Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Sridhar]

Nobel prize needs re-evaluation


Author: Jeff Schwartz Guest Columnist
Published: October 13, 2009
It's almost paradoxical to think that the creator of dynamite is also credited with the creation of the Nobel Peace Prize, something that should embody peace, hope and progress in the world; something not usually affiliated with an explosive often used for mass murder.

It is almost equally paradoxical, if not more, to think that President Barack Obama, a president who has increased our military expenditures in the Middle East when he vouched to reduce our troops, who has continued the unlawful and unconstitutional practices of the Patriot Act, should be deserving of a peace prize.

To be fair to President Obama, I think it is more of a testament to the corruption and political correctness of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, rather than Obama himself.

I mean let's face it, this isn't exactly the first time the committee's been off. If you take a look at a few past winners, you'll see that there are several who don't exactly represent the ideals and virtues of peace.

The 1994 recipient, Yasser Arafat, for example, is almost undoubtedly assumed to have be involved with the 1972 Munich Olympic Games Massacre and the 1973 Khartoum diplomatic assassinations, both of which were associated with the Palestinian militant group, Black September. Additionally, in 1973, Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace prize, but was linked to organizing the illegal bombing of Cambodia, and the subsequent cover-up that occurred.

So clearly, this isn't the first time the committee has messed up. Obama could have conducted himself differently.

The U.S. overseas conflicts, which he vouched to reduce and "bring out troops home" from, has recently been escalated. This past week, Congress approved $636 billion in military funding, $3.9 billion less than the Obama administration requested.

In addition, what has President Obama done to curtail any of the Bush administration's torture policy? Nothing.

According to last week's Sunday Times, "the Obama administration backed a legal provision to withhold permanently all unreleased photographic evidence of torture in sites and prisons far away from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."

Certainly, a president who is continuing a policy of torture and continued military conflicts shouldn't be deserving of such a prize.

According to Alfred Nobel, the creator of the prize, the prize is awarded to those who conferred the greatest benefit on mankind during the proceeding year. By this standard, I'm sure Obama himself would say he doesn't deserve recognition, and to a certain extent, he did express this view.

He responded to questions concerning the award by stating, "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." If Obama really felt this way he could have denied accepting this award. This would have been an unprecedented thing to do, but sometimes the right thing is unprecedented.

Personally, I believe that as long as political corruption, injustice and acts against humanity are occurring under an official's watch, that leader shouldn't be eligible for a Nobel. The award should instead be given to ordinary people on the grassroots level, who are promoting peace on a localized or state basis. A person benefiting humanity by their acts of goodness should be recognized, not somebody simply with instant international coverage.

The committee should reevaluate its goals and ideals upon which it was created. It should not be something that can easily be persuaded by a person with great laconic skills and false pleas for hope and change.

Nobel prize needs re-evaluation :: Binghamton University Pipe Dream

Tuesday, 13th October 2009
Where is peace that comes with prize? (1)

Angelo Micallef, Marsaxlokk

Martin Luther King Junior won it for his non-violent civil rights struggle, Willy Brandt for his Ostpolitik, Mohammed Amwar Sadat for his efforts to reach peace with Israel, Mother Teresa for her work in Calcutta, Aung San Suu Kyi for her struggle for democracy, Yitzhak Rabin for his efforts to reach peace with the Palestinians, Shirin Ebadi for his struggle for human rights and democracy. But why exactly has Barack Hussein Obama won it? I am here obviously referring to the awarding of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to the US President!
Mr Obama has been in office for around eight months now. During these eight months violence in Afghanistan has increased, the success rate of the Taliban is fast reaching shocking proportions, the battle against terrorism is no closer to being won, US economic figures are abysmal at best with unemployment reaching sky high proportions while the Obama-led White House is now sending billions of dollars to fund pro-abortion campaigns and abortion clinics.
And what about the international scene? What has the Obama-Clinton foreign policy achieved? Is the United Nations in any better position when it comes to Iran or is Iran still running wildly out of control and possibly moving a step closer day by day to its dream of eradicating Israel or as it calls it, "the Zionist enemy"? Is the UN in any better position with North Korea or is it still a yo-yo game of ups and downs with the Communist Korean regime? Is Zimbabwe today in any better position than it was in the pre-Obama days?
So, again one asks, why exactly has Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? He promised Americans a change they could believe in, yet eight months down the line no change has been forthcoming; eight months down the line the winds of change of a Democrat White House have been non-existent both in the US and outside it.
Some may praise Mr Obama for giving hope to many Americans. Others may praise him for seeking to reduce the importance of nuclear armaments and for seeking to strengthen international cooperation. As they say in Italian, however, tra il dire e il fare c'è di mezzo il mare; it's one thing speaking of a reduction of nuclear armaments and another thing achieving it and clearly countries such as the US itself, Russia, UK, France and the club are still very much armed. What exactly has the Obama policy on international cooperation achieved? Can anyone mention any particular achievement? As for hope to millions of Americans, he was just lucky enough to be the successor of George W. Bush who was largely controversial and in the end hugely unpopular.
The awarding to Barack Obama of the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing short of a prize being given for international bootlicking. What a shame!


timesofmalta.com - Where is peace that comes with prize? (1)

 

[ppgj]

Nobel to Obama is a positive step: Fidel Castro - dnaindia.com

Nobel to Obama is a positive step: Fidel Castro

 

[bengalraider]

Nobel geopolitics

By George Friedman

U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize last week. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, established the prize, which was to be awarded to the person who has accomplished “the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses.” The mechanism for awarding the peace prize is very different from the other Nobel categories. Academic bodies, such as the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, decide who wins the other prizes. Alfred Nobel’s will stated, however, that a committee of five selected by the Norwegian legislature, or Storting, should award the peace prize.


