Alfred Nobel's Last Will And Testament: He'd Be Proud Of Barack Obama

Everyone on the Right says President Obama hasn't earned the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. It's as if they have set themselves up as its sole arbiters.

Some on the Left even echo this sentiment. Jesse Berney, writing on Huffington Post, states that the prize "should be the culmination of a career devoted to the cause of building a better world."

The "culmination of a career?" Says who? Not Alfred Nobel, and he ought to know.

In his own will, written at Paris in 1895 and reproduced on the official Nobel website, he laid out the standard to be applied in annually awarding each of the five original prizes (physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, peace). For the Peace Prize, he wrote that it should go "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."

There are some years where the prize may best fit an individual who has spent decades in the trenches without the full imprimatur that such an international accolade bestows. A "lifetime achievement award," so to speak. In other years, it may best apply to efforts from the preceding 12 months. To repeat: it's an annual prize.

The committee of five that names the winner each year reflects the various political factions composing the Norwegian Parliament. Currently, one of the five is from the Conservative Party; another from the far-right Progress Party. Thorbjorn Jagland, Chairman of the Nobel Committee, noted Friday that the choice of Obama was unanimous.

Removing the bluster of the George Bush years was a centerpiece pledge of Obama's campaign for the presidency, and in office he has sought to fulfill that promise. He's delivered a major address in Cairo, he's sent a former president to meet with Kim Jong-il in North Korea, and he's pursuing long overdue negotiations with the recalcitrant regime in Iran. He's also winding down the mess in Iraq and searching for a serious solution in Afghanistan, something his predecessor didn't give a damn about.

No one else on the world's stage has been such a "game changer" this year, or lived up to Alfred Nobel's lofty words from a century ago.

All Americans should be proud.

Comments

[DinkSinger]

Noble's will also says, of all five awards, they are "prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." By this standard the other winners are the ones that should not have won. In every case they were cited for things that were done many years ago. For example half the physics prize was awarded for the invention of the CCD sensor forty years ago and the other half for achievements in fiber optic communication that began forty-four years ago.

The various organizations that award the prizes have over the years have largely changed them to lifetime achievement awards, but this was clearly not Alfred Noble's intent.

[Aboyer]

Thanks for giving us the true facts about the intent of the Prize. Of course, the neocons presume that they are all knowing and resent that they weren't consulted. Their hubris and arrogance are stunning.
Barack Obama is the game changer. Funny how the likes of Bill Kristol claims Obama as equal in accomplishments. WOW! Obama is the president of the United States. He discounts any and everything about Obama.

[blueshield]

I don't know why - or perhaps I do - your sane, accurate, factual, clear and elegant piece isn't the basis for every discussion.

Thank you for doing such a wonderful job.

[Elenkumaran]

I am from India.I simply don't agree with the comments that say Mr. Obama doesn't deserve. While the President himself was humble in making a similar statement about himself in his acceptance speech, the fact of the matter is that he is holding an office which has a major impact on the World Affairs, on the relationship among nations and ultimately on the lives of so many people on earth.

Within a short span of time, he has set the ball rolling towards Peace, yes he has miles to go before any tangible results are visible; but his intentions, attitude towards mankind is what has fetched him the Nobel Peace Prize.

I urge the President through this blog and through the readers of this comment to immediately pull the armed forces out of IRAQ and Afghanistan and initiate the peace process with the so called Enemies of Peace. While the war is an easy process, dialogue through peaceful means is very tedious. I am from India; in India our father of the nation , Mahatma Gandhi had pioneered the Ahimsa Process and I am sure what he had practiced in the 20th century holds good in 21st Century also; taking revenge against enemies only complicates the peace process.

Who knows, by contributing more to the World Peace he may be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize once again in the future.

[mapmaker515]

Thank you for a great blog!

[UNOINO]

Obama was awarded this honor because he is a great visionary.
He can conceptualize a future world so tranquil and peaceful that all the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize will likewise have done, absolutely nothing.

[SAGMUN]

The issue isn't whether Obama deserves The Nobel Peace Prize, but whether the people who voted for him do. Their pro-votes came from their hearts not like the anti-votes that came from dark the "souls" of the neo-cons.

Do we laud the first step of a toddler or do we wait 17 years later for an Olympic Gold Award?

Whether we like or not, each one of of us a member of an extended family called America. Are we family or not?

These are the questions you should ask yourself.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

As I noted, the Nobel Prize is annual. Waiting for a toddler to become an Olympian isn't at all a decent analogy.

The long, distinguished history shows Obama fitting perfectly within the firmament of many past recipients. Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment notes in Saturday's NY Times that Kofi Annan’s prize in 2001 "came in the first half of his tenure as secretary general of the United Nations, possibly aiming to fortify him for what the Nobel committee expected would be hard times ahead for international peace in the aftermath of September 11."

