Peace Prize consensus accurate: Obama wins with empty rhetoric

October 19, 2009 —

Last Saturday night, President Obama took to the airwaves on NBC to address the nation regarding his recent Nobel Peace Prize win. “This prize bestowed by the Nobel committee in Norway is given annually to individuals who have made significant contributions to world peace,” Obama said. “Jimmy Carter won it for decades of trying to find solutions to international conflicts. Al Gore won it for his years educating about climate change. And me? Well, I won it for not being George Bush.”

Of course, the candid late-night “Obama” was in reality comedian Fred Armisen, speaking not from the Rose Garden but from the set of Saturday Night Live. Armisen’s sharp skit nailed what many Americans are thinking: just what exactly has the president done to deserve this award?

As soon as the news was announced on the morning of October 9, blogs and news networks erupted with chatter from all political sides. Predictably, conservatives were livid and Democrats were dutiful cheerleaders. But the best commentary came from journalists: Time’s Mark Halperin said the prize was “for, basically, his rhetoric”; Joe Klein called it “premature to the point of ridiculousness.” The cantankerous Christopher Hitchens called it “the first virtual award,” noting wryly that, “It would be like giving someone an Oscar in the hope that it would encourage them to make a decent motion picture.”

The Nobel committee was quick to respond to the backlash in a rare public defense. The panelists said the decision was unanimous and argued the that award was fully merited. “He got the prize for what he’s done,” said committee Chairman Thornbjorn Jagland, who went on to claim that criticism of the choice was only coming from media figures. World leaders, he said, were mostly supportive.

That’s true. But a look at the comments of those world leaders – especially the European ones who share the perspective of the Nobel committee – is revealing. French President Nicolas Sarkozy delivered a back-handed compliment, saying the prize “confirms, finally, America’s return to the hearts of the people of the world.” Former Finnish President (and last year’s winner) Martti Ahtisaari said “this puts pressure on Obama. The world expects that he will also achieve something.” What Ahtisaari is saying is clear: Obama has not achieved anything yet, but “the world” (that is, Europe) can use this award to influence him.

The committee itself was adamant that Obama has earned the award through real accomplishments. Jagland pointed to three things: Obama’s work toward bridging the gap between the West and the Muslim world, his “work for a world without nuclear weapons,” and his opposition to a planned American missile shield in Eastern Europe.

This probably refers to Obama’s famous “Cairo speech” on June 4, his speech from Prague about nuclear disarmament in April and his announcement to abandon Bush’s missileshield plans on Sept. 17. But it’s worth noting that those plans were not really scrapped entirely, simply redesigned for a “new missile shield architecture in Europe” that is “smarter stronger, and swifter,” according to Obama himself.

And the Cairo speech and the Prague speech were just that – speeches. Relations between the West and the Muslim world are still in the same place they were June 3. Not one nuclear warhead has been dismantled. Iran’s nuclear enrichment program continues apace. As he mulls sending 40,000 more Americans to war in Afghanistan, it’s time to ask: what has Obama really accomplished for peace so far, besides providing samples for oratory textbooks?

The week before the Nobel news, Fred Armisen delivered an even more scathing satire of Obama on SNL. “There are those on the right who are angry. They think that I’m turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union, but that’s just not case. Because when you look at my record it’s very clear what I’ve done so far and that is … nothing. Nada.” It was a painful case of it’s funny because it’s true.