But the three criteria for awarding the prize are cojoined with "and," not with "or." That would seem to mean that the recipient should qualify to at least some degree in all three of them.
And the criteria are prefaced with "done the most" indicating that the recipient should have accomplishments, or at least made progress in those areas, not merely made international speeches. You say we are "talking together about education," but can we point to actual international gains in education made as a result of her efforts? And even if we could, would that qualify as justification for a Nobel Peace Prize? Some other Nobel, sure, but the Peace laureate?
Again, I am not criticizing her. I think the Nobel Peace Committee lost all credibility when it awarded the prize to Obama. That's not a criricism of Obama, either. He was, however, a newly elected president who had made no measureable moves toward peace and the only thing to his credit in the international peace area was a passing remark that he was "against dumb wars." He no more deserved that prize than did Elmer Fudd. The prize committee has lost its way in awarding the prize. They feel the need to award it every year, and when there is no one deserving of it they award it in a more or less random manner.