The Norwegian Nobel committee explained its rationale as to why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize...

"… through his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples ... Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position ... Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts ... Obama [has] captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

Fair enough...but,

"Obama got this international award precisely because, truly, he is 'not Bush'... "

Well, if he hadn't done this sort of thing, he would he virtually been a third Bush!!

He did get this award because he didn't continue with the Bush doctrine.....and that's about the size of it. That should not be sufficient for him to win this most esteemed of prizes.

It WAS far too early. He might have been eligible in four years time, although by then it would probably be a case of the rhetoric and efforts not meeting expectations and the support for him winning it having subsided. While I support Obama, I bet that proves to be the case.

Ugh! Correction:

'Well, if he hadn't done this sort of thing, he would have virtually been a third Bush!!'

I mean, wasn't he just doing his job as the US President and the world's most powerful man? Wouldn't anyone in his position have been highly remiss to have done any less in the circumstances?

Given the state of affairs that Bush left us with, it was rather essential that major efforts be put into mending relations and striving for peace.

I don't think that the US President should have received a top award for doing that. At least not for quite a while yet.

Completely agree with the author except for one minor detail... Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize closed 11 days after Obabma's inauguration.
Until that point in time he was a Senator who had never sponsored a single piece of legislation through the US Congress so his nomination could hardly have come from that experience, or lack thereof. It surely couldn't have been from his campaigning, after all, rhetoric and action are two different things and his campaign was based on rhetoric.
Maybe we should suspend belief and accept that his first 11 days in office surpassed all other efforts that have been put-in around the world to encourage peace - then again, maybe we should reserve judgement to see if his actions do live-up to his words. I think I'll wait, and until he shows that his actions do live up to the promise I'll be wary of any other blinding insights that come from the Nobel Committee.

I think that you are right Tony, although it is not an open & shut case. Firstly, I do not think that Obama should have accepted it, for political reasons, but really to do so was his decision and that I respect. A confusion, I think, is present in that the Peace Prize is conceptually different from, say, the Physics Prize where some major advance in thinking needs to have been demonstrated and this idea needs to have be rigorously tested. The Peace Prize, I think, can be equated perhaps more with an "elephant stamp" for trying really really hard !

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama's election changed the mood of international politics. It was precisely that message that conviced the American people to elect him. His offer was a change in direction, with an emphasis on the issues that have been worrying the US, and the world for some time now.
The fact that he presented that message so brilliantly, and the way that it was conveyed and accepted not just in the US, but throughout much of the world, gave him the opportunity to make an immediate impact on the world stage.
The extent of that impact, at this stage at least, has been to offer olive branches, and to attract parties to the discussion table who had previously been absent. Much good may come of it, and there is certainly a more hopeful mood than there was 2 years ago. The proof should be in the pudding though, and there are no results to speak of apart from this.
I don't see why there should be a difference between criteria for a Prize for physics and a Peace Prize. As brilliant as a scientist may be, there would never be a Prize awarded for having a good idea and researching it well, if the results did not have fundamental benefit.

I few posters (in this thread and others) make the point that the nomination for Obama occurred only 11 days after his inauguration.

Valid point.

Without making statements one way or the other though, I'd have thought that this particular period was indicative that he was then being considered alongside other contenders. I don't see why some subsequent achievements couldn't also have been factored in when weighing him up against other nominees.

" few posters (in this thread and others) make the point that the nomination for Obama occurred only 11 days after his inauguration."
That maybe true but I would imagine the the decision to chose him was now, not when he was nominated.

From Ludwig's post, the Nobel Committee's citation says:

>>"… through his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples ... <<.

I've gotta say, Obama, rather than putting in "effort", looks like he's doing it all so effortlessly. One thing I'll say about him is he knows a good idea when he hears it. That in itself is a good thing. He beats Bush hands down in terms of openness to new ideas.

However, does he *deserve* the Nobel Prize? Not at this stage - prizes are traditionally rewarded, as they should be, AFTER someone achieves something tangible. People's achievements should really pick themselves. But as world is spinning on its axis with celebrity at its centre, we'll have to make the best of the situation. So, the bottom line is that even if Obama is, as he says, symbolically accepting the Peace Prize on behalf of all people that want to extend peace to more parts of the world, that's a good thing. At least Obama had the good grace and sense to personally acknowledge that's what he got the award for.

