Chairperson of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, holds up a photo of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama at The Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo Friday.
(Torbjorn Gronning/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
The international politics behind Obama’s Nobel Peace prize
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama appears to be an effort to spur on, rather than reward, peacemaking.
By Dan Murphy and Tom Sullivan | Staff writer 10.09.09
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN; and BOSTON — The surprise decision to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize had much of the world scratching its head on Friday, even among the president’s most ardent fans. Less than a year into office, the young president has made lofty promises, committed his administration to diplomacy, and convinced the world that a less belligerent America is in the offing.
But he is also the commander-in-chief for the Afghan and Iraq wars, as well as ongoing lower-scale US military efforts in Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, and the Philippines. Later on Friday, Obama will hold a strategy session with his war cabinet that could lead to a commitment of more combat troops to Afghanistan. A commentator on Britain’s Sky News captured the mood well when he said it appeared Obama had won the prize for “not being George Bush.”
America’s international standing was at a nadir by the end of the Bush administration, and Obama’s decision to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program (already bearing some fruit) and promises to reinvigorate US efforts in Israel-Palestinian peacemaking have quickly remade America’s international image, with the US leaping into the top spot in a recent survey on the world’s most admired countries. That’s especially so in Europe, where Obama’s decision to cancel a planned missile-shield system in Eastern Europe that had rankled Russia has been widely praised.
And the five-member Norwegian committee that picks the annual peace-prizewinner clearly has something more in mind than simply giving Obama a $1 million high-five for being such a popular guy. Unlike the other Nobels, which are given for a lifetime of generally indisputable high achievement in areas like physics, chemistry, and literature, the peace prize has often been awarded more in hope than hindsight — and with an eye to nudging world events.
Political Impact
The 1996 award of the peace prize to Cardinal Carlos Belo and politician Jose Ramos Horta — both prominent campaigners for East Timorese independence from Indonesia — put a spotlight on their cause and helped create the conditions that led to Indonesia’s pullout from the country in 1999. Mr. Horta, at the time, was serving as the spokesman for Fretilin, an armed group that waged a 20-year insurgency for independence.
The controversial awarding of the 1994 prize to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzahk Rabin, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat was less successful. Though the three men eventually signed the Oslo Accords that seemed to have the two nations on a path toward peace, that effort eventually broke down. All three men could be said to have blood on their hands from that conflict, and Mr. Arafat died without achieving his dream of an independent Palestinian state. Mr. Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli furious that he was negotiating land concessions.
So what is the Nobel committee after in this case? Gro Holm, the senior commentator on foreign affairs at the Norwegian Broadcasting Corp., says that the prize committee was probably trying both to ratify Obama’s immense international popularity and put pressure on him to deliver on the promise of greater international peace and stability.
“You can’t overlook the fact that Bush was hugely unpopular here, and that Obama has turned that trend around,” says Ms. Holm. “My 14-year-old daughter was up all night watching election returns because of Obama.”
Middle East Focus
She says Obama’s plan to scrap the missile shield was a “symbolic step” that “calmed down the Russians” and earned him praise in many European capitals, but also says the award was given, more than anything, to push Obama toward what the committee hopes he can achieve. “There is a feeling here that this is a risk. What does it say about the award if progress isn’t made? I think Obama is a deeply moral man, and this seems designed to remind him of his promises.”
She also points to Thorbjorn Jagland, a former prime minister who was appointed earlier this year to head the committee by the Norwegian parliament, as an important player in delivering the award to Obama. Holm says Mr. Jagland has an activist vision for the Nobel as a prize that can spur peace, rather than simply reward its achievement. “He likes to play big games, he’s very ambitious, and this will give him a platform,” she says. “He’ll get to meet Obama and have some influence if he comes to accept the award.”
Erling Borgen, a Norwegian documentary filmmaker and journalist who focuses on human rights issues, said Jagland’s appointment was controversial in Norway, since his deep political involvement had some worried that the committee’s reputation for evenhandedness would be compromised.
“Criticism of [Jagland] is really picking up after this announcement. He had a lot of influence over the decision,” says Mr. Borgen. “The Nobel Committee is supposed to be completely independent and nothing to do with the Norweigan parliament. But Jaglund has been prime minister, minister for foreign affairs and president of the parliament.”
Jagland, on the left side of Norwegian politics, is deeply interested in Middle East peace. He was one of the five members of the commission led by George Mitchell in 2000 that led to the creation of the so-called “road map” for peace that is still the framework for ongoing negotiations. Mr. Mitchell, a former US senator, was named Obama’s Middle East envoy earlier this year.
Announcing the award, Jagland insisted that we “are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year” and praised Obama for going “to Cairo to try to reach out to the Muslim world, then to restart the Mideast negotiations, and then he reached out to the rest of the world through international institutions.”
Jagland, like Obama, is a big fan of international institutions - he once nominated the European Union for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet while Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo has been widely praised, Palestinians and other Arabs have been grumbling of late that they were empty words with limited follow-through.
Jagland seemed to hint at this in his further comments, when he addressed the political intent behind the award. “We are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do…. [The prize] is a clear signal to the world that we want to advocate the same as he has done to promote international diplomacy.”
Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution in Washington, writes that the atmospherics behind the award are politically useful for Obama. “Winning over world opinion, which the Nobel prize award signifies, can help. It frees up governments to respond positively to Obama’s call for them to assume their responsibilities. And that in turn puts pressure on rogue leaders to mend their ways and join the developing international consensus,” he wrote. “But if it turns out that George Will is right and Obama ends up being “adored but ignored” then the Nobel committee will have done him no favors.”
Borgen argues that rewarding Obama now devalues the Nobel. “It’s too early to award a peace prize to a president who has only been working eight months and has really done nothing for peace,” he says. “A president who plans to send 40,000 soldiers to fight a war in Afghanistan should not be given the Nobel peace prize especially given that the numbers of civilians being killed is at the same level as it was under George W. Bush.”
The Nobel prize shows Obama has the vision thing in spades
<< Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize hailed and questioned | MainComments
3. Justin | 10.09.09
The Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
So, they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize because…
4. Teretha Jones | 10.09.09
Who else was up for the prize?
Can we protest???
I really do not want him to have this honored prize, and between when Gore won it and now Obabma, I really have to wonder who is awarding these men this prize.
5. Shannon | 10.09.09
This takes away from previous deserving winners. It’s a travesty that he is being awarded something just for popularity because as of 1 second ago we are still in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places with more soldiers on the way. Why not give him an Academy Award too…because obviously there is no substance behind that either.
6. Mike Daroukie….. | 10.09.09
Welcome to our Celebrity Society. The other candidate was Paris Hilton. The Nobel Peace Prize, once prestigous, is now just a political toy.
7. JOHN BAGOTI | 10.09.09
OBAMA has done nothing worthwhile to be awarded any Prize, least the Nobel Peace Prize, unless the value of the Nobel Prize has gone down to the gutter level.
