Discuss.

Seems to me like a very clever move by Norway to strenghten their relationship with the United states.

Uhm... Sweden, actually.

Swede.

...

Edit: WTF - why does Norway award the prize sponsored by a dead Swede?

Edit 2: Discuss!

Actually, the Nobel peace prize is the only price not awarded by Sweden. It's awarded by a Norwegian committee and presented at Oslo Rådhus (Oslo city hall)

Funny that Sarkozy says here the award confirmed "America's return to the hearts of the people of the world" when, just after the G20, he was dissing Obama for being too soft..

I don't approve of Obama's apologetics, but do agree that diplomacy is always the best first option. As far as the Nobel Peace Prize, it went down in stature to me when Al Gore won it.. :/

I'm not sure I agree with the committee's reasoning. Their facts are true, but I think accomplishment is more important than intention. Obama's started many processes (arms, Mid-East, etc.), but without follow-through they'll fail as those before them.

Should the prize be given to reward efforts and encourage behavior, or should it be reserved for actual achievements?

In a way, anyone who followed Bush but didn't follow his policies could have been awarded the prize.

Alfred Nobel intended a peaceful use for his invention of dynamite. The result of his "actual achievement" was an increase in military applications of explosives, which bothered him greatly, and ruined his reputation, and is why he started the Nobel Prizes in his will, to encourage more-peaceful application of science and the arts.

In his own words, the peace prize is to be given to: "...the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations [in the last year], for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Sounds apropos to me.

I was really shocked that Obama was the recipient. I think awards of this nature should be reserved for actual achievements. Plenty of people have been advocating for reduction of nuclear weapons and stronger diplomacy but we need someone to actually carry these ideas into action.

It seems to hollow out the stature of this award to give it to someone that has only proposed ideas and not actually done something. I also think that it is incredibly bizarre that the same week Obama shuns the Dali Lama he gets this award based on his supposed willingness to talk to any world leader.

The U.S. has 2 wars going, we still have "secret" prisons, we spy on our own citizens... things that Obama spoke against during his campaign, things that he has either since endorsed, or ignored. I suppose we can only hope that the intentions of the Nobel committee bear fruit and this award serves to help commit Obama's words to actions.

Well, when Obama took office, he promised to end the war in Iraq, finish the war in Afghanistan and close Guantanamo Bay.

Since he's done all of those, I'm sure he deserves..


oh..

He's done none of it?



Nevermind.

This is going to be one of the most ridiculed NPPs ever. As TIME magazine said, he hasn't even been in office for a year, he is most often criticized to be a man of words and not actions... yet they award him the NPP for precisely that; his words.

It would have been wiser to wait until the words were put to action; Iran allows the international community to examine their uranium enrichment, North Korea stops shooting off missiles, Iraq becomes sovereign, and the Afghanistan war ends... not when he says he's going to start trying.

The unification and hope he has brought with his words can degenerate into even an even worse state than where we started if those hopes aren't met with results.

Indeed. Ironically, Candidate Obama had this to say about China's policies and last year's Beijing Olympics..

"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur. Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games."


Made for good copy at the time tho.

No doubt that one could make such an interpretation, and I agree he's laid the groundwork for such goals, but given the lack of any concrete successes, it's sad that he's "done the most." It says that not enough people are trying.

I think the committee has been drinking too much Glögg

Me thinks that the award might be more meaningful if he actually achieved these goals. I like Obama, don't get me wrong, but this seems premature.

Since when was the award based on intentions?

"The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, so early in his presidency, is bound to reignite criticism of the workings of the Nobel committee.

The deadline for nominations for the prize was Feb. 1 -- two weeks after Mr. Obama was inaugurated."

Source

Listen, If a known terrorist (e.g. Arafat) can win one, why can't a racist president?

The Nobel peace prize has a history of being awarded preemptively for supposed intention.
You remember for example Yasser Arafat, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat, Menachem Begin, etc...

It is lucky Adolf Hitler did not get it in 33.

I'm not sure I could/would accept it were I him. I might say "I'm flattered, but why don't you hold onto that a while. Let me really knock your socks off"

and then walk the walk.

This award is about politics. It didn't used to be, and it isn't always, but in this case, it clearly is.

I let you finish in a second President Obama. I just wanted to say Hu Jia has one of the best record of fighting for human rights of all time.