In 1935, Carl von Ossietzky won for opposition journalism aimed at Hitler. The Führer became Chancellor just two years earlier, in '33, and his worst evil was yet to come, yet the 45 year-old Ossietzky won. Here's Nobel Chairman Fredrik Stang in the presentation speech:

"But, many people ask, has Ossietzky really contributed so much to peace? Has he not become a symbol of the struggle for peace rather than its champion? In my opinion this is not so. But even if it were, how great is the significance of the symbol in our life! In religion, in politics, in public affairs, in peace and war, we rally round symbols. We understand the power they hold over us."

Other examples abound. MLK won in '64, at age 35, when the struggle for civil rights was "in progress."

Some critics of the selection don't understand the purpose and nature of the prize, apparently.

[dougnoll]

As a professional peacemaker, I found the Peace award to be an interesting and perhaps strategic move by the Nobel committee. President Obama will be invested as a Nobel Laureate. That award carries a high moral and ethical obligation to advocate for peace throughout the world. In addition, for the time that he is president of the United States, he is under a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to make decisions that serve the best interests of the United States. I can foresee many decisions in which the moral and ethical demands of a Nobel Peace Laureate may conflict with the moral and ethical demands of being president of the United States. The Nobel Peace committee, by making this award, could be said to be influencing U.S. domestic and foreign policy in a subtle, nuanced, yet powerful way. Since President Obama is a principled man, I think the ethical dilemmas he is bound to confront will be even more difficult and stressful as he fits the crown of Nobel Peace Prize winner on himself. Personally, I don't think I would want that burden as a sitting president and would be inclined, despite the honor, to politely refuse it. I will be interested to see if President Obama accepts the award and, if so, how his future decision making in tough situtations will be affected by his status as a Nobel Laureate.

[jade7243]

For a "professional peacemaker," you are remarkably uninformed.

Only three sitting US Presidents have received the honor. Aside from President Obama, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were honored.. The award did not encumber their Presidencies. Jimmy Carter won after his term, as did Vice Presidents Charles Gates Dawes and Al Gore, and Secretaries of State Elihu Root, Frank B. Kellogg, Cordell Hull, George C. Marshall (former Sec'y of Defense also), Henry Kissinger,

The list of people who have "politely refused" the Nobel Peace Prize is short:

1973, Lê Ðức Thọ, Vietnam.

There is no "crown of the Nobel Peace Prize winner" to be fitted upon President Obama. (That piece of hyperbole deserves a beating about the head and neck.) The President does not sit around reminding his staff to address him as Nobel Laureate. He has demonstrated his ability to focus on his job, and make decisions despite the political ramifications, not because of them.

If "peace is your profession" (the Air Force's Strategic Air Command motto), you need to get a new job.

[swift goat pet for truth]

"I can foresee many decisions in which the moral and ethical demands of a Nobel Peace Laureate may conflict with the moral and ethical demands of being president of the United States"

Interesting.
That depends on how the POTUS interprets his job.

For example, the last POTUS interpreted the "moral and ethical demands of being president of the United States" as being as "my way or the highway" and pre-emptive war, whether it was merited or not, whether there was evidence or not.

The current POTUS would prefer to use diplomacy before arms.

Many Americans today prefer the first interpretation.
The Nobel Peace Prize selection committee had other ideas.

[LindaCat]

This is a difficult issue.
A. Nobel's will (excerpt)
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html
The term 'shall have done' is routinely asserted.
the press release
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
Is densely packed with 'hope' 'vision' and future-based concepts and notions. There is an emphasis on what the world community wants and desires. Also the obligatory climate change mention. These are political issues that are to be decided by American political institutions and the awarding of this prize seems to be an overt mechanism to influence the President. Consider the articles posted in Huffington Post eg Michael Moore 'Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- now Please Earn It'. This is a direct call to follow the recommendations of the Nobel Committee in directing US Foreign Policy.
I don't see how he can accept this challenge to pursue this vision as endorsed by the Nobel Committee and function as POTUS simultaneously.

[Michael Layon]

Mr Williams,

All Americans should be proud. Proud of our country, absolutely! Proud of our country founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, absolutely. Proud of the Nobel committee's decision, no way. While I am impressed you posted the actual word's of Alfred Nobel's will; obama has not accomplished one objective specified to receive the prize. Obama's decision not to act in Afganistan resulting in the unnecessary loss of US troops doesn't count as a troop reduction.

While you quoted Alfred Nobel's will, you entirely failed to describe who Alfred Nobel was. He was born into a poor family and combined hard work with ingenuity and business sense to create wealth. Read that again, Alfred Nobel enjoyed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He stumbled many times in pursuing happiness, yet he did not ask for government handouts, welfare or free healthcare. Instead he relied on himself and was so rewarded. Alfed Nobel was a capitalist. Obama believes in punishing people like Alfred Nobel by redistributing their wealth. Obama is a socilaist.

I am proud to be a natural born American citizen and proud to believe that the only things our government owes its citizens can be summed up in, "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" The Nobel committee's decision is merely entertaining and distracts from the massive challenges of restoring our country to its potential.

