While a certain irony surrounds the award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, there is a serious dimension to the award as well.

Few would argue that any of Mr. Obama’s specific actions merited the award, especially considering that nominations had to be postmarked on February 1, just 12 days after Mr. Obama took office. Indeed, the President admitted as much, saying that he was “very surprised” by the award and that he did not think he deserved it. For the record, the prize was given for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” The Nobel committee chairman declared “the question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world. And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

Inevitably, the prize drew much snide commentary. Wisecrackers said that if Mr. Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, why not the Heisman Trophy, the Cy Young Award, or even the Miss America crown? Even more sober folks pointed out, as did Adam Nagourney of The New York Times , that the award was a reminder of the gap between the ambitious promise of Mr. Obama’s words and his accomplishments.

Still, the award does stand for something, and that may be both a source of concern as well as hope.

Take a statement by one of Mr. Obama’s strongest supporters, Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Kaine declared that “the Nobel Committee’s decision to award this year’s Peace Prize to President Obama is an affirmation of the fact that the United States has returned to its longstanding role as a world leader. The President has made a conscious decision from the beginning of his presidency to reinvigorate diplomacy, by talking to our friends and our rivals. Those efforts to bring world leaders together are helping the people of the world to face monumental challenges like nuclear arms proliferation, conflict resolution and climate change.”

This is good as a far as it goes. More people around the world like the United States and its government under Mr. Obama, whose approach to foreign relations is regarded as a welcome contrast to the allegedly highhanded attitude and policies of George W. Bush. There is indeed a chance that Mr. Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy and reconciliation will bear fruit in helping the world to meet its challenges.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama is also commander in chief of the United States armed forces in wartime and the leader of the free world. There is a danger that an excessive emphasis on diplomacy will be regarded as a sign of weakness.

In a retort to President Obama’s recent speech at the United Nations in which Mr. Obama called for a “new era of engagement,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy echoed these concerns. Regarding United States arms negotiations efforts with Iran, Mr. Sarkozy declared, “President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.” He added that “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries [presumably Iran and North Korea] are currently doing the exact opposite.”

And this week, Mr. Obama, who earlier pleased Russia by shelving eastern European missile defenses, is having trouble getting Russia to commit to sanctions against Iran.

Merited or not, Mr. Obama’s Nobel award commemorates a transformed United States foreign policy outlook. The question is whether the changes are for the better.