He has expressed many good ideas but did not stand up to any one to achieve it like many other real peace loving leaders including President Carter. Now, forgetting his love for the second term, Obama must concentrate on real peace making efforts at least in the MIDDLE EAST to forge peace between the two enemies standing up to the principles of justice, fairness and above all humanity and human rights of the oppressed people.
8. Alan Clark | 10.09.09
It’s just wrong. So now the award goes to who “might” do something one day? Mother Theresa did it all wrong apparently.
Sad sad day for sure.
9. David | 10.09.09
he’s promised peace and all he’s done is make relations with Iran worse among other thins
10. Voltaire | 10.09.09
This is ridiculous. I am a fan of Obama, but seriously? Let’s award people that HAVE done something, not PROMISE to do something. Words are weak. I want results before I reward someone.
11. Brian | 10.09.09
He should decline the award and ask for it to be awarded to one of the other nominees.
12. temporaldoom | 10.09.09
This was awarded after he delayed/declined to meet with a previous Nobel Peace Prize winner in favor of a regime with a negative human rights track record?
Alfred Nobel must be rolling in his grave…
13. Carolyn | 10.09.09
King said peace was a means to the goal not the goal itself….Peace is a process not an achievement. It is like laundry…a job never finished..
Of course our president deserves it. He is a peaceful man working to bring people together in a country that does not sem to be. He is an inspiration to those who are open to the work of peace.
14. Amos Ajo | 10.09.09
Obama deserves the the Nobel Peace Prize
The question that often comes to my mind when I see people trying to control flooding is the use of sandbags: Why sandbags and not any other substance like cement? The use of sandbags is a simple, but effective way to prevent or reduce flood water damage. Properly filled and placed sandbags can act as a barrier to divert moving water around, instead of through, buildings. Sandbag construction does not guarantee a water-tight seal, but is satisfactory for use in most situations. Sandbags are also used successfully to prevent overtopping of streams with levees, and for training current flows to specific areas.
Sand and sandbags even though very insignificant have been very effective in preventing or reducing major floor water damage. Sandbags normally as could be expected, don’t do anything; they just stand of the way of flood water. President Obama has stood on the way of the forces that are threatening the peace of our world today.
To most Americans and especially to those that know very little of what goes on outside the United States may not appreciate how the election of Obama backed by what Obama says has done so much to act as a barrier or diversion of forces that were coming against the stability and the peace of the world. Imagine the Presidency of Senator McCain; we would have now fully resumed the Cold war that has just ended with Russia. How many still remember when Sen. McCain sent his wife to Georgia as a show of support for military confrontation with Russia? What world could you imagine today without Obama? One thing for sure, we will not be talking about uranium enrichment in Iran but how many nuclear warheads that have been installed in Iran with the help of Russia.
For the first time in over 20 years, Iran is now having constructive discussion with the International community regarding its nuclear ambition. Imagine without Obama, President Clinton would not have been allowed to North Korea to free the two Americans as a matter of fact there would have been no offer. Imagine without Obama, the situation in South America would have been completely different especially in Honduras. For the first time in over 20 years, there was a consensus among the world leaders to deal with forces of evil that threaten the world peace. If you see the world from the outside of United States, you will appreciate the fact that Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Do not underestimate sandbags for reducing flood and you should never underestimate Obama as a major barrier for the forces that threaten world peace.
Congratulation President Obama for your well deserved Nobel Peace Prize
15. kyle | 10.09.09
seriously?
The Nobel Peace Prize was meant for people who have done groundbreaking work in the area of humanities.
he does NOT deserve this, he should not have even been nominated.
17. MIKE | 10.09.09
CONGRATULATIONS PRESIDENT OBAMA ….. THOSE OF US IN AMERICA WHO LOVE PEACE APPLAUD YOU
18. CatB | 10.09.09
I have to agree with the quoted definition of what the Nobel Peace Prize is. Does anyone suspect that between Gore and Obama, the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee have something up their sleeve? I would be curious as to what that is! For those who truly have sacrificed their time and efforts to do something for world peace, they must be aghast at hearing of the new winner … Obama has only run around in circles making sure he’s on every TV channel every day of the week! Makes me chuckle to see a such a recognition given to someone in the United States, who has done “zilch” to be awarded such a distinction. Maybe we should throw the Nobel Peace Prize back to the committee and ask them to try one more time … and this time make sure politics is not in the center of their frontal lobe of their cerebral cortex!
19. bariya ataya | 10.09.09
no really!!! they must be kidding us! someone tell us WHY did they give him the nobel prize?????
20. Tony Sucheston | 10.09.09
Obama deserves the peace prize for the deal he helped broker with the Russians to take the enriched Uranium form Iran. This may have prevented world war III
21. Andi Mwegerano | 10.09.09
Changes are always difficult to be perceived in a positive light. The diversion from the normal orthodox criteria rewarding the noble prize to less known figure for archiving the criteria is what is causing interesting or unnecessary discussions here. For me this this a new way of looking at things and opens doors to many who might have had no dreams at all in their life. I really congratulate the noble prize committee for their courageous and novel decision!
Andi Mwegerano
Finland
24. lexy | 10.09.09
OBAMA?! won this? what has the world come to? What has obama done for us? NOTHING. can we protest this? This is a sad day.
25. Ryan | 10.09.09
have you guys NOT seen the tremendous efforts made by President Obama in order to improve humanity? i mean seriously, hes proposed numerous plans for solving global issues such as the war and so on and so forth. Who else has done anything close to what he’s doing now??
26. pub | 10.09.09
So because Europeans are more trendy than they are intelligent, we have to make them happy?
27. Phil | 10.09.09
We can’t complain that he got the prize with zero accomplishments. We elected him President with zero accomplishments.
28. jilld | 10.09.09
How can you award a man a peace prize that is sending millions of men and women to rage war in Afghanistan? What is peaceful about a country that keeps its richest away from the poorest, in physical distance as well as in education, health and distribution of wealth?
How can you measure this man’s peaceful impact? How is he any different than past American presidents?
How can you award a prize to a man that isn’t acting on his own will, but making decisions based keeping his supporting party happy?
What about the men and women that have given their lives to make the world a better place? And besides Obama not deserving it, he doesn’t need it. Why wouldn’t you chose someone that would take the money with honor and put it right back into making the world a better place.
What is most disappointing, is the thought that maybe Obama was your best choice. That the world doesn’t have peaceful men like Martin Luther King anymore. My hope is that this is not true.
29. Denise | 10.09.09
It used to be that you actually had to EARN the Nobel Prize. Obama has accomplished nothing, only made a bunch of promises and a few speeches (remember his apology tour?). I’d like to see something actually accomplished. They must be handing these things out like candy. I find it ironic that he is given this prestigous award the same week he dissed Ghandi. Does anyone see the irony here?
30. FL-Brian | 10.09.09
OMG, some of the comments here are really amazing in that they show such a low level of reading comprehension…
Folks, as the article says, the Peace Prize is unsurprisingly often given as a forward “hoping”, forward expecting tool to help propel a person that has great potential to affect peace throughout the world.
