Urdu Times

WASHINGTON — The gold medallion given to recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t come with a ribbon, but the award could end up being a weight around President Obama’s neck.

Intended to honor how Obama has altered the United States’ diplomatic direction, the award is likely to call attention to how much of the administration’s agenda — including closing the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison and winding down the war in Iraq — remains undone.

The prize also poses political risks for a president routinely depicted by Republicans as more focused on seeking international approval than defending the security interests of the United States.

That criticism could be compounded if Obama rejects the military’s request for an additional 40,000 troops in Afghanistan. Obama recently has struggled over how to proceed in that conflict. Just hours after learning he had won the award, he met with senior members of his war Cabinet.

Mindful of such perils, the president sought to downplay the significance of his Nobel, describing it as a “means to give momentum” to causes others also embrace. He also said: “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve” it.

The award undoubtedly carries benefits. Democrats basked in the latest accolade bestowed on their party’s brightest star. And winning the Nobel might strengthen Obama’s diplomatic hand as he enters negotiations with North Korea and Iran.

“We think that this gives us a sense of momentum when the United (States) has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, recalling the reception former President George W. Bush got last year in Baghdad.

But some in Obama’s own party saw dangers. Illustrating concern the award might fuel criticism that Obama is too accommodating, the Democratic National Committee issued a news release designed to show the president is still reviled by America’s foes.

It showcased comments from the Taliban condemning the award as “unjust” and from Hamas calling it “too early.” If Obama failed to make headway on his agenda, some Democrats said, the award also could come to be seen as the equivalent of the “Mission Accomplished” banner that dogged Bush.

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist, said the prize would have little political impact if Obama reignited the economy. But if the job market remained sour, he expected to see the Nobel medallion featured prominently in GOP attack ads with such lines as: “He got a Nobel Prize. What did you get? A pink slip.”

“Either the economy is going and this won’t matter, or this will be another tool in the Republicans’ arsenal to accuse the president of not doing enough,” Trippi said.

In announcing the prize, the Nobel panel credited Obama with creating “a new climate in international politics” and said that, through his efforts, “multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position” in world affairs.

That language was cited by Republicans as proof that politics had guided the decision and that the Nobel Committee couldn’t resist a belated rebuke to Bush.

“I think the Nobel Committee couldn’t vote in our election in 2008, so they decided to vote this year,” said John Bolton, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under Bush. “It’s high-minded Europeans talking down to hayseed Americans, saying this is the way you ought to be.”

The last sitting presidents to win the award did so on the heels of major diplomatic accomplishments, Bolton said. Theodore Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese war, and Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the creation of the League of Nations.

Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, defended the decision.

“The question we have to ask is, ‘Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world?’ ” Jagland said. “Who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Since taking office, Obama has embarked on an ambitious diplomatic agenda. While touching down in 16 countries, he reached out to Muslims with a historic speech in Cairo, Egypt; pledged to pursue a nuclear-weapon-free world; and renewed the push for Middle East peace.

The Nobel committee cited those efforts as among the reasons he deserved the prize. Republicans are citing those same initiatives as they build a campaign-year dossier that argues Obama too often apologizes for U.S. power.

Two potential 2012 challengers, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, have delivered multiple speeches in recent weeks focusing on Obama’s foreign policy and criticizing him for what they call appeasement.

In September, the White House scrapped a missile-defense system that had been touted by Bush as key to protecting Europe from nuclear attack. The move pleased Russia, which regarded the missiles as a threat. But critics said it sacrificed security against the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

More significant, Obama also opened dialogue with Iran after decades of diplomatic stalemate, betting that talks rather than threats might persuade the government to abandon its nuclear activities.

Iran appeared to make some concessions in preliminary talks in Geneva. After being confronted with evidence it was building a hidden nuclear compound, Iran pledged to allow inspections at the site and to export its enriched uranium.

Obama described the outcome as a “constructive beginning.” But as with most of the administration’s foreign-policy initiatives, the prospects for achieving lasting progress remain unclear.

In other areas, the administration has struggled to deliver on pledges that were central to the presidential campaign. This week, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged the administration was unlikely to meet its January deadline for closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay.

More problematic is the confusion surrounding the administration’s policy on Afghanistan, where the security situation has deteriorated rapidly and the Taliban control large swaths of territory.

After unveiling a “comprehensive” strategy for the region in March, Obama seems to be second-guessing that decision, caught between his hand-picked general’s request for more troops and growing opposition from his own party to any plan that would expand the war that began in 2001.

Just hours after being awakened with the news he had won the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama again assembled the members of his war Cabinet at the White House to weigh Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s call for 40,000 more U.S. troops.

Summing up the day, the libertarian Cato Institute issued a news release with a pointed title: “For Obama, peace in the morning, war in the afternoon.”

By Greg Miller

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010036063_nobelassess10.html