Thread: The 2009 Nobel peace prize

I have been rather disappointed at the recent threads on the subject, so I decided to start my very own thread.

Here is the press release:

Originally Posted by The Norwegian Nobel Committee

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 cooperation 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."


Oslo, October 9, 2009

Last time I took an English language test I scored fairly high on the reading comprehension part, so let me parse the statements and the logic here:

0.) The Nobel Committee has 10 000 000 SEK to give away at it's own discretion to an individual or organization who has contributed significantly to making the world more peaceful place. The selection process is closed to the public, and rather secretive.

1.) International diplomacy based on multilateral approach is very significant to world peace.

2.) Barack Obama has made extraodinary efforts to bring multirateralism to international diplomacy. As aside the committee thinks that United States has become to play a much more constructive role in international diplomacy, due to his efforts.

Point (0) renders the public opinion pretty irrelevant, but that doesn't mean that the public can not have an opinion. Similarly many people contribute out of their private money to various causes they consider worthy and that's at their own discretion. They don't attract public scrutiny mostly because the contributions are pretty small.

So, this leaves points (1) and (2) where somebody can object the decision of the Nobel Committee. I have put up a poll to find out what the actual reasonable objections are.

I voted for the second choice, and I will preface it by saying that when the nominations were closed, he was only 12 days into his term. There was no basis for his nomination at that time, other than "hope and change" promises. He should have been given more time to see what he actually acomplishes, and not be nominated based upon speculation about what he could do in the future.

Edit: Language from the will of Alfred Nobel, which created the Nobel prizes:

"... and one part 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." (emphasis added).

I belive from reading comprehension, the bolded portion of the creation of the peace prize is for actions which have already taken place (past tense). Obama has not fulfilled this requirement now, let alone when he was nominated.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/w...estamente.html

So... Is everyone ****ed off at Obama or the Nobel Selection committee?

I need to know who to direct my rage towards.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

So... Is everyone ****ed off at Obama or the Nobel Selection committee?

I need to know who to direct my rage towards.

I don't think so. I just looked at the Gallup Poll website and apparently 56% of the country still approve of the job he's doing as president. That's down from 70% something in February but still a majority.




Chris L

I voted for #2 as well. I'm really disappointed with the Nobel Committee for cheapening their own award. I agree with mhaily, less than two weeks into his term, Obama had done nothing more than make promises. Then, as now, I feel they're hollow promises he can't begin to keep.

Being the egomaniac he is, he'll wave it around for all to see screaming, "Look what I've done!".

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

So... Is everyone ****ed off at Obama or the Nobel Selection committee?

I need to know who to direct my rage towards.

Look at my login name!

I'm fine with him winning the award as I've posted in other threads. I guess I can't really speak for the world, but I certainly get the impression that his election alone has mostly dispelled the notion that America is a war mongering, imperialist nation.

Originally Posted by mhailey

"... and one part 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." (emphasis added).

So, it's based more on work done not results achieved.
I don't know how the nomination process works, but I can imagine that it is possible that between the nomination and the final decision there are deliberations on the matter, and since this is a yearly award I am not quite clear on the timeframe when efforts can count.

I could imagine a scenario when a person does something crazy in September which moves them from a frontrunner to the end of the line.

For example there is one scientist who got a Nobel prize and that work has had huge implications on science, but then he gave up on science completely and has turned into metaphysics.


(On the multilateralism I think that he had stated these intentions before becoming a president - even the McCain campaign was attempting to turn it into a liability 'talking with the enemy'.
Then there were reports on him being very interested in pursuing the soft power US can exercise in the world and having various meetings on the subject, well before becoming a president.

I follow politics mostly from the media, so that gives me a rather limited view, but as far as I can tell in the 9 months since he has become a president he has traveled to quite a few places and has sent his State secretary to many more, and from the reports he does appear being big on multilateralism. At least compared to the previous administration. Even Bill Clinton was allowed to and talk to the leaders of one of the 'Axis of Evil' countries.
Or Obama talking to Chavez, considering room for the Talibans in Afganistan...
As far as I can tell he definitely has different approach and has been implementing the US international policies based on that.)

Originally Posted by GeauxLSU

I voted for #2 as well. I'm really disappointed with the Nobel Committee for cheapening their own award. I agree with mhaily, less than two weeks into his term, Obama had done nothing more than make promises. Then, as now, I feel they're hollow promises he can't begin to keep.

Being the egomaniac he is, he'll wave it around for all to see screaming, "Look what I've done!".

I would really like to keep the speculations at bay and stick to rational arguments based on facts.

I am not interested in your opinion on Obama in general, only on why do you think the Nobel Committee's decision is incorrect.

If you really want to make a statement like 'he cannot begin to keep his promises' you better provide a rational argument to back it up.

Originally Posted by gugi

I would really like to keep the speculations at bay and stick to rational arguments based on facts.

sheesh! so much for the conversation forum

logic are boring, strong feelings based on assumptions are fun!

He's made an effort - talking, per usual.

Result: we're being stonewalled by our enemies just like always. And he's revisiting the Carter Doctrine. If we appologize for being a mean imperialist, everyone will like us, and act nice to us back. Unfortunately, didn't work for me in first grade, didn't work for Carter in the seventies, and isn't working for Obama (and the other mean imperialists are probably laughing at us).