I'm not George Bush either. Where is my prize?

"Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, is planning another war to add to his impressive record. In Afghanistan, his agents routinely extinguish wedding parties, farmers and construction workers with weapons such as the innovative Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of your lungs. According to the UN, 338,000 Afghan infants are dying under the Obama-led alliance, which permits only $29 per head annually to be spent on medical care.

Within weeks of his inauguration, Obama started a new war in Pakistan, causing more than a million people to flee their homes."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger80.1.html

*Peace* prize? What the...? Shouldn't that be 'Prize for killing innocent men, women and children'?

Not even Bush wanted to go into Pakistan.Obama did not balk at the idea.Now they are trying to pick a fight with Iran.Obama has not repealled the patriot and and still keeps Bush's executive orders which can effectively make him a dictator.

It is the US Federal Reserve and it's backers that determine both monetary and foreign policy.They are a group of 12 private banks that own the US currency and loan all the money to the Govt.The Govt only has board members representing it.Elizabeth Coleman is the Inpector General of the Fed rep the Govt and cannot account for $ trillions of public monies allocated by the Fed.

Alan Grayson: Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8

Obama like Bush is just a puppet of the real power brokers.

Well done Mr Obama. Along with Yassar it must be a great honor. Surely anyone can see that the award is more about the political bias of who selects the awards. The left love patting their own on the back. Notice all has gone quite on Iraq. No doubt many are thanking Mr Howard and Bush for bringing liberation. What a deluded bunch is our media.

"I'm not George Bush either. Where is my prize?"

Yes benk, I bet there are a few people who have been slaving away for years in an absolutely devoted manner, in the interests of world peace or engendering a peaceful outcome to particular conflicts.

Where are their prizes?

Where's my prize? I want one. I deserve one. I've been fighting against continuous population growth, the continuous expansion paradigm and the grossly antisustainable path that humanity is heading down for the last 21 years, including stints as the president of three NGOs.

Bringing humanity into a sustainable existence is intimately related to world peace.

So where's moi proize?? (:>(

If anyone's really interested they can Google
Obama's achievments for themselves - and get
the record straight.

As one of the websites will tell you:

"In his first years in the US Senate
Barack Obama was a member of a minority party.
Republicans tightly controlled the US Senate
and it was very difficult for any Democratic
Senator to get a Bill passed. For the record
Barack Obama sponsored 152 Bills and Resolutions
and co-sponsored 427 more."

One of the Bills passed which became law - and has his name
on it was - "The Lugar-Obama Bill - which expands efforts to
destroy WMD's (weapons of mass destruction - e.g.
in the former Soviet States)."

Also, for the record:

"Obama sponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 -
caping troops at Jan 10 2007 and begin withdrawing May 1 2007
and complete withdrawal of combat brigades by March 31 2008."

We're also told that Obama was on the Senate Committee for
Foreign Relations, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs...

He made several major overseas trips as part of the official
Senate Delegation, meeting with US Generals and Foreign Leaders
in various countries, including the Middle East.
The fact that he addressed such
complex issues gave him a head start in understanding
global issues. Plus the fact
that he studied political studies with an emphasis on
Foreign Relations at Columbia - helped.

Once he became President he secured $5 billion in aid commitments
to bolster the country's economy and help fight terror and
Islamic radicalism within the country. As Senate Foreign Relations
Chairman John Kerry noted:

"This will prove instrumental in bringing the nation away from
the brink of failure and increased Taliban control."

The list goes on...

I find it rather incomprehensible
that there are some people who simply
can't understand why - a Leader of a Superpower,
like the US, who seeks reductions in nuclear arsenals, wants
to restart talks between Israel and Palestine, who engages with
the Muslim World - and makes "extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between
peoples," why - he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

cont'd...

oops - I forgot to add that the $5 billion
in aid commitments that President Obama
secured during his first 100 days in office
as US President was for Pakistan.

A major achievement.

Surely Karzai's precise English must prove he is a neo-colonialist American plant as crooked as was the fake Shah in Iran.

Certainly just another tough case for Obama, wondering whether to sponsor another case of US crooked history, or prove the real truth about Karzai with a re-election?

Cheers, BB, WA.

What a complete joke.

The Nobel Prize Committee is appointed by the Socialist Norwegian Government and is as silly as Obama's attempts at achieving ... well anything.
This article is also written by another of those misguided well-meaning but arogrant dictatorial social democrats.