If you don’t think the President of the United States has that power moreso than anyone, you are sadly uninformed and mistaken. If you don’t hope/believe President Obama can/will do this, then you likely voted for John McCain, it’s that simple.
The most embarassign comment I read was “Bush=Obama”, OMG you are so out of touch with the universe that you should just get out.
While I agree that persons should be recognized for outstanding contributions made to date, if the Peace Prize has set a precedent for using it at times for those with tremendous power to affect peace in the future, then I fully support this purpose and the selection of President Obama as the winner. If nothing else realize this: regardless of what anyone has done over a lifetime of bringin about peace, NO ONE has a greater potential to influence in in the future than Presiden Obama. On that basis and the precedent used to give the medal there is no better choice.
Simply realize that it is not up to you to determine what the Purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize is, embrace this alternative definition that we are obviously being given and realize then that it was a wise choice.
31. Leander | 10.09.09
This decision is simply beyond any limit of good taste.
Look at the Kosovo problem - there is no difference between Bush and Obama in making problems in that part of the world=in military occupation of the part of Serbia and violating its integrity.
32. Jeffrey | 10.09.09
You reward someone for doing nothing, another example of what obama stands for.
33. joe | 10.09.09
Yeah, Mother Theresa was wonderful. “are you cold? are you hungry? I’ll give you food and blankets….but only if you say that you are a christian..” yeah, that sure was peaceful.
35. kul bhushan | 10.09.09
Obama is a brilliant man but Nobel peace prize is not for brilliance. He is astute politician,media savvy,articulate leader,may be even consensus builder,but his track record does not show anything worthy of such a prize at this juncture of his life.
He is the first black president of the united states oldest democracy (not a black majority nation).Quite an achievement but not reason for Nobel peace prize.
Everybody seems to be so demurred by him that they think he can walk on water and deserves to paid tribute for even undeserved honors.This clearly is not deserved honor.If unworthy people receive such honors it decreases the value of these honor.In recent years financial rewards has helped honorees to live in comfort and promote their agenda.I remember Amaratya Sen promising to use his honorarium for some poverty projects.
Besides for a new president to get such an award can be a check on the presidential power to make war,I hope the situation does not arise where he becomes a nobel peace prize winner who started a war.
So i say Mr President do not cash in this award.You do not need the money ,you are a rich man,give it to a worthy charity and bring back some dignity in the folly of the Nobel committee.If i was bestowed similar award(fat chance)i would reject it without much thought.
kul bhushan
rxri.blogspot.com
36. Mike Leavitt | 10.09.09
Given the political battles Obama is forced to fight domestically with irrational extremists on the right, he has absolutely earned this award.
It is true that the U.S. still has too many military operations abroad, many of which may be fully unwarranted. If you pay attention to the details, you notice that Obama did not start these operations, and leans consistently on the side of diplomacy and strategy over military actions. Simply recall the heat he’s taken for proposing diplomatic talks with Cuba and Iran. Notice how much internal pressure he is receiving for more deployment in Afghanistan, while his response not reflected these demands.
If it’s not enough to view the validity of the Peace Prize through this prism, his worldwide celebrity is more than tabloid fodder. If you’ve never been outside the western world or to a third world country, it may be hard for you to understand this. Obama has inspired the disenfranchised across the planet, fluidly building a clamoring constituency that is calling for political change, cooperation with the western world, and peace between governing bodies.
It may seem like a surprise for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but can you think of any one face or name on this planet with more worldwide clout right now? Just because it’s a shock, it doesn’t mean that there’s anyone more deserving to win this award.
37. Kyle | 10.09.09
Congrats Obama??? Those of us Americans who still value PROGRESS over PROMISES applaud your progress…Who are we kidding? There has been no Progress. Mr. President in the future please apply for awards that applaud happy thoughts, warm smiles and good intentions because the next time that an Afghan child is starving to death while his village is being burned by extremists your loving thoughts will surely save him.
Seriously…the Nobel PEACE prize. Give me a break.
38. Vail | 10.09.09
Voting for the Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1st, less than 2 weeks after he took office. Former winners include Adolf Hitler, Yassar Arafat and Al Gore.
Nuff said.
My 2¢
39. Pete Will | 10.09.09
M’am we don’t patent ideas
An aunt of a friend of ours had called the patent office to patent an idea popped up in her mind, in her eureka moment while doing her laundry.
In that conversation the above heading was the reply she got from a patent officer.
Go Figure!
40. Brian | 10.09.09
I offer an alternative idea here: Obama is laughing all the way to the bank. Which is good for Americans.
If Obama can convince, sex, charisma, lure, whatever you want to say it the Nobel Peace Prize judges, what does that say about his ability to sex over Chavez, Russia, Iran and so on? Oh wait. Russia is on board for more sanctions against Iran, Chavez loves Obama and the world loves Obama. And Americans are better off for it.
Say what you want about Obama, Bush and so on. I *want* the President to be charismatic, sexy and diplomatic. The whole point of being a President is not merely to be a general, but a diplomat on the world stage. Reagan was charismatic, Clinton was charismatic and the best Presidents are charismatic.
I also want the President to be intelligent, decisive and experienced. But all these traits are not mutually exclusive. Obama may lack in the experience department but he has enough intelligence to surround himself with James Jones, Robert Gates and so on. Certainly Obama has more raw intelligence than Bush and even McCain (both awful in school).
Experience is as important as charisma when it comes to being President. If conservatives can claim 9/11’s were stopped by Bush’s actions, how many more 9/11’s will be stopped at the end of Obama’s term because some Muslims hate America less? We will never know, but that claim is about as flimsy as conservative claims there hasn’t been an attack on American soil because of their policies, as if it matters whether Americans die on American soil or they die far from it (more Americans have died in Iraq than 9/11).
What is wrong with a President with a silver tongue? Absolutely nothing, and as the months and years pass and world leaders are sexed over like the Nobel commission the proof will be self-evident. And it won’t cost lives.
41. Malik The Great | 10.09.09
Everyone is mad at Obama for the noble but he didn’t award himself, A group of people decided on bestowing this great honor on him. He may not make all the right decision but who does? He didn’t start all these world problems and conflicts. He now has the arduous task of correcting all of them under the microscope of the world. Before you talk think about what you would do if you were in his shoes. I am proud of Obama he is one of the few lights shining in this dark world we live in right now!
42. B.D. | 10.09.09
I am just confused on how he won it. I do like Obama but it seems this award was given because of what he says he’s going to do. He has yet to prove any of the things he has promised.
43. comfy | 10.09.09
Amos . . . comment number 14 . . . that’s very clear. Well, I think also of how the United States could have gotten rougher with North Korea, including stopping that ship that was possibly taking illegal items to a rogue country. They let them run out of fuel, instead . . . pretty clever, I would consider, if this was the case (o: Someone else might have done a “preemptive” bombing of North Korean nuclear facilities and struck out the food supply behind any grand North Korean army coming to attack South Korea and let them starve to death, maybe.
