Imagine a schoolboy who shows a lot of promise in academic terms, is well-behaved and popular to boot. Based on these virtues, he makes considerable impression on his peers and elders in school. He is then awarded the school’s top prize – even before the exams and still early in the term without any tangible yields. When the crunch came, he did so-so in the finals.

Does that make sense?

The Nobel Prize Committee in Norway thinks so. It has just awarded one of the world’s most prestigious but contentious prizes to US President Barak Obama. Citing Obama’s "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament”, the committee’s decision perplexes me. This was on the same day that Obama met for a council of war in Washington to consider sending 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. Not to mention stepping up missile attacks by drones on the Pakistan side of the border.

He is barely in his eighth month in his term. Of course he has made a slew of pledges. But talking about making the world a better place to live in is far removed from resolving festering issues.The best that can be said is that Obama seem to bring hope initially, but recent developments in the world’s hot spots and even domestic issues have taken the shine on the youthful president.

Many point out that America’s new president hasn’t changed anything on the global stage, apart from his modest demeanour, amicability and apparent tolerance compared to his predecessor W Bush. He shied away from being a real honest broker in the West Asia conflict. Note that Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu has ignored Obama’s insistence of halting new Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, much to the frustration of the Arabs, who received promises from Washington on it’s commitment to be fair. Israel just carried on with it’s intrusion of Palestinian land and oppressing the Arabs just as it did during the previous US administration. Not to mention US’ failure to engage with the democratically-elected Hamas government. No real peace here, at least not yet.

Just declaring to make the World free of nuclear weapons just doesn’t cut it with nations who live in fear of nukes. Especially as the US and Russia have 90 % of those weapons of mass destruction and looks as it those stockpiles will remain for a long time, supposedly as a “deterrent”. And forcing nations who want to develop their nuclear capabilities as a replacement for fossil fuel looks really dodgy when Obama has recently agreed to officially turn a blind eye to Israel whom is generally acknowledged to possessing its own atomic arms for decades. Peace cannot be made with such double standards.

And what about Obama’s domestic problems? Americans are just as polarized now – if not more – as it had been when the Republicans ruled the roost. Admittedly, part of the problem could be the due to the age-old racial divide in America. But Obama refuses to deal with race relations, citing reasons that he is a “  President for All Americans “.

 While the economy and Health services remain contentious issues, the angry voices in both opposing camps of the debate have become even more shrill. Despite promises to extend hands of friendship to nations deemed “ axis of evil” by Bush jr, the long-standing sanctions against Syria, Cuba and Iran remain in place as if to take the cue from America’s warmongering ultra-conservatives. So much for the international understanding and reconciliation.

Nevertheless, around the World, those who want to curry favour with Obama will congratulate him. Don’t expect honest public opinions from leaders who rely on being sycophantic, as they always have done with regards to ties with the US no matter who lives in the White House. It’s the communities who genuinely hope for American positive leadership globally who will express disappointment, because they fear it will make Obama’s efforts so much more difficult in current international issues

The Peace Prize will be mill-stone around his neck. Too much will be expected from Obama because of the accolades, and so far the results have not been encouraging. Maybe it’s still too early to dismiss the efforts as failures. But a prize as this point of time is premature. There is a real risk of him not being able to live up to those promises. Awards should be given in recognition of a lifetime of achievements, not prospective but retrospective.

In the final analysis critics of the Peace Prize would say that the Nobel foundation in particular and Europeans in general are still starry-eyed about Obama without waiting for the results. Winning something because of style over substance is not enough.