RSS

October 9, 2009

Member deleted

One is not very sure about the usage of nobel peace prizes to encourage particular state policies of particular states. It somehow takes the tang out of the orange. But the very other names suggested along with his does raise issues over certain comprehensions and the emaning of the Nobel Peace Prize. Without getting into the merits of who should have won amongst the names mentioned - it seems more prudent to ask oneself if this de-mystifies the Nobel Peace Prize and renders it an award somewhat akin to various states of particular reputations - like the Soviet Union for example. It is beginning to seem like an adult world to me now. So ir merely amounts to a media war. Great packaging and no product! Well, then one can rest easy about having another childhood myth broken!

October 9, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

President Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. It is astonishing to think he does. Perhaps, only the selection of Arafat is a more egregious example of utter silliness than this.

Obviously, there may come a day when Obama would be deserving of the award. However, to bestow it upon him less than one year into his term and before any substantive accomplishments have been made exemplifies nothing but raw politicization and utopian dreaming.

Other than not being George W. Bush and speaking in mellifluous tones about the abstraction of peace (and, of course the ridiculously impossible dream of a non-nuclear world), what exactly has Obama done? A mere 5 years ago, though on his way to becoming a U.S. Senator, he was still a state senator. This is a man who deserves an award more than Gandhi, who never won? For that matter what about Vaclav Havel? He didn’t win one either, despite the key role he played in the development of the famous Charter 77 that helped enshrine human rights in eastern Europe in the face of Communist Party authoritarianism.

Again, there may be a day when Obama should be considered in the same breath with giants like Martin Luther King Jr., but that day is not now. To pretend that it is can only cheapen the intent of this award. It also betrays the complete partisanship of those on the committee determining the award. Clearly, they are more interested in intent than actuality, but it is what actually takes place that matters. After all, people live in reality, not inside dreamscapes painted by rhetoric.

October 9, 2009

james joiner

You bet he is! His accomplishment is turning the world away from WW3 that Bush had us headed. The entire world feels hope with the exception of the Republicans who want him to fail at every time.

I think that is fantastic not because of his accomplishments but because of his efforts to unite the world. It is a bit ironic for the President of a country fighting two wars to win the peace prize.

However if he can bring peace to the middle east and bring Afghanistan to a successful conclusion. This award will be a fitting tribute and a message to the entire world to cooperate with Obama. This is big! A peace prize for hope not accomplishments man are we desperate!

Now let's see what the world does with the foundation Preside4nt Obama has laid!

October 10, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1100)

If a Nobel Peace Prize is worth being handed to Obama, then the Nobel Committee has an easy job: to next to be awarded are Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong Il, Binjamin Netanyahu and maybe even Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. All of them have been putting enormous efforts in steering us off the course towards WW3 and all deserve a praise for not derailing international diplomacy. But seriously, the decision made in Oslo puts in question the whole legacy of the Nobel Peace Prize, downgrading one of the few symbols of what we used to call "western values". Well, the change has arrived. Yes, he can.

October 10, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

The decision of the Nobel committee shows again that it is willing to involve itself in politics. It will never be possible to make "just" decisions - not only because it is most difficult to compare the merits of one with those of another remarkable person, but also because the most important contributions to world peace are usually hidden.

Our current era has a tendency to forget that our peaceful living-together comes has to be thanked to the silent tireless endurance by many, who will never even be thanked for their work. In the age of bonuses, it is thought that you can buy everything, that it is not necessary to undergo suffering, and that "success" should be a matter of course - to be rewarded by nice titles and huge sums of money. It means that those who have easy access to the riches of the world take what they want on the expense of us all. This has brought us much closer to environmental collapse, led to growing social injustice, corruption, and is closely connected with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision of the Nobel committee for Obama did not acknowledge achieved successes, but a serious attempt to reverse the above described tendency. Rightfully, as I would think. The current debate about Obama's "failures" is led mostly by those who want to see him fail. It's a ghost debate in order to avoid tackling the issues. One thing is sure: Obama will fail if we think he can manage alone, or if we start to believe that there's no way to solve these issues.

