From Shahid Shah, a journalist in Pakistan, “I think it is too early to give him the Nobel Prize. We will see the results of his policies in coming years…”

From Ghanashyam Ojha, a journalist in Nepal, “I think the prize for peace contradicts the situation the U.S. is facing in Afghanistan. However, it could help Obama bring peace in the Mideast as the situation, seemingly, has improved since he entered the White House…”

From Maha Al-Azar, a former journalist and now media relations officer at the American University of Beirut, “It’s definitely premature to give Obama a peace prize even though his intentions may be good. Just as we should not penalize people for violent intentions but actions, the same should apply for peaceful intentions. Plus, I read somewhere that he was nominated two weeks after assuming office, since that was the deadline this year. In that case, it’s quite ludicrous, and it undermines the Nobel Prize committee. By extension, all those deserving people who have won the NP are also being harmed by such a seemingly political nomination, as people will likely start questioning the credibility of all Nobel prizes and will start wondering if the whole institution is politicized – allegations that some/many already maintain.”

Oh, wait. That’s no joke. That happened today. And many observers around the world, not to mention leading lights of the Republican Party and some liberals, were not amused or very happy about it.

I emailed Mairead Maguire, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in l976 with fellow Northern Ireland peace-campaigner Betty Williams, to get her reaction.

Maguire said this: “I am very disappointed to hear that the Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama. They say this is for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples, and yet he continues the policy of militarism and occupation of Afghanistan, instead of dialogue and negotiations with all parties to the conflict. …

“Furthermore, I believe the Nobel Committee has not met the conditions of Alfred Nobel’s will where he stipulates it is to be awarded to those who work for an end to militarism and war, and for disarmament. This is not the first time the Nobel Peace Committee in Oslo has ignored the will of Alfred Nobel and acted against the spirit of what the Nobel Peace Prize is all about.

“Giving this award to the leader of the most militarized country in the world, which has taken the human family against its will to war, will be rightly seen by many people around the world as a reward for his country’s aggression and domination.”

The Associated Press reported that U.S. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele contended that Obama won the prize as a result of his “star power” rather than meaningful accomplishments.

“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’” Steele said.

And today on the Daily Beast, liberal Peter Beinart, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes this:

“I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives – on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament – that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.”

But, while I was as surprised as the next person that Obama got the peace prize without actually bringing peace anywhere, the Nobel committee, in awarding the prize, made clear that this is an effort to encourage peace in the many places where Obama has said he will strive for peace.

And already, just by agreeing to talk with enemies of the United States and by such gestures as his June 4 speech in Cairo pledging “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims,” Obama has entirely changed the view of this country. We are, once again, according to a recent poll, regarded as the most popular nation in the world, with high marks from Muslim countries as well.

A statement issued today from Michael Ignatieff , the leader of Canada’s opposition Liberal Party probably says it best:

“The awarding of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama recognizes the tremendous promise of his efforts to bring peace and hope to troubled areas in the world.

“President Obama has set an ambitious agenda to achieve a more peaceful Middle East, end terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and curb nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea. He has sought to reduce the destabilizing effects of climate change and extreme poverty in Africa, and has reached out to the Muslim world.

“By seeking to strengthen international diplomacy and advance co-operation between people early in his mandate, President Obama has given momentum to the efforts of people and countries throughout the world who seek to achieve peace, reconciliation and nuclear disarmament. I hope that the vote of support given to President Obama by the Nobel committee through the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize adds to this momentum.

“On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary caucus, I offer my sincere congratulations to President Obama for this momentous achievement.”

Here, here! Hail to the Chief! Now go out there and get us some peace, Mr. President.