Analysis: Barack Obama wins 2009 Nobel peace prize

From the moment that President Barack Obama - who has won the Nobel peace prize - entered the Oval Office, he made clear that resolving the conflict in the Middle East would be a key priority of his foreign policy.

His very first phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, and his speech in Cairo sought to cast America as an even-handed peacemaker in the Holy Land. Soon afterwards, Mr Obama also pledged to negotiate a new treaty on nuclear disarmament with Russia.

So far, however, Mr Obama has no concrete achievement to his credit. The Israelis and Palestinians are no closer to a settlement today than when he took office nine months ago. On the contrary, recent violence in Jerusalem raises the possibility of a new Palestinian uprising: an event that would force the "peace process" into reverse.

Although America and Russia have begun talks on a new disarmament agreement, no treaty has been concluded.

The only possible explanation for the judges' decision to reward Mr Obama is that they are betting on his future achievements. They think he might secure an epoch-making settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians as well as a sweeping disarmament treaty with Russia. Having previously given the Nobel Peace Prize to leaders who have made real agreements to resolve real conflicts, the judges now appear to be rewarding effort and possible future accomplishment.

In effect, they are taking out a bet on Mr Obama's future peacemaking skills. Are they being realistic?

There is a good chance of America and Russia concluding another treaty on reducing nuclear arms. This is for a simple reason: the Kremlin's nuclear arsenal is rapidly deteriorating anyway and a new disarmament deal represents Russia's only chance of maintaining nuclear parity with America. Concluding this treaty would be a real achievement for Mr Obama - but it would follow three previous nuclear disarmament deals and it would not visibly alter the balance of power in the world.

Meanwhile, the chances of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement are as remote as ever. The intractable problems at the heart of their conflict can be summed up in four words: borders, settlers, refugees, Jerusalem. Put simply, Mr Obama must devise a peace agreement which decides the borders of a Palestinian state, the fate of Jewish settlers living in the West Bank, the future of Palestinian refugees driven from Israel at its birth in 1948 and the division of Jerusalem into two national capitals.

Repeated attempts to resolve these issues, notably at the Camp David summit in 2000, have always failed, largely because the concessions required of both sides have been politically unacceptable. They remain unacceptable today. The "core issues" are certainly no closer to being settled than when Mr Obama took office in January.

But the judges appear to be betting that he can defy the odds and resolve them all in the next few years . Anyone who has followed events in the Middle East might not be entirely convinced by their optimism.

News Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6280293/Analysis-Barack-Obama-wins-2009-Nobel-peace-prize.html