I mean, really, how absurd. We are accustomed to being baffled by the Nobel committee, but the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is entirely preposterous. Apparently:
“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,” the Norwegian committee said in a statement.
“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: “It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve”.
Well, the Nobel prizes have always occupied a place somewhere between a racket and naked boosterism and this decision – and the reasons given for it – demonstrate that more clearly than ever. Even so, it’s rarely been given so prematurely. Obama has been in office for eight months. Eight. What Nobel-worthy achievements have there been in that time?“It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done,” he said.
In one sense, however, one can understand the Nobel Committee’s decision. It’s like a Guardian editorial conference on steroids. What is mystifying, however, is Obama’s decision to accept* the award. Better by far to have quietly told the Nobel organisation that, while generous, their award was presumptious and, by any reasonable standard, premature.
Accepting a prize of such magnitude in return for little in the way of real achievement makes Obama look foolish. He’s not a latterday political messiah and, despite what some people, including some in the White House, seem to think it’s not all about him all the time.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in