B-u-t > in America, the culture is functional for slaughtering many unborn, each year > this isn’t oppression, of unborn Americans? And divorce is an industry, here, keeping “a number” employed . . . right. Now, how can such a culture produce people realistically able to produce peace that isn’t more than status quo so abortion and divorce can continue rampantly? How can leaders unable to protect their own unborn be able to care for other countries, like Iraq and Iran, etc.? If you can’t take care of your own, how can you rightly take care of someone else, especially as different as in a Muslim culture? Laws and policy can not make people love; nor can a financial and social incentive in the form of a Nobel peace prize.
44. Raph | 10.09.09
The election of Obama didn’t mean automatic employment.
The election of him didn’t mean immediate health care for every American.
Many people around the globe supported his vision and ambition in hopes of taking a step forward to prevent GREATER issues that go further beyond the control of mediocre politicians.
I see it as we’re in the process of transformation than a revolution. It takes more than a few months to change the way we as modern human are conditioned to think. I hope more people would believe in the government’s (or the world’s leaders’) - plan to empower and enlighten people with possibilities when we all come together and unite to continue the movement. No individual will single handedly ‘fix’ countless problems that exist in this period of time. Let’s be open minded and COOPERATE rather than just following a potential great leader’s plan.
Have you traded in your truck for a smaller, more gas efficient vehicle yet? They gave away $4000 for each car if you haven’t heard.
45. Caro | 10.09.09
When I first heard this I thought it was a joke. Guess they sipped some of the kool aide too.
46. Brad | 10.09.09
The thing that really irritates me about President Obama winning this award, is that he was nominated for this award within 12 days of taking office. The nominating date was Feb 1st, so this was obviously planned from the beginning. Who could have nominated him for this award after 12 days, what did he do during that time to even be nominated, little lone win the actually prize. While he is my President, and i support him on that front, this is a international prize for people who have dedicated their lives for peace, and the prize should have gone to one of them. He should gracefully decline the prize, and perhaps hope to EARN one in the future.
47. Disgusted with Politics and Corruption | 10.09.09
I believe this proves the whole world is corrupt and that anything is available to purchase at a price. I use to place some level of belief in the committee that awards the Nobel prizes; but I believe I have been let down again…. In short all I have to say in this award is “And the point of it all is?”
48. Reader | 10.09.09
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won’t post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
49. Craig | 10.09.09
The absence of information and accountability in many of the negative postings above is astonishing. You can express disagreement with the choice without resorting to demonstrably false claims about “doing nothing.” Let’s respect the discipline of “humanities” study (cited as a value in an above posting) by exorcising some critical thought. Vitriolic hyperbole only damages your case and calls for equally thoughtless pap in response.
50. Scott in Alaska | 10.09.09
Sadly, what the Nobel Committee has done is essentially turn the prestigious Peace award into the proverbial ‘carrot on the stick’. With the cash attachement, it is also tantamount to a ‘bonus’ for a sales person. Except the salesperson’s bonus is paid AFTER they have increased sales…..certainly not for ‘anticipated’ growth. I have no more respect for the Nobel Peace Prize; it has been denegrated. Look at previous winners and compare: Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr(wasn’t that one posthumous?)….Barack is not even in the same ballpark as these previous winners.
51. Laura | 10.09.09
This is just another pander to minorities to makes society feel better about themselves. Minorities are exceptional and have achieved unbelievable feats without this kind of pandering. This makes it look like they can’t though. “It must be given to them” is the racist message this award is loudly proclaiming around the world. When are we going to stop holding people by the hand and hold their feet to the fire? Poor Barak came into the Presidency without any experience, highly questionable background, and now a global peace prize. They’ve effectively made him look like someone who can’t get anything except hand outs.
52. Sara (american in kenya) | 10.09.09
I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
53. Sulpha | 10.09.09
What kind of politics is this…
Mahathma Gandhi the father of non-violence, was nominated 5 times, shortlisted 3 times (once posthumously) and was NEVER awarded one. Damn politicians. Lots of strings were pulled by the britishers at that time to not award it to Gandhi. I dont know who sits on these committees these day, looks like money and power speaks everywhere. I am ashamed of Nobel Peace Prize, not of the Nobel Science prizes yet. Please dont give Nobel prize for Physics or chemistry to David Letterman next year. it will look obvious that the prizes are totally rigged.
Sulpha
54. operagost | 10.09.09
Joe, you comment is incredibly misinformed. Mother Theresa worked primarily IN CALCUTTA, with HINDUS. She never demanded conversion; in fact, she has been criticized by some for not being evangelistic enough.
“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied.”
As for Amos Ajo’s long proselytization for Obama, it’s totally nullified by Obama’s ongoing emphasis of his own country as weak, constantly apologizing for America’s faults both real and imagined. He’s making America out to be an empty sandbag that is only capable of meekly asking the water to stop.
Finally, for a look at a nominee who has spent YEARS improving the world, not a few months promising to, I give you Greg Mortenson.
55. Troy Davis | 10.09.09
I don’t think the premise of this story is correct. Obama was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to spur action. Thorbjorn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said the president had already contributed enough to world diplomacy and international understanding to earn the award.
“We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year,” Mr. Jagland said.
We should all be proud to have a man of peace as president. There is still much work to be done and a long road to travel, but he has turned the course of our nation back onto the path of peace from which we strayed during the Bush years.
Now let’s bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and work on the Israel/Palestine situation which is the root cause of so many of our foreign policy problems
56. Victor Cherubim | 10.09.09
Though President Obama has been in office for nine months,the Nobel Peace
Prize is for his initiative and innovative approach in bringing the world
out gloom to see a new vision of the future.
It is not for what he has done, but for what he can do. The Can Do have
won it. Europe loves Obama.
57. rs | 10.09.09
Nobel Committee Leaders, Socialists Thorbjoern Jagland, current Vice president of the Socialist International and representing the Norweigan Labour Party, and Aagot Valle, a spokesperson of the Socialist Left Party are the new leaders of the Nobel Committee , chose Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. Jagland was also classified as a “confidential contact” by the KGB in NYtimes article from 1997. What to notice here is these guys were appointed at the beginning of this year, they have socialist and communist ties, even KGB ties, and they chose Obama based on their politics I believe.
references:
http://www.norwaypost.no/content/view/21693/1/
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/16/world/norway-chief-steps-down-as-votes-fall-short-of-goal.html
general info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorbj%C3%B8rn_Jagland#cite_note-52
58. Rich Stoehr | 10.09.09
The Nobel Peace Prize is a political tool as much as anything else, as Obama himself pointed out: “Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations…throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement, it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.”
And he is exactly right in this.
In all the complaints posted here (and elsewhere) I’ve yet to see anything constructive. Just complaining and criticizing. To those who say he doesn’t deserve it, or the Nobel Committee made a bad choice, I ask only this: Who would you have chosen instead? And why?
