President Barack Obama has recently been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize amid a great deal of controversy. He received the award on his 262nd day in office, a truly astonishing feat considering the deadline for nominations was a mere 12 days after he had been inaugurated. The committee who selects the recipient praised their choice saying that “only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”
The Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which is comprised of five members who are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. All of the current members are either former or present members of the Norwegian Parliament. This is not the first time the committee’s selection has been met with controversy. Other past recipients who created a stir include Henry Kissenger, who, among other things, played a key role in the controversial bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Another is Cordell Hull, former U.S. Secretary of State who was awarded the Prize in 1945 for his role in crafting the United Nations. Cordell famously advised President Roosevelt to deny entry to the S.S. St. Louis which was carrying Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. After also being denied entry in Cuba, the ship eventually returned to Europe where many people onboard were eventually victims of the Nazis. The committee has also been criticized for failing to recognize five-time nominee Mahatma Gandhi, the nonviolent leader of the Indian Independence movement. Also, the fact that the members who comprise the selection committee are all politicians, had led to criticism that some of the selections are nothing more than political statements. Many have theorized that the selections of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore were simply statements regarding the unpopular foreign policy of then-president George W. Bush.
In Alfred Nobel’s will he proclaimed that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reducing of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” So what exactly has President Obama done in such a short time to deserve such an award? The Committee argues that the decision was based primarily on his work to achieve a nuclear-free world, in particular his desire for the United Nations to pass a stronger Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While nuclear-free world may (or may not) contribute to a more peaceful world, the fact that Obama is the head of a nation currently conducting two wars seems to have been forgotten by the committee. Just 17 days after the deadline for Peace Prize nominations, President Obama approved sending 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. Since Obama became president, there have been an estimated 886 civilian deaths in Afghanistan and 2,629 civilian deaths in Iraq. In its press release, the Committee praises Obama for strengthening “democracy and human rights.” Yet, 262 days after being inaugurated, there are still dozens of prisoners being held in Guantonamo Bay without charges, trial dates, or hope of being released. At the beginning of the year, the president signed an executive order vowing to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of the year but even the White House admits this goal is unlikely to be met.
Obviously President Obama’s selection was met with both criticism and praise. Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter said that Obama’s selection “shows the hope his administration represents not only to our nation but to people around the world.” While hope can be a powerful thing, which President Obama does bring to a lot of people, should we really be giving awards for effort instead of results? Siv Jensen, the opposition party leader in Norway, believes results are more important. “It is just too soon,” she said. “It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results.”
There is plenty of reason to be surprised or even outraged at the selection of President Obama as this year’s Peace Prize recipient, but before we take to the streets in protest, let’s take a minute to remember what the award really is. Yes, the award is generally respected and admired all over the world, but it is chosen by five politicians from Norway. Just imagine if the committee were composed of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell. No doubt people would be just as upset at the choice of these prominent members of Congress, which according to Gallup boasts a whopping 31% approval rating. So, yes, President Obama’s selection was undeserved, but let’s remember that the recipient is selected by five normal politicians. The president has simply joined a long list of people who were most likely awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for political reasons rather than their peace-seeking efforts.
Megan Stiles is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer. Her column runs on Wednesdays.
President Obama was nominated for this on February 1st. I know all the liberals at UVA have a tingle up their collective legs but I felt I needed to add this tidbit of info.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
What is wrong with a country that must critique and diminish a man and a prize? Whether you agree with the politics of Obama, or with the Nobel Committee, why must we continually tear down? We diminish ourselves in doing so. Our country has become so divided that we cannot put aside the preference of our politics to step back and congratulate our leader. Actually, he received the award in our name, in the name of the American people. What are our values? Or as my mother used to say, where are your manners?
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Why doesn’t it surprise me anymore? As I’ve always said, Obama has been and will be LONG ON RHETORIC AND SHORT ON SPECIFICS. He’s been getting away with it since he stepped into the Presidential Elections limelight. I don’t really blame him for that. That’s just his style, but I do blame the idiots (and there are millions of you) who bought into it and are still buying into his rhetoric. And this includes the five idiots on the Nobel Prize Committee. His words really at the end of the day mean nothing without action.
I think the committee should also award the Nobel Peace Prize to me since I’ve said time and again, “I want world peace. Peace is good. No more war and suffering. Why can’t we all just get along?”
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
The committee cited as a reason for giving Obama the prize, Obama’s scaling down of the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. I suppose Europe’s need for oil and gas outweighs the fears of Eastern Europe who long suffered under Russian domination. I think we will regret Obama’s decision to “reset” the clock with Russia. I would think America would stand with the young nations of the east, and not the criminal czars in Russia.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Nobama, dude. There are lots of things you could credibly say about Obama–but short on specifics isn’t one of them. You guys kill him for his specifics on health care, for example. Seriously. Just think for a second before you spurt slogans. Seriously. When you say something like “short on specifics” it just shows that you’re trying to be disparaging and will say whatever disparaging thing pops into your head. You’re short on original thought, really. Go ahead and oppose the president, but try to do so intelligently and with a serious point of view. Or be a sheep and follow Rush. Your call. Have a nice life.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Oh, and words DO matter. That’s why books and broadcasts are so important, why, in a revolution, the broadcast outlets are at the top of the list. It’s why China blocks certain websites. And so on. Words inspire, they change the climate. Obama has told the world that the US is open to them. Coming from a power like the US, those are words that matter. (And, no, your words do not carry quite the same weight as the man who represents the United States of America; your little rant about that is kinda dumb.) So, again, nobama dude. You really should engage your own powers of critical thinking. Just say no to Rush and Sean doing all your thinking for you. BTW, did you get into UVA? Maybe that was an error.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
Duva, dude. Is that all you can cite as an example? Pathetic.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
People need to realize that Obama getting the Nobel is only because of politics. The deadline for nomination was 12 days after his inauguration, so there was nothing that he did to get the Nobel. Also, how legitimately can the committee expect to be taken if Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yasser Arafat won the Nobel? Duva, dude. Why is is not alright for some people to question Obama? At least we’re not blindly following Obama’s words, which so far seem to be void of any real meaning.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
For Elizabeth – sorry to say it dear lady but “manners do not cut it any more!”
For Justin – I feel sure that you do not consider the likes of Arafat etc as suitable winners and I wholeheartedly agree with you – however remember that there are folks who actually cried at his death and who firmly believed him to be someone badly done by and worthy of the prize which only goes to show how differently we think and one wonders how such chasms can possibly be breached.
My own thinking is that Obama is actually a nice guy but got into the wrong game. He is too indecisive and not “tough enough!” Maybe he should have gone into movies!
I fully expect huge criticism on these remarks but that only reinforces my idea that people just like to disagree with one another as a matter of course.
When we actually discover what the real agenda is of people – particularly politicians, then we are often dismayed, disappointed and devastated, however we must remember that they are simply human, not gods, and definitely not knights in shining armour! We place them on pedestals at our own peril and must pay the consequences for our point of view, be it right or wrong.
Some say Obama is right, others that he is wrong. Be that as it may, he and all of us seem to have lost our way in some form or other and maybe he also knows that there are no real answers to our problems, simply because we do not want to meet anyone halfway anymore and he is just going with the flow “hoping that things will change”. Disappointment awaits us all no doubt – including him.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0