Is there something in the water in Oslo? Or has the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee just gone completely bonkers?

Don't get me wrong, I think Barack Obama is great. I think that, with time, he may prove to be one of America's greatest presidents. Hell, with time, he could prove to be one of the world's greatest statesmen.

With time, he could take his place alongside the likes of Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi (neither of whom, incidentally, ever won the Nobel Peace Prize), Kofi Anan, Aung San Suu Kyi and Martin Luther King Jr. One day he may stand proudly next to the world's remarkable humanitarians — Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and our own Desmond Tutu.

But not yet.

And this is precisely why the Nobel committee's decision to award him this prestigious honour — regarded by many as the highest international accolade — is so baffling. Even more so, because this year saw the highest number of nominations for the award (205) to date.

Slim pickings? Not likely. In fact, our next-door neighbour, despite its many failings (or, perhaps more likely, because of its many failings) can boast a worthy candidate. And, no, not Uncle Bob. That other guy.

Furthermore, if there are no worthy candidates, the committee can choose not to present the award to anyone — as was the case for the duration of both world wars and the year in which Gandhi was assassinated.

But, I digress. Barack Obama is an unsuitable candidate for many reasons, not least of which is the condition stipulated by Alfred Nobel in his will. The award should go to:

"The person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congress."

Admittedly, Obama has shifted the dynamics of international diplomacy for the better. He has delivered some fantastic speeches and made promises (including a pledge to reduce the world's nuclear weapons) which, if acted upon, will change the world as we know it.

But I fail to understand how the man who heads up a nation, which is currently involved in two major wars and provides two thirds of the world's weapons, fits the bill. As the Nobel committee was mulling his suitability, Obama was holding a meeting with his war generals about increasing troops to Afghanistan. Far from reducing the world's armies, America provides them with weapons. Basic maths suggests that America arms the very enemies it seeks to defeat.

Perhaps my understanding of peace is somewhat idealistic, but if America embodies it — and, as head of state, Obama is both flag-bearer and commander-in-chief — then there is little hope for humanity.

Furthermore, by acknowledging Obama's commitment to a better world so early in his tenure as president, the Nobel committee — far from the suggested pre-emptive strike to encourage positive action — has taken away a possible motivator. What will they do if he really makes a difference one day? Or, perhaps more importantly, what will they do if he turns out to be a tyrant?

The Nobel Peace Prize has been turned down once before. When Vietnamese politician Lee Duc Tho was jointly awarded the prize with Henry Kissinger for the Vietnam peace accord, he said that he could not accept it because of the state his country was in at the time.

If Barack Obama had turned down the prize until such a time when he actually deserved it, he would have proved that the Noble committee was, perhaps, right after all.

Do you agree with Rebekah or do you think Barack Obama deserved to win? Alternately, can you think of someone better?

The beggar gauntlet Rebekah Kendal reckons that begging is bad for SA because it fosters a culture of dependency.

Visit our politics page Need the latest political news, features, interviews and profiles? Visit our dedicated page...

Behind closed doors Rebekah Kendal reckons that the real losers in the Percy saga are victims of domestic abuse.