CE Week #6: “In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy” Oct. 10th
October 10, 2009
By WALTER GIBBS and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
OSLO — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” a stunning honor that came less than nine months after Mr. Obama made United States history by becoming the country’s first African-American president.
The award, announced here by the Nobel Committee while much of official Washington — including the president — was still asleep, cited in particular the president’s efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.
For Mr. Obama, one of the nation’s youngest presidents, the award is an extraordinary recognition that puts him in the company of world leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, who won for helping to bring an end to the cold war, and Nelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid. But it is also a potential political liability at home; already, Republicans are criticizing the president, contending he won more for his “star power” than his actual achievements.
The news shocked people in Oslo — where an audible gasp escaped the audience when the decision was announced — and in Washington, where top advisers to Mr. Obama said they had no idea it was coming. The president was awakened shortly before 6 a.m. by his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who delivered the news. Mr. Obama himself was to appear in the Rose Garden this morning to discuss the announcement.
“There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, in a brief early morning telephone interview.
Mr. Emanuel said at the time that he had not yet spoken directly to the president. A senior administration official said in an e-mail message that “the president was humbled to be selected by the committee,” without adding anything further.
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
“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 committee said in its citation. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
But while Mr. Obama has generated considerable good will overseas — his foreign counterparts are eager to meet with him, and polls show he is hugely popular around the world — many of his policy efforts have yet to bear fruit, or are only just beginning to do so. North Korea has defied him with missile tests; Iran, however, recently agreed to restart nuclear talks, which Mr. Obama has called “a constructive beginning.”
In that sense, Mr. Obama is unlike past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize such as former President Jimmy Carter, who won in 2002 for what presenters cited as decades of “untiring efforts” to seek peaceful end to international conflicts. (Mr. Carter failed to win in 1978, as some had expected, after he brokered a historic peace deal between Israel and Egypt.)
Thorbjorn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, said the president had already contributed enough to world diplomacy and international understanding to earn the award.
“We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year,” Mr. Jagland said. “We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.” The prize comes as Mr. Obama faces considerable challenges at home. On the domestic front, he is trying to press Congress to pass major legislation overhauling the nation’s health care system. On the foreign policy front, he is wrestling with declining support in his own party for the war in Afghanistan. The White House is engaged in an internal debate over whether to send more troops there, as Mr. Obama’s commanding general has requested.
For Mr. Obama, the award could, in a strange way, prove a political liability. As he traveled overseas during his campaign for the presidency, he was subjected to criticism from Republicans who argued he was too much the international celebrity. Winning the Nobel at such an early stage in his presidency could further that kind of criticism, especially in Washington’s hyperpartisan political environment.
Even before Mr. Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to discuss the award, he was facing criticism from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele.
“The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights,” Mr. Steele said in a statement. “One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”
Mr. Obama also suffered a rejection on the world stage when he traveled to Copenhagen only last Friday to press the United States’ unsuccessful bid to host the Olympics in Chicago. Mr. Emanuel, who heard the news at 5 a.m. when he was heading out for his morning swim, said he joked to his wife, “Oslo beats Copenhagen.”
But rebuffs have been rare for Mr. Obama as he has traveled the world these past nine months — from Africa to Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, with a trip to Asia planned for November.
In April, just hours after North Korea tested a ballistic missile in defiance of international sanctions, he told a huge crowd in Prague that he was committed to “a world without nuclear weapons.”
In June, he traveled to Cairo, fulfilling a campaign pledge to deliver a speech in a major Muslim capital. There, in a speech that was interrupted with shouts of, “We love you!” from the crowd, Mr. Obama said he sought a “new beginning” and a “fresh relationship” based on mutual understanding and respect.
“I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors,” the president said then. “There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, to seek common ground.”
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been criticized bitterly among neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney, who have suggested his rhetoric is naïve and his inclination to talk to America’s enemies will leave the United States vulnerable to another terrorist attack.
In its announcement of the prize, the Nobel Committee seemed to directly refute that line of thinking.
“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics,” the committee wrote. “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”
Interviewed later in the Nobel Committee’s wood-paneled meeting room, surrounded by photographs of past winners, Mr. Jagland brushed aside concerns expressed by some critics that Mr. Obama remains untested.
“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” Mr. Jagland said. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”
He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with communist eastern Europe.