[wandering girl]

are you also proud to be an Okie from Muskogie? because that's what it sounds like: "I'm not for anything that man stands for, so I won't stand for him!" how nice that you made your way in this country without public school, public health, public roads, public parks, public libraries, national parks, national military, and a national presence in the world. yep, just that one little tiny country of you.

if you read your - pardon me, OUR - constitution, you'll see that America owes its citizens more than what you claim - in fact, the constitution says we're already born with that, and that the country owes us the ABILITY to enjoy those inalienable rights. but I guess you didn't actually read that part, did you?

[stateretiree]

Excellent response!!!

[wandering girl]

and by the way: The Nobel Committee's decision has NOTHING to do with our constitution, our politics, or your opinion.

[jade7243]

Seems to me Mr. Nobel figured out how to redistribute his own wealth, by funding the trust that makes the awards to all Nobel prize winners.

And, just for the record, both Norway and Sweden, the countries Nobel designated to "spread his wealth" are hereditary monarchies, constitutional democracies and -- wait for it -- SOCIALIST countries whose citizens enjoy universal education, healthcare, childcare, parental leave among other perks of citizenship.

"What a terrible thing to lose one's mind." -- Dan Quayle

[desdemonasrocketship]

I'm stunned that you've made this a partisan issue...why it surprises me is actually pathetic, but that's another issue altogether. (Airplane fans: "that's another issue!!")

Anyway - the nominations for this award were submitted in early February - there was no actions to warrant this award.

This is simply a bunch of people wanting to say thank God (oops, I'm on a super liberal page - thank the holy power/spir­it/goddess­/light) that George Bush is gone....anyone's better than him.

Honestly, if this had been given to a Republican, you'd all be screaming, in unison, " BASED ON WHAT???"

I will never join either political party, but remain actively independent, precisely because of the wretched and baseless partisan divide in this land. So sad.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, there isn't a current American politician of the Republican variety who has done anything remotely related to global peace in 2009, so if the prize had gone to one, everybody -- including Republicans! -- would be saying "BASED ON WHAT???"

Secondly, I haven't made this a partisan issue. I began by bemoaning the view of those on the Right AND Left regarding Obama's worthiness as a recipient. Can't get more nonpartisan than that. I ended with "All Americans should be proud." Can't get more nonpartisan than that, either!

Bush's policy actions abroad in the early years (invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11), led to an America that was universally despised and a frozen Bush presidency in the later years that was unable to pull the nation out of the ditch he drove her into. That's not exactly a controversial analysis at this late date.

The new president has spent his first year in office -- in terms of foreign policy -- trying to realign America's image in the world and reignite diplomacy, across a host of problem areas, that was so lacking in his predecessor.

The world knows this, and most Americans do, too. That's why they chose Obama last November rather than four more Bush years via McCain.

This Nobel decision is, as Obama said today, an "affirmation" of renewed respect for American leadership in the world. That's a good thing.

Anyone who thinks it's a bad thing is partisan to a degree unchecked.

[pjburke]

"Anyway - the nominations for this award were submitted in early February - there was no actions to warrant this award."

The 12-day "parrot point" is not valid. You are confusing the nomination deadline date (February 1) with the decision date (early October... no stated date).

The Prize Committee has had eight months at least to review nominations and consider each nominee's case. It could have been even longer, since submissions are solicited beginning in September of the prior year).

"...no actions to warrant this award"

The Committee disagrees with your opinion. They -- the Committee members -- have the actual responsibility of making the final decision. After considering the case of Obama's nomination -- since February, at least... -- they ruled. So you must be in error.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Gee.
Socialist Norwegians think differently than Neocons.

what a surprise.

[tel8034]

"Honestly, if this had been given to a Republican, you'd all be screaming, in unison, " BASED ON WHAT???"

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----

Desdamonar­ocketship,

OK we will call your bluff ..........­......NAME the republican you deem worthy of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and we'll weigh in.

Please include PEACE KEEPING ACCOMPLISHMENTS of that republican­..........­....

After all it IS a PEACE PRIZE.

[fixitfakeitcreateit]

Thank you for this well thought out piece. And I notice that there are only 3 commenters on this post. So much for supporting whats actually right in the world

[18wheeler]

Thank you, Mr. Williams! Finally some sanity after a full day of unbelievable obnoxious reactions from everybody else... Congratulations, Mr. President! I, for one, am proud of you!

[JonathanLA]

Thank you! Your article is exactly what I said earlier today in a comment to another article. Just by putting back on the table such long silenced topics like the need to engage in diplomacy first rather than unilateral military action, the need to reduce nuclear weapons, the need for both Israelis and Palestinians to compromise, and the need to talk to Iran and North Korea, among others, President Obama has indeed "earned" the prize as Alfred Nobel envisioned it. And, yes, he still needs to deliver the goods, but without his presence I shudder to think where the world would be today in our search for peace and justice.

[Dunelm]

Thank you for providing some factual, historical perspective on this prize. I am horrified by some reactions fron right wingers and left wingers. It seems the President is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.