Barack Obama is the fourth American president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and the 20th American to be presented with that award. Maybe the Swedes and Norwegians have made a mistake. Let us see why.

Before Obama, presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter made the trip to Stockholm -- in 1906, 1919 and 2002, respectively. Roosevelt, who believed that war was an activity for noble gentlemen that brought out the best virtues of mankind, was distinguished for his mediation in the accord that ended the Russo-Japanese War. Wilson was rewarded for his support for the Treaty of Versailles, which sealed the end of World War I and created the conditions for World War II. Carter was recognized, many years after his departure from Washington, for the contributions made by the center that bears his name to the peaceful solution of conflicts and the relief of the suffering of destitute persons.

Why have the Scandinavians given the Nobel Prize to Obama?

In reality, they have not honored him for his deeds -- as yet very limited -- but for his intentions, and for certain symptoms that indicate what is his vision of the U.S. role in the international sphere, something that apparently agrees with the objectives of the jury that selected him. Noted are his repeated messages of appeasement to the Arabs; his lukewarm support for Israel; his decision to accelerate the troop withdrawal from Iraq (and, if possible, from Afghanistan); the discreet conversations with the Cuban dictatorship; the cancellation of the project to install anti-missile radar sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, a gesture that instantly improved relations with Russia, and the rest of the signals that indicate that we are in the presence of a pragmatic president who is convinced that he was elected to substantially reduce his country's weight in international affairs.

Actually, Obama represents one of the two tendencies that, since the late 18th century, argue over the mission of the United States in history: the pragmatists and the idealists. George Washington may have been the first of the pragmatists.

He firmly held to an isolationist view that preached a distancing from international conflicts. The U.S. Neutrality Law (a betrayal of the nation's old French allies) was promulgated in 1794, during his presidency, and was modified several times throughout history to adapt it to the changing international situations.

For example, in 1935, when the drums of the approaching conflagration sounded, Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed anew the nation's neutrality, which didn't save the United States in 1941 from the attack on Pearl Harbor and its inevitable entrance into World War II. Diplomacy, an old book by Henry Kissinger (a consummate pragmatist who makes no concessions to principles), explains those two positions very well.

In contrast, idealists believe that the United States, because of its specific weight in the world and its condition as a grand bastion of freedom, democracy and progress, has a moral obligation to carry out the civilizable mission to defend those values and struggle against tyranny and backwardness. If in the 20th century Richard Nixon and Obama are the patron saints of pragmatism, perhaps Teddy Roosevelt and George W. Bush are the patron saints of idealism.

To discuss these two positions may be useless. Reality prevents the occupant of the White House from evading responsibilities that are terribly unpleasant. Franklin Roosevelt, despite his instincts, spent his final days presiding over the greatest war effort in history. George H.W. Bush, who was closer to pragmatism than to idealism, had to invade Panama and deal with Gulf War I.

That's how it always happens. Obama, surely much to his sorrow, even with the Nobel medal on his desk, will be unable to dodge the dangers of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons obtained with the complicity of Hugo Chávez. And he won't be able to leave Israel unprotected in the event of a new military conflict, because, paradoxically, such a gesture may set the entire region in flames and raise the price of a barrel of crude to $500.

Once Obama, forced by circumstances, finds himself forced to resort to force or threats, the Nobel Peace Committee will wonder if it did well to reward him. Then it will realize that, in its haste, it made a mistake: You reward deeds, not intentions.

(C)2009 Firmas Press

Join the discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.repliedToText@

@Nyx.replyAnswerText@

Reply to this Comment @Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@