59. Shahzaib | 10.09.09
I am from Pakistan and i haven’t seen Obama doing any thing for peace. Its been only one year when he became known to public and he have not done that much work for peace that he could be awarded Nobel prize. I think the committee have been partial and just gave him the prize without any good reason. There are many other people who are doing much greater things and doing it from a long time. There efforts are never appreciated. This is a complete injustice with all of those other deserving people.
60. GeorgeIII | 10.09.09
Hurry up and get your One Trillion Dollar Nobel Prize now. Prize goes to the highest bidder. Hey Einstein, Planck, Pauling, Fermi, et al chuck em in the trash. Your hard work is now meaningless.
61. Croupier | 10.09.09
Hm. There seem to be two different reactions to this. Let’s choose between ‘em by handicapping the contenders.
In this corner: Desmond Tutu, Shimon Peres, Mikhail Gorbachev, Modamed ElBaradei, Jimmy Carter — (vets of the ring & former champs)…
In this corner: Teretha Jones, Shannon, Mike Daroukie, Alan Clark, David, Brain, temporaldoom, kyle, CatB, bariy ataya, Tony Sucheston, Seriously, Breno, lexy, pub, Phil, jilld, Denise, Leander, Jeffrey, ishfaq, Vail, B.D., comfy…
Ladies & Gents — place your bets.
62. Zurina | 10.09.09
To Don and Tom, Obama didn’t remake the image of America, just look at the US$ value, it tells a bunch. The world audience is happy because America has a weak leader. Weak leader and depreciating currency, that is what the world wants. Do you think strong leaders like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson will be given Nobel prices. It’s a mockery, may be you are in the same audience.
63. Louie | 10.09.09
After today…the Nobel Peace Prize means nothing. How can one earn this award of false hope? I strongly urge the Norwegian Nobel Committee to re-evaluate it’s process in determining who should win. I would also urge them to reconsider - is it too late?
64. M.M. | 10.09.09
I didn’t realize you could buy the Nobel Peace Prize. The cost of the “Prize” was his soul! Obama is an embarrassment to our Nation. Since Europe loves him, maybe they could take him off our hands??
65. confounded | 10.09.09
The nobel has about as much status as a degree from a diploma mill university. We manage to dumb down everything. Nothing is sacred anymore.
66. john | 10.09.09
Obama deserves the award. He hates the US Constitution. He hates capitalism. And, he and his wife think America is a down right MEAN country. Exactly the sentiments of the Nobel committee.
67. Augusta Mia | 10.09.09
Response to R Stoehr (#58): “To those who say he doesn’t deserve it, or the Nobel Committee made a bad choice, I ask only this: Who would you have chosen instead? And why?” Reasonable request deserves a considered response.
Jehan Sadat, (widow of former Peace Prize winner Anwar Sadat) is “dedicated to improving the status of women in Egypt, she established the Talla Society, which trains women in various handicrafts and pays the tuition of nearly one thousand secondary school and university students” in her Egyptian homeland.
Or how about any one of numerous groups, big and small, that promote peace by working for justice? Tikkun Magazine, or the worldwide Catholic Worker movement, or the Peace Corps. Or organizations like International Red Cross who offer life-giving aid without regard to artificial differences of race and creed?
There are various reconciliation groups that deserve recognition (and the prize money would help): the Guatemalen Project to Recover the Historic Memory, the South African Truth & Reconciliation Commission, or the “Left to Tell” Charitable Fund in Rwanda
Or the groups working for co-existence between Israelis and Arabs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projects_working_for_peace_among_Arabs_and_Israelis
Or those like Asia Foundation fighting (among other woes) human trafficking asiafoundation.org/
A very small, but substantial (as in heavy-weight) list of nominees - but is substance required to actually earn the Nobel Peace Prize any more? Apparently not, if what the committee is aiming to do is further an agenda.
I personally don’t have a problem with that–it’s their money, after all. But at least be honest about how the politicized carrot-and-stick agenda has devalued what was once a truly “noble” prize.
68. Jane | 10.09.09
Rich — I completely agree with you. He is working on International relations which could prevent what otherwise could cause larger problems. With regards to having troops sent to Afghanistan, after we reduced the number of troops in their country, they were left to try and reform on their own. The Taliban will go to great lengths to take over again and also try to acheive other attacks. So, I think he has good reason to believe we need to be there. My view is he’s trying to prevent the Taliban running the country– and, hope that he also helps them in forming a ethical govt.
With Pakistan. We provide them millions to prevent terrorism and yet, I question the help they provide. I work with many that moved from the mid-east and they say that govt. is corrupt and when I watch the leader speak, it makes me sick.
With the state of U.S. — he was dealt with a lot of issues and he’s not perfect but, any change takes time. He deserves this and I applaud him. As mentioned by others with negative posts, I’d love to hear how they could handle all of the domestic issues as a leader — and what useful direction they’d provide.
Congratulations Obama — you deserve it!
69. Chukwunwikezarramu Okumephuna | 10.09.09
The decision of the Nobel Committee to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama is a very welcomed decision and a development that could only be described as giving an honour to whom honour is due. I therefore wish to state that I am proud of the decision and it could not have come at any other time than this.
In less than one year in the office, Barack Obama has surely infected and transformed the world as well as added a new meaning to politics in particular and democracy in general. His popularity in every part of the world attests to the fact that if the whole world were to decide on who clinches this peace prize, he will still win it.
He came with the message of peace, change and hope and right from the time he took the world by surprise at the Democratic National Convention up till the announcement of this prize, every actions of President Obama has borne testimony to the fact that he is a man of peace, a lover of peace and person who is eager to have that peace disseminated to every part of the world.
His style of politics is an inclusive one and he derives joy in carrying everybody along with him despite fierce oppositions from here and there and yonder. His, is not a politics of vengeance or that of smear campaign and tarnishing of images. Even when he was called ‘that one’ by his Republican opponent John McCain during a televised debate, he remained unruffled and still maintained same decorum even when Sarah Pallin accused him of ‘palling with the terrorists’. Or have we quickly forgotten what he went through in the hands of the Clintons in the name of politics, but instead of vengeance and smear campaigns which are the normal thing in today’s politics, he made her his Secretary of State.
What else do we need to look at before giving him this prize? Obama believes in peace and he preached and practised it to the highest level. His concept of peace is intertwined with egalitarianism hence his decision to give all Americans equal access to health care. He does not believe that people should die if they do not have money for healthcare or go bankrupt simply because they want to access the health care. He is a passionate believer in the concept of health not only as particle of peace but a fundamental human right that must be made available to the entire populace for their enjoyment irrespective of status and income.
Despite all these goodwill, he has been a subject of series of attacks and smear campaigns even to the extent of being called a liar openly by a Republican senator. Interestingly, out of all these opportunities that offered him the prospect to go on revenge politics, he exhibited the highest form of maturity by preferring to carry on with the business of governance and taking us out of this financial mess instead of wasting time on his detractors, because to him peace must be allowed to reign supreme.
