AS leaves change their colours and fall from the branches, heralding a change of seasons, there is a hint of chill in the air.

In many North American and European nations, snow already blankets the hills and slopes, sending us a signal that it’s time for something else: the announcements of the winners of one of the world’s most coveted accolades: the Nobel Prize.

Countries everywhere view the Nobel as an unparallelled recognition of achievement. In the more than 60 years since the annual tradition began, the winners have been hailed for their contributions to different spheres of our lives.

Some have helped to prolong life while others like the late Professor Sir Arthur Lewis, an economist from the Eastern Caribbean, were recognised after coming up with answers to complex questions and in the process paved the way for improved standards of living or even ushered in prosperity.

A second group - Derek Walcott who, like Sir Arthur Lewis, came from St Lucia and VS Naipaul of Trinidad and Tobago among them - earned the accolade for their outstanding body of literature.

Imagine how Barbadians would react if George Lamming, Prof Kamau Brathwaite or Austin ’Tom’ Clarke were chosen as laureates? The answer is obvious: people would be deliriously happy.

Next on the list is the winner of the peace prize, a person or institution that helped to make the world a much safer place in which to live. Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, the late Dr Martin Luther King Jr and the United Nations at the time headed by Kofi Annan have, through their work, gained that much-sought-after recognition. In 1950, Dr Ralph Bunche, an American, received the honour, the first Black to do so.

Why then is so much controversy, even scorn, being poured on the heads of the members of Nobel Committee, who selected United States President Barack Obama as this year’s winner of the Peace Prize? How come so many Americans find themselves disagreeing with the choice and even ridiculing their president, instead of hailing the chief for joining such a select band of individuals? Answers abound.

For one thing, the award came out of the proverbial blue. Few people at home or abroad expected that Obama, in office for less than a year, would have been selected. But surprise isn’t a good reason for spewing vitriol.

For another, the president’s bitter opponents, especially the powerful extreme right wing, can’t find a single thing to accept with grace when it comes to Obama.

Thirdly, it was an implicit shot by the Nobel Committee to the standard-bearer of the Republican right, former President George W Bush. Obama’s selection was akin to rubbing salt into an open wound.

Clearly, the president was an excellent choice. His trips to Europe, Canada, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East and other regions of the world have brightened the prospects of global peace.

An obvious explanation for the Nobel is the marked difference in the tone set by the new administration in Washington in its dealings with the rest of the world. When Obama visited Trinidad and Tobago several months ago to attend the Summit of the Americas, his presence in the Caribbean and people’s reaction to him sent a strong message to the rest of the western hemisphere that collaboration, mutual respect and understanding had replaced the contempt shown by the Bush White House.

After all, when several Caribbean countries dared to disagree with Bush’s Iraqi invasion, some of his officials threatened Barbados and its neighbours.

The reception the new president and his wife received in Europe was markedly different, celebratory, while President Bush was scorned for his abrasive approach to foreign policy. Obama’s trip to Cairo and his ground-breaking speech on the way forward in the Middle East opened up the floodgates to praise and his recent visit to Ghana was an obvious indication that he hadn’t forgotten his African roots.

And when he addressed the United Nations the other day and urged global cooperation as distinct from threatening countries with regime change, his speech was hailed everywhere, except at home. Of course, the right-wing in America rose up in arms, verbally, accusing him of being an appeaser.

Obviously, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for Obama’s willingness to sit down with Iran and North Korea; his efforts to bring peace to the Middle East; and the clear change in the global mood from one of confrontation to peace.

He has significantly improved his country’s standing around the world; condemned torture as a weapon against America’s real or perceived enemies; and has reaffirmed America’s belief in the will of the people to change or retain the government of their choice.

By any measure, he has earned the Nobel in eight months, a prize he didn’t seek while Bush, who sought it, was bypassed after eight years.

A Barbadian in Boston summed up the situation well when he said that the Nobel Committee ’did what it had to do and did it with aplomb’. We couldn’t agree more.

Courtesy Barbados Nation