Pushing for peace?

It's evident that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee this time focused on making a contribution towards what everybody wants: peace in this troubled world. How could it otherwise have settled for President Barack Obama, a man who so far has succeeded in very little as far as de facto peacemaking is concerned?

This brilliant orator from Illinois may certainly grow to become one of the truly great presidents of his country. Then it'll be the right time to reward him for his achievements and not only for his aspirations and ability to sway crowds. Then it'll be the right time to pass jugdment on the fruits of his policies and not just on his suave media appearances. His style of leadership certainly appeals far more to Europeans than was the case with his predecessor, but still I've got this lingering doubt: the stakes are staggering. His opponents are not just a haggard band of disturbers of the peace, but chillingly well organized fanatics hell-bent on creating havoc and misery.

It'll be a steep climb for Nobel laureate Obama, one he may well have to abandon to resort to gun-toting instead of carrying a bundle of the white flags of more subtle diplomacy. For the sake of the world, I hope and pray that his efforts, in collaboration with other government heads of good will, may pay off in genuine peace, and not just a superficial, temporary halt to hostilities. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the UK in 1938, was convinced he had secured world peace after concluding negotiations with herr Hitler in Munich. His hopes proved as desperately vain as the secularist credo of peace among men if only basic needs are met.

One more thought: it'll serve the Nobel Peace Committe well if its members in the future concentrate on awarding people and organizations that have actually delivered the goods and not only the ideals or intentions. I don't reward my children for their ambition to clean their rooms. I praise them when they've tidied up the mess around them.