Yes we can, now more than ever.

October 10, 2009

André Budick, Bernhard Kaster, MdB, Silver Contributor (53)

On Obama's surprise Nobel Peace Prize:

I'm just wondering: Given all the talk both in the U.S. and abroad about an ‘almost embarrassing’ Nobel Award for Obama makes me think - that maybe that’s, in a way, what the Nobel Committee intended to achieve by giving this prize to a sitting U.S. president instead of, say, the lifelong human-rights advocate whom everyone in the (Western) media and public would applaud: .
Not so with this choice: Early on. Prematurely maybe. A work in progress, definitely. Promises to Keep – not just for Mr Obama! As he himself put it quite succinctly, as always: A Call to Action.

October 10, 2009

André Budick, Bernhard Kaster, MdB, Silver Contributor (53)

On Obama's surprise Nobel Peace Prize (correction):

I'm just wondering: Given all the talk both in the U.S. and here in Europa about an ‘almost embarrassing’ Nobel Award for Obama makes me think - that maybe that’s, in a way, what the Nobel Committee intended to achieve by giving this prize to a sitting U.S. president instead of, say, the lifelong human-rights advocate whom everyone in the (Western) media and public applauds - " thank you, great choice, wonderful, inspiring, o.k., thanks, let’s go home for the weekend".
Not so with this choice: Early on. Prematurely maybe. A work in progress, definitely. Promises to Keep – not just for Mr Obama! As he himself put it quite succinctly, as always: A Call to Action!

October 11, 2009

Member deleted

A Change of Course for Nobel Prizes

Some of the Nobel Prizes have long been called political puppets' prizes, notoriously.

It's time for a change that is long overdue.

Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize sets a precedence for national and international backing, for his own initiatives in his own right, while not living in the bubble in this internet connected world.

Now, at least, in the peace prize area, tradition has been broken. That is a good turn of fate to real winners. No more "puppets for prizes". Real leaders for peace win.

Congratulations to the world and Mr. President.

October 12, 2009

Hans Reuther-Fix

With all the discussions and disputes, yes it is about the reward, but this time it is more
about the authority of this prestigous international reward, it is about the reponsibility
of the Nobel Peace Prize, which is simply to value, to acknowledge and to support
peace activities of the past, the present and future commitments.
Yes it is very much about peace and coexistance., without military confrontations.
It is intended to acklowledge through rewarding the American people for their
electing of an African-American to President of the United Sates of America.
It is not only to support the initiatives of this young new President, but it is also
a confirmation to the people of America thnat they are not alone in recognizing
that changing course and facing reality is imperative for the future for all of us.
It is far more than just political........
The US with its leadership position, is now facing two wars " far away from home"
Wars, they may even have underlying religious proportions......
Economic disproportions, where the US is carrying trillions of dollars in
liabilities, almost like living of the savings of others.......
Yet, the US has committed to and signed for 5 or more airbases in Colombia........
And the overall health of the population seems to neglect that every child has the right to be born healthy....
But there is another concern, which is dealing with" imploding " of our society, as it was eloquently expressed by Thomas Jefferson in1802:
"...democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not..."

Yes, President Obama it is " call to action".

HRF

October 13, 2009

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (201)

It probably will not cost Mr. Obama the next election, at least not all by itself. Mr. Obama does not get anything out of it as far as furthering his own goals for the people he serves.

Will the Nobel organization get what it wanted out of the deal? I think it would be naive to believe that they just liked Mr. Obama and weighed heavily the results of actions that he has already taken. Who knows what the several members of the committee that gave the award hoped to achieve. Perhaps each of them had a different expectation. And in the end, so what?

If a zebra appeared out of nowhere within the black iron fence that guards the White House, the appropriate response would be: Now that you have a zebra, is it possible to get any good out of it?

