Yes, most of the past awards were given to recipients on the basis of accomplishments, as far as presidents and political luminaries are concerned, including Anwar Sadat, Mikhail Gorbachev, Kim Dae-jung, for example. But there were many more, like Mahatma Gandhi who had contributed greatly to the cause of peace but had never been honored by the prize. So, decisions made by the Norwegian Nobel Committee have never been without any controversy.

But this year's controversy had a new dimension. It was like a bombshell. It was astonishing even for Obama himself, not to mention the world at large. It was also bemusing, as many who heard of the bombshell would have asked the inevitable question: For what?

President Obama has two wars in his hands and is struggling to send a “surge” of 40,000 more combat troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. There's a smidge of irony in war and peace. And, since his inauguration in January, he has not delivered on his campaign promises of bringing about “change” at home and abroad.

His critics at home, conservatives and Republicans, assailed him for being apologetic and denigrating American values to please the Europeans and adversaries. The Wall Street Journal says it is an award “for the end of American exceptionalism.” The term refers to America's long-held view that American values are universal and must be promoted “without apology and defended by military force when necessary,” according to the Journal. So, Obama-bashers at home depicted him as someone who is less than patriotic.

Abroad, the choice was also greeted with a lot of skepticism. “For what? So soon?” was the reaction from Lech Walesa, former president of Poland and a Nobel peace laureate.

In all fairness, however, the recipient of this lofty honor should be judged not only by his or her accomplishments, but also by the ideals espoused and championed by the recipient. Ideals that would change the world for the better. Measured by this yardstick, Barack Obama richly deserves the award.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, headed by Thorbjorn Iagland, decided to bestow the honor on Obama because the 48-year-old American president has “created a climate change in international politics.” This sounded abstract, but the change is sorely needed judging from the miasma created by his predecessor whose “go-it-alone” unilateralism has alienated the world.

It is true that Obama's vision of international cooperation instead of confrontation, multilateralism instead of unilateralism, a world shorn of nuclear weapons and of shared responsibilities is yet to come, but the vision and idea are as worthy as “accomplishments” if not more so. It may come true on Obama's watch, or after him.

Obama believes in “change,” and believes in “yes, we can.” Change is coming to America, albeit slowly and tortuously, in changing the country's entrenched medical care system and addressing the excesses of Wall Street that set off the global financial tsunami in 2008. He has been trying hard, through diplomacy and negotiations, to engage the Muslim world by presenting a kinder and gentler America, and to limit the proliferation of nuclear arms, and battle the global climate change by cutting green house emissions. Concrete results are yet to come, though.

Defending his committee's choice, Thorbjorn asked rhetorically, “who has done the most in the previous year to enhance world peace and who has done more than Mr. Obama?”

The answer is obvious. No one except Obama, at least among today's world leaders. Just look at the list of participants in the G-20 summit. So don't blame Thorbjorn for the choice. By Nobel's tradition, the selection has always been political. “We must go from time to time into the realm of realpolitik,” Thorbjorn admitted. “It's always the mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world.”

I see the mix as well balanced between Obama's idealism of changing the world by giving people hope for a better future, and the political reality that the prize cannot focus primarily on dissidents and human rights activists. The world, threatened by war, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and climate change, is in dire need for change that Barack Obama has pledged to bring about.

“The prize is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment,” pointed out former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, a 2002 Nobel peace laureate. “It marked America's return to the heart of the peoples of the world,” echoed French President Nicolas Sarkozy. These are apt assessments of the choice.

The Nobel committee deserves kudos for its emphasis on idealism in this year's selection. If concrete accomplishments of the recipient are the body of the prize, idealism is its soul. Obama's vision and his audacity of hope are what the world is lacking. “I accept this prize as a call to action,” Obama said last Friday. His action, I am convinced, will translate his ideals into reality, and vindicate the choice of the Nobel Committee.