US President Barack Obama is certainly a surprise choice for winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, not least because he has been in office for only ten months. Without wanting to be drawn into any US partisan debates, I think it is fair to say that during this period, it is questionable if he has actually achieved anything tangible on the world stage. I would imagine that even many Obama fans would agree.

The prize committee attributed its decision to Obama’s ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’, and his vision of a ‘world without nuclear weapons’. It noted that only very rarely had a person captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.

In other words, the Nobel committee has awarded the prize largely on expectations rather than achievement. This rarely happens, and will be controversial to say the least.

To some degree, winning the Nobel Peace Prize might actually make it harder for Obama to act against any perceived threats to peace, because any ‘aggressive’ moves he takes now in Afghanistan (or even against Iran) could immediately discredit him as a peacemaker. In theory, Obama could now be under greater pressure to act as a ‘man of peace’. Alternatively, if he chooses to escalate the war in Afghanistan (as seems likely) or attack Iran or another foe, would the Nobel committee retract the prize?

Of course, there is the issue of how peace is achieved. I am reminded of two Roman sayings:

‘If you want peace, prepare for war’

‘They create a wasteland and they call it peace’

The first phrase could be interpreted to mean that Obama must in fact build up America’s military, at least in the regions that are at risk of conflict. However, this would be seen as a provocative and war-like move, and would lead to anti-war protests.

The second phrase could apply if Obama ordered an attack on Iran, eliminating its nuclear programme, and carrying out substantial damage to the country’s infrastructure. That might create ‘peace’ in some minds, but I doubt if that is what the Nobel committee has in mind.

Overall, this is a very risky move by the Nobel committee, one that could easily discredit the prize itself. Even if Obama were to meet their expectations, why rush in handing him a prize? Why not wait until 2012 or 2016, towards the end of his presidency?

Ultimately, no matter how good Obama’s intentions may be, he should be judged by his achievements.