Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

Nobel Prize to be awarded for specific achievements, not just good intentions.

For example, the Nobel committee in Stockholm has written is not always the literary prize for a novel?

Most Nobel laureates have worked for years, even decades, for the recognition of their work and achievements. On behalf of our Willard Boyle, who won this year's Nobel Prize in Physics has acknowledged that his team only had a breakthrough in digital photography after 40 years.

While many people around the world have expressed, of course, by U. S. President Barack Obama on important global issues through peaceful dialogue instead of unilateral actions to set promoted caution when former President George W. Bush, others can not understand how the Nobel Peace value can be after only eight months in power, in short, all that is not to mention significant achievements.

Unlike recipient of the Nobel Peace most previous

Obama need not demonstrate a significant presence, such as Martin Luther King, Andrei Sakharov, Mother Teresa, Bishop Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, Kim Dae-jung and others.

The previous Nobel laureates have spent years fighting for democracy or social justice and human rights, some, like Nelson Mandela and Kim Dae-jung to promote effectively imprisoned for years under repressive conditions.

With rare exceptions, the Nobel Peace Prize were very old

Praise concrete contributions to peace in the world.

For many, despite the important points to Obama's good intentions, the prize this year is premature to make a gesture of support for what they expect to take place during his tenure. For others, like the cynical, the granting of such differentiation by Obama is not only premature but also wrong.

Already there are those who raise some of the recent actions of Obama, serious doubts about its commitment to important issues such as terms of human rights. His decision not to preserve Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama surprised last week during the week long visit of the Dalai Lama in the United States, many Americans. Human rights activists have denounced the President's decision, calling it an appeasement policy towards China to act.

The fact that Obama told the leaders that failure to receive the Dalai Lama is based on a desire not to jeopardize negotiations with Beijing next month on the controversial nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, only angered U.S. groups human rights and members of Congress.

He described Obama as the action of a complete change from office before the election, when he and Hillary Clinton urged Bush not so much in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in protest against "China's use of the force to quell the uprising by Tibetans.

(Interestingly, despite the public meeting with the Dalai Lama last year, during the recent visit of the Dalai Lama to Canada, Stephen Harper, to receive it. And by chance apparent Foreign Minister of Canada, Lawrence Cannon, full not only of China's National Day in Ottawa, also praised China's achievements in the last 60 years have seen unprecedented participation as a fundamental change in policy on China by Harper.)

The Armenians also surprised that Obama's promise of the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during the First World War broke out describe as genocide. Many Armenians do not accept, compromising the White House explanation, based on a desire to justify his silence, not with a view to normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia. They saw it as a simple example of the unwillingness of the U.S. government, the wrath of the United States, NATO allies.

Ironically, Obama is more popular than in other countries in their own country. This could be part of the explanation of why the Nobel committee wanted to give him the Nobel Peace Prize.

In many other countries have been discouraged by the interventionist policies and unilateral actions of former President George W. George W. Bush. His decision to invade Iraq in 2003 on false grounds, not only surprised by many countries, this has caused a major split in the European Union with England and Spain supported Bush, and big countries like Germany and France, on the contrary, refusing to send troops to Iraq.

Bush's hard-line against Iran and North Korea's nuclear threat as an obstacle to the clarification of these issues are discussed.

Bush's unilateralism has been very poor in many parts of Europe. Barack Obama's willingness to take unilateral steps and actions to end, but we work closely with the United Nations and other multilateral forums, had a large positive effect, as in several countries, according to the United States and its president. His decision to have direct contacts with North Korea and Iran will be a very positive step.

But as an author who opens to write a book that deserves the Nobel Prize, Barack Obama has yet to prove that reveals his own story is worth the price.

Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is Ottawa-based commentator.