FAYETTEVILLE — There was widespread surprise at the announcement that Barack Obama is the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
There was also someless than widespread derision in certain quarters in this country over Obama’s award, and a few criticisms abroad from such sources as the Taliban and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Some of Obama’s political foes were gracious in their comments, including Sen. John McCain. Others refrained from offering any comments. However, some of those chronically afflicted with the anti-Obama virus could not restrain themselves. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele was highly critical and called the award “meaningless” and “unfortunate.” Predictably apoplectic was radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who said in response to the Nobel announcement, “Our president is a worldwide joke.”
By now, we’ve heard opinions suggesting that the prize was based more on potential or promise than on performance. Others have noted that it puts even more pressure on and raises expectations for President Obama to an unrealistic level. Even some strong Obama supporters have expressed apprehension that it could make his job more difficult. And the prestige of the Nobel isn’t expected to make it any easier to get health care legislation approved.
It is also suggested that bestowing the award on Obama represents a slap at the preceding George W. Bush administration. Others see the prize as really directed to the American public for electing an African-American, a man with a worldview decidedly different from his predecessor.
There has been advice and recommendations about what Obama should say at the award ceremony and suggestions that he might share the prize with others.
Obviously there are many different ways of viewing the award and what it signifies. More than anything else, I believe, it is a barometer of how much of the world views the United States and its president.
It’s no secret that in recent years the U.S government, specifically the Bush administration, was held in low regard by citizens in many countries. Bush’s penchant for unilateralism and what was perceived in many countries as a lack of interest in or appreciation of the perspective of other nations was not well received. His “you’re for us or against us” approach to world affairs was seen as overly simplistic and on issues ranging from climate change to Guantanamo to “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, the Bush administration’s and American international credibility and respect suffered.
The Nobel Committee cited Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” On the surface, that may not sound very substantial, but, in reality it can be highly significant. Tone and atmospherics can be important factors in opening the way for international cooperation. And, ultimately the United States needs cooperation to achieve progress and help resolve problems in international relations.
The committee emphasized what it described as Obama’s “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and his role in helping to create a new international outlook. The fact that Obama became the first U.S president to chair a U.N. Security Council session did not go unnoticed abroad. At that session, a resolution calling for a stronger Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was approved.
Several days after the Nobel announcement, the committee chairman rejected the notion that Obama had not accomplished enough to deserve the award.“He got the prize for what he has done,” Thorbjoern Jagland said, pointing to Obama’s efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world, his decision to cancel plans for the anti-missile system in eastern Europe, and his commitment to reducing nuclear weapons.
It is fair to point out that the choice of the Nobel laureate is made by a fivemember committee appointed by the Norwegian Parliament and represents their judgment about who is deserving of the award. There is strong reason to believe, however, that their choice is representative of a significant portion of world opinion.
In the years after 2002, distrust of the United States and anti-American sentiment intensified around the world and this included many countries which had been traditional U.S. friends and allies.
In 2007, a Pew Research global poll showed that favorable attitudes toward the United States had decreased in most corners of the world. “Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy,” the Pew Center reported.
In contrast, a late summer survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project this year indicated that the U.S. image “has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama.” The survey reported that in many countries opinions of the United States are as positive as they were before the decline under Bush. This was notably true in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared. But this is also true in key Latin American, Africa, and Asian countries, and some Muslim countries.
You may believe that international public opinion and attitudes toward the United States don’t really matter. There are those who say it is better to be feared than liked.
Some would say that Obama is naive and that he is being too idealistic and too concerned with the viewpoints of other nations when he needs to be more realistic in dealing with international issues. But it is naive to believe that foreign policy goals can be accomplished without international cooperation. American foreign policy is usually at its bests when it is a combination of realism and idealism.
Obama is definitely not a “worldwide joke,” whatever his critics might like to believe. Yes, there are still many questions to be answered and tests to be faced. But in his short tenure he has helped restore the image of the United States, change international attitudes, and improve prospects for greater cooperation with other nations.
Americans can be proud of the 311 Nobel Prizes in various fields that have been presented to Americans (out of 818 total awards made) over the years. And we can be proud of Obama’s award and what it says about the importance of America’s role in the world.
Obama has helped create a better climate in international relations. Ultimately, however, Obama will be judged by what he accomplishes, particularly his effectiveness in international relations.
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to Sen. J. William Fulbright, foreign/defense policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/18/2009