The committee that awarded the peace prize to Obama consists of chairman Thorbjorn Jagland, president of the Storting and former Labor Party prime minister and foreign minister of Norway; Kaci Kullmann Five, a former member of the Storting and president of the Conservative Party; Sissel Marie Ronbeck, a former Social Democratic member of the Storting; Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a former member of the Storting and current senior adviser to the Progress Party; and Agot Valle, a current member of the Storting and spokeswoman on foreign affairs for the Socialist Left Party.

The peace prize committee is therefore a committee of politicians, some present members of parliament, some former members of parliament. Three come from the left (Jagland, Ronbeck and Valle). Two come from the right (Kullman and Ytterhorn). It is reasonable to say that the peace prize committee faithfully reproduces the full spectrum of Norwegian politics.

A Frequently Startling Prize
Prize recipients frequently have proved startling. For example, the first U.S. president to receive the prize was Theodore Roosevelt, who received it in 1906 for helping negotiate peace between Japan and Russia. Roosevelt genuinely sought peace, but ultimately because of American fears that an unbridled Japan would threaten U.S. interests in the Pacific. He sought peace to ensure that Japan would not eliminate Russian power in the Pacific and not hold Port Arthur or any of the other prizes of the Russo-Japanese War. To achieve this peace, he implied that the United States might intervene against Japan.

In brokering negotiations to try to block Japan from exploiting its victory over the Russians, Roosevelt was engaged in pure power politics. The Japanese were in fact quite bitter at the American intervention. (For their part, the Russians were preoccupied with domestic unrest.) But a treaty emerged from the talks, and peace prevailed. Though preserving a balance of power in the Pacific motivated Roosevelt, the Nobel committee didn’t seem to care. And given that Alfred Nobel didn’t provide much guidance about his intentions for the prize, choosing Roosevelt was as reasonable as the choices for most Nobel Peace Prizes.

In recent years, the awards have gone to political dissidents the committee approved of, such as the Dalai Lama and Lech Walesa, or people supporting causes it agreed with, such as Al Gore. Others were peacemakers in the Theodore Roosevelt mode, such as Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger for working toward peace in Vietnam and Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin for moving toward peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Two things must be remembered about the Nobel Peace Prize. The first is that Nobel was never clear about his intentions for it. The second is his decision to have it awarded by politicians from — and we hope the Norwegians will accept our advance apologies — a marginal country relative to the international system. This is not meant as a criticism of Norway, a country we have enjoyed in the past, but the Norwegians sometimes have an idiosyncratic way of viewing the world.

Therefore, the award to Obama was neither more or less odd than some of the previous awards made by five Norwegian politicians no one outside of Norway had ever heard of. But his win does give us an opportunity to consider an important question, namely, why Europeans generally think so highly of Obama.

sourcehttp://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091012_nobel_geopolitics?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091012&utm_content=readmore

 

[Daredevil]

"Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far ... winning the Nobel Peace Prize." - Jay Leno.

 

[Yusuf]

Ok late on this, but i have to say the obvious. What the hell has he done so far to get the award? Damn the only thing he has done so far is harp on NPT.

The Apostle of Peace never got it neither in his lifetime or after his death after having to prove to no one that he was a man of peace and these guys give Obama a Nobel for peace?

Doesnt get crappier than this. Nobel is a joke, at least as far as the peace prize goes.

Obama should tell the Nobel committee that he doesnt deserve it and wait for such time when he actually does.
Anyways he decided he would donate the million he would get.

 

[ppgj]

Obama's Nobel snub angers Norwegians | World news | guardian.co.uk

Obama's Nobel snub angers Norwegians

• White House cancels lunch with King Harald and other events
• Obama to address irony of boosting troops in Afghanistan

Gwladys Fouché and Ewen MacAskill
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 December 2009 08.39 GMT
Article history

President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle arrive in Oslo. Photograph: Heiko Junge /AFP/Getty Images

Barack Obama has arrived in Oslo to receive his Nobel peace prize amid considerable anger over the White House's decision to cancel a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

Obama is scheduled to meet the Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, and the Norwegian royal family before receiving his medal at a ceremony due to begin at midday. His main speech is scheduled at a banquet tonight.

But Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy," she told VG.

The Norwegian Nobel committee, which awards the peace prize, dismissed the criticism. "We always knew that there were too many events in the programme. Obama has to govern the US and we were told early on that he could not commit to all of them," said Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee.

Although Obama will not lunch with Harald, he will see him on a visit to the royal palace.

Peace activists opposed to the Afghanistan war are planning a 5,000-strong protest in Oslo.

The visit will test Obama's rhetorical skills as he seeks to reconcile acceptance of the Nobel peace prize with sending an extra 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan.

White House officials said that Obama, who was planning to work on the final draft of his speech on his flight from Washington to Oslo, would directly address the issue of the irony of being awarded the peace prize while escalating the war.

The Nobel peace committee has been criticised for awarding Obama the prize before he has any major accomplishments in international relations.

A White House official said that it was not necessarily an award that Obama would have given himself.