Predictably, Conservatives have used Obama's suprise win of the Nobel Peace Prize of 2009 as grounds for dismissing the prize, those who award it and mostly of all, for decrying again the President's relative newcomer status in the world of politics.

The criticism has the advantage of being off the topic of Health Care reform, which is an area Conservatives are finding great difficulty in carving out an opposition stance for. It is also hard to respond to because if you compare Obama to other Nobel recipients, you run the risk of trivializing great people.

For example, imagine an Obama defender saying, "What did the Dalai Lama actually DO for his prize? He didn't achieve independence for Tibet; he didn't get the Chinese to back down even once. All he has been able to do is to get himself on some television shows and get his cause into the conversations of middle class folks everywhere."

Of course, this is exactly the critique of his prize that the Chinese themselves spouted in 1989. Their criticism of him then is the same as it is now:

"In an editorial titled "The Dalai's front for his splittist plot," the Communist Party's Tibet Daily newspaper accused him of conspiring with China's enemies in a bid to break up the country and impede its development.

"In seeking to internationalize the 'Tibet question,' the Dalai Lama simply wishes to bring about his evil plot of splitting China, sabotaging Tibet's stability and subverting socialist China," the paper said."

http://www.boston.com/news/...

A defense of Obama cannot be formed by comparing his accomplishments to theirs. It is an ugly business, indeed.

The only road is to try and puff up Obama's accomplishments, which anybody can see lie moreso before him than behind. This defense is hard to orchestrate. Therein lies the attraction to critics.

However, the Nobel committee DID defend their decision:

"In a rare public defense of a process normally shrouded in secrecy, four of the Nobel jury's five judges spoke out Tuesday about a selection they said was both merited and unanimous.To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree. ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe. 

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe."

http://www.tennessean.com/a...

Though, "even seasoned Nobel watchers were surprised by Obama's Nobel — they hadn't expected the U.S. president, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

Jagland said that was never an issue for the Nobel committee, which followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prize in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said.

"Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

(ibid)

The original press release from the Nobel committee describes their thinking at the time:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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. 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.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

http://nobelprize.org/nobel...

Clearly, they weren't thinking about domestic American politics. They had Obama's effect on the rest of the world in mind when they gave him the honor.

I submit that it is there, primarily, that his critics have most under-estimated Obama's importance. The GOP may wish to brush him aside in 2012, and to start writing the epitaph of his presidency in 2010, but to the rest of the world, his place in history is already secure. Why?

Why, indeed, do we love the Dalai Lama, whose nation is still ruled by foreigners?

Not for his accomplishments on the ground, or laid in stone and steel. Not because of the decrease of guns, or missiles or any machinery of warfare. Not even because his best ideas were ever even followed. We love him because he exists. His presence reminds us that moral truths made with peaceful hearts are timeless.

Please take the time to read this abridged version of his Nobel Prize speech, delivered in 1989:

Nobel Lecture

Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1989

Brothers and Sisters:

It is an honour and pleasure to be among you today. I am really happy to see so many old friends who have come from different corners of the world, and to make new friends, whom I hope to meet again in the future. When I meet people in different parts of the world, I am always reminded that we are all basically alike: we are all human beings. Maybe we have different clothes, our skin is of a different colour, or we speak different languages. That is on the surface. But basically, we are the same human beings. That is what binds us to each other. That is what makes it possible for us to understand each other and to develop friendship and closeness.

...

The realisation that we are all basically the same human beings, who seek happiness and try to avoid suffering, is very helpful in developing a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood; a warm feeling of love and compassion for others. This, in turn, is essential if we are to survive in this ever shrinking world we live in. For if we each selfishly pursue only what we believe to be in our own interest, without caring about the needs of others, we not only may end up harming others but also ourselves. This fact has become very clear during the course of this century. We know that to wage a nuclear war today, for example, would be a form of suicide; or that by polluting the air or the oceans, in order to achieve some short-term benefit, we are destroying the very basis for our survival. As interdependents, therefore, we have no other choice than to develop what I call a sense of universal responsibility.

