent reach to a part of the world that can't look at the US without suspicion. But it also pissed Israel off enough that they don't even listen to the US anymore, especially since they know there's no action to back any reprimand from Obama. Which in turn pisses the Arabs off because they are aggresively expanding their territory, despite international law.

What about Iran? More open dialogue is the way to go. Absolutely, but now without the stick behind it, they are going to build 10 (or something close) more enrichment facilities and damn the US. Why? They know Obama will send an envoy to talk and make pretty speeches and come home with what? A good photo of a handshake that signifies nothing.

He has potential, but he's got to back up the talk. You can't make the world play nice without some strong action. Not everyone is willing to work for the better of the whole world, rather than just lining their pockets. Some people/countries need a strong shake before they react. Until he antes up on his foreign policy, the world is going to ignore a weak-sounding, action-lacking, world's-only-superpower, which ensures that he will never deserve this most prestigious award. Even Wilson and the failed LoN at least set an agenda and pushed forward with it. It may have flopped, but at least he tried.

CHIARADBR

8:20 PM ET

Perhaps those other nations

Perhaps those other nations had fellow citizens who actually deserved the prize. I hope that if they had a fellow citizen who was given a prize just for being his incredible self, they too would have the principles to object. The fact that this objection is seen as an outrage reflects the degradation of morals in our world - nice words and gestures are now considered achievements. Happily, not everyone has bought into this spoiled, passive and destructive way of seeing the world. Those of you who accept this corrupt standard should be ashamed, not those of us who believe that achievements stem from events which actually occur somewhere other than people's minds.

8:24 PM ET

By the way, negotiating a

By the way, negotiating a peace agreement and establishing the League of Nations were actual achievements, regardless of how successful they were judged to be later. They were something that took work and compromise and negotiation -- Woodrow Wilson quite literally gave his life to achieve the League of Nations. Barack Obama looks pretty and says nice things - he has not DONE anything at all. The fact that Al Gore received a Peace Prize is so risible it is not even worthy of mention.

GOEDEL

6:21 PM ET

December 10, 2009

Calling the PP "aspirational", bad joke!

The million dollars he is getting is not "aspirational". It's a substantive reward for counter-productive actions - where peace is concerned.

When so many of the PPs have gone to undeserving recipients, one can take two courses: condemn the PP as not worth any attention; or call it "aspirational". Regrettably, if a damn fool or bad person is awarded a million dollars, the prize gets media attention. Only afterwards, we no longer have a damn fool or a bad person; we have one with a million dollars.

Foreign Policy Magazine

The Nobel Peace Prize has long been about vision and aspiration, as much as concrete accomplishment. In Oslo, let the U.S. president accept his prize in peace.

BY JOHAN BERGENÄS | DECEMBER 8, 2009

(6)