CE Week #6: “Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts” Oct. 10th
October 10, 2009
By STEVEN ERLANGER and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
PARIS — The choice of Barack Obama on Friday as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months into his eventful presidency, was an unexpected honor that elicited praise and puzzlement around the globe.
Normally the prize has been presented, even controversially, for accomplishment. This prize, to a 48-year-old freshman president, for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and more consensual American leadership.
But the prize quickly loomed as a potential political liability — perhaps more burden than glory — for Mr. Obama. Republicans contended that he had won more for his star power and oratorical skills than for his actual achievements, and even some Democrats privately questioned whether he deserved it.
The Nobel committee’s embrace of Mr. Obama was viewed as a rejection of the unpopular tenure, in Europe especially, of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
But the committee, based in Norway, stressed that it made its decision based on Mr. Obama’s actual efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying more on diplomacy and dialogue.
“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in Oslo after the announcement. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”
Still, Mr. Obama, who was described as “very surprised” when he received the news, said he himself was not quite convinced, adding that the award “deeply humbled” him.
“To be honest,” the president said in the Rose Garden, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.”
He said, though, that he would “accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.” Mr. Obama plans to travel to Oslo to accept the award on Dec. 10. He will donate the prize money of $1.4 million to charity, the White House said.
Mr. Obama, only the third sitting American president to win the award, is suddenly put in the company of world leaders like Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who won for helping end the cold war, and Nelson Mandela, who sought an end to apartheid.
But less prominent figures have also won the award.
The reaction inside the administration was one of restraint, perhaps reflecting the awkwardness of winning a major prize amid a worldwide debate about whether it was deserved.
Republicans in Washington, reacting in disbelief, sought to portray Mr. Obama as unworthy. In an official statement, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said, “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ “
But there was much praise as well, even if Mr. Obama’s allies worried that the prize might be a liability and even if much of the praise came from Europe, giving ammunition to conservatives who say Mr. Obama cares too much about opinion there.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the award marked “America’s return to the hearts of the world’s peoples,” while Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said it was an “incentive to the president and to us all” to do more for peace.
“In a short time he has been able to set a new tone throughout the world and to create a readiness for dialogue,” she said.
For a world that at times felt pushed around by a more unilateralist Bush administration, the prize for Mr. Obama seemed wrapped in gratitude for his willingness to listen and negotiate, as well as for his positions on climate change and nuclear disarmament.
Last year’s laureate, former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, saw the award as an endorsement of Mr. Obama’s goal of achieving Middle East peace.
“Of course, this puts pressure on Obama,” he said. “The world expects that he will also achieve something.”
The prize, announced as official Washington — including the president — was asleep, caught the White House off guard.
The first word of it came in the form of an e-mail message to the White House staff from the White House Situation Room, which monitors events worldwide around the clock, at 5:09 a.m. It carried the subject line “item of interest.”
Shortly before 6 a.m., the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, telephoned Mr. Obama, awakening him to share the news.
“There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
The award comes at a time of considerable challenges for the president, with few sweeping achievements so far.
On the domestic front, he is pressing Congress to overhaul the nation’s health care system. In foreign affairs, he is wrestling with his advisers over how to chart a new course in Afghanistan and has been working, with little movement, to restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
The Rose Garden appearance was an example of Mr. Obama’s heavy workload; it was squeezed into a day that already included his regular intelligence and economic briefings, a private meeting with a senator, lunch with the vice president, a major speech outlining plans for a new consumer protection agency and a strategy session on Afghanistan with his national security team.
Announcing the award, the Nobel committee cited Mr. Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” and said that he had “created a new climate in international politics.”
In a four-paragraph statement, it praised Mr. Obama for his tone, his preference for negotiation and multilateral diplomacy and his vision of a cooperative world of shared values, shorn of nuclear weapons.
“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. “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.”
The other sitting American presidents to be given the award were Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for negotiating an end to a war between Russia and Japan, and Woodrow Wilson in 1919, for the Treaty of Versailles.
Former President Jimmy Carter won in 2002 for his efforts over decades to spread peace and development. Mr. Carter called the award to Mr. Obama “a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment.”
Former Vice President Al Gore won in 2007, sharing the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for his work on climate change. Mr. Gore called Mr. Obama’s award “well deserved” on Friday.
Mr. Obama has generated considerable goodwill overseas, with polls showing him hugely popular, and he has made a series of speeches with arching ambition. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons; 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, at the expense of offending some of his Jewish supporters.
But he has had to devote a great deal of his time to the economic crisis and other domestic issues, and many of his policy efforts are only beginning.
In addition to the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the situation in Iraq is extremely fragile; North Korea has staged missile tests; Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, though it recently agreed to restart nuclear talks; Israel has resisted a settlement freeze; and Saudi Arabia has refused to make new gestures toward the Israelis.
Ahmed Youssef, a Hamas spokesman, congratulated Mr. Obama but said the prize was based only on good intentions. Muhammad al-Sharif, a politically independent Gazan, was incredulous. “Has Israel stopped building the settlements?” he asked. “Has Obama achieved a Palestinian state yet?”
