All of us who travel abroad are receptors for the world’s view of the United States. And we soon learn that the United States occupies a unique and difficult position in the world psyche. Whatever the economic malfeasances of our country, and whatever the burden of being branded a super power, we stand for something larger than any other nation. For all our faults, we remain that beacon of enlightenment, that distant shining light that arms hope and attracts wariness.
Over the last decade the editors of this magazine have heard from words spoken in many tongues that the United States had become insensitive-to say the least-to the complications of the world. That not only did we practice what was euphemistically called a “unilateral” foreign policy but that we seemed unheeding of the cultural and social loyalties of other lands. Most of all, it seemed, we failed to understand that not everybody wants to live as we do, as admirable as our lives may seem to us.
The real point was that our power to inspire the hopes of millions did not reside in the attractions of our material well-being or military muscle but in our commitment to being a true leader of world citizenship, in all its shades and beliefs and, particularly, in our commitment to social harmony and stewardship of the planet itself.
If we travelers learned one thing, ahead of many of our politicians, it was that power is defined by what you cannot do, not by what you can do.
Thus it is today that I celebrate the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who- it seems to me-was, long before he became President, a true receptor of other people’s views and a true observer of other people’s lives and struggles. Travel is a great educator. And our President is an educated traveler.
While it's easy to agree that Obama is an educated traveler, this article fails to acknowledge that, while refreshing America's image abroad is welcomed—and indeed effective diplomacy—it's got nothing to do with efforts to combat turmoil with peace. Since when has something so passive as restoring a dilapidated reputation outweigh active strives to supplement tumult with harmony? Sure, Obama reversed Bush's Eastern Euro missile shield policy—still a defense pursuit that is furtively being continued in the northern reaches of Japan. And, yes, he's been pushing for talks amongst Palestinians and Israelis, but that conflict has scoffed at even the best intentions, and more productive efforts and results than Obama has to show.
Alfred Nobel's will states that a portion of the award be bestowed to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." Obama's progress should be applauded, and his legitimate shortcomings thus far scrutinized. But given his success in the early states of his presidency, it seems there were more deserving candidates--ones who's strives to better this world by mitigating, within reason, a more targeted societal ailment would have benefited much more from the praise and press than a president who's good will is front page news merely because of the job he holds...and that his last name is not Bush.
Calling for nuclear disarmament is much different than actually accomplishing it; extending olive branches to foes like Iran is only a first step. Fomenting peace requires more than being a "true observer of other people’s lives and struggle." At some point, action is needed. And until he does something concrete, basing your celebration of his award on the merits of how warm and fuzzy he's made the world feel will convince nobody to join your party.
(Full disclosure: I voted for the President and support him when appropriate. But there are hundreds of folks out there who have done more meaningful work typifying the ideals the Nobel Peace Prize is intended to applaud.)