Slashdot Mirror


Barack Obama Wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama has just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The BBC opines: "In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honoring his intentions more than his achievements. After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award. ... The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize 'for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.' This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image." The Washington Post collects more reactions from around the world.

43 of 1,721 comments (clear)

  1. personally by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems a bit premature. but hey, whatever they want to do.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:personally by rwv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. But then again, Al Gore essentially won the Nobel Peace Prize for making a Powerpoint presentation. If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in, then power to them.

      Between the troubles faced in the US domestic economy, the conflicts in the Middle East and Asia, health care reform, and setting a good example for his daughters, Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.

    2. Re:personally by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the committee is using the prize as a tool to make other world leaders take notice that America has really strong intentions to remove ourselves from all the international conflicts we're engaged in

      Your kidding me, right?

      Obama is a man to be respected for his accomplishments during the past year.

      Which accomplishments would those be? Closing Gitmo? Nope, haven't done that yet. Health Care Reform? Nope, haven't done that yet, and it's not really "reform" anyway. Creating a transparent White House? Nope, we gave up on that one pretty early on.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:personally by nutshell42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I hope he bombs Iran and North Korea before invading Pakistan together with India.

      Perhaps then the retards at the Nobel Peace Prize committee will stop handing out that thing like it's the Politically Correct Popularity Contest. Thousands of people work their asses off and often risk their lives trying to stop all the conflicts around the world and Obama gets it for...what, exactly?

      "Efforts to strengthen international diplomacy?" In other words for holding a bunch of grandstanding speeches. It's not like his approach to international relations is that different to Clinton or many presidents before him, even Bush's later years were pretty mellow.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    4. Re:personally by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I always thought that it was traditional to have to accomplish some significant shit to win a Nobel Prize. Apparently not, though. All Obama has really done that tons of common citizens haven't is be elected president (which, yes, is an accomplishment, but not a Nobel-worthy accomplishment). Where the hell are the Nobel Prizes coming our way?

      This degrades the award so much it's laughable.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    5. Re:personally by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fair enough. So what are his accomplishments on the international scene? He's given a few good speeches. Other than that, exactly what has he accomplished?

      This award reeks of political calculation. He was in office for less than two weeks and got nominated? WTF? You can't even really say that they gave it to him because of his grand speeches before the World stage -- because I don't think he had given any of them yet.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:personally by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

      Einstein didn't even have Power Point, but that's essentially what he did too.

      If we're going to start characterizing accomplishments dishonestly but with complete accuracy, Einstein won his Nobel for making little black ink marks on little pieces of white paper. I mean, really, my dog does that kind of shit.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:personally by Bertie · · Score: 5, Informative

      (He used Keynote)

    8. Re:personally by megaditto · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which accomplishments would those be?

      Probably it's for canceling the plans for the ABM (missiles/radar) in Europe, which he did last month. While it pissed off a lot of Poles, it sure made Russia feel safer.
      So the Russians canceled their new short-range nuclear missile deployment in turn, which made a lot of 'Old' Europeans feel safer.

      Now, since Obama got a Nobel Prize, he should have no problem applying for an O-1 visa, leading to a green card, and eventually, one day, a US citizenship. I keed, I keed...

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    9. Re:personally by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The pace of missile strikes by US drones against Taleban targets in Afghanistan has picked up since January. There's a good chance that 40,000 to 60,000 more US troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. The military option against Iran's nuclear program is still not off the table. What exactly has been more peaceful? US troop withdrawal from cities in Iraq? That was negotiated under Bush, and would have been carried out whether it was Obama or McCain in the White House.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    10. Re:personally by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, when terrorists kill innocent people for over 3 decades and we finally get someone willing to do something to try and stop it, that's pretty evil. I'll never understand why idiots like you support terrorism so hard core and why you believe it's better to allow terrorism to continue unchecked than to make the hard decisions and try and stop it.

      The appropriate response to terrorism isn't terrorism. You present a false dichotomy: it is indeed possible to be against war (especially unjustified as in the past decade) without being for "terrorism," the generic catch-all enemy du jour. In the past it was the Russians or the Communists, or something else. Always a nameless shapeless threat which is used as excuse for committing unspeakable acts. This is exactly how it works on the other side of the fence too, this is exactly the same sort of failure to reason which leads to actual terrorism.

      Invoking terrorism as an excuse for absolutely any deplorable behavior furthers the problem rather than culling it.

    11. Re:personally by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hello! I am from the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE committee and am informing you that you have won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE! To collect your award and prize money, please reply with your name, address, phone number, social security number, date of birth, unladen swallow weight, mother's maiden name, bank account numbers, passwords to your online banking accounts, current bank balance, Slashdot account information, social networking username and passwords, and your e-mail addresses and passwords. We look forward to giving you what you deserve!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:personally by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Public broadcaster NRK reported that US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were among the nominees.