The one casualty is the Nobel Peace Prize itself. Not to be disrespectful of Mr. Obama by indirection, but to gave a reward that was intended to offer up recognition for good works on some other, more manipulative grounds, cheapens the reward itself -- even if by chance it is awarded to the right person for the wrong reasons.

October 13, 2009

Stefanie Jennifer Tetenburg, King's College London, Silver Contributor (58)

Thank you all for your comments. It's great to see such a lively debate. Although our members are divided about whether Obama deserved to win the Nobel Prize, there seems to be a general agreement that President Obama has not been done a favor by the Norwegians. Now Obama does not only have to live up to his promises, but he needs to do it quickly too. His supporters are starting to get impatient and the republicans are seizing this opportunity to discredit the president. But we should not forget that Bill Clinton was off to a slow start as well, with military blunders in Haiti and Somalia and failing health reforms, and went on to become a succesful president. At present only one thing is certain, president Obama is facing a daunting task. Let us wait and see.

October 13, 2009

Member deleted

When Nobel committee last year selected Mr. Ahtisaari – an unofficial spokesperson of US State department and Nato – as Nobel prize Peace laureate this years selection was not surprise. The bright side is that Mr.Obama has not (hopefully yet) junked the original criteria (“to contribute to fraternity in the world, to reduce armies and to establish peace congresses”) for Nobel peace prize as it was case with Ahtisaari. More in general in my article “Do you hear Mr. Nobel rolling in his grave” - http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/do-you-hear-mr-nobel-roll... and more specific about Ahtisaari's mediator tactics in my article “500.000 bodies or sign” -
http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/500000-bodies-or-sign/.

Nobel committee's advancement can however promote peace in short term as now it is maybe more difficult to Obama launch or support bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities soon. Mr. Obama has also brought totally new spirit and approach to international relations if compared to previous administration so there is some hope that in near future international relations and conflicts can be managed more civilized manner. Will these my wishes come true we shall see later

October 19, 2009

Margareta Chudnovsky, NYU MSGA Student, (8)

President Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize has certainly created an emotional reaction in support or against this decision. I wasn't quite sure where I stood on the subject mainly because I felt like obviously he did not deserve it based on an accomplishment such as ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the war in Iraq, but it seemed like an obvious fact that everyone is aware of. So is that really what his accomplishment was?

It made me read up a bit more on Alfred Nobel's goal in establishing this award and what he wrote specifically in his will in regard to the award is that "one part 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" will qualify.

Considering America's super-power role in the world, the effects of the US President go so far beyond just the actual action of ending a war. It's really setting a tone for fraternity between nations. When the military super power says we are willing to talk, and does not take a purely you're either with us or against us strategy, that certainly changes the dynamics of world politics. It also sets a precident for other country's that diplomacy may be the necessary approach that must be exhausted before military actions are taken. And even if that does not end an existing conflict but bring the conflicting parties to the table or deter another one from taking place as easily as it may have under President Bush, that is certainly a strong step in the direction of peace. Because with stating you're either with us or against us, the US did not only make a claim for it's own politics but set a precident which has allowed other country's to make the claim for justifying swifter military action.

So although Obama's accomplishment so far has not been ending a conflict and bringing peace, the claim may be made that he has set a drastically different tone for international politics which the Norwegians are applauding as a strong shift in promoting fraternity between nations.

October 20, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

Dear Atlantic-Community Colleagues and Friends:

In my understanding, a Nobel Peace Prize may also be awarded on the basis of the commitment of a leader to tackle a number of number of highly pressing issues at once - with policy implications domestically and internationally. This choice by the US President stands out along with the significance of his election at this point in US history in terms of national unity in an era of persistent intra-state violence in our world.

