Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE | 10/ 9/09 10:02 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

OSLO — The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee – four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

"Some people say – and I understand it – 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us."

Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.

Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House. "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."

Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize to charity.

Story continues below
advertisement

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said the decision showed that great things are expected from Obama and "wonderful recognition" of his effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.

"It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," Tutu said.

Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

Jagland told AP that while the war in Afghanistan was a concern, the Obama administration "immediately started to reassess the strategy."

"That itself is important, because when something goes wrong, then you need to ask yourself why is it going wrong," he said.

Obama said he was working to end the war in Iraq and "to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies" in Afghanistan, where he is seriously considering increasing the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others as the war enters its ninth year.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi in Afghanistan condemned the Nobel committee's decision, saying Obama had only escalated the war and had "the blood of the Afghan people on his hands."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the Nobel decision "hasty."

"The appropriate time for awarding such a prize is when foreign military forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and when one stands by the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people," he was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."

"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told AP in a rare interview. Members of the committee usually speak only through its chairman.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts, but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than those of past winners, and the committee acknowledged they may not bear fruit at all.

"If everything goes wrong, then one cannot say that this was because of Barack Obama," Jagland said. "It could be that it is because of us, all the others, that didn't respond. But I cannot exclude that Barack Obama also can contribute to the eventual failure."

In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

"Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy," said Valle.

At home, the picture is more complicated. Obama is often criticized by his political opponents as he attempts to carry out his agenda – from government spending to health care to Afghanistan.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said Obama won because of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.

"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?'" Steele said.

Drawing criticism from some on the left, Obama has been slow to bring troops home from Iraq and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012.

The Nobel committee said it paid special attention to Obama's vision of a nuclear-free world, laid out in a speech in Prague and in April and at the United Nations last month.

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership on nuclear non-proliferation.

"He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts," ElBaradei said.

In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The U.S. now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.

There has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.

Obama also has tried to restart stalled Mideast talks with no progress yet reported.

In the Gaza Strip, leaders of the radical Hamas movement said they had heard Obama's speeches on better relations with the Islamic world but had not been moved.

"We are in need of actions, not sayings," Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said. "If there is no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think this prize won't move us forward or backward."

Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority. Yet the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by the five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the panel has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties and two right-of-center members. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.

The secretive committee declined to say who nominated Obama. In Nobel tradition, nominations are kept secret for 50 years, unless those making the submissions go public about their picks. This year's nominations included Colombian activist Piedad Cordoba, Afghan woman's rights activist Simi Samar and Denis Mukwege, a physician in war-torn Congo who opened a clinic to help rape victims.

Nominators for the prize are broad and include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

___

On the Net:

http://www.nobelpeaceprize.org

OSLO — The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament...
OSLO — The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
32011
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (571 pages total)

Louis Farrakhan: "If you look at Barack Obama’s [diverse] audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed from what they were. This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be a better place."

Here I've tried to collect all notable tributes paid to Barack Obama by peers:

http://www.tributespaid.com/category/b/barack-obama

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 10/25/2009
- JenMI I'm a Fan of JenMI 15 fans permalink

Is the right still whining about this? ...naysayers, whiners and pessimists are sooo, sooo boring.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 AM on 10/21/2009

Correction ! Had Obama succeced in bringing Bin Laden to the table and admitting the sin he orchestrated on 9/11/2001 ! then yes, he should have been awarded this prize, otherwise, he is just another newbie riding a wave of admiration that has not yet been rightfully earned.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:13 PM on 10/18/2009

If Obama had found Bin Laden, brought him to the table. Had Bin Laden admitted what he had committed on 9.9.2001 was a sin of the greatest proportion, then I can see why Obama would be awarded a Nobel Prize. As of now, Obama has been nothing but FLUFF.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 PM on 10/18/2009
photo

God bless President Obama. I don't care what his critics say. They're simply envious. This was a well deserved prize. He is a good man. He has brought a lot of hope to the world and ushered in a new global climate of peace, diplomacy, and unity among the nations. There is no individual in recent history who has been a greater force for good around the world. I can't think of anyone else at this time more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Congratulations President Obama. I am very proud of you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 10/18/2009
- DCinFrance I'm a Fan of DCinFrance 32 fans permalink
photo

Given the timing, if not prematurity, of this award, I think it belongs to the American people, the majority of which chose a leader that espoused ideas over dogma, diplomacy over war and hope over hate. It is the people, again in the majority, that wanted to throw out that which was; that which destroyed the good will that took over a century to develop much of the world over in just eight short years.

