October 9, 2009

President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

When I heard this today my first question was: For what? Certainly the Nobel people who make the award have a right to select whomever they choose. But what has this man accomplished? What has he actually done beyond making speeches that qualifies him for this prestigious award?

Or is the award not prestigious at all? Perhaps it's purely political. I will now search out the text of the rationale for the award to our newly elected President. However, my initial reaction is hopeful that the Nobel prizes in other fields are more richly deserved by the recipients than this one.


The following is the text of the official announcement that US President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.

The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics.

Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.

Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.

The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.

Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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.

His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman.

The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges"."



This Nobel spokesman is peppered with questions
<> as he defends the award. It's obvious from the nature of these questions that many journalists believe the award was very unusual, if not ill-advised.

The Wall Street Journal has this to say:

"The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. 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.

Maybe he really is The One."

The New York Times Leads its editorial with:

"President Obama responded to the news of his Nobel Peace Prize the right way. He said he was humbled, acknowledged that the efforts for which he was honored are only beginning and pledged to see them through, not on his own but in concert with other nations. There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy."

In my opinion, it's a travesty and he should have refused to accept it to demonstrate that he may have a streak of humility rather than be consumed with narcissism. If his vision of hope for change has substance, the Nobel peace prize could well have been awarded in the years ahead.

9 comments:

Unknown said...

I mostly agree.

I guess we must accept early on, unfortunately, that Obama behaves more like a regular politician, in an age that entirely needs a better 'statesmen-like' type of leader, which he actually promised to be. There's on old saying from the Hebrews, "A man who tries to make a name for himself loses his name." I now see a little more what that saying means. As it's so easy to see the 'short term' gain in this case in contrast to the what an immediate rejection of the award would suggest for Obama in the long-run, what type of leader he might show himself to be, by making such bold actions. It's an integrity issue! He should have found a way to politely yet firmly reject the award. It's a freaking distraction too, as now he has to go Norway.

The news I've been seeing is that they gave the gift as a down payment, to in a sense pressure Obama into living up to what the award signifies. So, maybe it's possible to make some sense of this. The board voted unanimously.

Unknown said...

However, if he didn't reject the award in the right manner, it could come off as grand-standing, trying to make a name for himself with the big gesture. Maybe it's not such a big deal, an issue where a statesman-like response was required. Maybe acting graciously was all he could do. But at minimum he could have accepted it with irony, stating that he does not deserve it, and insist on an explanation as to it's meaning. Yeah, that would have been the best response. And don't take time to go to Norway!

Schubart said...

Obama was given the Nobel because he has determined that the US is actually part of the international community rather than its bellicose master. It is a welcome home.
Bill Schubart

Unknown said...

I can agree with Schubart on this. We have to start projecting the positive viewpoint and see where we can make progress going forward. Maybe the opposition to Obama in the US Gov could get what it wants too by saying "We are going to work with you to change and improve this world, domestically and abroad. But we want our concerns and aims fully meet too. Compromise if we must but devise higher level, creative solutions if we can."

Unknown said...

This from a Reddit's massive thread on this topic:

henrikakselsen 1001 points1002 points1003 points 1 day ago* [-]

Let me, as a Norwegian, say that I am profoundly ashamed of the decision of the Norwegian committee.

I think this is just a trick to get a sitting american president to visit Norway. This is a suck-up of ridiculous proportions, and the once-relevant peace prize has been reduced to a simple political tool of inner Norwegian domestic affairs.

The prize should be given to people who stand in the front line against violation of human rights. People who risk their life every day for the cause. It's them that really need the support of a prize like this.

David Usher said...

My reaction is simply that he has not as President of the United States, nor in any prior life, yet done anything to warrant this award.

Making speeches is insufficient. Yet that may be the criterion, given that Al Gore received the same prize for essentially making speeches about climate change.

At least one prior recipient of the Peace Prize has spoken against this award to President Obama.

Unknown said...

Ron Paul's statement on this topic appeals to me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcDk-bNoc8

This is supposed to be a peace prize. Obama isn't opening the debate about the big questions of war but only about how to apply current war interests. Like Bush who said he's not a nation builder yet rebuilt Iraq, Obama's pre-election rhetoric doesn't match his post-election actions.

Unknown said...

Directly in line with what Mr. Schubart mentioned, Bill O'Reilly of Fox likes the prize,

http://www.thefoxnation.com/media/2009/10/09/oreilly-why-obamas-nobel-prize-deserved-or-not-good-america

David Usher said...

I align more with the point of view by Ross Douthat (link below) at the New York Times. Turning down the award would have demonstrated a far more robust character. The Norwegian committee didn't give the prize to America, they gave it to the person, Obama.

Turning it down provided an opportunity to shed his "Messiah" complex.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12douthat.html?_r=1&th&emc=th