On proliferation, there is much work to be done. Iran has yet to demonstrate the extent to which it will fulfill international obligations. Europe depends on energy and gas supplies from that country. The US is now in a position to work with the Europeans given the new way to tap into supplies at home and in the world that can expand global supplies of natural gas. If progress can be made on this front as the President pushes an engagement agenda with Iran, this two-pronged approach can address the vulnerability many Europeans to the center and east of the Continent experience vis-a-vis Russia given that country's revisionist goals.

The challenge Mr. Obama faces is nothing less than to rebalance America's engagements in the world, away from the preoccupation with the Middle East where resources are drained, as he tackles domestic health care reform in the context of an on-going recession with double-digit unemployment across multiple states. His policy approach on these fronts is one Europeans can appreciate. The selection is less about his speeches and more about the choices he has shown an indication to make. Mr. Obama stands before the road less travelled by. The decisions he is taking now suggest alternate choices for the country to act in the world. The Norwegians have made a selection that expresses support for an approach to politics that Obama laid out well in his books to date. The ideas in those books do not separate thought from action.

The selection is on a deeper level an expression of support for the American voter's choice in the last election, which, in one sense, reflects, as Moisi underlines, a fear of the culture of fear. The choice for Obama in that sense was made by those inspired by a culture of hope after the shock of 9/11. Obama is their leader of choice and an inspiration for those Europeans who see in America a land that integrates other peoples who, in their own lands, would be at war because they cannot live together in peace. The trajectory of Mr. and Mrs. Obama, including the experiences of their ancestors, sets their story apart from that of previous US presidents and first ladies. It is a narrative more reflective of the recent history that divided the country for a time in civil war, which the election of Mr. Obama makes sure Americans commemorate as a tribute to the unity achieved. The 2009 election was one the world celebrated with the United States. In that context, the Nobel honors the country as well as the leader.

Sincerely, Colette Mazzucelli

October 21, 2009

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

@Patrick Moran

"A reward for good works" - if that's the case, where's your issue? Good works and good results are still two distinct issues. And in no category is it more true than with the Nobel peace prize. Actual solid and lasting success in this area is dependent on more, much more, than one single man and his works. Alas, in many ways, the discussion reminds one of Brandt's Nobel prize. What specific, immediate successes did the "Neue Ostpolitik" achieve? What COULD it achieve other than sparking a light in some on the other side of the iron curtain that made it clear that "German", even "west German" did not have to be synonymous with "enemy"? But that same policy that was rewarded with a Nobel prize contributed to a temporary domestic meltdown.

Linus Pauling won the peace prize for nuclear test ban activism in 1962. When were nuclear tests stopped? And as for the Dalai Lama or Aung San Suu Kyi, last I checked they're both still waiting for their efforts to come to fruition.

Even the success of Hume and Trimble was close to coming to naught on various occasions.

Anyone suggesting that this Nobel prize was somehow completely unprecedented and unsupportable should check his records. As for those citing Nobel's intentions, dare I say they're living in the past? For decades now, Nobel's intentions have not been followed verbatim, not just with the Peace Prize but with all of them. Scientists tend to get the prize decades after the results they are awarded the prize for have been achieved. Nobel's intentions? No. But that's how things turned out over time. So if we speak about Nobel's intentions, then if anything thise Prize to Obama is close to them because it is imminent.

@Greg Randolph Lawson

Frankly, I think you're not precisely addressing the issue from a transatlantic perspective if you use "giants such as Martin Luther King" as a comparison. It is clear that if you stubbornly refuse the validity of any outside perspective, you will not fathom the justification of decisions taken by outsiders. But that's a no-brainer and I don't think it's an attitude worthy of this forum. As for your questions about substantial successes, I suggest you research the Nobel peace prize a bit better. Those laureates who achieved "substantial successes" often achieved them on a very small-scale, local level. Those who worked on a grander scale at best set the foundations for the works of others, and at worst failed. But without people who TRY, there will never be success. The bickering "he didn't deserved it, XYZ is much more deserving" is one that occurs each and every single year in each and every category and, sorry, it's usually petty ranting by those whose pet candidate didn't win that year.