Today, we are truly a global family. What happens in one part of the world may affect us all. This, of course, is not only true of the negative things that happen, but is equally valid for the positive developments. We not only know what happens elsewhere, thanks to the extraordinary modern communications technology. We are also directly affected by events that occur far away. We feel a sense of sadness when children are starving in Eastern Africa. Similarly, we feel a sense of joy when a family is reunited after decades of separation by the Berlin Wall. Our crops and livestock are contaminated and our health and livelihood threatened when a nuclear accident happens miles away in another country. Our own security is enhanced when peace breaks out between warring parties in other continents.

But war or peace; the destruction or the protection of nature; the violation or promotion of human rights and democratic freedoms; poverty or material well-being; the lack of moral and spiritual values or their existence and development; and the breakdown or development of human understanding, are not isolated phenomena that can be analysed and tackled independently of one another. In fact, they are very much interrelated at all levels and need to be approached with that understanding.

Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighbouring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free. True peace with oneself and with the world around us can only be achieved through the development of mental peace. The other phenomena mentioned above are similarly interrelated. Thus, for example, we see that a clean environment, wealth or democracy mean little in the face of war, especially nuclear war, and that material development is not sufficient to ensure human happiness.

Material progress is of course important for human advancement. In Tibet, we paid much too little attention to technological and economic development, and today we realise that this was a mistake. At the same time, material development without spiritual development can also cause serious problems, In some countries too much attention is paid to external things and very little importance is given to inner development. I believe both are important and must be developed side by side so as to achieve a good balance between them. Tibetans are always described by foreign visitors as being a happy, jovial people. This is part of our national character, formed by cultural and religious values that stress the importance of mental peace through the generation of love and kindness to all other living sentient beings, both human and animal. Inner peace is the key: if you have inner peace, the external problems do not affect your deep sense of peace and tranquility. In that state of mind you can deal with situations with calmness and reason, while keeping your inner happiness. That is very important. Without this inner peace, no matter how comfortable your life is materially, you may still be worried, disturbed or unhappy because of circumstances.

Clearly, it is of great importance, therefore, to understand the interrelationship among these and other phenomena, and to approach and attempt to solve problems in a balanced way that takes these different aspects into consideration. Of course it is not easy. But it is of little benefit to try to solve one problem if doing so creates an equally serious new one. So really we have no alternative: we must develop a sense of universal responsibility not only in the geographic sense, but also in respect to the different issues that confront our planet.

Responsibility does not only lie with the leaders of our countries or with those who have been appointed or elected to do a particular job. It lies with each one of us individually. Peace, for example, starts with each one of us. When we have inner peace, we can be at peace with those around us. When our community is in a state of peace, it can share that peace with neighbouring communities, and so on. When we feel love and kindness towards others, it not only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace. And there are ways in which we can consciously work to develop feelings of love and kindness. For some of us, the most effective way to do so is through religious practice. For others it may be non-religious practices. What is important is that we each make a sincere effort to take our responsibility for each other and for the natural environment we live in seriously.

...

Let me end with a personal note of thanks to all of you and our friends who are not here today. The concern and support which you have expressed for the plight of the Tibetans have touched us all greatly, and continue to give us courage to struggle for freedom and justice: not through the use of arms, but with the powerful weapons of truth and determination. I know that I speak on behalf of all the people of Tibet when I thank you and ask you not to forget Tibet at this critical time in our country's history. We too hope to contribute to the development of a more peaceful, more humane and more beautiful world. A future free Tibet will seek to help those in need throughout the world, to protect nature, and to promote peace. I believe that our Tibetan ability to combine spiritual qualities with a realistic and practical attitude enables us to make a special contribution, in however modest a way. This is my hope and prayer.

In conclusion, let me share with you a short prayer which gives me great inspiration and determination:

For as long as space endures,
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I, too, abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

Thank you."

His words are his weapons. His existence the proof of their worth.

When he was awarded the International Freedom Award earlier this year, he gave the money back to the National Civil Rights Museum, a gesture made by earlier recipients, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. On that occasion he said, ""Every conflict should be resolved through nonviolent way," he said. Asked how it is possible to deal with totalitarian regimes, he said, "Totalitarianism itself is always changing."

Education is a key factor in creating a better world, he said, but education alone is not enough. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Dalai Lama said, Russian friends have told him how Russian textbooks need to be revised because of "too much distortion."

