Friday, the Nobel Prize Committee announced the 2009 winner of its Peace Prize:  President Barack Obama.  I agree with virtually all Republicans and a lot of Democrats as well that this award is, to say the least, premature.  Barack Obama has accomplished very little in his life besides being elected President of the U.S.  It's not that that's such a small achievement, and yet, by comparison to many other winners, it really doesn't amount to much.

Past winners have included such notable humanitarians as Mother Theresa, Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela, as well as numerous Middle Eastern statesmen who have worked hard to advance the peace process.  It has even been awarded to activists who have committed their lives to try to end the threat of nuclear weapons and the global holocaust that would result from their usage.  Of course, there have been the occasional joke recipients, such as Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and, of course, that noted peace activist, Yasser, Arafat.  I'm afraid that Obama's award falls closer to the latter group falls closer to that latter group than to the former.

Naturally, the Nobel Committee had its own take on this, citing "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."  Of course, there are some cynics who say that such actions such as his decision to cancel the Eastern European missile defense system have actually made war more rather that less likely.  Those same people speculate that Obama's award is due more to the fact that he simply isn't George W. Bush than any other reason. 

But I'm not a cynic.  I think that the Committee sincerely does have what it considers good reasons to present Obama this award.  Europeans are continually trying to project their values onto our country, because they think we should be inclined to adopt a socialist, or at least democratic socialist, economy like theirs.  On the other hand, because we're haven't done that, we're much more prosperous and overall successful than they are, which is an embarrassment to them. If socialism is so great, after all, why is our per capita GNP so much higher than theirs?  Why is our standard of living so much better?

Europeans therefore try to build the credibility of anyone they think might move us in the direction they'd like to see us go, and the Nobel Committee sometimes uses their prizes to lend such credibility.  This award was probably a part of that process, and it isn't the first time it's happened.  Another example of the same process was when they awarded Paul Krugman the Nobel in Economics last year. 

Krugman did some interesting and useful work in international trade in the 1970s, but it was hardly prizeworthy.  Furthermore, his analyses of our economic system that he frequently writes in his N.Y. Times column is consistently wrong, which demonstrates that he really doesn't understand the fundamentals of economics.  On the other hand, he's one of those leftists who wants us to become more like Europe, so they awarded a "prestigious" prize to him to boost his credibility with the common man.  Unfortunately for them, the common American understands much more about what it takes to be successful than the common European, so it hasn't helped him all that much. 

I've commented on Krugman's failings before, and I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to do so again.  Meantime, Americans should be wary of any politician or policy analyst embraced by the European community.  They don't have our best interests at heart.