I like to think that I’m quite relatively au fait with current affairs and what’s going on around the world – enough to get me through a dinner party situation, at least (so long as I’m not sat next to anyone from the International Institute for Strategic Studies).
But even for an international news junkie, this morning’s announcement of the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize came a little out of left-field. The smart money seemed to be resting on Morgan Tsvangirai. I have to confess that I hadn’t realised that Barack Obama, the eventual and surprise winner, was even in the running (in a field of over 500 nominees, I’m telling myself that it’s almost forgivable. Almost).
It’s fair to say that the news has met with mixed reaction around the world. Some people are thrilled (some people are just thrilled that it’s not Bono); some are not. And some people are just plain confused.
The Twittersphere was buzzing when the news broke, with quips and jibes aplenty. The majority of people seem to be of the opinion that, although they have nothing against Obama and, in most cases actually quite like the guy, crucially, he’s not done anything yet that merits the award. Gideon Rachman at the FT summed up the general feeling nicely, saying that “while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort”…I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.”
Awarding the Obama the prize presumably seemed like an excellent idea to the Nobel Committee – they wouldn’t have done it otherwise. Their citation speaks of his “vision” for world peace. Whatever the motivation, the ultimate decision is sure to sustain debate for a good while yet.
But it’ll also sustain the debate about the Nobel Prize itself. The list of previous winners doesn’t make for controversy-free reading. From Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994 to Kissinger back in 1973, the Prize has a history of being awarded to contentious figures. It’s possibly fitting, considering the award’s founder.
And sometimes, it can be good to be controversial. Taking a strong stand on one side of a debate can start a conversation, and make people think. But it’s important that intellectual discussion doesn’t overshadow what’s at stake. And when it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize, what’s at stake is being taken seriously.
Whilst Obama’s vision might be that old Miss World favourite of ‘world peace’, his actions at the moment don’t say the same thing. The USA doesn’t appear to be leading the charge for unilateral disarmament, and the President has troops committed to a war in Afghanistan which shows no signs of conclusion. Thus, to award him such a prestigious prize calls into question the esteem of the institution itself.
Obama’s receipt of the Peace Prize isn’t controversial in the way that Kissinger’s was: he’s not got such a murky foreign policy record. But the fact that he’s not yet really done anything of substance that would merit such a record is the problem.
As such, giving him this year’s award has dealt a blow to the reputation of an institution that some have been calling into question for some time. Hopefully, this won’t do lasting damage to an award that, in itself, stands for something more laudable than most other pursuits on the planet. But the episode does serve to show that what you do and what you say need to marry up, or your actions undermine your words. People need to believe that what you say and what you do are convergent – if they don’t, you’ve dealt yourself a huge blow: it’s your reputation and ultimately your brand (or in this case, institution) that’ll suffer.
That said, this year’s decision does, to paraphrase @gabyhinscliff, make me hopeful about my chances for the 2010 Prize for Literature. I haven’t actually written a book. But I’m very supportive of books, and, um, hopeful about their future…