Asked to compare his philosophy to King's, the Dalai Lama focused on his own respect for "human value, mainly compassion and human responsibility. Your individual future depends on the rest of the community." Most problems are caused by "negative emotions -- fear, anger, jealousy," he added."

http://www.commercialappeal...

Utterances like that make us love him. It is the same reason the world loves Obama.

Today, Obama was immortalized by a sand sculptor in India. http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

On the other hand, "Africans have always had divergent views on America, Mr. Otunnu said. On the one hand, Africans idolized the United States as the land of opportunity and unimaginable wealth, the place they could hope one day to see with their own eyes, or better, to live in. They welcomed initiatives like the billions of dollars President George W. Bush spent fighting AIDS. On the other hand, the United States also evoked the dictators it had supported, and what were seen as harsh, neocolonial policies.

But with Mr. Obama in office, Mr. Otunnu said, “that changed suddenly overnight. The U.S. now has a very different meaning to Africans.”

Some of this, of course, is that Barack Obama is seen as kin. But there’s also the fact that he was an underdog in a fierce campaign and a black man elected in a white country, validation that America was indeed the land of opportunity. More than anything, his triumph served as a sharp contrast to a continent where name, class and ethnicity are still destiny, and, just in case destiny is ever interrupted, where many elections are still blatantly rigged." http://www.nytimes.com/2009...

In Europe, " Intergovernmental cooperation has not been the issue.  In fact, since Sept. 11, 2001, one could argue that there has not been such deep and broad collaboration since the period immediately after World War II.  But, this common work was driven by necessity and not respect for U.S. policy or admiration for its president.   Europeans — the political elites and everyday citizens — were almost uniform in their dissatisfaction with George Bush and with many things American.   Some might try to explain how much they really do admire the United States and its economy and culture, but they would choke on the idea of saying something positive about President Bush or any other Republican for that matter.

What a difference an election makes!  GMF’s new Transatlantic Trends survey documents an almost euphoric level of support for the leadership of Barack Obama.  In 2008, only 19% of Europeans had a favorable view of George Bush’s foreign policy; 77% have a positive view of Barack Obama’s in 2009.  Over 90% of Germans have a favorable view of the President compared, an 80 percentage-point increase over last year’s number for the then-incumbent.  Even in Turkey, the new President received 50% support when his predecessor had less than 10% last year.

The European passion for Obama surely explains the changed views on the United States throughout the continent.  For the first time in six years, a majority of Europeans have a positive view of this country.  More importantly for transatlantic cooperation, a plurality of Europeans now want their political leaders to work with the United States rather than take a more independent course, which was the dominant opinion in 2008.  And, in all countries, American leadership on international challenges is viewed much more positively than it was under the previous administration." http://blog.gmfus.org/2009/...

In South America, Obama is more popular than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela http://blogs.abcnews.com/po... and in Brazil eight politicians had their name changed to his because of his insane popularity there. http://seattletimes.nwsourc...

In the MIddle East, ""Everyone is optimistic about this man," Nasser Abu Kwaik, a barber in the West Bank town of al-Beireh, said Wednesday. "He is different, and he could be a friend to the Muslim world."

'Like a fresh breeze'

Many in Muslim countries echoed the words of one Indonesian woman, "I believe him."

"For the Islamic world," Obama's comments "are like a fresh breeze," said Ikana Mardiastuti, who works at a Jakarta research institute." http://www.newsmax.com/inte...

The fact is, Obama has made himself and his country so popular around the world that maintaining that new, warm, pro-USA environment has been called one of his biggest challenges: http://edition.cnn.com/2009...

That, perhaps more than anything, tells the story.

The truth is that the rest of the world finds it very daunting to live with a USA that ignores them and seems willing to go galumphing around the neighborhood, stepping on toes and beating up people.  When we appear more like we will not only stop that behavior, but actually come over to play in a few backyards, share a sandwich or two, and speak politely to the parents, the world practically falls all over itself with glee. As they should. A USA that is playing nice is a powerful force, indeed.

Is such a change worthy of an international prize for its author? I think so. Should this particular prize been held off for some of the fruit to ripen? Perhaps. But that's the way it is with love affairs: the lovers really LIKE losing their heads.