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. In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”
—Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee, October 8th, 2009.
President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”
—French President Nicolas Sarkozy, September. 24th, 2009.
ATLANTA— Talk about way, way out of left field! I clicked on the news this morning to see Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize after only 9 months in office, during which time he has achieved next to nothing internationally. It’s funny. I was commenting to my fellow blogger, TennesseePaul, in a completely unrelated conversation last week that the Nobel Peace price seems to be kind of feel-good award that really means nothing. The award of this prize to Barack Obama confirms that thinking for me.
I will grant you that Barack Obama is popular internationally. When he went to Copenhagan last week to try and sell Chicago as the site for the 2016 Olympics, he was greeted like a rockstar. But the near universal consensus is becoming that his rockstar status and widely admired speaking ability basically mean nothing internationally. For most observers, his failure to deliver the Olympics to Chicago was the epitomy of this. The reality is that he has actually accomplished very little to date in terms of changing the international landscape.
As another example, Mr. Jagland in the quote above talks about how Barack Obama has been “key” for the “important initiative” of nuclear disarmament. I guess he has been “key” because Mr. Obama has made some slick speeches against some neat backdrops at the U.N. and in Prague about nuclear disarmament. But in terms of really achieving anything, Barack Obama’s efforts are bearing very little fruit in Iran and North Korea at the moment, and all the while, nuclear-armed Pakistan slowly collapses under the weight of Islamic extremism. It would certainly be a very sad irony if at the end of Mr. Obama’s four years in office, Iran and North Korea were both nuclear powers and the Taliban controlled broad swaths of Pakistan.
At best, this award of the Nobel Peace prize to Mr. Obama is desperately premature. At worst, it is highly frivolous and negligent. Awards of this status and nature should be given to someone who has achieved something substantive and lasting. Tossing this award over to Barack Obama, while giving a shout-out to hope and change, just doesn’t seem right.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
Results? It’s not about results it’s about saying nice things. Results are something that is measurable and therefore quantifiable which creates envy and strife. Nobody want’s to make others jealous and we all no everything is relative to one’s own perspective. Trying to award something like a peace prize based on results is a little bit arrogant. Like saying our president is better then other presidents. Morally to think in such absolute terms is just grossly misguided and outdated. Even trying to define peace as like the absence of war is a reach as it’s not so much that Obama is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s that he doesn’t want to be. It’s kind of like somebody that does a crime out of hate get’s more time for the “hate crime”. It’s the persons heart that matters and not what they actually do…
Of course all this is just in jest, Obama’s a total failure at least he get’s this. Hopefully, it’s a consolation prize for his continued driving of his country into the ground.
Didn’t Jimmy Carter get this award too? Are we seeing Obama’s do nothing Presidency confirmed earlier than expected? Will he be the first person to resign the US Presidency to go run an international NGO? I could see it happening.
The man of peace will talk one-on-one with Iran but won’t meet with the Dalai Lama!
He’s buddies with Hugo Chavez while being against the ouster of Hondorous’ corrupt President who tried to usurp their constitution.
He bows to Muslim Kings but won’t even acknowledge the good work we’ve brought to the region in the success we’ve had in Iraq.
Yep, a Peace lover is a supporter of dictators and tyrants! Makes a lot of common sense to me…
The world is making a HUGE statement to the US by honoring our president – people in the US have to hear that!!!
Debatable. Normally a descriptive versus proscriptive process. One is normally awarded for doing something (a la Al Gore and climate change or Jimmy Carter and helping the poor through global efforts). Best example, Bono and AIDS efforts in Africa. Obama has done nothing more than prattle on about nuclear disarmament with parts of the world seeking this actively while he is President. The nomination deadline was February 1st. What had he done of any substance at that date? I mean you can bring up Guantanamo but that is turning out to be a failure.
If anything, I can see this as the world honoring the US, but this man has not done anything yet to be honored for. Just my two cents.
I could see it if at the end of his Presidency he has pulled all troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, we no longer occupy the far reaches of the globe as policemen in Germany, Italy, South Korea, Japan and so forth. Then you might say he is worthy of the prize.
The other Presidents that won the prize were Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt who effectively helped bring about ends to wars/conflicts at their time through ACTIONS!!!!
I don’t think the “world” is. I think the counsel of Norwegians that select the winner has made a statement- a very political one.
It sounds to me like the “world” is confused by this award, with many people having negative or confused reactions.
“embarrasing joke” from interviewees in pakistan(?)
