Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Thorbjorn Jagland, announces that the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 will be awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama.
(Torbjorn Gronning/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Obama Nobel Peace Prize for what?
Editorialists around the country weigh in on Obama’s surprise Nobel Peace Prize. Some offer suggestions on who should have gotten the award. Others see liberal politics at play - a way to jab at George W. Bush.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer/ October 10, 2009 edition
The morning-after reaction to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize continues to be a massive and collective “Huh?”
Editorial writers and commentators — like millions of people around the world — are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out the awarding committee’s rationale, naming those they think might have been more deserving recipients, seeing politics as the motive.
“It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree,” says the Washington Post.
“In offering this latest Euro-celebration of the 2008 election, the Norwegian committee has … demonstrated a certain cluelessness about America. If anything animates Mr. Obama’s critics in this country, it is the impression that he is the focus of a global cult of personality. This prize, at this time, only feeds that impression, and thus does him no favors politically.”
The Los Angeles Times echoes the feeling, noting that “Excessive praise can be unwelcome and embarrassing.”
“Obama managed to be both abashed and appreciative in his response, but no amount of self-effacing spin can obscure the oddity of this award.”
Like others, the LA Times noted that “It’s hard to escape the impression that Obama was honored because he isn’t George W. Bush.”
“Maybe he really is The One,” tweaks the Wall Street Journal.
“Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world’s first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity…. We all have at least three more years to learn if Mr. Obama will fulfill the audacity of hope that the Nobel Committee has put on him to bow to the values of the world’s ‘majority’. ”
The Boston Globe takes a more positive tack on Obama’s Nobel: “Whether or not the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Obama prematurely, global awareness of the award can translate into a valuable American asset.”
“Hard-headed leaders in Tehran, Moscow, or Pyongyang will not suddenly do Obama’s bidding simply because he has been praised by a committee of dignitaries in Oslo. But this Peace Prize carries a message for those leaders and their publics. It says that instead of being outside an international consensus, the United States today stands at the center of that consensus. The announcement from Oslo has enhanced American soft power.”
The Dallas Morning News picks up on the “anti-Bush” theme.
“Though not being George W. Bush may cause impressionable Norwegians to flush with ardor, it is not an actual Nobel-worthy accomplishment. By awarding this celebrated prize to a president who hasn’t had the time to achieve anything substantial on the world stage, the Nobel committee has demeaned the award’s value, and put Obama in a difficult position…. As even skeptical liberal commentators said yesterday, this prize goes a long way toward bolstering the case that the adulation the president receives is more hype than reality.”
One of the more positive readings of Obama’s award comes in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which says critics “sound like the Kanye West of Nobel Prizes.”
“Despite the predictable squawking, the Nobel Committee’s decision to award the peace prize Friday to President Barack Obama is an honor in which the entire country ought to take pride.
No, nine months into his presidency, world peace has not broken out. But he has carefully created a climate in which negotiation, diplomacy and respect have supplanted bluster and obstinacy on the world stage.”
Here’s how The Christian Science Monitor editorialized on Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Follow us on Twitter.
Comments
2. mcmath61 | 10.10.09
There are a lot of theories out there to explain why Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize. Here’s mine. Western Europe, a combine of countries economically centered on France and Germany, spent the years from 1945 to 2001 thinking of America as daddy, a country that styled itself as Europe’s ally, protector, and financier. Everyone knew that, even when France walked away from NATO in pique back in 1966, Western European interests around the world almost invariably coincided with American interests. It must have really shocked people across Western Europe to find out that the American hard right hated their guts and had thought of them as incipient enemies for years. European refusal to rush into God’s War in Iraq with the Bush-Cheney team was merely the icing on the anti-European cake, and it convinced most rightists and neo-cons that Europe was America’s enemy, a global rival for power with a revolting “Socialist” philosophy that ought to be treated like a new Soviet Union.
That must have been incredibly scary in a lot of ways. Europe wasn’t really in the mood for a life-or-death struggle with anybody, let alone with its old patron and military defender. The Iraq War looked like a crazy idea to most of them, as it turned out to be in the event, and they just didn’t understand why Bush/Cheney and Company were so incredibly bitter about European diplomats telling them so that they would threaten a Western Alliance that had seen America through to a victory, based on economic strength, in the Cold War. But if Bush/Cheney were ready to paint France and Germany as outright enemies, what should Europe do? Build up enough military power to defend itself, damn the costs? Start vying for position vis-a-vis the USA with emerging economic powers like China and India? Offer to make military alliances with potential anti-American allies (Russia, China, India, even Brazil)? Or just hold tight and wait for Bush to eventually leave office, hoping that maybe the American people would return to their senses and act like friends again?
