President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee on Friday. Being nominated for this prestigious award is one of the greatest honors one can receive, and Obama was very honored to even be nominated. This prize is given to those that have shown outstanding and exceptional abilities in creating a more peaceful world, and have dedicated much of their life to doing so. When Obama received this award, many people were very surprised, including the president himself.
Although Obama has been doing an exceptional job attempting to bring peace to our world and increase tolerance amongst other countries, he does not deserve this award. The committee based their decision on Obama’s ideas and philosophies, not on what he has actually accomplished. According to the committee, he was awarded this for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Just because he’s making an attempt to “bring the peace” doesn’t mean he should be awarded for it. If that’s the case then why didn’t someone such as Ghandi get recognized? He encouraged non-violent, peaceful demonstration in order to help India reclaim their land, and yet the Norwegian Nobel Committee never acknowledged him.
Some may argue that as long as one promotes certain peaceful ideas that can possibly lead to future change, they are “award-worthy”. This should not be what an award should be based off of. If you look at previous prize winners such as Woodrow Wilson, who created the League of Nations, or Martin Luther King Jr, the famous campaigner for civil rights, it is obvious that both spent years of hard-work and dedication in order to create a lasting peace. Obama has some great ideas that could potentially work, but if he was to be nominated for a prize, it should be near the end of his term when his ideas have actually been applied and have proven to start making some difference in the world.