Article
Thomas Carothers, McKenzie Carrier
{
"authors": [
"Thomas Carothers"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "DCG",
"programs": [
"Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
What Does a Nobel Do for U.S. Leaders?
The awarding of the Nobel peace prize to President Obama reflects just how strongly many Europeans felt that a rift opened up between the United States and the rest of the world during the Bush years. In their view, Obama’s global reengagement itself merits reward.
Published on Oct 9, 2009
Source: The New York Times
The prize reflects just how strongly many Europeans felt that a conflictive rift opened up between the United States and the rest of the world during the Bush years. In their view, Mr. Obama’s election and his determination to reengage globally already have done much to heal this rift and thus merit reward.
In several past cases the Nobel boost was short-lived.
This isn’t the first peace prize to look forward as much as backward. The prize to South Korean President Kim Dae Jung in 2000 came just after his historic summit with North Korea. It sought to bolster the chances that a promising but as yet only preliminary diplomatic step might pay off in terms of peace down the road.
Kofi Annan’s prize in 2001 came in the first half of his tenure as secretary general of the United Nations, possibly aiming to fortify him for what the Nobel committee expected would be hard times ahead for international peace in the aftermath of September 11.
The award to Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi in 2003 was not simply a recognition of her past accomplishments defending human rights in Iran. It aimed to boost her future efforts at a time when Iran’s reform movement was losing steam and troubling political waters clearly lay ahead.
Iran may also been on the Nobel committee’s mind this time as well. Europeans are extremely anxious for Mr. Obama’s diplomatic overture to Iran to succeed. The committee may have calculated that it will be harder domestically and internationally for Iran’s Supreme Leader and president to bite an outstretched hand if it that hand comes not just from an American president but the holder of a Nobel Peace Prize.
Yet optimism must be qualified by the record. In those past cases the Nobel boost was short-lived. Peace with North Korea remained elusive. Kofi Annan locked horns unsuccessfully with the Bush administration over the invasion of Iraq. And despite Shirin Ebadi’s continued valiant work, human rights in Iran deteriorated steadily after 2003.
About the Author
Thomas Carothers
Harvey V. Fineberg Chair for Democracy Studies; Director, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, is a leading expert on comparative democratization and international support for democracy.
- How Anger Over Corruption Keeps Driving Global Politics
- When Do Mass Protests Topple Autocrats?Commentary
Thomas Carothers, McKenzie Carrier
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
- Corrupted by Absolute PowerCommentary
In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.
Michael Young
- Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?Commentary
Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.
Angie Omar
- Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?Commentary
A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.
Michael Young
- A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With IranCommentary
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
