I was in London yesterday with little time for blogging, so I'm late on this, but I want to comment on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, all the same. There's an angle on it which isn't covered by the commentary I've seen. In the press and the blogosphere alike there is perplexity, disbelief and mockery at the decision of the Nobel Committee. Obama's own response - accepting the prize as a 'call to action' rather than a reward for achievement - chimes in with this.
If one sticks by the letter of the Committee's citation, such widespread scepticism may be justified. Judged by reference to 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples', the award may look premature. But those terms are too narrow. Implicit in something else that the Committee says is another consideration, one which, in my view, justifies the prize. For they say:
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.
There is more than one reason for his having captured world attention and being seen as a source of hope, but very significant, if not central, in this regard is the fact that he is the first African-American to win the White House. That in itself was no small achievement, given the history of slavery and racism in the United States, and it was a hugely positive step for American democracy. The Nobel Peace Prize isn't always awarded for contributions to peace in the international arena, in the sphere of national wars and efforts towards international peace. Shirin Ebadi, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Desmond Tutu and Lech Walesa have all won the award. Obama, it is true, was not facing a tyrannical political system in his campaign to win the presidency. Nonetheless, it doesn't disgrace the Nobel Peace Prize to have marked that victory and its significance for America and the world - even if this was not the Committee's stated or primary intent.