There has been much controversy about Barack Obama being awarded Nobel peace Prize for 2009. It is indeed intriguing that President of United States of America who is sending more troops and is engaging in a war in Afghanistan should be declared as an ambassador of global peace.

Interestingly Obama even maintained a tactical silence when Israel was bombarding Gaza strip and went on record only later, also he has made not statements about conflict ridden poor African nations like Zimbabwe, Somalia, Uganda etc or other nations like Sri Lanka, Burma. All his efforts of reconciliation with Latin American, European nations and Muslim world have a direct link to the American politics.

It is also equally true that Barack Obama has forever come across as a crusader for change and peace throughout his campaigns before winning polls and later after taking office. For a change there is a world leader who accepts that his nation’s role and its policies have a global impact. He has made the concept of ‘change’ and ‘peace’ quite desirable all over the world. Maybe he deserves an award for bringing these words back in vogue.

If anything needs to be questioned it is the award itself. In a world where nations have stockpile of nuclear weapons, there is widespread terrorism and most nations are forever engaged in violent internal and external conflicts the peace itself seems such an elusive utopian idea. In a polarized world where peace has become almost nonnegotiable why have Nobel Peace Prize?