Obama is a passionate believer in peace and has said time without number that we cannot have peace unless everybody in the world is assured of one. It has been American foreign policy to protect itself from the outside world by all means in the name of security thinking that it is the way to be secured and in peace amongst themselves. Obama reversed it opining that no matter how high America build a wall around itself, it will never have peace till that peace is taken for granted in all parts of the world. Though this seems a feat impossible to achieve, he has been working towards that with all vigour and passion and we are already seeing the impact.
On many occasions, he extended a hand of fellowship to North Korea and Iran, both rebuffed that hand and to the Muslim world, he promised a new beginning and to carry them along if they denounce terrorism and join the train of civilisation and dialogue. He made his administration very open to all and runs an open door policy to the extent that he has taken the initiative to extend hands of fellowship to countries and groups America as a country would not have thought of doing business with including North Korea and Iran. Even his home country of Kenya was not spared. He threatened to place a travel ban and restrictions on top government officials including the government in power and the opposition if the peace accord is falls apart.
On the perennial issue of Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he demonstrated openness to resolve the problem during his term in the office and to have a Palestinian state realised during his tenure too. In a very strong voice, he condemned as completely unacceptable the expanding of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories and diplomatically threatened Israel with ‘you-would-have-to-be-on-your-own’ warning, if they delay or derail the peace process. He sent same message to all the parties in the Middle East that have the intention of being a cog in the wheel of the peace process.
In less than one year in the office, he promised to conclude the US
unfinished business in Iraq as soon as possible even as he set security as his top priority in Afghanistan by committing more troops to stabilise the fragile country and ensure that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are kept at bay.
It is against this background that he sent an olive palm to the state of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and actually commenced his first foreign trip In Egypt, a muslin country as a sign of his willingness to bring all the Muslims on board in the attempt to forge a new partnership and beginning built on mutual respect, tolerance and accommodation even as he charged the Muslim world to ensure that the unscrupulous elements amongst them are not allowed to tarnish the image of Islam.
On the Nuclear ambition of the world superpowers, Barack Obama who is not only a lawyer but also a professor of law noted that nuclear power would never bring that peace we are anxious to get but would only contribute immensely to the status quo ante. He promised to reduce the stockpile of the United States nuclear war heads and invited Russia with a visit to the country to do same even as he cancelled the decision of the United States to build and install Missile Shield System in Eastern Europe which had the potential of drawing us back to another cold war. This was a decision any other American president would not have reversed out of ego. To Obama, peace must reign and must reign by all means no matter whose Ox is gored hence the scrapping of the system.
President Barack Obama was able to achieve these entire feats in less than one year in the office and that leads me to question his critics who insinuate that the award is too early or that he did not merit it. The fact is that Obama does not need to procrastinate like his predecessors before he could lay a solid foundation for peace especially in the Middle East. The earlier the better because his predecessors were trickishly fond of commending the whole process at the end of their tenure thereby achieving nothing at the end of the day. He reversed the trend by taking a bold step to step into the territory his predecessors were afraid of stepping into as early as possible. A sign of deep-hearted quest and commitment for peace.
What other presidents were not even able to achieve within their whole tenure, he was able to create impact on in less than one year in the office. That should be the more reason he should be given the prize. He closed the Guantanamo bay detention camp, pushed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change which successive American presidents vehemently refused to negotiate, contributed immensely with his stimulus plans to avoid the worst recession in the history of the world, brought peace between the police man and the Harvard professor and many others too numerous to mention here. The fact is that no other newly elected US president would have been able to achieve so much in so little a time like Obama due to American ego but Obama shattered that ego opining that international peace is more important than American selfishness.
Barack Obama therefore is highly qualified to be the recipient of this year’s edition of the award and the decision of the Nobel Committee to award it to Obama is something to write home about for he changed the meaning of politics and steered the world out of doom in just less than one year in the office.
70. Stan | 10.09.09
What is all the noise about? I am not surprised at all. This is all about making a political statement. No different than the Oscars awarding Michael Moore for his anti-bush documentary.
5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament determine who gets this prize.
Let me repeat. 5 guys. If you see the trend with Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and similar politically minded individuals you can see where this is heading.
Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Mikhail Gorbachov, Martin Luther King Jr are some of the other winners. I just can’t imagine Gore, Carter and Obama in the same realm.
It’s honestly the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a very long time.
71. iris | 10.09.09
what IS peace, anyway? to me, it’s a positive attitude, it’s looking for solutions even when problems seem insurmountable. i don’t agree with everything obama does but i revere his optimism. it’s a breath of fresh air when america is filled with people such as yourselves—people who actually make the world a less peaceful place with comments such as these. let’s ALL work towards getting a nobel peace prize instead of criticizing the one who DID get it. you’ve all proven how difficult it is to keep a positive attitude… so frankly, i’d say obama’s earned it.
72. mari | 10.09.09
Dr. Ralph Bunche, the first African American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize (in 1950 for negotiating the 1949 Arab-Israeli Armistice), must be turning over in his grave. No disrespect to President Obama, but it used to be that you actually had to accomplish something in order to win a Nobel, not just give speeches. I think when the Nobel committee uses these prizes to send a political message as they have done in recent years, the prize loses its meaning. If all you have to do is talk or make a movie (as Gore did), then nothing of substantive value will ever actually get done. I have a poster on my wall with a quote that the Nobel Committee should make their mantra when looking to grant future awards: “After all is said and done - more is said than done.”
73. Wen Rixin | 10.09.09
One very simple but tough question: What anticipations people, both at home and abroad, could and should have on Mr Obama in the ensuing months and days?
74. StewartIII | 10.09.09
NewsBusters — CSMonitor: ‘94 Peace Prize Winners All ‘Have Blood on Their Hands’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/10/09/csmonitor-94-peace-prize-winners-all-have-blood-their-hands
75. WJackson | 10.09.09
I always used to think I didn’t have a shot at becoming King of Norway…maybe I do now.
76. WJackson | 10.09.09
First, Noble established the award for a very specific purpose, not to be used for the political whims or projections of five appointed Norwegian politicians. If they cannot administer the program within the intended boundaries of it’s originator they should relinquish the authority to award it rather then cheapen it with politics.
Second, this award was given to a President who had been in office less then two weeks. No one in their right mind can believe that this award was given to honor or reward a President who had accomplished little of note in any field in that less then two weeks. This award is not intended to honor or reward President Obama but rather it’s given simply to slight the previous President.
Lastly, President Obama should refuse the award and not allow himself to be used in this fashion. If there comes a time that he earns and deserves the award, then yes, he should accept it. Accepting this award simply makes him a tool to a few disgruntled Norwegian politicians with chips on their narrow shoulders. Shame on the Noble committee for being unable to separate their politics from their duty and for fabricating an entitled award simple for that purpose.
