THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRIZE

[William L Hallmark]

What was your first response when you heard the news? http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/

When the world learned that President Barack Obama had been selected to receive the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize many were surprised including Obama himself. We were immediately inundated with a variety of reactions, some downright hostile, and others suggesting that while Obama is a good person he has not yet done anything that would warrant his receiving the award. And yet, the esteemed Nobel selection committee obviously thinks he is worthy, and several admired prior Nobel Prize winners think the committee made an excellent choice.


How explain such diversity of opinion? The cause should be familiar to all of us in Beyond War: Different conclusions are generated by different mental models. Transitioning from a war mentality to a peace mentality is a process. If our mental model envisions a central casting scenario where peacemakers rush in to put out fires and restore order, or stand up in the face of ongoing violence, then we might readily conclude Obama has done little. But if our mental model is that peace is carefully and strategically built by creating a positive climate where problems can be addressed without the use of violence, then President Obama, both before he became President and since, has done a very great deal. It is clear that the Nobel selection committee focused on the latter approach when it chose Obama because of his dramatic diplomacy in bringing about an international approach focused on working together to solve problems.


While all types of peacemakers are necessary to bring about an end to war, surprise that Obama has been chosen and opinions that he has not done anything yet are very revealing. It is difficult to appreciate the measured, steady process of building a culture in which peace may blossom. It is easy to find glory in short term fixes to crisis. We in Beyond War are committed to activate a culture of consciousness to bring about an end to war in this century. That commitment entails both short term strategy and the long term process of changing the entrenched obsolete areas of the culture. The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama calls special attention to the significance of the long term approach. We rejoice and honor the Nobel selection committee for calling this vital aspect of peace making to the attention of the world. And we rejoice and honor President Obama for his inspiring promotion and modeling of sanity in a violent world.

[Janet Williams]

Well said! Obama has demonstrated the capacity to listen and show respect to others which helps set the stage for better communication and peace. He deserves the prize!

Janet Williams

[Debbie Kaufman]

Well-written, Bill! I had a similar response to the news. To me, the important message from the committee was their validation that Obama is on the right track - and that we should support him and respond to the call to action. This event provides us with an opening to engage others in dialogue about building peace.

[Melissa Ruhl]

I was among those with a negative reaction or, should I say, a reaction of surprise. I appreciated your blog post and I think you are right in some ways. However, Obama has also actively gone against peace. He has stuck to Bush's ambiguous plan for slow and never complete withdraw from Iraq. Only recently has he even slightly hinted at non-military solutions as central to the war in Afghanistan. During his administration, we have continued to kill civilians in Pakistan. Finally, he has almost completely gone back on his ideals of negotiating with Iran without precondition.

These are just naming the most obvious and most overt violence acts committed in his name and with his open consent. For me, it's not necessarily a question of mental model, but of concrete action history.

I hope that the prize will encourage Obama to continue in the direction of his campaign and discontinue the direction of his presidency thus far.

[William L Hallmark]

It is true that the Nobel selection committee does not expect its recipients to be free of sin. Looking back at past winners we see that many have used violence. My guess is that the committee thinks it more important to reward right-behavior than to punish the use of violence which so permeates our society. Thus, in announcing their decision they focused on what the President has done right rather than what he has done wrong.

[Leonora]

You make a salient point, Bill. It is important to "Keep our eyes on the prize" - MLK knew that to focus on "sin" as you said, keeps one locked in the past. The saving grace about the future is we have the opportunity every minute to build it new, to do it better, if we can sustain that forward focus and not get sucked back in time into the muck of mistakes. To reward right-behavior is to feed what it is you want to grow moving ahead. It looks to me as though the Nobel committee knows what its doing.