      Well now I see the CALIBER of the people who win these prizes. French President Sarkozy. Wow. Actually Sarkozy probably would have been a better pick, since he mediated a peace settlement between Georgia and Russia last year. Obama... he uh... um... well he... gave good speak?

      There were 203 other people up for the prize. Surely one of them would have been a better pick - like French-Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt and Chinese dissident Hu Jia. Or maybe the Cluster Munitions Coalition for getting nearly 100 countries to sign a treaty last year in Oslo banning cluster bombs.

      Last year's winner was former Finnish president and career diplomat Martti Ahtisaari for his efforts on several continents, over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts. This year's winner... um... uh... not really sure.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:personally by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one has flown planes into any buildings in Europe that I know of.

      Yeah, Europe has never suffered an incident of terrorism. It just doesn't happen. Everybody loves them.

      I can't believe you got a +5 for this nonsense.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. For being the opposite of Bush by mozumder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This win was more a rebuke to the conservatives than anything else.

    1. Re:For being the opposite of Bush by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      The win was so meaningless and out-of-place that the CBS morning news anchors actually did a double-take and assumed it was someone playing a practical joke on their teleprompter when it ran across the first time.

      CBS, who have their lips glued to Obama's butt when it comes to news "reporting."

      You're right, the "win" was precisely a slam at Bush in particular. The reason? Unlike every sane part of the Nobel foundation, the "Peace Prize" committee is made up of 5 guys appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which is about as left-wing as they come and tilts the committee the same way. This is similar to when they handed it to Al Gore previously, a move widely recognized as having no basis in fact but being merely a slam at Bush because they were still pissed about the way the 2000 elections turned out.

      Of course, they're also recognized as much for people they failed to award (such as Gandhi, whose death finally shocked them into saying "oops, no living person exists qualified for the award" for a year because according to the terms of Alfred Nobel's will they cannot award the Peace Prize posthumously) as their routine mistakes (such as Yasser Arafat, awarded a "Peace Prize" and then proceeding to go on to lead over 20 more years of terrorist attacks).

    2. Re:For being the opposite of Bush by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try again.

      The point of the Nobel Prizes is to recognize people who do good for mankind. Three of them are for advancement in the sciences. One is for "in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency." One, a little more nebulous (and reputedly a form of attempted moral consolation after Nobel witnessed the horrors his invention of dynamite had caused), is for the advancement of "Peace" (exact wording: "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.")

      Nobel's will specifies the following things:
      - the prizes are to be awarded for something already accomplished.
      - the prizes are to be awarded to someone living (it can't be awarded posthumously, which is why there was a "bye year" when Gandhi died and the committee realized they'd royally fucked up and missed their chance to recognize his work).
      - One is to be awarded for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and "international peace."

      In the sciences, the time lag is tremendous. This is partly a result of some early awards being given to "advances" or "discoveries" which were later discredited; the downside is that a number of possible recipients have been passed over because they died before the committee had fully vetted them. Literature's time lag has evolved as the committee shifted to covering a body of long work from an author, rather than a single book.

      The "Peace Prize" is the most politically charged, and many propositions have come forth to alter it and prevent bad awards being made. Left-wingers go after the 1973 choice of Henry Kissinger (for negotiating the Vietnam peace accords) based on his involvement in other conflicts. As early as 1905, the choice to award it to President Roosevelt (for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War) was criticized because his administration was involved in a bloody revolt-suppression in the Phillipines at the same time. Right-wingers criticize the political handing of the award to Al Gore. The choice to give it to Yasser Arafat, given that he kept leading and encouraging terror attacks for years after (also, because it was awarded for the Oslo Accords but Arafat was recorded saying on Palestinian national radio the next week that signing the Accords was a sham on his part), is hit often, as is the award given to anti-semite Jimmy Carter in 2002. Rigoberta Menchu nearly had her 1992 prize revoked after it was revealed that much of her autobiography (which was part of the basis given in the committee's written statement on why she received the award) was a fabrication. Cordell Hull, given the award in 1945 for helping found the UN, had 5 years prior been the major decision-maker (Secretary of State) in FDR's administration when they sent a ship full of Jewish refugees back to Europe (most of those refugees then were killed in the Holocaust).

      So yeah, there's ample tradition on many fronts to criticize the awarding of the Peace Prize. Given that the nomination process closed when Obama was only in office eleven days, I think anyone from any side is justified in saying that giving it to Obama is premature, since the requirements are that you have already done something worth giving you the award, not that you are "expected to" do certain things.

  3. Lowering of standards? by stevev007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it. Now it seems you get it for not being like the guy before you.

    1. Re:Lowering of standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Yasser Arafat won a nobel prize then anyone can.