And now, Mr. President, with this early round of international applause, show us. Show them. Demonstrate to the world why the United States of America is the greatest country this planet has ever known.

If indeed it is, and if this is indeed a Christian nation as so many are eager to claim, show all what it means to love thy neighbor, to love thy enemies, to turn the other cheek, to heal the sick and the brokenhearted, and and above all, to forgive. And for all the restored good will, create anew good will amongst those that never had it, and right this country's wrongs.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 10/15/2009
photo

Well said.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 10/18/2009
- RoseMerry I'm a Fan of RoseMerry 18 fans permalink

Don't forget, they gave it to Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissenger, too

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 10/14/2009
- GunneraGirl I'm a Fan of GunneraGirl 122 fans permalink
photo

don't be a complete doofus: ronald reagan never recevied a nobel peace prize, and kissinger only got it along with le duc tho, because we were all so damned grateful someone could broker a deal in vietnam.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 AM on 10/17/2009

It seems to me that the Nobel Committee very probably took into account MANY factors in their decision, some of which might not be immediately apparent. So all criticisms are pretty moot.
I would like to observe however, that the historical context of a major event like this is much more important than individual events when considered outside that frame of reference. For example, consider the fact that in 2008 a black man became president of the United States of America, only a mere 4 decades after the atrocity that occured at Kent State University (actually in May of 1970). That event occured because southern extremists refused to recognize that black people had the same rights (to education in this instance) as white people. Indeed at that time the most virulent of those extremists were still questioning whether black people were actually human in the same sense that white people were... if you can believe it!
So maybe awarding this honour to Obama is as much about recognizing how much the American electoral system was vindicated in 2008 (particularly after the way it was shanghaied by GWB and his cronies in 2004).
This man is not perfect... no man is. But he represents in his person a symbol of what can be achieved when the masses are sufficiently outraged by their national leadership that they actually stand up to be counted (democratically speaking). I think this alone justifies the decision made by the Nobel Committee.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 10/14/2009

"Some people say – and I understand it – 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us."

Im confused. Im probably misreading this but what does he mean "...it could be too late to respond three years from now...." Is he predicting something the rest of us aren't aware of? Is it just me or does it sound like some sort of bizarrely veiled threat? Why would it be too late three years from now to award him the Nobel peace prize?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 10/13/2009

Now is the time to give Obama the NPP to strongly encourage him NOT to escalate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years from now would be too late: too late to bring Iran and the international community into discussions to limit Iran's and Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions, too late to endorse Obama's leadership in conciliation and engagement with international outliers; too late to persuade him to seize the moment of goodwill much of the world holds now for our president.

The fierce urgency of now is the reason.

Do I detect a subtext to your "confusion"?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 10/14/2009
- helpusa I'm a Fan of helpusa 13 fans permalink
photo

My feelings about this award exactly. To me it is like the committee is saying, "We're giving you this Nobel Peace Price, now live up to it.". I hope he does and then some.

My hopes still remains strong that President Obama will be one of our greatest presidents.
I'm willing it!!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 AM on 10/16/2009
- Krisgi I'm a Fan of Krisgi 6 fans permalink

What is with all the griping about "Western European elites"? Is that how you nimwits-in­-need-of-a­-soul assuage your hatefulness and justify the heinous twist in your morality?

THINK (hint: is done with the brain) about EVERY person who has won the Nobel Peace Prize and UNDERSTAND how many continents, cultures, nations, religions, and moments in history = specific causes they represent...

The NPP is about U.N.I.V.E.R.S.A.L. values. It is NOT about the values held by American conservatives and other assorted brands of thuggery.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 PM on 10/13/2009
- Krisgi I'm a Fan of Krisgi 6 fans permalink

I can just see it coming...

First, "Freedom Fries" and now a massive boycott against Ikea.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 10/13/2009
- Krisgi I'm a Fan of Krisgi 6 fans permalink

(Just in case I get moderated out with a similar comment....)

Question for Republicans: How many US Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize and what party were/are they from?

Hmmmmmmmmm?????????

