Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

I really don't want to appear as bitterly anti-Obama; I'm not. But I was blindsided when I heard on NPR this morning that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

To me, awarding a prize is a recognition of a clear and indisputable victor or champion. For instance, whomever crosses a finish line first wins the race and whomever sells the most thingamajigs wins salesman of the month. When it comes to awarding a prize for the works of peace, judgment is considerably more subjective and convoluted. According to Alfred Nobel's will, the Peace Prize would be given to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." These broad criteria can be interpreted in multifarious ways.

Let us also not forget that the Nobel Committee has not shirked away from controversy in christening its recipient. Henry Kissinger was awarded the prize for his peace negotiations with Vietnam, in spite of his role in the escalation of that conflict. Also, they have failed to ever recognize Mahatma Gandhi, citing the fact that they only award the prize to living persons. They later awarded a posthumous prize to the Secretary of the UN who died in a plane crash. I mean, they stiffed Gandhi?! Obviously consistency has no place here and favoritism is the modus operandi.

We've established that the Nobel Committee is capricious and is swayed by their personal interests, but there has got to be some measure of accomplishment, right? The three other U.S. Presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize are Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. The big-stick-carrying, rough-rider-leading T.R. won in 1906 for his role in mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Ending a war? Peace Prize worthy. Wilson, a staunch pacifist who led the U.S. to victory in WWI, won for presiding over the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and introducing the League of Nations, the forebear of the United Nations. Creating a new forum for international diplomacy (despite criticisms of the U.N.'s institutional weakness, it is a step forward)? Prize worthy. Jimmy Carter led a lackluster presidency, and was not elected to a second term. However, in the last 30 years he has championed humanitarian causes and headed Habitat for Humanity. Building dwellings for the world's poor? Prize worthy.

President Obama has set some lofty goals for himself during his campaign and his first nine months in office. He has called for increasing diplomacy and an open dialogue among nations. He has promised movement toward nuclear disarmament. He has lobbied for Israeli-Palestinian peace. What results are there to show for these efforts? Very little.

The U.S. has not entered into formal talks with Iran to deter their pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Obama has hosted talks between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but no peaceful milestones have been reached. Israel continues to encourage Jewish settlement of the West Bank. Russia is as cryptic as usual in its progress toward arms reduction, although they granted the U.S. use of its airspace for military transports to Afghanistan. Whoop-dee-doo. In return, we abandoned plans for a European missile defense shield, which has drawn sharp criticism from national defense hawks. In the off-chance Iran does acquire a long-range nuclear weapon, a missile defense installment would be a much appreciated comfort to the Europeans and ourselves.

Obama's foreign policy efforts have been far from a failure, but he has achieved very little at this point in time. The complex agenda his administration is pursuing will take many international summits and diplomatic overtures to produce concrete results. To award him the Nobel Peace Prize for "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" is premature, at best. However, the Nobel Committee admits that they utilize their prizes not just as recognition of accomplishment, but to influence to direction of international politics: "The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy." And stirred up controversy they have. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is an incentive, not an award, for President Obama to make good on his lofty promises. Let us hope, for the sake of his sanity and our country's reputation, that he follows through.

Common Since: This Nobel Peace Prize is actually a Nobel Peace Incentive. It has not been earned by merit nor tangible returns, and now President Obama must prove himself worthy after-the-fact. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.