We should not. It's nation branding and it's politicized (I'm Norwegian btw). The members of the committee are appointed by the Norwegian parliment and are mainly former politicians. We all knew they would never have the balls to give it to Snowden. To me, that proves the impotence of the prize.
Churchill ensured that Gandhi never received it while he was alive, and he couldn't get it posthumously. I appreciate the efforts of the two recepients, but I don't think it's as great of an achievement to win this prize as the science Nobels.
You can even see the political undertones with the statement about India and Pakistan in the official announcement.
Well, to quote Wikipedia he did unofficially get it:
"1948: Not awarded because "there was no suitable living candidate." (A tribute to the recently assassinated Gandhi, since the prize cannot be awarded posthumously.)"
Of course it’s politicised. It’s about politics, after all. I do think it’s quite transparently political, both in intent and outcome. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Honestly, I’m not sure how you even think a non-political Peace Prize would be possible.
Also, I really don’t think Snowden should get a Peace Prize. It’s not like this opinion of yours that Snowden would be a worthy recipient is some kind of objective truth or even self-evident.
The fact that Snowden didn't receive the prize obviously doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The problem is that we all (at least the people of Norway) assumed it would never happen becuase of the political consequences for Norway.
Well, the committee gave China the middle finger. I'm not sure why it wouldn't do the same to the US. Besides, Snowden is at odds with the US while Malala is at odds with the pakistani Taliban. Pakistan has about the same population as Japan, so it's important. Snowden was supposedly a strong candidate, but there are valid reasons not to choose him.
That Snowden didn't face his charges in the states and instead fled to continue his days under the protection of (much more repressive) Vladimir Putin, who himself is a warmonger, and gave the dictator several public relations victories while hypocritically criticizing the US from abroad, severely diluted his moral authority. Had he stayed in the US after the leaks he might have deserved a peace prize, and made a much more profound statement, but he didn't.
You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience. In general, on the topic of peace, there is never peace through weakness. Wether you need violence or not to exert (your) strength is a wholly different subject. Weakness is inherently unstable, and in a context of instability the ROI on "opportunistic violence" increases. There is plenty of empirical evidence outhere to support this if the logic isn't self evident.
Heroic civil disobedience, in my view, requires violating the law and accepting the consequences in protest. Both laureates Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela flouted the law and accepted the consequences. Were those two individuals adopting a position of subservience and weakness?
Snowden seems pretty subservient to Putin right now, and relies completely on him for his continued safety and asylum in Russia. He's in a pretty weak spot since Putin can dispense with him any time he wishes - either deport him or have him disappear, and the US won't raise a finger - but will keep him around as long as he's politically useful.
Pacifism, like anything else, can be taken too far. Einstein himself migrated away from it as he grew older. And Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance to the Nazis, which very few sane people would agree with then or now.
All the major victories against repression in 20th century have come via peaceful means. There has been no "peace via war" in 20th century which can come close to the impact of Gandhi, MLK or Mandela.
Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.
Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed.
Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.
But that’s not why the prize is given. It is to encourage promising people to continue doing what they are doing. That’s a very clear pattern when you look at who received the prize.
Implicit in that is that the prize might be given to people who turn out to be a disappointment.
In many ways this is actually a very hard prize to award, but I’m ok with that. Sure, it will fail from time to time, but that’s just human.
And it's in that context one should view the price to Obama: It was a signal to Obama, and the US, of the amount of contempt a lot of the world held Bush in, and an attempt at encouragement to put those years decisively in the past.
While that award is ridiculed outside the US too, I think few Americans appreciate just how terrifying the thought of anything like a continuation of the Bush legacy was to many people the rest of the world. We were shocked when he was elected the first time, and even more so that he became president a second time (and it doesn't matter that it was close, anything but a landslide for Gore would have still shocked us). It seemed like America had gone totally of the rails and was firmly headed into a level of previously unseen craziness.
After the election of Obama is the first time I've seen non-Americans in many larger European cities hold parties to celebrate the election of a US president.
