So because of a policy shift he gets the nobel peace prize, all the while he's still has a war in Afghanistan and doesn't know how to shut down Gitmo? Really?
If you're rewarding him on a shift away from unilateralism why not give it to the Democratic party, which had this in place as an ethos prior to his presidency?
Oh and how peaceful is the tactic of bringing in protectionist measures? I must've missed that memo.
See, this is my problem with the damn peace prize. It's a prop. It's given to the guy who's the flavour of the year, but who hasn't really accomplished anything. I understand giving it to Jimmy Carter
in 2002 because well, he deserved it and demonstrated his desire to make the world a better place with his Habitant for Humanity (or whatever it is) programme. Yes, I have to ignore his policies in Central America as his time as President, but over the greater scope, yes he deserved it.
But this leads into my second point. The entire reward. It's a reward for elites which simply gives them a nice pat on the back. Wow, you were only responsible for 1000 deaths this year instead of 4000. Good job! Why not actually search out the people that make a difference each year. Why not acknowledge the people who bust their asses in NGO's? Are those people not making a difference daily? I'm gonna end my rant there.