I am writing from Heidelberg at the end of a visit to Paris and Germany.  The different responses to the Nobel award shed some light on what may be the reaction when it dawns on people that Obama is not the long awaited American messiah.  The French reaction was the classic Gallic shrug - that expressive gesture that conveys indifference, bemusement, resignation or, occasionally, ´that´s nice but who cares.´  The Germans, by contrast, see a confirmation that Obama indeed could be the incarnation of all the American virtues.  Their already high hopes have been further uplifted.

Obviously, the inevitable letdown will be more pronounced in Germany than in France.  In both countries, there remains a tendency to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.  An example from Paris.  Back in June, there was a high profile meeting that featured four Middle East experts.  They were nearly unanimous in expecting the White House to press the Israelis very hard and in predicting success for the effort.  In October, one of the speakers explained the manifest failure in terms of Obama´s ´capture´by the Washington culture.  So much for ingrained French skepticism.

My correspondence with the Middle East suggests that there is less disillusionment there for the simple reason that they were far less inclined to take Obama at his rhetorical word.   Belief in messiahs may be universal; but the annointing in any particular one is culturally determined.

As to the Norwegian Nobel committee´s thinking, one interpretation is that it was equal parts Kant and Machiavelli.  That is to say, a conviction that peace through reasoned preference for enlightened self-interest along with an attempt to put pressure on Obama to live up to his high-flown words.  Hope in Barack Obama springs eternal.  Maybe, we'll also get an end to wholesale electronic surveillance and the 'public option' in the bargain.

cheers

Collapse

One area where President Obama is nearly certain to disappoint some aspects of his international fan club relates to the boarder security apparatus created since 9/11 to vet international travelers coming to the United States. If you think of the vast array of programs meant to vet prospective travelers against terrorist and other watchlists – programs as varied as mandatory visa interviews and fingerprinting, visa Security Advisory Opinions, ESTA, pre-flight APIS, PNR, US-VISIT, NSEERS, SEVIS, Global Entry, etc – the odds are slim that this Administration is going to dismantle much of this security layering. The U.S. has faced an avalanche of criticism for making it too hard, too intrusive, and too expensive to come to the U.S. These complaints have come disproportionally from foreign elites who are often not happy with facing visa interviews with skeptical consular officials, fingerprinting at U.S. airports, and having personal information shared with law enforcement. It’s likely that at least some of the difficulties within the International Olympic Committee’s vote on the Chicago 2016 bid were due to these perceptions. However, it’s still unlikely that the new Administration will weaken these programs. So long as the FBI and DHS can credibly argue that these programs can detect would-be terrorists, any tinkering will be around the edges. So we might see more trusted traveler programs, more flexibility on visa re-interviews, and a new travel promotion campaign, international observers expecting wholesale changes are likely to be disappointed.

Collapse

Sydney Freedberg raises a great point. Are there issues where the pressure of the Nobel or more accurately the pressure to be successful put US interests in jeopardy?  I think the answer is yes and we’ve already seen some examples of that in the arms control arena. There is a story out this week that the administration has rushed to agree to give the Russians unprecedented access to US nuclear facilities. That’s a problem. While the description reported in the press of what has been agreed to is way too vague to know whether there would be a significant security risk; what we know for sure is that the administration is dead wrong in how its approaching verification and transparency issues. These should be negotiated as a protocol to the existing Moscow Treaty and not negotiated through a START follow-on treaty (which requires unrealistic deadlines for signature, ratification and entry into force before the December 5th expiration of START). Pushing for agreements in a slap-dash fashion risks getting really complex negotiations wrong.

Furthermore, before agreeing to new verification and transparency measures the administration should address the fact that Russia has violated the existing such measures under START in multiple ways and on numerous occasions (catalogued in the August 2005 report “Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments” released by the Department of State).  It makes no sense to give new concessions when the Russians are not playing by the existing rules.

The administration's unrealistic rush to negotiate new arms control agreements should give us all pause to ask what is going on here. What is the goal? Deliver on promise to negotiate or keep America safe?

Collapse

What will Obama have to do in America's national interest that will disappoint Europe?  What if we flip that question around?  Europe sees Iran as a market as much as a threat--that's going to cause quite a bit of tension.  Europe, unlike America, does not have the world's reserve currency--and so they can't print money and go into deep debt without immediate consequences (neither can America, of course--something we are going to find out soon enough).  So they have to make tough choices on what to spend.  One thing on the chopping block is going to be defense--meaning they won't be able to assist in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, even if they want to.  Which they often don't, because another tension is Europe's belief that it can spread peace by spreading its EU model of integration worldwide, region by region - and its elites' lack of belief in the efficacy of force. 

