Barack Obama wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Via the Telegraph:

From the moment that President Barack Obama – who has won the Nobel peace prize – entered the Oval Office, he made clear that resolving the conflict in the Middle East would be a key priority of his foreign policy.

His very first phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, and his speech in Cairo sought to cast America as an even-handed peacemaker in the Holy Land. Soon afterwards, Mr Obama also pledged to negotiate a new treaty on nuclear disarmament with Russia.

So far, however, Mr Obama has no concrete achievement to his credit. The Israelis and Palestinians are no closer to a settlement today than when he took office nine months ago. On the contrary, recent violence in Jerusalem raises the possibility of a new Palestinian uprising: an event that would force the "peace process" into reverse.

Although America and Russia have begun talks on a new disarmament agreement, no treaty has been concluded.

The only possible explanation for the judges’ decision to reward Mr Obama is that they are betting on his future achievements. They think he might secure an epoch-making settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians as well as a sweeping disarmament treaty with Russia. Having previously given the Nobel Peace Prize to leaders who have made real agreements to resolve real conflicts, the judges now appear to be rewarding effort and possible future accomplishment.

This is quite unexpected.

 

Other sources

‘Extraordinary’ Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize – AFP

Praise and skepticism greet Obama Nobel award – Reuters

Obama’s Kenyan family ‘honoured’ by Nobel Prize – AFP

Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize – AP

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize – Times Online

Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize – NY Times

8 Comments
  1. Barack Obamasshole says

    he’s done quite a good job of setting the Russians on the Iranians, and only yesterday refused to see the Dalai Lama for fear of antagonising peace-loving China. And let’s not forget he’s neutral on the whole waterboarding thing… which is nice. whattakunt.

  2. J Lee says

    All we can do know is wait to see the silly Bank of Sweden prize in memory of Nobel for the art of augury, entrail reading and astrology, otherwise known as economics. It’s dead even whether this or the peace prize denigrates to a greater extent the medical sciences, the chemistry and the physics nobels.

  3. OregonGuy says

    If the U.S. starts a war next week, will he have to give it back?

    We’re the most war-mongering nation in the world. Why would any U.S. politician win a Nobel prize? This makes no sense, but continues the tradition of U.S. Presidents winning who in no way deserve the prize.

  4. LavrentiBeria says

    Who’s to add anything to Paul Craig Robert’s commentary at CounterPunch today:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10092009.html

    We’ve got a stockmarket that goes into a power move with even the slightest suggestion that unemployment is worsening, a ruling clique that serves only its lobbyist financiers, a reincarnation of Douglas B. MacArthur now asking for – just announced – 65,000 more troops for Afghanistan and likely to get them, and now this mind numbing paen to world psychosis, a Nobel Peace Prize to Oberstgruppenfuhrer Obama.

    1. Edward Harrison says

      I saw that Patrick Buchanan has been featuring Roberts on his site. What seems credible about Roberts and Ron Paul as libertarians is that they have not sold out to corporate/military interests, arguing that any of these foreign wars are necessary/good wars. The saber-rattling in Iran is an example of how President Obama is more hawkish than candidate Obama for political expediency. Or perhaps Hillary is pushing him in this direction.

      Any way you see it, Obama is surrounded with representatives of the status quo and that will lead to more of the same in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

      1. LavrentiBeria says

        Hello Ed,

        With all respect, it seems to me that the tendency in all too many quarters at the moment is to see Obama as a kind of cypher, a blank slate as it were, onto which everyone else is writing their themes. In this way Obama is never held to account for anything; its Summers and Geithner when it comes to the economy, Clinton, Holbrooke and Mitchell for Middle East policy, questa o quella for whatever else. The man is President of the United States, for God’s sake, his isn’t a kind of regency where everyone dotes on and takes responsibility for him in anticipation of his emergence at some future time as an adult. He chose those that serve him and he has responsibility for them as though they were his own offspring. And in the myriad instances where he’s elected to dawdle when to act would have been the moral thing to do – say the Gaza episode – or where he’s seen fit to act where dawdling might have been well advised – say the Afghanistan/Pakistan drone atrocities – he’s shown the Obama that’s hidden under the the bull-crap, and that’s not a very pretty Obama at all.

Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More