The Nobel committee did not tell Mr. Obama in advance of the announcement, said its chairman, Mr. Jagland. “Waking up a president in the middle of the night,” he said, “this isn’t really something you do.”
Steven Erlanger reported from Paris, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Walter Gibbs from Oslo, Alan Cowell from London, Nicholas Kulish from Berlin, Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem, and Taghreed El-Khodary from Gaza.
Responding to Bailey Tansy:
I disagree with you that Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is complete bogus. Alfred Nobel willed that the prize should go to the “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.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize)
Though people argue that he has not done much since he has been in the Presidential office, that has nothing to do with the original purpose of the award. The award is for a person “who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” said Jagland. He goes on to question “Who has done more than Barack Obama?” Is our President’s effort to end the war in Iraq not an effort to increase peace around the world? Gorbachev planned to end the Cold War and succeeded. He then won the Nobel Peace Prize. You might argue that Obama has not yet ended the War in Iraq, but the Cold War ran it’s course for 46 years before it ended. This war has only been going for six years, and Obama is already working to control the rampant beast.
Also, Obama has said that he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons. I know that I, personally, would be much more at peace if this threat were not a realistic one. “And when I said that we can rule out the use of nuclear weapons to take out a terrorist training camp, it was immediately branded a “gaffe” because I did not recite the conventional Washington-speak. But is there any military planner in the world who believes that we need to drop a nuclear bomb on a terrorist training camp?,” he says. (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php)
Though some people are strongly opposed to Obama’s new-found award, I can see where he has the qualifications to receive the award. I cannot say that in the entirety of the world there is no one more deserving, but I also cannot find anywhere that he goes against a single one of the basic qualifications.
Surprise Nobel for Obama stirs praise and doubts
What I learned:
President Obama won the Nobel peace prize out of good intentions. President Obama has been trying to handle and fix many different things in very little amount of time. Just some of the things that he has been doing is trying to approve the nation’s health care system, he is trying to get his advisors to chart a new course in Afghanistan, and to restart peace talks between Israelis and the Palestinians.
What I think:
I think that president Obama shouldn’t have gotten the award YET. I don’t think that it is absolutely absurd that he won, but I think that he hasn’t really made any improvements when it comes to peace. I am sure that there are other candidates for the Nobel peace prize that are have done more for peace than Obama. The Nobel committee should have waited at least a year of Obama being a president or at the end of his term.
Extension: I wanted to know what other candidates were in the pool for the Nobel peace prize. This year set the record for names submitted. There were 205 names submitted.
Questions: When did the Nobel peace prize first start? What is the history of the Nobel peace prize, why did they create it, who created it?
(Source:http://peacekeeping.suite101.com/article.cfm/2009_nobel_peace_prize_205_names_submitted)
In Response to Jesse Peterson: The Nobel Peace Prize was established in 1895 when it was discovered the Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel had set aside money in his will for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize was to be awarded by a committee of five people that would be known as the Nobel Committee of Sorting. The first prize was awarded in 1901 to Frederic Passy for his organization of the first Universal Peace Congress. Well known winners of the prize include Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Elie Wiesel. The Nobel Peace Prize is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious awards for the “preservation of peace” yet it is also a highly controversial award.
What I Learned:
While reading this article, I learned a lot about people’s views on whether or not Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize. I did not know that Obama was becoming more and more popular overseas and that his approval rating is soaring. I did not know the specific reasons President Obama was chosen to win the prize. They said it was because of his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” I also did not know that only 3 former presidents have won the award, F.D.R, Wilson, who both won during their terms as president, and Carter (who won after his term as president was over). I also thought it was interesting that Obama was one of the last people to know he had won the award.
What I Thought:
I think President Obama deserved to win this award. He is making conscious efforts to make peace in the world, and just because these efforts have not shown immediate results, does not mean these results will not happen. I think that we need to understand that this award is not based on the entire worlds opinion, if it was no one would win. President Obama has worked hard to influence and create change, and although this award could be given to him later in his presidency instead of nine months into his term, he still deserves it. I think the committee said it best on why he deserved the award, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope fore a better future.”
What I Would Like to Know More About:
Are there any requirements to win the Nobel Peace Prize, or is the award just based on what the committee thinks?
Connection/Extension:
I know this is kind of out there, but this article just made me think of this. On SNL, they had Bill Hader play James Carville and he talked about Rush Limbaugh and other Republican’s view of Obama award and the people who decide who wins the award. It’s really hilarious! ☺
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/update-james-carville/1165609/
A. Previous to reading this, I did not know on what the Nobel Peace Prize committee actually based its reasoning on to give Obama the prize. They made its decision based on “Mr. Obama’s actual efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying more on diplomacy and dialogue.”
