And for the Prize

So, it came out today that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The reasoning behind it was that the award givers wanted to show their support for his efforts to promote peace, diplomacy, and create "a new climate in international politics" (BBC News). We've been studying the UN a lot here in South Africa, which I thought was strange at first because we talk about it very little back home. Mainly because the United States, all big and mighty, hasn't always been much of a world player in the cooperative sense of the phrase. I mean, from a liberal international perspective, since the US is such a major power, it should be able to whatever it wants to.

Obviously this is not the absolute best attitude for world harmony, however in the current international atmosphere, where sovereignty of states is valued above everything else, there does not seem to be much of a move away from it. So, the fact that Obama seems to be respecting the international community a little bit more than we as a country have in the recent past apparently is one of the reasons he received the award. I can understand this, providing incentive for a powerful country to continue to play by the non-enforceable rules, but is it reason enough for a Nobel Peace Prize? I am certainly not saying I don't support the efforts of Obama to foster more international peace, but giving a prize for intention over results seems a little odd. You don't give a prize to the runner who has the best intention to cross the finish line first.

BBC.com quoted several different people's views on the matter, here are two from opposite sides:

SIAMAK HIRAI, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI

We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel [Peace Prize]. His hard work and his new vision on global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

KHALED AL-BATSH, AN ISLAMIC JIHAD LEADER

Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals.

Why should Obama be given a peace prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Interesting points. I have not yet figured out my own opinion, but right now I fall in the middle. I do think that it makes an important statement giving Obama the prize, especially since the world opinion of the US in the past years hasn't been the most positive, but was he the absolute best person for the award... especially since he has not even been in office for a year?