The world is abuzz about Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded this morning.  Even those who support Obama recognize that the award has come pretty early in the game, before we’ve seen many concrete results.  The Nobel committee admitted as much in its explanation of why it gave the prize to Obama:

In response to questions from reporters in Oslo, who noted that Obama so far has made little concrete progress in achieving his lofty agenda, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said he hoped the prize would add momentum to Obama’s efforts. At the same time, Jagland said, “We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do.”

Jagland specifically cited Obama’s speech about Islam in Cairo last spring, as well as efforts to address nuclear proliferation and climate change and use established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue his goals. The committee — made up of luminaries selected by the Norwegian government — noted a profound shift in American policy and said Obama had “created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”

I think the most disappointing part about this whole thing is what it says about the prospect of peace in our world.  If we’re handing out awards to people who have merely expressed a willingness to engage the international community (rather than actually doing anything of substance on the international sphere), we’ve essentially conceded that the chances of anyone doing anything that will advance peace in any tangible sense is hopeless.  The Obama Nobel is essentially an award of “A for effort,” because no one else even seems to be trying.

By the way, I hope to work towards a new approach to economics that allows for economic redistribution while entirely avoiding inefficiencies.  I’ll take my Nobel Prize in Economics now.

Update:  I never thought I’d link to him, but here it is: David Bernstein’s “Top Ten Reasons Why Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize“.

Update Again:  The Economist explains how the Prize has been given out for aspirational reasons before, but agrees with me that the award should go back to its original premise: rewarding people who have actually (already) helped acheive peace.