B. I do not think that Obama has done enough to deserve the prize yet. I am not blaming Obama for receiving the reward, however, but rather the faulty committee that gave it to him. Nominations for Nobel Prize candidates are due the February before the award is given, so Obama was in office not even a month before he was being considered for the prize. Why would they nominate Obama in the first place when he has not even had the opportunity to do something worth being awarded? Secondly, it is not right to merely anticipate what he is going to do and what he promises will be done. Yes, he is planning to bring peace to the Middle East, change the conditions of intervention in Afghanistan, produce eco-friendly reforms, being about nuclear disarmament….. the list goes on. No doubt he will deserve the award if and when his promises are accomplished, but until then he should be able to work without the burden of the prize on his shoulders. Instead of being an “incentive” (bribe) to work for peace, the Nobel Peace Prize should be the reward at the end of the struggle.
C. Obama’s approval ratings have dropped since his inauguration and his disapproval ratings have risen. Are there measured approval/disapproval ratings of Obama in certain countries in Europe? If so, what opinions do they yield? How have opinions of him in Europe fluctuated since he was inaugurated?
D. Extension- I wanted to know what the fundamental stipulation is in order to win a Nobel Peace Prize, so I found that the prize goes to “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.”
Sources: Encarta Encyclopedia
A. Puzzlement is right, after reading this because the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for major accomplishment or triumph. It is true that Obama has stayed in office for about nine months now, but what has he really accomplished to receive this prestigious award? I didn’t know the committee for this award was based in Norway either, and they selected Obama because of his efforts towards more peacekeeping and better American engagement.
B. I think Obama has had a lot of pressure and multiple issues put in his hands by becoming president, but that doesn’t really mean he is entitled for the Nobel Peace Prize. Of the other record breaking 205 candidates, there has to be one other that deserves it just as much, or even more. I’m not saying Obama hasn’t accomplished anything, but I am saying the committee should have done a little more discussion on who should get it.
C. What credentials are needed in order to receive this prize, besides major accomplishment or peacemaking tactics? Also, how often is it given?
Connection:
In “The Week,” on a page ironically titled “controversy of the week,” I found an article that discusses why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. It begins with explaining how the Nobel Peace Prize committee has turned the world’s most impressive award into a “laughingstock.” It also mentions, “the Nobel actually hurts Obama, adding to a growing number of Americans’ suspicions that he is ‘an ultraliberal.’” This will definitely remain a controversy from here on out.
In Response to Katie Preston: So yeah, maybe Obama has inspired hope among the American population but I have to yet to see him bring about peace in our country. There is still crime and violence going on among our people. There are still broken families and racial discrimination. Does anyone remember the article about the hate crimes? I sure do. America is a far cry away from being peaceful. Plus there are all the other countries in the world in which America is involved. In what way has Obama brought peace to them? Just because Obama has “captured the world’s attention” does not mean that he deserves an award. The “world” follows celebrities’ everyday but you don’t see them being handed the Nobel Peace Prize. People who fought for a cause and brought about significant change in the U.S. are the deserving ones; people such as Martin Luther King, Jr. I am personally crossing my fingers that this does not come back to slap Obama in the face. Now that he has been given this award, American expectations for the president are going to be higher than ever. I mean, how does someone top the Nobel Peace Prize within the first 9 months of their presidency? Obama is going to have to think up something pretty spectacular to impress us now.
In response to Katie Preston:
I have to disagree with your assertion that Obama deserves the Noble Prize. In 2005, the winners, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed El Baradei, won for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way. In 1999, the award went to Doctors without Borders; an organization that brings medicine to under privileged and war torn countries. In 1964, it was awarded to Martin Luther King Jr. for his tireless efforts on behalf of civil rights. In 2009, it was awarded to Obama for……what we think he’ll do.
In response to Megan Erickson:
It’s not the best source ever, but I found that a year ago, 60 percent of England’s citizens favored Obama. In an international poll of 22 countries, Obama held an 85 percent approval rating among world citizens (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080605233127AAs2pv2).
In another article, I found that last month Obama’s approval rating in England stands at a 77% for the handling of international affairs (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125249394556595271.html).
In response to Katie Preston:
When they were making the nomination list Obama was in office for only one month. Almost every new’s website said he accomplished more in his first month than Bush. I personally didn’t see any change. I think the Noble Committee gave Obama the Noble Peace Prize because of his effort to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. “The Nobel Peace Prize should be for achievement, not effort. Just look at the other Nobel prizes awarded this week, from physics to chemistry. They were given to those who have made tangible progress and achieved in their respective fields. Obama’s award is just for effort. If the prize is to recognize achievements, well, there are no achievements to recognize” (John Bolton, President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. I concur with this statement.
(Sources:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/02/_during_his_first_month.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/official-obama.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1816743,CST-EDT-open10.article# )
In Response to Larae Stotts:
You say Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is NOT complete bogus. Complete, maybe. But bogus, yes. Agreed, it is stated that this prize should go “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.” Prove to me he has done the “most or best work”. He hasn’t. He’s just got a lot of media and attention on him. He’s made promises and encouraged people. DUH. He was campaigning for Presidency while in the midst of deciding this award. They decided it only weeks into his Presidency. Of course he seemed perfect.
You’re right, in the entirety of this world there probably is someone more deserving, therefore he does not deserve it because, as you said, it should go to the person “who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world.”