As it turns out, the Europeans decided to just wait it out. They were palpably disappointed when Kerry lost his bid for the presidency in 2004, although in Bush’s second term Bush tried to repair some of the damage he had inflicted on Euro-American relations, but they were publicly elated when Obama won in 2008. They hoped his election meant things could go back to pre-Bush “normal” in dealings with the USA, and as it turned out, that’s pretty much what happened, and quickly. “Thank God,” most of them must have thought. “Multilateralism” and “diplomacy” are European codewords for when the USA treats Western European countries like partners and fellow grownups rather than as children or vassals. When Bush/Cheney departed, Obama promptly changed the way America related to them from the latter back to the former, and the new way was characterized, from a European perspective, as multilateral and diplomatic. Not only did Obama treat Western Europe as one would treat traditional friends, he also moved quickly to defuse tensions with Russia, making any military confrontation in Europe (in their backyard) much less likely. Since Europe gets much of its energy from Russian sources, a Russia more tied into the Western economic system would give it a sense of security, and Obama moved rapidly and effectively in that direction.
The people who award the Nobel Peace Price are Norwegians, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. Their statements and acts reflect the cultural values and beliefs common in the European Union (even though they haven’t joined, like Switzerland or Iceland). The giddy elation Europeans seem to feel being back on the inside of the American club after eight years in the cold, with the USA even actively promoting European interests, is felt throughout Europe, including in Norway. Who do they thank for that? Barack Obama. Indeed, he really did get the Prize for something he had already done.
3. Alexander Smith | 10.10.09
When I read of Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize I had to check the date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. Sadly it wasn’t.
I have lost faith in the Nobel Peace Prize meaning anything anymore. I can’t believe that men like Nelson Mandella and M. Ghandi received this same prize. They were people who struggled and suffered for years to accomplish real change. They sacrificed and made historic contributions. What has Barack Obama done? This is a man who 9 months ago was a mere Jr. Senator of the Illinois who had not even a significant piece of legislation to his name. A man who has thus far only spoken of dreams and plans. At this moment his only accomplishment of consequence is to have NOT pursued the international policies of his predecessor, by that standard the Nobel Peace Prize should have been won by Georgy Malenkov, who followed Joseph Stalin as Premier of the Soviet Union.
Barack Obama hasn’t even been through the crucible real presidential crisis yet. Even if Barak Obama actually does accomplish something great in his term of office, which at this early phase is highly suspect, the world will remembere that he received this prize before any of his lofty sounding words had effected meaningful change. This is a dangerous precedent for a prize with such a prestigious history, which has been looked-up to for a standard of humanitarian excellence by so many.
This is a man who has garnered the attention of many and actually accomplished so little compared to all of the other individuals that accomplished so much. This convincingly demonstrates the prize is a sham.
4. SP | 10.11.09
In response to Alexander Smith’s comment, Gandhi never won the Nobel peace price.
May be, according to the Nobel committee, Obama did more to world peace than Gandhi.
5. Sally J | 10.11.09
The Nobel Peace prize in not premature, just misnamed. It is rewarding Obama for allowing Europeans back on the inside of the American club after eight years in the cold, with the USA even actively promoting European interests, is felt throughout Europe, including in Norway. Too bad the club is getting a bit run down and neglected lately. Which European, or American for that matter, will want to live and work in Obama’s hood in the future?
6. flavor | 10.11.09
Its amazing to see the right wing freak show falling all over themselves to discredit the Nobel committee. Reality really does have a strong liberal bias, and Republican’s will alway do all they can to shut the door on reality.
7. Dawood | 11.15.09
I think he deserved this award so far, whole world became more optimistic after his election and couple of international visits…
..check notable tributes and quotes on Barack Obama from famous peers: http://www.tributespaid.com/quotes-on/barack-obama
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
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. John | 10.10.09
The Nobel Peace Prize is now something to be found in a Cracker Jack box. Al Gore gets the prize for complaining about the weather and Obama gets the prize for things he hasn’t done and extending a warm welcome to those countries around the world killing Americans. Obama apologizes for America, the dollar is quickly becoming worthless, the constitution is being violated, and freedom fought and died for by our fathers and current soldiers is quickly being given away for communism, marxism, and socialism. Perhaps the Nobel Prize is to represent an award for the destruction of America. If so, then Obama would be my pick as well. What the heck, lets give one to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chriss Dodd, Van Jones, Reverend Wright, Al Sharpton, Jessee Jackson, and my list goes on and on.