Time will show Obama's all said and no done. Check out his popularity in the US ... the lowest of any president in history at comparable stage of his administration. The Yanks have already woken up to find they've a fool at the helm.

You lefties think that's great. Fine I don't. And that's fine too. But
I'm just enjoying the joke and I won't be suffering the consequences of the stupidity. You will.

This man will be the cause of more instability and discontent across the world than we've known for many many years. The Russians and Chinese are already rejecting his positions on Iran and North Korea. The Taliban have taken great heart from his waveing, violence in Iraq has increased markedly, the Israelis have expanded their settlements in defiance of his demands, the Saudi's awarded him and he accepted their highest decoration leaving much of the Arab World aghast. The US economy is still imploding with rising unemployment, falling dollar, rising housing foreclosures, nationalisation of uneconomic industries continuing bank failures, unchecked printing of money, rising interest rates, rising inflation and a still largely unregulated banking system.

Oh and Gitmo is still open.

yeah yeah yeah I know he can't do everything at once ... the only problem is that he is doing nothing but run for re-election.

I think that John Pilger says it all. http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/did-obama-work-for-the-cia/ Foxy looks at Obama with rose coloured glasses and like many,don't want to face the reality that it is corporate totalitariarnism that rules the USA and not the the will of the people via Congress.

On Sept 11 a coup did take place in the USA.It is called the Patriot Act and the new presidential orders that Obama has failed to repeal.
That is the stark reality that most of us fail to recognise.Yes we all have been betrayed.

Foxy, the fact remains that Obama is the biggest mass murderer in the world today.

The fact that he also used violence and threats to obtain $100 million of other people's property makes matters worse, not better.

"Bringing humanity into a sustainable existence is intimately related to world peace."

Ludwig, remember the saying 'fighting for peace is like [having sexual intercourse] for virginity'?

It's not enough to want a sustainable existence - you've got to achieve it using peaceful means. All government, democratic or not, operates on the basis of a legal monopoly of violence and threats of violence. If you use government to achieve a sustainable existence, you don't qualify for a peace prize, but at best a prize for using legal violence and threats to bully people into obeying you because you think you know what's better for them, than they do for themselves.

Nice to be in touch through OLO again, Ludwig.

However, must say that the nasty comments alone from Israel, prove how much the world needs someone like Obama.

Someone who can head us towards a more peaceful future.

Indeed, a future that will never be solved by a militarily atomic Israel, nor indeed another G W Bush.

It is well to remember that it was our modern Pax Americana that virtually headed the much needed UN virtually into the political dustbin to make US power alone the answer to world security.

But us former WW2 soldiers can well rememember how excited we were after defeating Germany and Japan to hear our leaders talking about the end of colonialism which in many ways had been the cause of most political hatreds.

Yet almost while were later clapping our hands for the wonderful Marshall Plan, there were American leaders talking about the need to occupy Iran to prevent a Stalinist takeover.

looking back we now know that it was not surprising that US oil companies were not far behind the occupation.

"Foxy, the fact remains that Obama is the biggest mass murderer in the world today."
Peter Hume

Good Grief !!

"It's not enough to want a sustainable existence - you've got to achieve it using peaceful means."

Not sure about that Peter Hume. Some conflict would unavoidably occur if we put our minds towards achieving sustainability within the necessary timeframe. But this would be vastly less than the conflict that would result if we didn't achieve sustainability.

In fact, the hard decisions that must be made at this advanced point in the unsustainable history of humanity would without any doubt cause tensions and disruptions to the peace to a considerable extent.

Of course we want to minimise that, but more importantly, we MUST achieve a sustainble future...and quickly. That's got to take priority, well and truly.

"If you use government to achieve a sustainable existence, you don't qualify for a peace prize".

Huh? Governments MUST be utilised. And no, they are not all premised on violence or threats of violence. They are premised on a strong rule of law, that will achieve the best outcome for their constituents, despite a degree of inconvenience for the populace and maybe a considerable degree for some.

Obama is in the best position of any person in the world to make the most significant inprovements in world peace. I'm sure he understands that it won't be possible without considerable inconvenience being exerted on some people.

---
GDay Bushbred

"However, must say that the nasty comments alone from Israel, prove how much the world needs someone like Obama."

Absolutely