All recipients who honor the intentions of Alfred Noble should return their awards in protest.
77. sandra orton | 10.09.09
Proud to once again be an American who can hold ones head high under the leadership of President Obama! Congratulations on receiving this world honor of ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ for assisting all world individuals with the act of speaking and negotiating with each other!
Now I wonder if any recipient, in the past 100 years, has donated the financial award to charity? This alone demonstrates the true character of a person!
78. Dane | 10.09.09
Perhaps it was given because a country that importanted black folk to be slaves has come full circle to electing a black man as our President. Perhaps that is the peace they are talking about, that America is doing better in race relations, better than any country. A black American was elected peacefully and serves peacefully as President. It does not matter if you agree with him or not, or if his policies fail and he is elected out. If it is done peacefully, it is worth an honor? That is my best guess for the award.
79. curious | 10.09.09
Where did WJackson (#76) get the misinformation that “…this award was given to a President who had been in office less then two weeks…”? The closing date to submit NOMINATIONS was two weeks after Obama’s inauguration. (Neither he nor any of his staff even knew his name had been “put into the hat.”) The Committee has spent the last nine months going over all these names — there were 200 of them — and, about two weeks ago, decided to give him the prize.
WJackson quesions how anyone “…in their right mind can believe that this award was given to honor or reward a President who had accomplished little of note in any field in that less then two weeks…” [sic]. A more pertinent question is how anyone in their right mind can jump to sweeping conclusions based on phony-baloney premises.
80. Roland Olsen | 10.09.09
Sandra Orton: No need to wonder when you can do some research and find out that many have given their awards away to charity. Obama is not unique in this regard - just played up to be so by the mass media.
Given that Obama has really done nothing to earn the Nobel, these monies would have to be considered a “gift”. Congressmen can not accept gifts so it would look hypocritical (as well as unethical) if he did keep the money. And because he has accepted this prize on behalf of the American people (even he is embarrassed by an award for non-performance), it’s acutualy our money he is giving away. That sounds an awful lot like his “spread the wealth” economic policy…which is exactly why he received this award form five European socialists in the first place.
81. Neel Gupta | 10.10.09
I think we should have waited until Obama’s peace efforts could be quantified. It’s a little too early. I think he’s a remarkable man with a remarkable mind, and has certainly been instrumental in improving the international climate. But then, all our views on his achievements in the last 8 months are still subjective. Can the Nobel Peace Prize really be awarded on a subjective, anecdotal and perceptual basis?
82. Ibsaa | 10.10.09
The reward was not given to Obama only. But given to Americans who committed themselves to elect him as their president. When world has turned its face from America and “Americans” they decided to elect a leader who can recocile them with the world. “Americans” I said because every part of the world has its seed there. Hence, the award for me is not for Obama only but, is a signal that the world has looked at American in another way. Big responsibility given to Americans - not to Obama. World has accepted you to bring another change as you have done sometimes. The Award committes wisness to put the world in challeng e for peace is appreciable. sometimes it is better to do things differently!!
83. Al | 10.10.09
Did I read that Adolph Hitler got the peace prize? It is, obviously, a tool of intellects that do not understand how people really work.
An award like a white washed tomb, full of dead men’s bones.
84. Alice | 10.10.09
I agree he should say “thanks, but no thanks” and direct the prize towards someone else. That would be inspiring, humble, and useful.
85. Richard D. | 10.10.09
Even the Dems are embarassed by this. It’s like seeing your kid awarded first prize in the science fair for a project on which you did all the work.
86. melissa cliver | 10.10.09
“With a few strokes of a pen, President Obama this morning reversed linchpins of the Bush administration’s war on terror.
He signed executive orders to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center within a year and to ban harsh interrogations — what critics say are tantamount to torture”
I would say this counts for something? Maybe we should ask all the people who went through Guantanamo bay if they think he has done anything for humanity?
87. Nathan Detroit | 10.10.09
To Vail (#39) and Al (#83) –
I will give each of you $1000 if you can name the year in which Adolf Hitler was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you are unable to do so, I will not ask for $1000 from you. I will ask, instead, that you write an open letter to this newspaper stating that “your intellect” is that of a gullible fool — and in future you will attempt not to believe everything you “read.”
88. Miki Gilliland | 10.10.09
I am an American of Norwegian heritage and now I get it: Obama was nominated for the Nobel Prize last February. The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is Thorbjørn Jagland, elected Secretary General of the Council of Europe in September.
Jagland wanted to be Secretary General;Obama wanted the prize. One hand washes the other. Isn’t this how it works these days as we march to one world government? Does the name Quisling come to mind?
Think about this.
89. Luiz | 10.10.09
How a presidents that promotes 2 fierce WARS can receive a Nobel for PEACE ??? The answer is so clear that everybody knows: Pure Politics. America’s posture has improved but it is still scorned by half the world as purely cynical and retorical.
90. tom davis | 10.10.09
Perhaps he could donate the money for fuel to fly air force one to Denmark so he could tell the General to “shut up and stop talking to the press.”
91. nfp | 10.10.09
Great! Norwegian currency instead of American taxpayer’s money can be used to support Czars, SEIU and ACORN.
92. Zesopol | 10.11.09
He got the Nobel Peace Prize but he supported the war in Afghanistan even long before he became a president.
“It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win
Washington, DC | August 01, 2007
Obama himself admitted when he spoke at the White House: “to be honest I do not feel that I deserved to be in the company of so many transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”
BBC news: Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: “It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve”. Obama also said the prize is a “Call of Action.”
So, I think this means he is yet to achieved his goals to end nuclear proliferation, his efforts to reach out to the muslim world and end American war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, he is escalating the war in Afghanistan which simply means human beings are killing each other and more innocent civilians will have to pay the heavy price in this war. We have witnessed 8 years (by next week) of war in Afghanistan and Afghan civilians are the most affected not only the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and NATO forces.
Now, if Obama agreed to send more troops as requested by Gen. McChrystal of ideally 40,000 troops according to the meeting at the White House yesterday morning, we can imagine more people will be killed in Afghanistan and it means no peace.
93. FightTyranny | 10.11.09
Obama is a “deeply moral” man? A politician? Now that’s an oxymoron. This man is going to do more in two years to doom millions to tyranny and death than Jimmy Carter did in one term. A peace prize to this man is also an oxymoron.
Me thinks the Emperor has no clothes.
94. susan | 10.11.09
When will Americans support their president no matter if he is from their political party or not?? I’d like to know when our country will ever come together to be proud of ourselves again This is as much of an award for America as it is for the President. The World looks to us for leadership and wants us to succeed. Awarding the Nobel Prize to our President is one more affirmation of that belief.
95. Patricia | 10.11.09
Apparently, Obama was nominated in February - a month after he took office. It’s a travesty that this prestigious award for significant achievements to mankind is diminished in value by being given by a left-wing political activist, Jagland, to promote what Obama MIGHT ACCOMPLISH. What an insult to the “real” achievers to mankind. Awarding it to Gore was stupifying, but giving it to Obama is absolutely incredulous!
