Rhode Island was not exempt from the international wave of surprise that followed Friday’s news that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize less than 10 months after taking office.

The reaction among the Ocean State’s international affairs and political experts was mixed, but for some, the initial shock quickly turned to disappointment.

“I don’t understand this at all. I’m a supporter of Obama, and I think this was a bad idea. I think this cheapens the Nobel Prize,” said Nina Tannenwald, a professor of international relations at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. “He’s totally changed the tone of the discourse in the world. That’s incredibly important. But one could say that without having to award the Nobel Prize to someone. It’s way too early in his term.”

Tannenwald went so far as to e-mail the White House Friday morning suggesting that the president “gracefully decline” the award.

At a news conference later in the day, Mr. Obama indicated he would accept the Nobel Peace Prize, becoming just the third sitting U.S. president to do so. He follows Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919; Jimmy Carter won the award more than 20 years after leaving the White House.

“To be honest,” the president said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”

But Mark Sawoski, professor of international relations at Roger Williams University, said he believes the selection was justified.

“If you look at the international situation today and step back a bit, who has had more positive impact over the past 10 months?” he asked, citing the president’s efforts in stabilizing the “international financial situation,” reinvigorating talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, improving the U.S. relations with Russia, and “strengthening relations” with China.

“We have a serious approach to try to deal with the world’s problems with other countries,” Sawoski continued. “There’s a new track here.”

Another Roger Williams professor suggests that the award may be less about Mr. Obama than his predecessor.

“I think at some level, we have to look at this prize as a condemnation of the Bush presidency, more than a celebration of the Obama presidency,” said Joseph Roberts, an associate professor of political science at Roger Williams. “He has taken a dramatically different approach to international relations than his predecessor.”

Roberts noted the administration’s recent discussions with Iran and Mr. Obama’s June speech in Cairo as landmark achievements.

In its announcement, the Norwegian Nobel Committee credited the president with creating “a new climate in international politics.”

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee wrote. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

Roberts, meanwhile, said that the high-profile award may create problems for the first-term president.

“It makes his job a little more difficult. It gives the right a little more fodder that he’s more celebrity than he is leader. It potentially opens him up to charges of being manipulated by the international community. I don’t think that’s the case, but I think charges will be made,” he said.

Indeed, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele quickly issued a statement blasting the award: “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights.”

Those criticisms, however, likely won’t resonate with the majority of voters who supported Mr. Obama’s candidacy, according to Brown University political science Prof. Wendy Schiller.

“Most Americans see this as a stamp of prestige, respect and accomplishment,” Schiller said. “Sure, it’s a little early to give the guy a Nobel Prize. Of course I was surprised … But it’s a tough thing to attack somebody for winning a Nobel Prize. I just think that’s not the most productive line of attack for the Republican Party.”

speoples@projo.com