    2. Re:Lowering of standards? by Rhaban · · Score: 5, Funny

      I remember when the Nobel Prize used to mean something, when people won it many years after tremendous accomplishments. It was so exclusive that the best of the best never knew if they would ever receive it.

      I feel the same about epic gear in WoW.

  4. I think he may possibly deserver the prize by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think he may possibly deserver the prize, but its too early to say. Shouldn't they have waited to see if he manages to sort out Iraq, bring peace to the Middle East or something like that? After all if he does manage it now there will be nothing to reward him with.

    1. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by thePig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It could be construed in another way. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, now Obama will have to think twice before going to any war from now on. Basically by increasing the load of expectations on him, I think the committee is trying to direct his hand to a carrot when both carrot and stick are viable alternatives.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    2. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by NoYob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that it may be too soon. But he has made some good changes so far. He's introduced a radical shift in US policy, going from a big stick diplomacy to one based on respect (even if the opposing country does not deserve it). I don't like how he's handled everything, but as far as his international relations policy goes, I'm rather happy.

      But to get the Peace Prize for it?

      Do you honestly think what he's done is on the level with Martin Luther King? Or Mother Theresa? Or Linus Pauling?

      Please, this prize is getting cheaper by the year.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    3. Re:I think he may possibly deserver the prize by bheer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > he's only 8 months into his first term.

      It's worse than that. The deadline to be nominated is Feb 1. Even assuming he was nominated right near the deadline, he had been in office barely _10 days_ when someone, impressed with all that he has accomplished, nominated him for this award. Jeez. Obviously, someone clearly thought the election of an Democrat/African-American with good oratorial skills was a major contribution to world peace in and of itself.

      This is exactly the kind of condescension I as a person of color can live without.

  5. Joke by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Winning the peace prize by sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan while mulling even more? What a load.

  6. Waitaminute. Didn't we just bomb by wiredog · · Score: 5, Funny

    the moon? How is that peaceful? The Raelians are going to be pissed!

    Oh well, on the bright side, I can now say that my President is a Man of Peace like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, and Teddy Roosevelt.

  7. A little Chinese wisdom by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set." - Lin Yutang

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  8. A Bold Move by FlyingBishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "This is the first time the award is given for wishful thinking," -Danny Danon, Israeli politician.

    This is, I think, a general reaction from a lot of people, but it doesn't really line up with the history of the prize. In 1987, for example the prize was awarded to Óscar Arias, a Costa Rican president, for making some strong gestures that he would stop the Nicaraguan war that had been raging for a decade, fueled by the United States. This raised Arias' profile, and gave him the political capital to broker a peace deal in 1988.

    In a lot of ways, I think that this is a better use of the prize; not to recognize achievements after the fact, but to encourage and foster new achievements that might not have happened without the award. Whether this will affect Obama's actions, who can say, but he'll certainly feel a little awkward now if he doesn't get anything done soon.

  9. Re:For what? by bheer · · Score: 5, Funny

    > Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize?

    He has delivered some very good speeches, you insensitive clod!

  10. Missed opportunity by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity to posit himself as a great man. He could have refused the prize, citing the obvious fact that he has not achieved anything of substance yet. That would have gained him instant worldwide respect, while exposing the Nobel institution as the farce that it has become. But now, Obama is looking like yet another politician joining yet another little prestige club of politicians.

    1. Re:Missed opportunity by xednieht · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very true, a noble man makes noble plans, and by noble deeds he stands.

      Dear Mr. President, if you don't give it back at least find some balls and earn it. We have two war criminals that sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 troops on the Altar Of Lies. If America is to lead the world we must do so on a foundation of honor and justice. Restore America's honor.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
  11. Re:proletariat by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't jump the gun... with insane health reforms he might incite the US to civil war. I know I'm more annoyed at him than at W.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world is looking at this and wondering what the hell your country is thinking.

    I don't think he deserves the award this early, but being honest, he is presenting a far better image to the rest of the world than has been done in the past decade. Some of his speeches in the middle east reflect a balanced and measured approach without historical alliances clouding the issues.

    And civil war over health care? Are you honestly that insane?

    --
    .
  12. For happiness and rainbows, that's what by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously, what on earth has he done to win such a prize? He has brokered no treaties, he has resolved no conflicts, he hasn't even particularly changed foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the crown jewel of his agenda, closing Gitmo. Having gotten into office he's discovered the world is more complicated that a sound bite for a political stage allows.

    But...but...he's a really nice guy. And he gives great speeches. And when he's making a point, he uses this fantastic faraway gaze and extremely compelling hand gestures. You can't teach that.