“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” said Mr. Jagland. “The same thing is true of the prize to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, for launching perestroika. One can say that Barack Obama is trying to change the world, just as those two personalities changed Europe.”
“We have to get the world on the right track again,” he said. Without referring specifically to the Bush era, he continued: “Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions.”
President Obama is the third leading American Democrat to win the prize this decade, following former Vice President Al Gore in 2007 along with the United Nations climate panel and former President Jimmy Carter in 2002.
The last sitting American president to win the prize was Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Theodore Roosevelt was selected in 1906 while in the White House and Mr. Carter more than 20 years after he left office.
The prize was won last year by the former president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari for peace efforts in Africa and the Balkans.
The prize is worth the equivalent of $1.4 million and is to be awarded in Oslo on Dec. 10.
The full citation read: “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”
Walter Gibbs reported from Oslo and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington. Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London, and Richard Berry from Paris.
This is baloney! I’m sorry but other presidents have made a conscious effort to better our county through peace and have been ridiculed so why now after only six months is this award being presented. I mean I could understand if it was at the end of his four year term but I think it is too soon and that we are just using the fact that Obama has African American heritage as an excuse to cover up some of the not so great this about him. I not ridiculing him I know that all presidents have had problems but why must we give him all this publicity when in past we haven’t done it for other presidents. I applauded him for being able to talk to other counties when past presidents have not been able to, but for some reason this awarded just gets my tail feathers in a bunch. I don’t like it I mean what if it all starts going to his head. ”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,” I think that this quote shows perfectly what in trying to say. Others have done it, but Obama is the only one being recognized for it. It’s great that we have a president able to tangle in world affairs but we need to watch it. If we give him too much encouragement in these policies he just might land us in the hot pot.
This is absurd. Are they going to give Olympic medals now to people they think might win? MLB should give the Yankees the trophy right now, since they might win this year anyway.
I have really hard time seeing how Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, as he is not been very peaceful at all. More troops in Afghanistan. Still in Iraq. Bombings of Pakistan. Not to mention the nominations had to be in 12 days after his presidency started. Obama has been as peaceful as George W Bush so far. And the idea that nuclear non-proliferation is the reason why Obama won is silly. The US and Russia are cutting nukes to about 2,000 warheads from like 3,000. What does that accomplish? I guess Obama can run that line in 2012 “I have ended the dangerous Cold War era nuclear ambitions and have restored relations with the friendly Russians. The world is a safer place with 2,000 less nukes. Blah blah blah.”
But it is understandable knowing that
The Nobel committee is appointed by the leftist Norwegian parliament. As with Carter and Gore receiving the prize since 2000, it was a chance to say one more time, “We hate President Bush.” They have made a joke of the prize.
In Response to Justin Fritz:
Okay, okay, a little out there yes, but absurd? Not so much. I’ll admit that at first I was a little surprised when I heard about the award because, as you stated in so many words, peace has yet to be accomplished in (and outside of) this great nation but then I did some research and some reading and found that this peace prize could not be more appropriate in these circumstances. I’m not just saying this because I am completely fascinated and more frankly infatuated with our president, but I am trying to get across that the actual state of peace is no better than the prospect of it. If we live in a world where we constantly interact and are influenced by people like Barack Obama who are trying to make things better and help others and reduce conflict then that is a world I would like to live in. When faced with the choice of living in a conflict free world or living in a world actively against conflict I would choose the latter because at least that way we would have people like Obama amongst us.
Along with the rest of America, I was shocked when I woke up and heard on the Today Show that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. This emotion from me wasn’t negative, I was happy for him. I really do think that people feel the need to attack Obama because in their eyes, everything that he has been trying to do for this country is wrong. He’s trying his hardest to clean up the mess that has been in the making for the past eight years with President George W. Bush Jr. I believe that people are forgetting who put our country in this mess in the first place and need to take it out on somebody else. Bailey: I don’t see Obama as an arrogant and conceited person. I watched the part of the news with his speech and he was very humble about the whole situation and you have to realize that he has his family to keep him grounded as well. I really don’t believe this award will go to his head. Other President’s have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as well, I advise you look up their names and why they received this honorable award and whether or not it went to their heads. Justin: You’re being a bit overdramatic about the situation but I realize where you are coming from. I don’t like the idea about Obama sending more troops to Iraq either. The war on terrorism, in my opinion, is a war we cannot win. But you still need to try to respect the leadership of our country. Once again, he’s trying his hardest and only time will tell whether or not we can declare him as a great president.