Meanwhile, Europe has its own internal splits.  That missile defense shield in Poland the Czech Republic was wanted by their politicians, but disliked by most of the people of these states -- making any move America took the wrong one in someone's eyes.  British elites hate the death penalty and don't want to send terrorists to American courts--the British public supports it.  And so on.  France's Sarkozy tends to be pro-American, anti-terrorist, and abundantly secular--the growing Muslim population of France hardly shares these views.  When we as pundits look at rifts with Europe, it's important to think carefully about who we are talking about.  These countries have deep internal divisions that often rival our own.

Collapse

It may not be where the US asserts its interests that most disappoints people; rather, it's possible that a failure to meet expectations for specific policy actions that have been previously telegraphed--if not explicitly promised--is what occurs instead.  Sins of omission rather than commission within an environment of raised expectations.  Specifically, much of Latin America assumes that US policy toward the region will now be predicated on the basis of "what's good for Latin America is good for the United States," in part because that's how we ourselves have defined the policy.  The region is looking for steps to reduce poverty ($$), reform immigration, change counter-narcotics strategy, reduce farm subsidies while also opening markets, pass pending trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, take a new approach to Cuba, etc.  The reality, however, is that these changes require congressional actions and unless the White House really pushes this agenda with Congress, in addition to everything else, it's difficult to imagine concrete results.  The tone of policy is different, no doubt, and that has bought much temporary goodwill from the region.  That's a real and important beginning.  Soon, concrete actions will also be required.  The trick will be to advance at least some of the agenda items before the rest of the hemisphere loses patience and moves on.   

Collapse

I have been terribly busy and unable to post here on this, but we have had a lively discussion on "Sic Semper Tyrannis" on this subject.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2009/10/the-nobel-committee-and-obama-1.html

There's a clear consensus so far that the Nobel raises expectations for Obama in ways that are, at the very least, unhelpful. Dov Zakheim in particular argues that although Obama has pleased the Nobel committee and the international audience with fine words and inclusive gestures, there will be a time “when bitter reality sinks in,” and Washington will have to pursue its own interests and sacrifice some of the promises on human rights, democracy, and international cooperation that so give people hope. When that happens, Zakheim wrote, “popular resentment against the United States could rise to fever pitch."
So I'd like to ask our contributors -- both those who've posted already and those who haven't -- a follow-up question:
Where is Obama most likely to assert American national interests in a way that disappoints, or even infuriates, the same international audiences now applauding the Nobel committee's coronation of him as a multilateralist apostle of peace? Will it be escalation in Afghanistan, a renewed break between the US and Europe over Iran, or some other arena altogether?

I agree with those who argue that the award simply creates more problems for a President that has enough of them on his plate. Because he is such a powerful, articulate and compelling speaker, the President has already created unrealistic expectations of what he might accomplish. HIs visions are not reality, however, despite the fervent hopes of his admirers around the world. By awarding him the Nobel Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee hasadded to his lustre, but has made not the slightest difference in termsof his ability to accomplish anything.

The risk of negative consequences arising from dashed hopes is greatest in the Middle East. By reaching out to the Muslim world, President Obama unleashed pent-up aspirations of a sharp change in the course of American policy,  vis a vis Israel and the Peace Process as well as with respect to the democratization of the Arab world. Yet, in practice, the Administration has found that Israel has a way of sidestepping direct clashes with Washington while pursuing its own interests. By seeking to confront Israel head-on, the Administration has in fact made it harder to deal with Jerusalem. The lesson that confrontation with Israel simply does not achieve any practical results is one that successive Administrations always seem to have to relearn. And it is a lesson that supporters of the Palestinians have never absorbed. Awarding President Obama the Peace Prize will make it even harder for them to absorb it.

Similarly, the hopes that the new Administration generated in terms of pursuing a human rights and democratization agenda, in the MIddle East, and indeed elsewhere, have not been nourished by any real progress. But the Nobel Prize will ratchet up those hopes even further. When bitter reality sinks in, that Washington has, to praphrase the Secretary of State, other priorities, popular resentment against the United States could rise to fever pitch, particularly in the Middle East, and especially if the Peace Process has not come unstuck.

I do not see how the President can decline the Prize; he does not want to be lumped with Le Duc Tho. But he surely cannot be happy with it either. It is an albatross that he knows will remain around his neck for some time to come.  

Collapse

For what it is worth, I believe Obama receiving the Nobel Prize is very important because it shows all Americans the depth of anti-Americanism in Europe, as well as the lethally Pollyanish belief of much of the Western world's elite in the power of words unmatched by deeds.

