Becoming a peacemaker has never been easier - or has it?

“Subjective award awarded subjectively” (Fawaz Khan) was one way to look at US President Barack Obama winning the 2009 Nobel peace prize.

After an initial and impulsive outcry questioning the reasoning behind the award, a more patient analysis revealed the following:

I question Obama’s actual achievements to qualify for the prize. The world is not used to the label of ‘peacemaker’ being handed out for aspirations rather than achievement. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever "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." Whilst sounding lofty and noble at first glimpse, it is quite a vague criterion of assessment. How did microcredit contribute towards “the abolition or reduction of standing armies” for example?

He made grand gestures like quoting from the Quraan, greeting audiences in Arabic as his speech in Cairo showed and promised to ‘extend a hand’ to previously dismissed nations. His speeches till now have been lofty, rhetorical, captive and quite inspirational - an exhibition of his personal charisma. But so far, they have been words and not actions. Yes, those speeches matter and I don't aim to belittle them. For a leader of any Western country to reach out and admit mistake, even if it is in words, is an achievement in itself. If anything, US presidential addresses have once again become engaging rather than the vulgar, dry, cowboy-esque monologue we have been accustomed to for the majority of this decade. After all, much of modern diplomacy is conducted based on signals such as speeches. My point has always been that if those speeches are accompanied by action, there probably is not more deserved candidate for the peace prize. The reason for the pessimism I suppose is because Obama hasn't had enough time to translate words into action.

He has agreed to direct talks with Iran, appeared open to the idea of bilateral talks with North Korean, dismantled plans for a US missile-defence system in Eastern Europe, chaired a nuclear non-proliferation committee at the UN, pushed for climate change and hosted an Iftar (breakfast) during the Muslim month of Ramadan. These are positive, constructive and inspirational initial steps towards a more peaceful world. The mood has certainly improved in the world but as the Lebanese sometimes put it: this might be a “morphine” shot (in other words, temporary).

This may be a gesture that adds credibility to Obama's presidency. Indeed it does raise expectations of him even higher than the fact that he has Muslim ancestry and is black. He might be a scapegoat in a grander objective. Stop me for now I'm getting philosophical.

"It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve" and "it is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done”, said Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland.

In retrospect, this is enough justification for a subjective award if ever it needed one; it is an innovative criterion. The winner may be forgotten tomorrow. But if the award is a catalyst towards peace then I have no qualms about its winner this year.