Barack Obama is arguably one of the most inspiring figures of our time.

With a presidential career that has spanned only 10 months to date, Obama has managed to forward a brave new vision for his world and country. He has pushed aggressively for climate change, vowed to close down Guantanamo Bay, set a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and dispatched
peace envoys to almost every corner of the globe.

And that is not to speak about how he has captivated the world even before his election, with his mercurial rise from minority to prominence, and the stirring speeches that have won over to his camp even his harshest critics.

Truly, the world has not witnessed such an inspiring and charismatic visionary since the likes of Jesus Christ.

But is he worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize?

WRONG CHOICES?

If we take a brief glance at the history of the award, we will find that Obama’s selection is far from the most controversial.

Theodore Roosevelt was the Nobel Peace Prize recipient in 1906, though he played a role in the atrocities that took place during the Philippine-American War.

Henry Kissinger received the award in 1973, for negotiating a ceasefire to a war that he himself had a hand in starting.

In 1994, Yasser Arafat was awarded the prize, but we will not soon forget his meddling in the mess that we call the Middle East.

Equally controversial, if not more so, are the figures that the Nobel Committee omitted.

Unbelievably, Gandhi had never received the award, nominated as he was five times, though his achievements dwarf many of those who have been awarded.

Neither have people such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Vaclav Havel, Pope John Paul II, or our very own Cory Aquino, all of whom have done significant work in forwarding the message of peace in their respective realms and the entire globe.

That is not to say that the committee has a tendency to make the wrong choices.

The list of laureates include names such as Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi, whose contributions to the world can never be discounted.

But it does show that the committee is not immune to subjectivity and bias. While it is true that an award for something as abstract as peace can never be objective, it still proves that the award can be subject to factors like politics and political correctness.

The committee itself declared that they unanimously gave Obama the award as an endorsement
for his message and his mission. To quote the Nobel committee, “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.” And indeed, while one can argue that the President is worthy of the prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the words of the committee affirm the fact that he has been awarded for his agenda, not for his accomplishments.

PERFORMANCE, NOT PROMISES

Indeed, it is worth asking: what has Obama done so far?

He has sent his envoys, but he has not made significant headway in negotiations with Iran or North Korea.

He has set deadlines for the war in Iraq, but he has a long way to go before his troops can leave from Afghanistan.

He has banned torture and other extreme interrogation techniques, but he is having difficulty closing down Guantanamo Bay. It seems that all we are awarding him for is a speech in Cairo and the United Nations. One would think that the prize was awarded for performance, not for promises.

But the more important question is: has he had time to make good progress on his ambitious agenda?

It is here that I add my voice to the chorus of those who have said that he has been awarded prematurely. Noble intentions are praise-worthy, but on their own they cannot dictate reality. We can argue that he is on course to make history, but it is far too early to be certain. The world is still looking for concrete solutions to nuclear weapons, poverty, and hunger, and “concrete” is not yet a word I can associate with Obama’s vision.

As for the endorsement, I will acknowledge that it is good to some extent.

But with it comes the pressure of expectation, and the Peace Prize in no way makes negotiations easier, nor does it make countries any more cooperative with his agenda. It may even lend credence to the comparison that if Bush started a pre-emptive war, the Nobel committee is trying for pre-emptive peace. And if we look back at how that war ended, well...

Congratulations, President Obama. I sincerely pray that you are up to the bar that the Nobel Prize has raised for you.

(The author is a sophomore at the Ateneo de Manila University. Visit http://james.soriano-ph.com, or mail me at james@soriano-ph.com)