So, now: Yasser Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize for agreeing to a peace he had no intent to honor. Jimmy Carter got the Peace Prize for speaking out against the Bush Administration's war in Iraq. Al Gore got the Peace Prize for, um, his movie on 'global warming.' (?!) And now Obama has gotten it for working to be more like Europe, and for 'diplomacy' that has accomplished nothing and has been mocked in Europe, including by the President of France as missing the point and ignoring the real problem. (Apparently, he didn't get the 'hope and change' memo.) One would think that the very public reminder of the real problem — of Iran's nuclear ambitions — only days later, would have served to discredit Obama's approach.
Could it be that the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which is responsible for the Peace Prize, is extremely naïve (as shown by the award to Mr. Arafat) and utterly political? Let them speak for themselves:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying 'to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now.' It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations, and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
'He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate,' Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. 'Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us.'
Translation: You can't give the Prize for something that didn't work out, so let's give it now and hope it works out.
Well, so long as we're clear on the point....