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5981JK20091009?sp=true
Too early, from Lech Welesa (Poland)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html
diminishes the significance of the award (England editorial)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
Lisa, I’m afraid you’re too confused if you don’t recognize that the world is not some great, homogenous place that Americans have sadly misunderstood. It’s not. The world is not united. The world is a very diverse place with a multitude of different attitudes, opinions and motives. The president is a pop-start celebrity internationally, but little more at this point. One simple man with a silver tongue is not gonig to change the world in a space of 9 months- let alone 4 years (or a lifetime, for that matter).
I agree Stephen. I would add that I don’t think the world is honoring us for who we are but who they’d like us to be. They’re saying they will love us if we support dictators and tyrants like our leader if we lay down and surrender on our battlefields. Quite different then Gandi or Christ. This version of “peace” is like I pointed out in my first comment a corrupted peace.
Don’t focus on the single person – focus on what Obama represented from the beginning (prior to Feb)… This is what the World is telling the USA… The World wants what Obama represents… The World is proud of the climate change that has occurred… The USA is “a part” of this World – my hope is that people recognize what the World is saying…
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
If anyone can get this to pull up please let me know. I really want to understand this.
If they can bestow this on an organization – why don’t they bestow it on the loosely defined American electorate. I believe they are the ones deserving of the honor, right?
I believe they are the ones deserving of the honor, right?
Well, I would disagree here as well, but see your point. If the Noble Peace Prize is going to a man who’s been in office for 9 months, then I would think those that put him there would be the proper recipients as in this case they are the only ones who have taken any sort of action.
BMM: The brief process –
September – Invitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year’s discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.
February-March – Short list. The Committee assesses the candidates’ work and prepares a short list.
March-August – Adviser review. The short list is reviewed by permanent advisers and advisers specially recruited for their knowledge of specific candidates. The advisers do not directly evaluate nominations nor give explicit recommendations.
October – Nobel Laureates are chosen. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced.
December – Nobel Laureates receive their prize. The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony takes place on 10 December in Oslo, Norway, where the Nobel Laureates receive their Nobel Prize, which consists of a Nobel Medal and Diploma, and a document confirming the prize amount.
I hereby nominate the US for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010. We are an organization operating internationally with funding coming from the American taxpayers and we selected the nominee for the 2009 Noble Peace Prize.
What does that mean? We were decisive enough to put someone that has wonderful thoughts/speeches in office, even if he never puts anything into action.
Again, Ron Paul was more about Peace than Obama was any day.
You know BMM, the time line of this means he was nominated after securing the DemPresNom for running a long campaign bashing George W Bush’s policies. I wonder if the committee realizes he has continued almost every single one of those policies, and tripled down on several of them…
Well we aren’t torturing anymore. That’s a win.
Unless you start considering the fact that all “high value” terrorist suspects are now being interrogated directly by the White House.
I am sure “executive priviledge” will get invoked there.
And you are exactly right. It is the idea that he isn’t Bush rather than the fact that he is continuing many of Bush’s policies.
If this is somehow an award for the US – just give it to us. We will sell it to pay for universal healthcare.
Yeah – I think you are stretching to say that this award represents what the “world” is saying.
Obama is weak, according to the French President.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6106250.ece
Again, the “world” is not saying anything here.
Are you serious Lisa? I mean really? Even if one supports Obama, can one seriously say that he’s done ANYTHING that marks him out as being exceptional in the area of advancing the cause of world peace? Any treaty negotiations (Teddy Roosevelt in the Russo-Japanese War), any international peace conferences work (Wilson with the League of Nations)?
Whether one even agrees that past recipients should have received the award or not… this is a WTF moment.
>Whether one even agrees that past recipients should have received the award or not… this is a WTF moment.
I agree here.
This is a joke. It’s up there with honoring Yasser Arafat as a Peaceful beacon of light, right when he started the suicide bombing campaign against his neighbor. Perhaps it would have been best for the prestige of the award to follow in the foot steps of 1972: “The prize money for the award was allocated to the general fund.”
How to give a man a peace prize when he’s left his allies and friends with no defense, a defense that this country had previously promised, his enemies have advanced nuclear capabilities, detained American hostages, detonated nuclear weapons, test fired long range missiles, denied the holocaust, beaten and imprisoned dissenting voices, had his own party call dissenters of his policies racist and Nazis, and continued a massive political divide within his own country while burying it in unfathomable debt, destroying the dollar, and perusing policies which have increased the number of unemployed by a full 2%, all in 9 months.
I cannot help but think that this is an international mockery of the United States for electing a man that’s all talk and no action, loved but not respected, liked but not feared, adored but ignored. The international community treats him like their favorite punching bag. He strolls in “like a rock star” and then gets seated at the kids table and retired early to bed.
