Obama's Peace Prize

By now I'm sure everyone has heard the news. Our President of the United States, this week, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Like many on either side of the liberal/conservative platform, I too, was surprized. It's difficult to imagine that the leader of the free world and Commander-in-Chief of the largest arsenol on the planet, at war no less, could be awarded a prize for peace. I'll have to agree that the nomination and the award seem a little "soon" in his administration. However, like most opinion I put to print, I try to do a little homework before I hit the Enter Key.

As you might guess, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were having a hayday with this. Their conservative talk radio platform was overloaded with calls from both sides. More on that later, but for now, lets look at the Nobel Prize and it's origin.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the Laureate (or recipient) of the Peace Prize, is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. That committee is presently chaired by Thorbjorn Jagland. There are, in fact, five members of the committee and here they are:

Thorbjørn Jagland
Kaci Kullmann Five
Sissel Marie Rønbeck
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn
Ågot Valle

The Last Will and Testament of Albert Nobel (for whom the prize is named) states that the prize should go, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[1] Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize should be awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament.

Remember, this was Nobel's wish, but he died in 1896 and the committee had some ideas of their own. These are the basic criteria by which they select the Laureate:

"The AFSC Nobel Committee has formulated its own criteria, without expecting the AFSC
nominee to have a perfect score on each one: 1) commitment to nonviolent methods; 2) quality as a person and sustained contributions to peace in such areas as justice, human dignity, and the
integrity of the environment; and 3) possession of a world view rather than a parochial concern,
with potential for a global rather than a limited impact. In its search for nominees, the committee is expected to include all parts of the world, noting critical areas of conflict, and to consider how a Nobel Prize could further a peaceful result, as well as the relevance of a candidate's work to AFSC or other Quaker experience."

Although you may not see Barack Obama in Nobel's criteria, I think he rings pretty true in the eyes of the Committee. He's liberal, more socialistic. He's committed to the environment and possesses much more of a "World View". I realize all of those points can be argued, but on the world stage, with the exception of the Taliban, the guy can do no wrong. Oddly, in some of my readings, I learned that the Committee doesn't necessarily have to consider a nominees progress in the area of peace. A candidate need only have potential for furthering the peace process. Kinda makes you think maybe the committee has an agenda.

Which brings me back to the conservative media. I actually heard Sean Hannity say that he didn't view peace as the absence of conflict. Rather he saw peace as a strong military and lethal arsenal. In my little world, that seems a little frightening. In today's world, having a strong defense certainly helps promote peace by acting as a form of intimidation, but having nuclear weapons and mass quantities of destructive power certainly ISN'T peace.

I'm convinced that the committee may have had something a little more underhanded in mind. What better way to nudge the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces away from an increase in troops in the Middle East, etc. than to award him a prize for peace. I don't think it was so much a reward as it was a carrot. "Please, Mr. President, help us become a peaceful world". That's just a theory, but for me it holds water.

It may seem a little like an answer to a question for Miss America, but don't we all want world peace? Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to have nuclear weapons, chemical warfare and hundreds of thousands of troops? Wouldn't it be nice if we actually COULD set the example by laying down our weapons and saying to the world, "see what we've done, now you can do the same"? I'm not naive enough to believe that will happen, but wouldn't it be nice?

In the overall scheme of things, this is just an award. Sure, it comes with a 1.4 million dollar paycheck, but it's still just an award. I don't think it will influence Obama's decisions regarding our national defense. But maybe, just maybe, it will make everyone think before they order another strike or push the big red button. Can't we all just get along?

I swear, sometimes this stuff just writes itself.