96. Tailgunner | 10.11.09
Obama got a Nobel cause this guy’s daughter stayed up all night watching him on Election Night?
What a bunch of lightweights we have running things.
97. peace@last | 10.12.09
Hi Folks,
One thing is for certain, negativity and criticism does not promote peace. During his campaign President Barack Obama was constantly attacked with much criticism, dirty politics, false accusations, slander, and filth. Not once did he retaliate. He kept his cool and fought to win with INTEGRITY, DIGNITY and BRILLIANCE. He utilized the best campaign strategies to reach Americans and SUCCESSFULLY unite many cultures, races, and class. He always extended his hand for PEACE to all thru it all. He leads by example. He has been recognized Globally/Nationally for this. Change doesn’t happen in a day and he is still working hard at it!
YES, he desrves the Nobel Peace Prize for what he has already done and for things hoped for.
He is willing to give PEACE A CHANCE. Why don’t you? Please, for the sake of the world GIVE PEACE A CHANCE. Be careful what you say and do and learn to lead by example.
98. Howard Beale | 10.12.09
During the campaign he allowed his surrogates to paint Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists among other things… so this “he didn’t engage in dirty politics” is poop.
In the 1960’s Marshall McLuhan wrote “The Medium is the Message”. Today it is “The Celebrity is the Accomplishment”.
Welcome to the 3rd Millennium!
99. Samuel | 10.14.09
To me, peace is whoever has the bigger, better weapon. If this is true, which i obviously believe it is, then the award should have gone to the leader of some other country. This would have told the world (even more than giving it to Obama) that it was a political move, meant to show those striving for anarchy and warfare that the world would stand in their way. (Just as an aside, and as a clarification: i do not think that the US is the leader in weaponry or advancements. I do not think we are incredibly far behind, but we are definitely no longer the leaders we once were. Other countries may still look to us as the leaders, but that, i believe, will all change the next time a country with enough power decides to challenge the US for world leader through warfare.)
100. Jose Martine | 10.17.09
resident Obama should donate his Nobel Peace Prize funds to the U.S. government to pay for his two Scandanavian trips: 1. Copenhagen for his failing bid to push the Olympic games there and 2. To pick up Nobel Peace Prize funds. Each trip cost the U.S. taxpayer about $ 920,000 for Air Force One, security etc.
And there is the issue of how the Nobel foundation funds invested in Swedish armament industry and in weapons of mass destruction. Sweden is the worlds largest exporter of arms (per capita), followed by Israel.
1. Originally the directive from Alfred Nobel was to place the funds in real estate or similar safe investments, however since 1953 the foundation was allowed by the Swedish government to invest in shares, which stopped the hither to depletion of the funds.
2. The funds are at the moment approx US$ 500 million in total (it shrunk approx 20% last year).
3. The management is not done by the foundation itself, it is split across several (about ten) portfolios managed by different asset managers in Sweden and other countri es, the spread across countries and by asset type can be found here: http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/finan-manag.html
4. As late as 2005, there is an explicit admission from the foundation that there are NO ethical guidelines issued to the asset managers:
http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article256458.ece?service=articlePrint - in Norwegian)
5.There have been several ’scandals’ surrounding the asset management, presumably deriving from the lack of ethical guidelines from the Nobel foundation
- In 1998, the Observer made an investigation into the investments and found that many of the world largest arms manufactureres (including Boeing, British Aerospace, GKN och Smiths Industries) were in the Nobel foundation portfolios
- in 2005, a Norwegian organization ‘Norwatch’ looked specifically into the portfolio handled by a US firm group called T Rowe Price who in their general portfolios have manufacturers of both cluster bombs and atomic bombs (Lockheed Martin). The Nobel foundation did not exclude the possibility that their funds were invested in such shares
6. it is probable that such investments are held in the the Bofor group, which has a high level chemical plant in Ifshahan, Iran, which manufactures TNT, and quite likely sophisticated chemical precursors used to help create nuclear enriched uranium.
However, dynamite and related products was the original invention and=2 0business which gave Alfred Nobel the means to set up the prize in the first place, and he was the owner of Bofors from 1894-96, during which he “had the key role in reshaping the iron manufacturer to a modern cannon manufacturer (…)” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors
No doubt the prestige of the prize to a large degree derives from the large sums involved, but is therefore also stained by the way the money was and is procured.
But the prestige also derives from Alfred Nobels testamentary wish to promote peace and international understanding.
The paradox the funds for the Nobel Prize are invested and retained in funds related to armament productions and weapons of mass destruction and many people are unaware of this situation.
101. Shan | 10.25.09
When I first heard about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize my response was “What For?” Now my response is “You can win the peace prize for good intentioned talk?” Because that’s all he’s done thus far is, talk.
I always thought this award stood for something. I always saw the winners as dedicated heroes who spent the better half of their lives in pursuit of something grand!!!!!! Think of MARTTI AHTISAARI of Finland or WANGARI MAATHAI of Africa or THE 14TH DALAI LAMA (TENZIN GYATSO) of Tibet or MOTHER TERESA or even the first Nobel peace prize winners FRÉDÉRIC PASSY and JEAN HENRI DUNANT. These people stood/stand for something greater than themselves and they have been working their A**es off to achieve it!!!
Obama isn’t’ old enough and hasn’t’ been working toward his “Goal” long enough to even be considered for this most prestigious award!!!! If he had any dignity at all he would have politely turned it down with grace and humility!!!! I am disgusted!!!!
This is an outrage and a slap in the face to the people who truly deserve this award!! The people who dedicate their existence for something and never expect anything in return!!
Now I’m not saying Obama will never deserve this award. I’m not saying that! What I am saying is he doesn’t deserve it now!!!!!!!!! He hasn’t been doing whatever they say he’s been doing long enough. I shake my head at this travesty and wonder where this world is heading!! Didn’t your grandfather always say you have to earn something to get it? Well Obama has NOT earned the Nobel peace prize yet!!!
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for The international politics behind Obama’s Nobel Peace prize | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.09.09
2. Michelle Malkin » Story of Obama’s life: “Rather than recognizing concrete achievement…” | 10.09.09
4. Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize - Page 3 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars | 10.09.09
5. The international politics behind Obama’s Nobel Peace prize | csmonitor.com « People Peace Initiative | 10.09.09
6. The international politics behind Obama’s Nobel Peace prize | csmonitor.com « Somaliaobserver's Blog | 10.09.09
9. CSMonitor: ‘94 Peace Prize Winners All ‘Have Blood on Their Hands’ | Prayer And Action | 10.09.09
14. CSMonitor: ‘94 Peace Prize Winners All ‘Have Blood on Their Hand s’ « Prayer, News & Action | 10.09.09
19. The international politics behind Obama’s Nobel Peace prize | csmonitor.com « The Stem Cell Blog | 10.11.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. tim burrows | 10.09.09
Bush = Obama