No way!!
It’s a joke on peace!!
I think the only reason the Norwegians awarded Obama the peace prize was for getting rid of Bush from the presidency!!
The man doesn’t deserve it!
I find it refreshing to reflect that Paul Krugman was also nominated for a Nobel Prize in Economics. He thought that a housing bubble as a wonderful idea after the tech bubble. You probably can read him espousing the benefits of gold right now as an investment/need for a gold bubble.
I am fairly certain that I never paid much attention to these awards before and I am very certain that I won’t from here on out.
Krugman’s Noble Laureate Lecture was on the promise and good of a global economy… The Committee issued a signing statement though when announcing the award: Krugman is not only a brilliant economist and thinker, but an opinion maker.
In essence, he was awarded for writing scathing articles of W Bush in the New York Times.
To understand what the Nobel Prize is all about, you just have to look at the people who have NOT received one:
-Mahatma Gandhi-one of the world’s most inspirational figures regardless of your religion or nationality – not worthy
-Pope John Paul – One of the longest serving pontiffs in history, instrumental in helping to bring down the oppressive “Iron Curtain” – not worthy
-Elenore Roosevelt – Worked in the UN after her husband’s death, was one of the key authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – not worthy
- Vaclav Havel – President of Czech Republic and leader of the “Velvet Revolution” which was a key force in bringing down Iron Curtain – not worthy
- Heinrich J. Matthaei – Broke the genetic code in 1961 making it possible for science to take the next step in genetic research – not worthy
Let’s see Gandhi – Gore…. enough said.
Chuck, you’re absolutely right that this award ain’t what it used to be. But even against the award’s own standard of goodness, rightness, sweetness, and light, consider how Obama has acted: http://marquesletters.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/hes-not-worthy-obama-mistreats-even-his-fellow-nobel-awardees/
Chuck, good point. Though I don’t know that Heinrich J. Matthaei should have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s a crime that he wasn’t honored with a Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.
Tennessee,
You are correct about Heinrich. Medicine and Physiology would have been his prize category. I used him to illustrate that that the Nobel Committee are off-base all the way around. They do the same thing in the literature category as well. They seldom recognize any author outside of Europe.
It is hard to put any stock in them whatsoever.
My final thoughts on this award are that it really, really hurts Obama. The expectations have now been raised ridiculously high (as if they weren’t ridiculously high already). If I were him, I wouldn’t want this award. In fact, I’d be mad that I got it. This is going to be a burden for him from here on out. There’s nothing good that come out of this for him politically/personally.
Anyway – this is bad for Obama. I’m no supporter of his, but given the traction that his critics have already gained in the past few months, this will be more fuel to an already raging fire.
Actually it is great for Obama. He now can judge all of his actions as the President of Peace and can evaluate all decisions through the scope of the Nobel Peace Prize.
There’s no way politically that he could voice that though then he’d be ungrateful.
Like BMM I think it may actually help him as he’ll be bringing that (for whatever it’s worth or not) prize along with him to the table. I think it’s meaningless but if it brings a little more peace then hey maybe it’s worth it. I think there has to be others better then him though that could receive it and achieve better results then just speaking but maybe not.
Yeah – I don’t think it helps him, guys. I still really think it will hurt him in the long-run. He’ll always be measured against this now. No matter what he does, he’s going to fall short of the standard of “Nobel Peace” winner.
This also further restricts his ability to act decisively internationally, I would think.
What I mean is, suppose the CIA gets a direct beed on bin Laden in northern Pakistan and the only way to get at him is through a combination of bombing and special forces moving in. The possibillty of casualties would be high. Would Mr. Nobel Peace prize now have the capacity to make this necessary decision? Or would he just issue a glowing statement about peace and harmony.
I meant that it would help him push more of his agenda along that I probably don’t care for.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nobelpeace;_ylt=AvNVRnsH6luV.lsMVuhAnzIDW7oF
Looks like he is already emboldened by it and that his nuts have quickly shriveled and found residence somewhere near his pancreas.
I guess one could argue Obama won the presidency after doing nothing. Why not toss in a Nobel prize for doing nothing to boot?
This is not about “peace”.
This is about an immature, vain, weak, foolish politician whom European elitists recognize for what he is and their attempts to influence American foreign policy through this convenient stooge.
God help America.
Apparently Hugo Chavez is part of the conservative lunatic fringe….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_nobel_peace_obama_chavez;_ylt=Al8lByfKOXK4GTuigsG2cVkDW7oF