It didn't matter that whether you believed his campaign promises or his background or that he is still far to the right of most of Europe - he was still someone who at least appeared to people to have some measure of intelligence and restraint. Someone who would at least listen to foreign leaders instead of some voice he believed to be God.
Merely by stemming the neocon tide, he was seen as a giant step forward (or backwards, to the saner era of e.g. Clinton, who was probably more popular in Europe than in the US, or even Bush senior; heck, we'd even take Reagan)
I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change.
But in the intervening years, we see that the Obama administration's foreign policy, at least as seen through its end effects, is scarcely distinguishable from that of GWB. The Iraq war "ended" precisely on the same schedule that GWB had put forward, we've found ourselves in an increasing number of armed conflicts, and we still seem to see the world as being beholden to American interests (e.g., countries around the world are expected to run their domestic policies such that they align with the US war on drugs).
So it doesn't seem like the Prize did very much to encourage Pres. Obama to continue on a promise of peace. And why should it? If he does continue, he's not going to get a second prize. And if he doesn't follow through, they're not going to take the prize away.
One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning".
Note that while I don't particular care that Obama got the prize, I also don't think it was a particularly inspired choice so I won't defend the award. I think frankly few people would - it was very much a sign of the time and I agree with you that Obama hasn't done much to deserve it in retrospect. And we shouldn't really have expected him to either:
> I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change.
I find that curious, though, because he went into the election with a relatively conservative platform. It's not that long ago that his policies would have made him fit squarely in the Republican party. It's presumably exactly because of this he was able to draw in such a big portion of the electorate. That, and being painted as the anti-Bush.
> One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning".
There's actual psychology research to back up the idea that giving a reward in anticipation of positive action is in many circumstances more effective than promising a reward after the fact (Influence by Cialdini covers several different approaches to this, with references) so that's not such an outlandish idea, though not perhaps with that particular wording.
In general, we have a very strong predisposition for consistency. If we are surrounded by signs that we are seen as the type of person who does X, then we are more likely to do X. But a promise of a reward does not signal we're the type of person who does X, it signals that we're the type of person who will do X when the benefit derived is perceived to be greater than the opportunity cost.
(It's not clear to be, btw., that the Peace Price to Obama even potentially had a beneficial effect on this basis; it's not like it's a lever you can pull and it'll always work as intended on every person - if you manage to do things right to trigger the effect, it improves your average level of influence)
And we shouldn't really have expected him to either ...
I find that curious, though, because he went into the election with a relatively conservative platform.
There are at least three different levels to view this at. And thanks to the myth of the rational voter, there are plenty of people who decide that the appearance at one level is sufficient, and the cost/benefit of digging deeper isn't worthwhile.
On the surface, Obama was happy to allow people to believe something different even from what he was actually saying. Many pacifists supported him on this basis.
A level deeper, Obama was never anti-war. If you go back to the record, his only anti-war statements were specific to Iraq. He disliked the politics of that particular war, but never came out as a pacifist (contra those only looking skin-deep).
Deeper than that, we've got to consider political motivations behind his anti-Iraq-war stance. In retrospect it appears that this was largely a political position that was easy for Obama to take on because it entailed undermining GWB's (arguably illegally assumed) authority, thus shifting power away from the GOP and toward the DEMs. In this light, it's hardly surprising that he's chosen to eschew his opposition to unilateral executive power: when the shoe was on the other foot, he was able to obtain further political advantage by doubling down on the same abuses that he'd criticized just a few years earlier.
As the other person said, it's a lot about encouraging today's heroes into continuing with what they're doing. However, the prize should be awarded when the results of the person's work has really passed. Plus, it's only one person a year out of the other hundreds or thousands of people who don't get recognized. But again, it's a Nobel, whatever that's worth nowadays.
It's just a prize, an award. It's not supposed to be the unique trademark given to the greatest humans on Earth. It doesn't matter if you take it seriously, it may be an important milestone and encouragement for the laureates, though.
You're right. People sometimes take it as being the official Humanity's Stamp of most noble person, or whatever. It's an award that some people choose to give every year. It has a lot (A LOT) of repercussion, it's highly political (in the case of the peace prize), but it's still a choice by a few.