Sorry if I stepped on anybody’s toes, but that’s my opinion on this whole matter.
In Response to Bailey Tansy and Justin Fritz:
I disagree with both of you about Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for a few reasons.
First off, Bailey, I was slightly confused by most of what you said. To clear a few things up, The Nobel Peace Prize is not and American based award, it is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, based in Norway. So, I don’t think that “we” are trying to cover up the bad things about him, considering our government does not have any input. The award is simply to recognize people who have made efforts for that particular year in the pursuit of peace. It doesn’t mean that Obama needed to fix all of the problems of the world, but obviously the shift in power in the United States has had a profound impact on how other countries perceive us. Obama has taken advantage of that fact to focus on diplomacy and dialogue in our foreign relations, in contrast to the tactics utilized by Bush.
Also, when you said, “I don’t like it I mean what if it all starts going to his head,” I don’t think that this will be the case. Obama said that he was “surprised and deeply humbled” and saw the award not as recognition, but as a “call to action.” Honestly, I could see nothing worse coming out of this award than Obama being motivated to reflect everything the award stands for the next four years.
Justin, I realize that Obama has not “fixed” all the problems you have talked about, but I assume you realize the magnitude of those issues. You would be naïve if you thought that one person could change the situations in three conflicted countries in a matter of months. Also, just because all the “nukes” are not gone, doesn’t mean that the efforts are not worthwhile. The Nobel committee said Obama was honored for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” and honored him for the hope and chance for a new direction for not only America, but for the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Norway#Last_election_result
If you look at this picture, you will see that the Parliament is not dominated by the left, but that there is a broad spectrum. I don’t see how this would matter much anyways, considering people are nominated by an array of qualified people, and are considered by the Nobel committee and advisers to the Nobel institute.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Nomination_and_selection
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
Jenna you argue that he WANTS peace, and that his methods MIGHT bring about peace. In that case, they should wait a few years before considering him for nomination. If he brings peace, he deserves in then, but not now.
To Devon Preedy
“He’s trying his hardest to clean up the mess that has been in the making for the past eight years with President George W. Bush Jr.”
You can’t be serious with that statement can you? Well, if you are let me explain some things to you.
Bush reacted to the best of his ability in the 9/11 situation. He worked fast and efficiently under enormous amounts of pressure.
Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but that’s not why we went there. We went to war in Iraq as a preemptive strategy. Going to Iraq was approved by Congress because our intelligence, and the intelligence from our allies all pointed to the likelihood that Sadaam Hussein was helping terrorists, and rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction. Our post 9/11 strategy is to remove those in power who support terrorism in order to minimize the likelihood of another 9/11. I’m not sure why trying to protect the nation he serves would make President Bush a bad president in your eyes.
Bush did not cause the “economic crisis” we are in now. Bush had no control over the banks and their loaning habits. Why would that be any concern to the president at all. It was the Clinton administration that allowed banks to push forward into “risky deals”. Not Bush.
The events that took place during Hurricane Katrina severely hurt Bush’s approval rating and I don’t understand why. How would the president have supposed to have known about the levee situation in New Orleans. He gave the city the status of “emergency” and opened the emergency funds to the city. That is all the president was entitled to do. The evacuation of the city and obvious building flaws of the levees were the responsibility of the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana.
I’m not saying I agree with all that he did but you cannot blame Bush for everything that occured in his office. Any intelligent person knows that the previous adminstration leaves a closet full of bad things or skeletons for the next president. Bush was a good candidate that just had bad timing.
In Response to Justin Fritz:
I see what you are saying when you say that we cannot blame Bush for everything, but it seems to me that you are putting the blame on a lot of other people for things that were his responsibilities when he was president. I don’t think its fair to blame Clinton with spending problems. Wouldn’t Bush have noticed the big deficits that Clinton supposedly left behind. Clinton had a budget surplus during his time as president, so you can’t blame a deficit on him.
I think the reason Bush’s approval rating went down during Hurricane Katrina because although he did respond, there were people in horrible situations days after the hurricane had happened. The day after 9/11 he was out with the firemen helping and taking very staged photos, and I think that’s what people wanted to happen after the hurricane.
You said “you cannont blame Bush for everything that occurred in his office.” If we can’t blame the president for things that went wrong, then who would you blame?