43
   

Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:34 am
@dlowan,
Dyslexia is an America-hating cynic, dlowan. Pay no attention to him. Of course this was an apolitical decision, reflecting only the tough but fair standards for which the Nobel Peace Price is so well known.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:38 am
President Obama at Rose Garden press conference this morning:
"I will accept this award as a call to action " a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:38 am
I like Sully's reaction, think it's dead on:

Quote:
All Over The World

I've had some coffee now. Reading through all the reactions, compiled by Chris and Patrick, there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.

Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere.

This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face.

I like Shimon Peres' statement, reprinted in a useful compendium of world reaction at the Lede:
Quote:

“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”


Right now, we do not know where that direction will ultimately lead. We do know that we were facing a spiral of conflict that, unchecked, could have taken the world to the abyss. I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through. In the midst of our domestic battles, and their ill-temper (from which I have not been immune lately), this is an attempt to tell us: look up for a moment, see how far we've come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears.

And, in the darkness that still threatens, know hope.

Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It! ::

Share This
TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e20120a6292c08970c
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:38 am
@Thomas,
Quite.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:42 am
I can see this reasoning, quoting dyslexia: " The world community likes that Obama seems more acceptable of america's inclusion in world affairs rather than the world bully", but the award is astoundingly premature.

Oof.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:46 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Quote:
...
Jagland [chairman of the Nobel committee] [..] rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union.

...


What? How is that even remotely comparable? By 1990 Gorbachev was at the end of his rule, not at the beginning. He'd been at the head of the party and soviet union for some five years, had dismantled large expanses of the totalitarian soviet system, allowed free media to flourish, organised at least semi-free elections, and of course, allowed the range of Warsaw Bloc countries to go their own way.

His flaws and lacking willingness to go even further were soon to be revealed in the crackdowns on the Balts and the way the 1991 coup took place, but still, that was a lot of perestrojka and glasnost he'd already undertaken, and it had changed the world.

How's that comparable with Obama after eight months in office?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:47 am
Here's his acceptance speech:

Quote:
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.

After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, "Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo's birthday."

And then Sasha added, "Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up."

So it's -- it's good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.

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.

OBAMA: 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, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.

And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

OBAMA: And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Now, these challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration's worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.

We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.

And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.

OBAMA: And that's why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

OBAMA: And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.

I am the commander in chief of a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I'm also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.

These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.

Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime.

But I know these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

OBAMA: And that's why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.

That has always been the cause of America. That's why the world has always looked to America. And that's why I believe America will continue to lead.

Thank you very much.


Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:52 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Thanks, I was looking for that.

Re: dys and Thomas' observations about the political nature of the prize, I thought this was interesting:

Ronald Krebs wrote:
The Nobel Peace Prize's aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize's very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, "The prize ... is not only for past achievement. ... The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] ... Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act."


(The article is generally critical of the prize and its ability to foster world peace.)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/30/dangerous_prize
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:52 am
@JPB,
You are welcome
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:55 am
@sozobe,
Thanks yourself, I was looking for that very FP article, I read it this Summer.

At least part of the reaction comes from the fact that people are used to seeing prizes awarded based on accomplishment. Though the Nobel committee has made it pretty clear over the years that this isn't what their award is about, folks just have a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 09:59 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
Re: edgarblythe (Post 3780503)
Nobody has a gun to their head saying they have to award it every year, do they?


I'm a very liberal Democrat and this award befuddles me as much as it seems to have befuddled yours truly. I'm sure you must have seen this side article quoted below from the link provided from the Original Poster's first thread posting.

Quote:
Paul Reynolds
BBC News, London

The award is certainly unexpected and might be regarded as more of an encouragement for intentions than a reward for achievements.

After all, the president has been in office for a little over eight months and he might hope to serve eight years. His ambition for a world free of nuclear weapons is one that is easier to declare than to achieve and a climate control agreement has yet to be reached.

Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population".


If Obama succeeds then the Nobel Foundation looks like a bunch of prophetic geniuses. If he is only marginally successful or fails to implement any of his nuclear weapons policies ... which sadly seems the likeliest outcome these days then the awarded prize will just be forgotten by most people.

I agree with you. Perhaps they should have just taken the year off and not awarded anyone. Would have made a more of an impact (the omission of the award this year) ... albeit a very negative cynical impact at that.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:03 am
@ebrown p,
I wonder if it would be prudent of Obama to simply turn down the Foundation and not accept the award... in a most humble and sincere move?
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:04 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
farmerman wrote:

Theres really no reason why the committee couldnt have stated that "We aint giving a Peace Prize this year".

There isn't one, besides perhaps the statutes of Norwegian Nobel Committee, which say that the prize is awarded annually according to guidelines laid down in Alfred Nobel's will.

There are many people who put their lives and reputations at stake even as they toil for peace and human rights in relative obscurity, for whom the Nobel Prize could have meant a lot.

Of the top candidates identified in Saab's post, I think Tsangvirai would have been a problematic choice, but he still would have deserved it as the anti-Mugabe and as symbol for all those MDC activists who were beaten, tortured or murdered by Mugabe's regime. The other two I hadn't even heard of, but I'll certainly read up now, it seems like they've been doing awesome work.

As you wrote later on about the intent of the Nobel prize, "There are some [..] who really can need that money or the prestige." Among Obama and the three listed in Saab's post, Obama is in need of them least. He doesn't need the extra prestige abroad, where -- aside from a couple of places like Israel/Palestine and Iran, where the Nobel Prize won't change any minds anyhow - he is still enjoying his post-Bush honeymoon of relief. And at home this will strengthen the backlash more than it will strengthen his prestige.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:05 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

I wonder if it would be prudent of Obama to simply turn down the Foundation and not accept the award... in a most humble and sincere move?


Pfff, don't be ridiculous. It would gain him nothing to do so, for his domestic opponents won't give him an ounce of credit for it (they hate and fear him too much) and it would look terrible on the international stage.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:05 am
@engineer,
Yes - I can't see how being in office for 2 weeks one could display a lifetime achievement for Peace. Unfortunately this will diminish the purpose of this award. I thought it was supposed to be a lifetime accomplishment and not the future promise or potential?

Just very odd and inappropriate.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:06 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

I still think he is a good precedent.


Typo? Or optimistic Freudian slip?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:06 am
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

Yes - I can't see how being in office for 2 weeks one could display a lifetime achievement for Peace. Unfortunately this will diminish the purpose of this award. I thought it was supposed to be a lifetime accomplishment and not the future promise or potential?

Just very odd and inappropriate.


Yeah, you have it exactly backwards. It isn't a 'lifetime achievement' award at all, but an expressly political one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:07 am
well, with over 200 nominees it seems unnecessary that it would have to be Obama or no one. I don't take it that he was the lowest common denominator, but a unanimous chose made with the idea of pushing incentives to proceed. Obama's speech sounds like it met it's goal --- at least as a way of igniting a spark.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:08 am
@dyslexia,
That was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the thread headliner. And I voted for Obama in the primary and general elections....
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 10:09 am
@maporsche,
I agree - I think that would show a lot of insight and class and perception on his part.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

John O'Hara and the Nobel Prize - Question by Miller
I am looking for an ornament. - Discussion by peter jeffrey cobb
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:35:46