It's hard to judge what you think, but certainly more seriously than the Academy Awards. Do you take the Wateler Peace Prize or the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize or any other peace prize seriously?
I was a physicist before becoming an engineer, and I love to hear about all that science during the Nobel Prize season, but the Peace Prize is my favorite. I would even say it's the only one to be "useful" (is it really useful to award money to someone sometimes many years after (s)he has retired from doing any research?)
The Peace prize is different, by nature it is always non-consensual, because there would be no reason to award a Peace Prize if there were not someone else who is waging a war, denying other people their basic rights or doing other Bad Things. Today it's the Taliban and the child exploiters who are the bad guys pointed out by the prize. Last year it was the Syrian dictatorship, in 2011 the Chinese government.
When Obama was given the Peace Prize, I was also shocked in disbelief, and like most people I think it was not deserved. But then I saw that some people in the US were not simply shacking their head, they were foaming with rage. Coincidentally, they were the same people who supported, and sometimes continued to justify the disastrous foreign policy of the previous administration. And that make me think this prize was actually well awarded. It was not deserved by Obama, and I think the Nobel committee, by giving him the prize at the beginning of his presidency before he could actually do anything for or against peace, was almost explicitly saying that they didn't care that he didn't deserved it. This prize was a middle finger to the Bush administration and I think that middle finger was well deserved.
The same goes for other polemical awards. Al Gore got it, and it made all the climate science deniers mad. Yasser Arafat got it and the Israeli political right got crazy.
It's not always like this (The Red Cross got the prize a number of times, and nobody disagrees with it), but often, if you don't understand why a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded, look at who it pisses off.
If we put away our personal politics, and try to see Obama's actions objectively, it seems he has continued, even expanded, America's intervention in governments around the middle east.
Libya was overthrown, Egypt was overthrown, and we've been making attempts in Syria and Ukraine. And after failing to gin up support against chemical weapons, we're now bombing Syria because of some crazy rebels that are allied with groups we support.
In the bigger picture, we are waging a crypto-war with between Russia over energy resources from Russia and the Gulf into Europe. Pope Francis recently had the courage to call it as such:
So - to see Obama's peace prize as anything other than a partisan political joke (as you say, a "middle finger" to Bush) is a mistake.
Obama's administration has put the world as close to a hot-war between nuclear powers as we've seen in some time. It should make us angry - he was elected to stop the madness, and it seems like he is running business-as-usual.
> It should make us angry - he was elected to stop the madness, and it seems like he is running business-as-usual.
It should make us angry, but not because he didn't fulfill his promise -- I think the public made a huge mistake taking a politician at his word. Rather, we ought to be angry for two reasons.
One, because he simply doesn't have the power to stop it. The machinery of the state, and the industry that keeps it propped up, have a momentum all their own.
Two, because he stood alone in the face of this madness. The Democrats could have reigned all this in in his first term, with investigations and criminal charges for the perpetrators, but they preferred to move on to other business, which it turns out is the same as the old business.
i disagree. it relegated the peace prise to a liberal circle jerk, and only holds credibility with those who already have those ideas - hence the circle jerk.
edit: and for what its worth, there was nothing Bush did that Obama didnt do ^2. more spying, more 'drone strikes', more meddling, more pushing countries into war. Kerry was a bit peeved when Syria actually abided to remove their chemical weapons.
I caucused for him back then, and still thought he was a completely foolish choice for the prize. As did my other Obama-supporting friend, my other Obama-donating friend, and my other political science studying friend, etc. I can honestly say I don't know a person that wasn't surprised by the decision to award him that prize and by most indications Obama himself was surprised by their decision.
It isn't rewriting history, even his fans were confused by that decision back then.
I don't personally agree that Obama should have received it, but this article presents an interesting position as to why he did [0]. The author argues that giving the president the prize at the beginning of his presidency may have been motivation for him to make more peaceful decisions while in charge.
That's what made it a joke? A 17 year old can contribute to world peace just as much as anyone. What's a joke is a warmongering president being awarded a peace prize.
I did some looking up on pages of the linked website here to see what the criteria are for choosing winners of the Nobel Prize for world peace. First, one must be nominated by an eligible nominator:[1]
"Who may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize?
"According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
"Members of national assemblies and governments of states
"Members of international courts
"University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes
"Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
"Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
"Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1)
"Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee"
Then there is a process for choosing a prize winner or prize winners for the year from among the list of nominees:[2]
"At the first meeting of the Nobel Committee after the February 1 deadline for nominations, the Committee's Permanent Secretary presents the list of the year's candidates. The Committee may on that occasion add further names to the list, after which the nomination process is closed, and discussion of the particular candidates begins. In the light of this first review, the Committee draws up the so-called short list - i.e. the list of candidates selected for more thorough consideration. The short list typically contains from twenty to thirty candidates.
"The candidates on the short list are then considered by the Nobel Institute's permanent advisers. In addition to the Institute's Director and Research Director, the body of advisers generally consists of a small group of Norwegian university professors with broad expertise in subject areas with a bearing on the Peace Prize. The advisers usually have a couple of months in which to draw up their reports. Reports are also occasionally requested from other Norwegian and foreign experts.
"When the advisers' reports have been presented, the Nobel Committee embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates. In the process, the need often arises to obtain additional information and updates about candidates from additional experts, often foreign. As a rule, the Committee reaches a decision only at its very last meeting before the announcement of the Prize at the beginning of October.
"The Committee seeks to achieve unanimity in its selection of the Peace Prize Laureate. On the rare occasions when this proves impossible, the selection is decided by a simple majority vote."
With that in mind, it's actually remarkable to me how often non-politicians and non-jurists have won the Nobel Prize for world peace. Each year, the committee has a lot of nominees to consider from a lot of different sources. During the process of investigating nominees and seeking unanimity, a lot of names fall out of consideration.
"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who in the preceding year "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.""
What you listed is just bureaucratic procedures and maneuvering. For tat, the Nobel Committee deserves a Nobel Prize in Bureacracy.
Interesting that the section of the press release about Malala doesn't mention that she was shot in the face for her activist work, and kept doing it regardless.
I am still unable to understand what Malala is doing and why is she so great. Of course she is way better than an average teenager but I just do not understand the whole hoopla, she is safe and warm far away from SWAT valley in UK, and get to rub shoulders with powerful people who are interested in photo-op. Her ability to attain access is great but is it Nobel Peace Prize worthy.
Nobel Peace Prize lost shine for me. I still think their pure sciences awards are the gold standard, on the border on economics and completely disappointed in the peace prize.
If you won any other Nobel Prize (including the literature) is because you deserve it. If you won the Peace Prize, is only partially because you deserve it, but also because you need it.
Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics in their own countries/communities. They need an international prestigious stamp to show that they are on the right side of history and have international support. But also you need to deserve it.
Malala has the perfect balance of both. She is incredibly smart, self-conscious, has a natural sense of dignitiy and integrity that protect her from the traps of ego and fame - something very hard to do for any human being, let alone a teenager. She is making quite an impact on girl's education.
But also she needs it badly. Her life is constantly in danger and this stamp and support from the Nobel Prize will protect her life and her struggle. More people in her community will consider that she might be right.
Red Cross is another example of both deserving and needing the prize. They must enter the worst war zones, and all sides must believe they are not spies for the enemy. Their brand is the most important brand in the world.
Then you have Obama. His prize is controversial because he obviously didn't deserve it. But the commitee thought he needded it, and I agree. Not because he needed more power or validation, like Malala. But he could use a "nudge" to improve peace in the world. Sure, it was a risky move - and didn't pay well. But it is part of the goal of Nobel Peace Prize as I see it: help the laureates to do the right thing toward peace. So I don't think it was a necessarily bad move. But it surely hurts its brand. I think the commitee should be more conservative about who deserves its prize; but I agree that is also important to find who need it.
Pretty much agree with your analysis, I think you explained Obama's prize very well. It is not only case and they made several very controversial awards recently, which did hurt it's brand.
I personally think Nobel prize lost it's prestige and became very political, and not only for peace one.
I don't care any more who gets one, it's not important. It's role like ultimate prize is very positive thing and I think world needs something like this, just not Nobel any more.
To understand why Obama won the prize, you need to understand about the history of the prize. The prizes were created because Nobel was upset that his invention of TNT caused so much destruction in the world. At the time, TNT was a WMD.
Obama's worked to reduce nuclear weapons while in the US Senate. That effort would've made Nobel proud.
Further, Obama recently removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile. If he didn't earn it before this, he definitely earned it now. This is directly at the heart of why the Nobel prize was created.
In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.
I believe you mean Putin removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemic...) -- without Russia the US could have officially gone to war with Syria. The continued meddling Obama's supported in the middle east, and the utter failure in taking ISIS seriously, should be enough to strip him of any peace price.
Don't give too much credit to Obama, please! He is no different than his predecessor in deeds, only in words. I have no doubts that he pressed Nobel Prize directly or indirectly not to give Snowden what he well-deserved. I can't believe there are fans of Obama in this community knowing what NSA under him did, is doing, and will continue to be doing! The drones, the militarization of the Police Force is also happening under him, so, he was elected on false promises, lied many times, and was recorded saying "I'm very good at killing people." without any sign of shame.
Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics
More accurately, they are usually taking the politically fashionable stand on controversial topics. If you can imagine a Nobel Peace Prize being granted to a vocal defender of apartheid or a staunch opponent of abortion, you imagine a world very different from the one we live in.
If you think, "and thank God for that", it simply means that your political beliefs are fashionable, too. Being on the "right side of history" just means that your side won. Louis XVI was on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't mean we should all become Jacobins—although, in many ways, we have. (I'd guess the Nobel Peace Prize committee would have little problem endorsing liberté, égalité, fraternité.)
You're right, and I should have been clearer. I was referring to the implausibility of someone being awarded the Prize for working against abortion. I'm sure many laureates incidentally oppose abortion, but it's hard to imagine the leader of a prominent anti-abortion organization being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that work.
I know it's kind of cynical, and I'm probably wrong, but I thought Obama won the Nobel peace prize because he wasn't George W. Bush.
It was more about the Nobel Committee sending a message to the US about the previous disastrous presidency than anything else. The way I remember the political mood at the time we could have elected a dead cat and half of the world would have been ecstatically happy.
So, after Churchill and Yasser Arafat, I see Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro as serious contenders. Osama Bin Laden is out of the question since you have to be alive to receive the prize.
I think they should put a 10-20 year waiting limit on the Peace price. Give history some time to see what actually happened. Not to denigrate Malala, she sounds like an amazing young women. But I don't see that she has actually accomplished anything yet. Maybe in 20 years the quality of life and education for women in Islamic countries will have gone up notably, and she will have been identified as the catalyst for that. Then she will definitely deserve the prize.
But right now it sounds like feel-good wishful thinking.
I think that giving the prize to the people who contributed the most for peace in 1994 or earlier would give us some perspective, some confirmation that what they actually did worked and led to a better, more peaceful world.
It is a shame that Indian government never even conferred a Padma award to Kailash Satyarthi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Shri) but was bestowing these awards in abundance to corrupt and classless politicians and journalists (Rajdeep Sardesai, Burkha Dutt)
Govt of India and Indian media was probably caught off-guard by this development.
85 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] threadYou can even see the political undertones with the statement about India and Pakistan in the official announcement.
Also, I really don’t think Snowden should get a Peace Prize. It’s not like this opinion of yours that Snowden would be a worthy recipient is some kind of objective truth or even self-evident.
Snowden seems pretty subservient to Putin right now, and relies completely on him for his continued safety and asylum in Russia. He's in a pretty weak spot since Putin can dispense with him any time he wishes - either deport him or have him disappear, and the US won't raise a finger - but will keep him around as long as he's politically useful.
Those of us from pacifist religious traditions would disagree.
Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.
Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed.
Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.
Implicit in that is that the prize might be given to people who turn out to be a disappointment.
In many ways this is actually a very hard prize to award, but I’m ok with that. Sure, it will fail from time to time, but that’s just human.
While that award is ridiculed outside the US too, I think few Americans appreciate just how terrifying the thought of anything like a continuation of the Bush legacy was to many people the rest of the world. We were shocked when he was elected the first time, and even more so that he became president a second time (and it doesn't matter that it was close, anything but a landslide for Gore would have still shocked us). It seemed like America had gone totally of the rails and was firmly headed into a level of previously unseen craziness.
After the election of Obama is the first time I've seen non-Americans in many larger European cities hold parties to celebrate the election of a US president.
It didn't matter that whether you believed his campaign promises or his background or that he is still far to the right of most of Europe - he was still someone who at least appeared to people to have some measure of intelligence and restraint. Someone who would at least listen to foreign leaders instead of some voice he believed to be God.
Merely by stemming the neocon tide, he was seen as a giant step forward (or backwards, to the saner era of e.g. Clinton, who was probably more popular in Europe than in the US, or even Bush senior; heck, we'd even take Reagan)
I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change.
But in the intervening years, we see that the Obama administration's foreign policy, at least as seen through its end effects, is scarcely distinguishable from that of GWB. The Iraq war "ended" precisely on the same schedule that GWB had put forward, we've found ourselves in an increasing number of armed conflicts, and we still seem to see the world as being beholden to American interests (e.g., countries around the world are expected to run their domestic policies such that they align with the US war on drugs).
So it doesn't seem like the Prize did very much to encourage Pres. Obama to continue on a promise of peace. And why should it? If he does continue, he's not going to get a second prize. And if he doesn't follow through, they're not going to take the prize away.
One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning".
> I can imagine some people may have believe that Obama's first election signified, well, Hope and Change.
I find that curious, though, because he went into the election with a relatively conservative platform. It's not that long ago that his policies would have made him fit squarely in the Republican party. It's presumably exactly because of this he was able to draw in such a big portion of the electorate. That, and being painted as the anti-Bush.
> One might as well say to a child "since you said you'd clean your room, here's some candy to encourage you to actually do the cleaning".
There's actual psychology research to back up the idea that giving a reward in anticipation of positive action is in many circumstances more effective than promising a reward after the fact (Influence by Cialdini covers several different approaches to this, with references) so that's not such an outlandish idea, though not perhaps with that particular wording.
In general, we have a very strong predisposition for consistency. If we are surrounded by signs that we are seen as the type of person who does X, then we are more likely to do X. But a promise of a reward does not signal we're the type of person who does X, it signals that we're the type of person who will do X when the benefit derived is perceived to be greater than the opportunity cost.
(It's not clear to be, btw., that the Peace Price to Obama even potentially had a beneficial effect on this basis; it's not like it's a lever you can pull and it'll always work as intended on every person - if you manage to do things right to trigger the effect, it improves your average level of influence)
There are at least three different levels to view this at. And thanks to the myth of the rational voter, there are plenty of people who decide that the appearance at one level is sufficient, and the cost/benefit of digging deeper isn't worthwhile.
On the surface, Obama was happy to allow people to believe something different even from what he was actually saying. Many pacifists supported him on this basis.
A level deeper, Obama was never anti-war. If you go back to the record, his only anti-war statements were specific to Iraq. He disliked the politics of that particular war, but never came out as a pacifist (contra those only looking skin-deep).
Deeper than that, we've got to consider political motivations behind his anti-Iraq-war stance. In retrospect it appears that this was largely a political position that was easy for Obama to take on because it entailed undermining GWB's (arguably illegally assumed) authority, thus shifting power away from the GOP and toward the DEMs. In this light, it's hardly surprising that he's chosen to eschew his opposition to unilateral executive power: when the shoe was on the other foot, he was able to obtain further political advantage by doubling down on the same abuses that he'd criticized just a few years earlier.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism_of...
Kissinger's support of Pakistan was a direct processor to and some would say the enabler of the atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#1971_India.E2.8...)
Some would say that this was due to real-politic, but its entirely reasonable to suggest that this was due to Kissinger's personal hatred of Indira Gandhi(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#cite_note-33)
More than a million civilians were killed and more than 30 million civilians were displaced during this genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide
Kissinger's support to the Pakistan Army was in spite of the US's own officials aware of and dissenting to the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram
All this was well known when Mr. Kissinger was awarded the prize. That award was unreasonable.
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize"
The Peace prize is different, by nature it is always non-consensual, because there would be no reason to award a Peace Prize if there were not someone else who is waging a war, denying other people their basic rights or doing other Bad Things. Today it's the Taliban and the child exploiters who are the bad guys pointed out by the prize. Last year it was the Syrian dictatorship, in 2011 the Chinese government.
When Obama was given the Peace Prize, I was also shocked in disbelief, and like most people I think it was not deserved. But then I saw that some people in the US were not simply shacking their head, they were foaming with rage. Coincidentally, they were the same people who supported, and sometimes continued to justify the disastrous foreign policy of the previous administration. And that make me think this prize was actually well awarded. It was not deserved by Obama, and I think the Nobel committee, by giving him the prize at the beginning of his presidency before he could actually do anything for or against peace, was almost explicitly saying that they didn't care that he didn't deserved it. This prize was a middle finger to the Bush administration and I think that middle finger was well deserved.
The same goes for other polemical awards. Al Gore got it, and it made all the climate science deniers mad. Yasser Arafat got it and the Israeli political right got crazy.
It's not always like this (The Red Cross got the prize a number of times, and nobody disagrees with it), but often, if you don't understand why a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded, look at who it pisses off.
Libya was overthrown, Egypt was overthrown, and we've been making attempts in Syria and Ukraine. And after failing to gin up support against chemical weapons, we're now bombing Syria because of some crazy rebels that are allied with groups we support.
In the bigger picture, we are waging a crypto-war with between Russia over energy resources from Russia and the Gulf into Europe. Pope Francis recently had the courage to call it as such:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/13/us-pope-war-idUSKB...
So - to see Obama's peace prize as anything other than a partisan political joke (as you say, a "middle finger" to Bush) is a mistake.
Obama's administration has put the world as close to a hot-war between nuclear powers as we've seen in some time. It should make us angry - he was elected to stop the madness, and it seems like he is running business-as-usual.
It should make us angry, but not because he didn't fulfill his promise -- I think the public made a huge mistake taking a politician at his word. Rather, we ought to be angry for two reasons.
One, because he simply doesn't have the power to stop it. The machinery of the state, and the industry that keeps it propped up, have a momentum all their own.
Two, because he stood alone in the face of this madness. The Democrats could have reigned all this in in his first term, with investigations and criminal charges for the perpetrators, but they preferred to move on to other business, which it turns out is the same as the old business.
edit: and for what its worth, there was nothing Bush did that Obama didnt do ^2. more spying, more 'drone strikes', more meddling, more pushing countries into war. Kerry was a bit peeved when Syria actually abided to remove their chemical weapons.
Of course people can change their minds, but you must remember not to rewrite history
It isn't rewriting history, even his fans were confused by that decision back then.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/9zrbco.jpg
[0] http://controversialtruths.com/node/8147
"Who may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize?
"According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
"Members of national assemblies and governments of states
"Members of international courts
"University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes
"Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
"Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
"Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1)
"Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee"
Then there is a process for choosing a prize winner or prize winners for the year from among the list of nominees:[2]
"At the first meeting of the Nobel Committee after the February 1 deadline for nominations, the Committee's Permanent Secretary presents the list of the year's candidates. The Committee may on that occasion add further names to the list, after which the nomination process is closed, and discussion of the particular candidates begins. In the light of this first review, the Committee draws up the so-called short list - i.e. the list of candidates selected for more thorough consideration. The short list typically contains from twenty to thirty candidates.
