Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to US president Barack Obama demonstrates that there is a global "hunger" for diplomacy, remarks David Plouffe, Obama's chief campaign manager, according to The Canadian Press. Obama is the first sitting US president in ninety years and the third ever to win the much-respected prize.

Yet, expecttions come with the Nobel Prize. "His presidency offers the promise of [diplomacy], but [he has] to deliver," reflected Plouffe. Although Obama’s tenure has revived hopes across the world for a more stable international diplomatic environment, some questionable decisions have raised doubts as to whether he is a “man of peace.” Detractors cite his recent decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as the latest example of the disparity between Obama’s promises and his actions.

However, many do not consider the Nobel Peace Prize incompatible with President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. In his acceptance speech in Oslo, the president outlined his philosophy of engagement with hostile regimes and the necessity to resort to sanctions, reports Doyle McManus for The Los Angeles Times.

Obama also tackled the paradox head-on in his Oslo speech. "Evil does exist in the world," he said. "War is sometimes necessary." Far from glorifying the war, he focused on it as a “regrettable necessity,” discussing the importance of global diplomacy through his attempts to egnage with hostile regimes such as Iran and North Korea.

Obama declared, “No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door." Turning engagement and sanctions into practical action will be a test of the “Obama Doctrine's” effectiveness.

Asking for patience, the president maintained that his policy of engagement will eventually bear fruit. However, skepticism persists due to the fact that the engagement approach has so far yielded too few results. “That's where sanctions come in under the Obama Doctrine,” points out McManus.

In Oslo, Obama also stated, “Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy; but there must be consequences when these things fail." However, McManus remains hesitant about the 'engagement and sanctions' policy. From a historical perspective, “Neither one has been proved to work yet,” he says.

McManus remarks that in the last two weeks, Obama has added more details to his evolving foreign policy blueprint, stressing the importance of multilateralism from allied countries in engaging with rogue regimes. He also notes that in order to achieve tangible gains as a result of international engagement, the US “needs the help of others to make it work.”

While defending the use of military force under some circumstances, Obama was quick to say that there are limits to its effectiveness, writes Craig Nelson for The National.

Obama made brief reference to the Arab-Israel conflict, which he said had “hardened.” He also indicated that the fear of losing cultural identity in a more globally connected world has led to a particular source of violence; he cites the “perversion” of religion, referring to Islamic militants and extremists.

Scott McLeod from the Los Angeles Times suggested that to many people in the Middle East, Obama's peace prize must come across as a “cruel hoax.” McLeod believes that in the last three months, the Obama administration has steadily undone the president's initial positive outreach “by seriously mishandling one of the Middle East's central issues: the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.”

He points out that to encourage both Israelis and Palestinians to reach a fair and just agreement acceptable to a majority of both parties, Obama must show leadership and prove to be an honest broker. “Dismissing Palestinian rights is a certain path to further failure,” argues McLeod.

McLeod concludes that the Middle East is expecting more from the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Sharing his sentiment, demonstrators across the street from the Norwegian Nobel Institute waved a banner that said, “Obama, You Won It, Now Earn It.”