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 10/13/2009
photo

My problem with all of the scuff about the Presiden'ts Nobel Peace Prize win is that most people that I have personally spoken with, who object to his win, don't actually know what the Nobel Peace Prize means.This award is not necessarily based on what we think it should be. This acknowledgement is based on many variables by reps from different nations and represenatives who "study" peace more thouroughly than we do.
It is a collective vision and acknowledgement by different nations that see how peace was obtained (or played a part) in different events that effect us all as a whole or in part.
Why would anyone be upset by a person being nominated for a recognition of peace to a person who recognizes what unity is and has been most successful in bringing people together instead of tearing people apart?
My guess is anyone angry about it would be someone who refuses to recognize or does not know, when a person has accomplished unification on any particular level...or they just don't like the person who won the award and whatever the person does or says is shot down.
The ridiculous opposition and unwarranted hatred toward our President is borderline silly. When I read some of the comments here and on other forums about President Obama, I wonder what is wrong with some people. It's so obvious and blatent.
Wow ya'll...What's this really about???

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 10/13/2009
photo

This is an absolute outrage. Our president has been shafted by the Nobel committee and by the pope. They gave out the Nobel Prize for economics last week. President Obama did not get it. It is an insulting outrage. I mean if he's going to get the Peace Prize for doing nothing, at least the same bunch of people who like what he's doing to destroy America's foreign policy and standing in the world could at least have awarded him the same thing for destroying our economy. In fact, he shoulda gotten the Nobel prize for economics before he got the Nobel Peace Prize, because there isn't peace out there, but there is economic destruction, the kind of which Western European elites love to see along with the likes of the Hugo Chavezes of the world and the Fidel Castros.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 PM on 10/13/2009
- Krisgi I'm a Fan of Krisgi 6 fans permalink

Brought to you folks by another delusional, bitter Republican.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 PM on 10/13/2009

molly, your sardonic take on the Nobel Prize for Economics misses the mark:

"at least the same bunch of people who like what he's doing to destroy America's foreign policy and standing in the world could at least have awarded him the same thing for destroying our economy."

If the prize for economics were granted for destroying our (and the world's) economy and destroying America's standing in the world, it would undoubtedly have to have gone to the previous genius in the WH. Do you recall the events of August 2008? Do you know how hated America was for the previous eight years? Have you even one ounce of perspective or just a big old case of nasty resentment?

Here's a little something for you to consider from French President Sarkozy, himself a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize this year as well. Read the last sentence twice:

"By awarding you its most prestigious prize, the Committee is rewarding your determined commitment to human rights, justice and spreading peace across the world, in accordance with the will of its founder Alfred Nobel. It also does justice to your vision of tolerance and dialogue between States, cultures and civilizations. Finally, it sets the seal on America's return to the heart of all the world's peoples."

C'mon, doesn't this makes you want to rethink your position?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:39 PM on 10/13/2009
- uvymopkb I'm a Fan of uvymopkb 3 fans permalink
photo

You missed the mark. George Bush liberates 50 million Muslims. Ronald Reagan liberates hundreds of millions of Europeans, saves parts of Latin America. Any awards? No. Just derision. Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:22 AM on 10/14/2009
- Krisgi I'm a Fan of Krisgi 6 fans permalink

The conservatives in this country have no idea what the rest of the world expects from us in terms of positive leadership, how utterly damaging Bush was for the planet and our image, and how thrilled "the rest of the world out there" (that they could care less about) is to have an insightful person as POTUS. Instead of being proud, it´s just another excuse to guffaw and moan.

The Nobel Peace Prize is just a really big way to try and drive the idea home. It won´t make it, but then conservatives aren´t too swift anyways...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:10 AM on 10/13/2009
photo

I agree 100%. We should embrace what it means to be a part of a country who's leader's goals are to promote unity. Some can't see past their own imaginary worlds.
Our division is so contradictory to peace and the reasons for our division are vague, dim-witted and vain.
We can't come together to save our souls...it's so childish, because the reasoning for our conflicts with eachother is so lame.
Now we're mad because our Prez won a prize of honor...Do folks know how stupid and distracting this opposition makes us look to the world as a country which is supposed to be about peace. We are supposed to be a super power, a front-runner, example and a country who believes in unity, yet we can't even unify with our own leader....­yeah...our leader.
Are people mad because our President , who is our leader whether we like it or not, was acknowledged for promoting peace.
Lawwwwd...help us all.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 10/13/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (571 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect