Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

The conservative reaction has been flat-out hilarious. Typically they keep bringing up the "nationalization ofteh auto industry," inflation of the deficit...and other domestic issues that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a Nobel Peace Prize. The hilarity stems from the revelation of exactly US-centric these people see the world. Why the hell would the Nobel committee care one jot about the US national deficit? What on Earth does that have to do with world peace?!I agree, however, that Obama hasn't done enough to warrant a Nobel. The man's only been in office for less than a year, and while he's managed to substantially improve international relations between the US and Europe and made lots of hopeful speeches about being willing to talk even to those we've traditionally regarded as hated enemies to find common ground, a lot of his success has come from simply not being Bush.

And I'm not even being sarcastic! Reuters put this up:

quote:

---

OSLO, Oct 7 (Reuters) - Wanted - a peace maker or rights activist engaged in a current conflict whose influence would benefit greatly from winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

​

That is who Norway's Nobel Committee will choose for 2009 Peace Prize laureate if, as experts expect, it returns closer to Alfred Nobel's notion of peace. Past prizes went to climate campaigners, life-long diplomats and grass-roots economists.

​

Top contenders for the $1.4 million prize include Colombian peace broker Piedad Cordoba, Afghan rights activist Sima Samar and Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.

​

French-Colombian activist and ex-hostage Ingrid Betancourt, Jordanian interfaith dialogue advocate Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad and U.S. and French presidents Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy are also in the running, although the field remains wide open.

​

Maltese-based bookmaker Betsafe lists Betancourt at 5-to-1, and Tsvangirai at 6-to-1. Austrialian Centrebet has Cordoba and Samar at 6-to-1 and both Obama and Tsvangirai at 7-to-1.

​

The secretive five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee does not disclose the nominees. The winner will be announced on Oct. 9.

​

"It's quite likely this committee will reward somebody who is engaged in current processes," said Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the International Peace Institute in Oslo (PRIO).

​

"They want the prize to have an impact on things that are about to happen and want to affect events," he told Reuters.

​

Last year, Finn Martti Ahtisaari won for three decades of work to resolve numerous international conflicts. The prize was seen as a well-earned lifetime achievement award and did not appear have much impact on ongoing conflicts, critics say.

​

BIGGEST IMPACT OF PRIZE

​

Earlier this decade the Nobel committee said it widened the definition of peace to include environmental activism, with Al Gore and the United Nations' climate panel winning in 2007 and Kenyan conservationist Wangari Maathai in 2004.

​

Some say this strays too far from Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel's 1895 will, in which he says the accolade will go to those who do most for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for peace congresses.

​

"Giving the prize to someone in the middle of a security conflict, and with a chance of boosting his or her influence, is a wise way to use the power of the Nobel," said Professor Janne Haaland Matlary from Oslo University.

​

Other leading candidates include Chinese and Russian dissidents, such as Hu Jia and Lidia Yusupova, but some experts say the Nobel Committee will not risk challenging a major power this year, just after two politicians joined the panel.

​

"A controversial prize that raises severe protests by powerful states or other powerful interests would draw attention to ... the independence of the committee," said Harpviken. (Editing by Louise Ireland)

---

The point was apparently to give a boost to someone whose attempts at promoting peace are still underway, rather than to award someone for activism that's already done.I can buy that. Obama has shown that he at least considers the promotion of peace and the betterment of the global community to be important. He did vote against the Iraq war, he has improved US-international relations, he has worked to de-escalate nuclear tensions between the US and Russia, he has expressed willingness to talk with Iran and North Korea rather than making simplistic "do what I say or else" demands.If the prestige of a Nobel Peace Prize can actually help continue his efforts towards nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and the shift towards diplomacy rather than attempts to dominate other nations under the threat of military force, then it all sounds good to me.

That's true.However, it's important to remember that Obama existed before he was President - apparently the committee thought he at the very least seemed promising. He did vote against the Iraq war, and there may have been other actions they took into consideration.And the decision still took almost a year, letting them base their decision on how he followed up his previous words and actions with the greater abilities of the President.Remember, most analysis is saying that the Prize was awarded to give a boost to Obama's current efforts, not so much as a reward for past deeds. Over the intervening year Obama has successfully improved international relations with a variety of countries and has demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy over the idiotic policies of the past. He's made significant progress in scaling down the mounting tensions between the US and Russia by removing missile defense sites and negotiating nuclear disarmament - that's not insignificant, considering that US relations with Russia were heading back towards Cold War levels under Bush.He's definitely not the most deserving person to ever win the Prize, but neither was it completely undeserved and random.