Obama has done as much to weaken U.S. national security and domestic cohesion as any one in recent memory. From telling Americans that we are no longer at war with Islamists, to dismantling the capture-interrogate-incarcerate system that offered America a modicum of effective defense against the Islamists, to marooning a too-small army in Afghanistan, to pushing us ever closer to bankruptcy, to keeping America in Israel's thrall vis war with Iran, to postponing doing anything about border control for yet another year, to deliberately doing more to restoke the culture war in the United States than even Rush Limbaugh, to blaming Americans for the narco-terror war in Mexico and preparing to move against the 2nd Amendment, to promising the Muslim world at Cairo things he cannot possibly deliver, Obama has weakened America domestically and internationally -- and the Nobelistas and the Europeans absolutely love it.  There is no end of praise and honors that an American president can earn from our friends and allies in Europe if he just strips away the ability of Americans to defend their country, history, traditions, and sovereignty.

Collapse

When it comes to this issue, as the famous saying goes, all that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it.  So, here's my view.  As an American, I'm proud our president has received the award, mindful that it raises expectations still further, and hopeful that it proves to be an asset rather than a liability for the President in the promotion of US national interests in the conduct of global affairs.  Having said that, it certainly has been a political distraction, which can't have been the intended effect of the Nobel Committee.  One hopes that all the dust that's been kicked up proves to be short-lived as the President and the country return to focus on the issues at hand and simply move on.    

The Labors of Obama-celes

The award committee did not do the president any favors. 

First, really, who wants an award where the first question at the press conference is “do you think you really you deserve this?” It is huge distraction for the White House as they try to make hard decisions on Afghanistan and deal with a plethora of domestic issues.

Second, I think they make the president’s sale job overseas tougher. Basically, the committee knighted him for his willingness to negotiate and cooperate. But, cooperation is a two-sided coin and the decision may have the perverse effect of actually weakening the president’s negotiating position…because the other side can simply say, “if you want a deal, if you want to look like you earned that reward, the price just went up.” The irony is the committee just may have made the cause of peace harder, not easier.

Let’s face it, at the end of the day at the negotiating table, the Nobel Prize is just a paper weight.

I fear much ado about the Nobel Prize is making it harder not easier for the president to be presidential.

So, I am sitting in Paris last week with the wife on our 25th anniversary trip.  As usual when I travel abroad, the dollar is collapsing and the price of the local currency is rising.  And, of course, the Parisians are being their usual selves -- New Yorkers without the charm and more cigarette smoke. 

Then, I see on French television that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  This made my trip.  Nothing like watching the ever sanctimonious and utterly phlegmatic French commentators stutter and fumble for a reaction -- mostly, as American icon Homer Simpson would say, "d'oh."

I will not speak to the merits of the award nor the committee's motivations.  That is for others to fuss about.  The award has been given.  The third American President to receive this award is Barack Obama.  QED.

However, I believe this award for Obama is like getting on the cover of Sports Illustrated -- a true curse of which I would not wish on anyone.  It is an unfair burden for a very new President.  Domestically, it confirms the feelings of the right about his "weak" policies pleasing the ever perfidious Europeans.  On the left, health care is more important. Internationally, however, is another for more serious matter.

First of all, it simply lays the predicate for every tinpot dictator out there to take on the Nobel Prize winner.  Castro, Chavez -- you name it.  Every move the Administration makes to push these guys back in their holes will be a PR coup with them dismissing the Nobel Prize winner as simply another imperialist duplicitously violating the spirit of the prize.

Second, and this is the real problem, the more serious dictators/terrorists such as Kim, Ahmedinejad, and Bin Laden, have even greater incentive make sure either nothing happens in any of the Obama initiatives or something evil happens to the U.S. on Obama's watch. 

And, finally, I also wonder whether some of our erstwhile allies, like Putin, will do anything but fold their arms and smile at the Nobel Prize winner.  Interested in seeing the results of the Nobel wunderkind efforts while they stay on the sidelines.

So thanks to those five guys in Oslo who gave this award.  If there was a Nobel Prize for premature and potentially problem laden awards, they won.  Let's hope they would end up on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

Collapse

The Nobel committee's decision does raise expectations in an unhelpful way.  I suspect that the President himself, while honored by the award, would have preferred a different outcome last week.  At the same time, the Nobel award starkly highlights the global realization that the world is a much more dangerous place when the United States of America ceases to take a multilateral approach as a first -- not the only, merely the first -- public policy option.  Our departure from that tradition over the past seven years has weakened US stature and our ability to positively impact outcomes internationally.  This Nobel Prize was less for President Obama or anything that he has achieved (or not yet achieved), and more for the return of the United States to multilateral diplomacy.