Peace Prize promotes promising initiative

By Rahul Rekhi     10/22/09 7:00pm

on Oct. 9, the five veritable guardians of world peace set off a bomb that continues to reverberate in every corner of the world. (Irony, it seems, is not lost on the Norwegians.)The magnitude of the surprise - nay, shock - surrounding President Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is perhaps only comparable to the aftermath of Chicago's recent Olympic faux pas. But as the rubble cleared, and the cries of "Does he deserve it?" began to flood the airways, it quickly became apparent that this time around, things would get a lot uglier. Indeed, before day's end, President Obama, unwittingly caught in the crossfire, and his resume were ripped apart by Talking Head and Average Joe alike.

The dismaying readiness of the majority, in both the media and otherwise, to question Obama's "worthiness" of such an honor has obscured the essence of the award and the rationale behind his selection. Before blindly blasting his accomplishments (or, as asserted by many, lack thereof), it is important that we take a step back and look objectively upon the decision as a whole. To do otherwise is an injustice to both the committee and the president himself.

Thus, as an analogy, consider two students: One is already a distinguished and established violinist, whereas the other has a tremendous thirst for musical acclaim, but is only on the brink of achieving his or her potential. Both, in the realm of talent, are equally brilliant. For an institution like Rice whose goal is, ideally, fostering such talent so that it may grow and flourish, might not the second student be the more logical choice? The career of the first is already on a meteoric rise; he or she would benefit little from the Rice branding or education. On the other hand, the second's future could very well depend on the decision of the admission committee.

---

---

If given the chance to expand the pool of brilliance in the field of music, why not do so?

Similarly, the other candidates will have plenty of opportunities to win the Nobel Peace Prize; indeed, many of them will go on to earn such acclaim. They are established to the point where their efforts will be rewarded by laureate status, but not augmented.

On the other hand, Obama's foreign agenda is ambitious, to say the least, and there is tremendous potential for progress over the course of the next few years. But the sheer difficulty of what he is attempting, coupled with sharp domestic resistance, makes his task nothing short of monumental. And that's an understatement.

Consider this Nobel Peace Prize an attempt to "tip the scales," per se, and give Obama the firepower he needs to tackle, say, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or the Iranian pursuit of uranium enrichment. Or a possible Russian-Georgian flare-up.

And for what it's worth, such a purpose is hardly unprecedented. Indeed, an integral reason for the creation of the Nobel Peace Prize was to encourage and promote such ongoing peace efforts, and carry them from infancy to fruition.

Of course, you might disagree with this intention, feeling that the status of Nobel Laureate be conferred only as a reward for great accomplishment. And that's a perfectly legitimate perspective. Essentially, whether you agree with that purpose or not is a separate and rationally debatable issue.

But my point is this: When people merely question what the president has done to earn the award, they miss the entire nature of the committee's selection and spark a vicious debate that, quite frankly, has little relevance to the situation. In surrendering to such knee-jerk responses, we undermine the very nature of peace itself.

Rahul Rekhi is a Sid Richardson College freshman.

---