    You say Obama doesn't deserve the Prize after 8 months in office and no major accomplishments? Foo, I say! I have personally seen him give more kittens and rainbows to the needy than any world leader. When his talks with other world leaders break down, at least those leaders go away thinking 'Wow, that man has a fantastic handshake. That may be the best handshake I've ever experienced'. And you know, maybe years down the line, they'll be more likely to roll over for us thanks to that handshake.

    Really, I think it's great that the Nobel committee is now awarding prizes for trying a little bit for a little while. Sort of reflects the reduced standards in our schools where kids get diplomas for sitting in a room and learning nothing for 12 years. This gives little Johnny hope that he doesn't really need to accomplish anything in life, but that if he at least tries a little for 8 months, he can achieve his dream of an increasingly watered-down prize.

    Thank you, Nobel Committee. You give hope to the mediocre everywhere.

  13. Re:proletariat by nutshell42 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, with private insurance for all we've done the first step that leads to being a socialist hellhole like the Soviet Union, or Germany. If this goes on there will be a public option, the US is gonna end up like Cuba, or the UK.

    France, Canada, Japan, all engulfed in civil strife, with the walking dead, condemned by bureaucratic Death Panels, roaming the streets and hordes of atheists burning churches.

    Thankfully the insurance industry is ready to pay billions to upstanding Congressmen and selfless community organizers so they can spread the truth.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  14. Re:proletariat by ZekoMal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You should be a tad more disgusted that the glorified wasting of money to kill people across the world is considered "less annoying" than having the possibility of a slightly higher bill, or slightly higher taxes, or maybe, just maybe, it being a better choice.

    Just remember, you said it. You prefer throwing billions at killing people than throwing billions at giving everyone health care.

  15. The road to hell is paved with what now? by Follier · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I'll have to start a blog outlining all the things I want to do, like solving hunger, cleaning up all the pollution from the ocean, and bringing peace and love to all mankind.

    If I get enough subscribers that I become famous, I can get the Nobel Peace Prize too! And I don't even have to leave my desk.

  16. Re:Norwegian sell-out for celebrities and stars by gnud · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This award is a mistake, no matter what you think of Obama.

    The wiki's translation of Nobel's will (and it looks good, after a cursory glance at the original swedish) reads:

    [...] 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.

    Note the past tense.
    President Obama has done nothing at all to reduce standing armies, and his work towards a fraternity between nations is in its infancy.

  17. Someone prep the Secret Service... by bornyesterday · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yo Obama, I'm really happy for you & I'm gonna let you finish, but Mahatma Gandhi had one of the best Nobel Prize candidacies of all time!

  18. Re:Obama Ghandi? by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a screwup done in the 1940s, or even earlier. Not awarding a price the year he died is as close as they can ever come after Nobel's instructions. So it happened and they'll probably still talk about it in another 100 years but the past can not be changed. It's not Obama vs Gandhi, it's Obama vs other candidates of 2009 vs not awarding one at all. There's a lot of lesser candidates that have gotten price because there wasn't any better, perhaps that is the problem?

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  19. Nothing new. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "peace" prize jumped the shark a long time ago. Wilson, Roosevelt, Kissinger, Arafat? Obama should decline the prize as an insult.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  20. Re:proletariat by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need it to live, therefore providers can charge pretty much whatever they'd like.

    No, providers can charge whatever they'd like because you have no idea what the service actually costs and people have no incentive to argue with them over the price because they aren't paying it to begin with. Do you really think hospitals would get away with charging $40 for dressings (the line item from my recent visit to the ER) if people actually saw that bill and had to pay it?

    If you believe the free market has any role in the health care system, you might want to learn something about how it works.

    I know plenty about how the health care system works and it isn't anything remotely close to a free market. Go read this article in The Atlantic and educate yourself. I think you'll find it informative.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  21. The peace prize has really declined, hasn't it? by JSBiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've noticed for the past few years that the Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to definitely be moving in a direction not of honoring people for recognized achievements, but instead using the prize, seemingly, to try to promote an agenda. The parent's point is a good one - Obama hasn't really done that *much* yet, to promote peace - though I'm sure he has nobel, err, noble intentions, the actual results don't seem to be in yet.

  22. Re:Heh... by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with any discussion of Democrat and Republican platforms is that neither party even remotely espouses the supposed platforms they stand for.

    You have supposed liberals championing for government control, censorship, and the removal of rights. (Clinton, Biden, Reid)

    You have supposed fiscal conservatives handing out bushels of money left and right. (McCain and Bush)

    Both parties voted for war. Both parties voted for massive bailouts. Both parties keep putting money in their pocket. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties keep creating new federal bureaucracy without doing anything to really make our lives better.

    At the end of the day, we need a certain dose of the Libertarians, who want less government and more personal freedom, except they're naive in thinking if we ignore the rest of the world, they'll ignore us.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.