"The candidates on the short list are then considered by the Nobel Institute's permanent advisers. In addition to the Institute's Director and Research Director, the body of advisers generally consists of a small group of Norwegian university professors with broad expertise in subject areas with a bearing on the Peace Prize. The advisers usually have a couple of months in which to draw up their reports. Reports are also occasionally requested from other Norwegian and foreign experts.
"When the advisers' reports have been presented, the Nobel Committee embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates. In the process, the need often arises to obtain additional information and updates about candidates from additional experts, often foreign. As a rule, the Committee reaches a decision only at its very last meeting before the announcement of the Prize at the beginning of October.
"The Committee seeks to achieve unanimity in its selection of the Peace Prize Laureate. On the rare occasions when this proves impossible, the selection is decided by a simple majority vote."
With that in mind, it's actually remarkable to me how often non-politicians and non-jurists have won the Nobel Prize for world peace. Each year, the committee has a lot of nominees to consider from a lot of different sources. During the process of investigating nominees and seeking unanimity, a lot of names fall out of consideration.
[1] http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_intro/nomination...
[2] http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who in the preceding year "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.""
What you listed is just bureaucratic procedures and maneuvering. For tat, the Nobel Committee deserves a Nobel Prize in Bureacracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai
Nobel Peace Prize lost shine for me. I still think their pure sciences awards are the gold standard, on the border on economics and completely disappointed in the peace prize.
http://superitch.com/images/2010/10/Sorensen1.jpg
Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics in their own countries/communities. They need an international prestigious stamp to show that they are on the right side of history and have international support. But also you need to deserve it. Malala has the perfect balance of both. She is incredibly smart, self-conscious, has a natural sense of dignitiy and integrity that protect her from the traps of ego and fame - something very hard to do for any human being, let alone a teenager. She is making quite an impact on girl's education. But also she needs it badly. Her life is constantly in danger and this stamp and support from the Nobel Prize will protect her life and her struggle. More people in her community will consider that she might be right.
Red Cross is another example of both deserving and needing the prize. They must enter the worst war zones, and all sides must believe they are not spies for the enemy. Their brand is the most important brand in the world.
Then you have Obama. His prize is controversial because he obviously didn't deserve it. But the commitee thought he needded it, and I agree. Not because he needed more power or validation, like Malala. But he could use a "nudge" to improve peace in the world. Sure, it was a risky move - and didn't pay well. But it is part of the goal of Nobel Peace Prize as I see it: help the laureates to do the right thing toward peace. So I don't think it was a necessarily bad move. But it surely hurts its brand. I think the commitee should be more conservative about who deserves its prize; but I agree that is also important to find who need it.
I personally think Nobel prize lost it's prestige and became very political, and not only for peace one.
I don't care any more who gets one, it's not important. It's role like ultimate prize is very positive thing and I think world needs something like this, just not Nobel any more.
Obama's worked to reduce nuclear weapons while in the US Senate. That effort would've made Nobel proud.
Further, Obama recently removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile. If he didn't earn it before this, he definitely earned it now. This is directly at the heart of why the Nobel prize was created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.
More accurately, they are usually taking the politically fashionable stand on controversial topics. If you can imagine a Nobel Peace Prize being granted to a vocal defender of apartheid or a staunch opponent of abortion, you imagine a world very different from the one we live in.
If you think, "and thank God for that", it simply means that your political beliefs are fashionable, too. Being on the "right side of history" just means that your side won. Louis XVI was on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't mean we should all become Jacobins—although, in many ways, we have. (I'd guess the Nobel Peace Prize committee would have little problem endorsing liberté, égalité, fraternité.)
It was more about the Nobel Committee sending a message to the US about the previous disastrous presidency than anything else. The way I remember the political mood at the time we could have elected a dead cat and half of the world would have been ecstatically happy.
Besides the death of thousands of German civilians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_...
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+D...
The only odd thing about this picture is: One guy is missing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Yalta_sum...
But right now it sounds like feel-good wishful thinking.
I think that giving the prize to the people who contributed the most for peace in 1994 or earlier would give us some perspective, some confirmation that what they actually did worked and led to a better, more peaceful world.
Govt of India and Indian media was probably caught off-guard by this development.