Jimmy Carter

This is a question that seems to call for opinions, but first, a few facts. Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee believed he had already demonstrated a willingness to engage in diplomacy, and to reach out to the world community, rather than just using "tough talk"-- the committee believed President Bush had been far too bellicose in his rhetoric, and they saw in Barack Obama a new era in communication between countries. As the committee stated in

their press release, he was given the award for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

There were 205 nominated candidates for the position. The selection was handled by a bipartisan committee with 1 representative each from the "far left," the "far right," and the "Conservative" parties, and 2 from the dominant "Labour Party." The final winner was announced on October 9 2009, just 4 days after the 5 representatives had finally reached uniform consensus, and only eight and a half months after Barack Obama's inauguration as president of the United States.

According to Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland, "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate... Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us." Jagland highlighted that the Committee was especially influenced by a speech Obama gave to reach out to the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009, as well as the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.

Whether the committee's decision was right or wrong, that is what they thought and that is why they awarded the prize. Mr. Obama himself expressed surprise that he won. He also believed (as did his critics) that other candidates were more appropriate. He accepted the award, but donated the prize money to several worthy charities.

Please note that what follows are the views of other contributors, some of whom may express inaccurate or harsh assessments of Mr. Obama, rather than addressing the reason he was awarded the prize in 2009.

comments, from those who believe he should not have won:

There has been no intervention on a huge scale by Obama. He has not curtailed any aggressive actions by any foreign state, or even his own. In fact he has increased military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has not been long on the international circuit and has no international reputation as a peacemaker.

In the past, winners have spent many years of dedicated service to achieve the honour, or have used high office for the furtherance of peace. President Obama has done neither of these.

Obama himself has stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that it must be spiritually shared by all the other nominees, but also not "as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," and "as a call to action --- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."

Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naive for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason... 'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'"

The Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang has later reported that Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises. It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections. The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.

In his will, Alfred Nobel left little to guide those who award the prize. Besides directing that it be awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament (though Nobel was a Swede), Nobel said only that it should be given 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."

By October 2009, when the prize was awarded to him after less than nine months in office, few would argue that President Obama had qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize -- or any other -- even under such nebulous terms. Indeed, the announcement was something of a surprise in most circles, including the president's own. Obama himself is quoted as saying, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments." It should be considered too that the final decision to award the prize to Obama had been reached weeks or months before the actual ceremony, raising even stronger questions as to why.

Any reasonable review of the Peace Prize Committee's decisions in recent years yields the conclusion that ultra-left candidates are currently in strong favor, their tangible accomplishments -- or a complete lack thereof -- aside. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet head of state and dedicated communist who conducted the final stages of the Cold War against the U.S. and other NATO countries, received the prize in 1990. Former U.S President Jimmy Carter received the award in 2002; despite how the Nobel committee may have viewed him, Carter, whose one term ended in 1981, is widely ridiculed and perceived as a failure in his own country. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore shared the 2006 Peace Prize. Neither party has ever done a single thing to promote peace in any part of the world, though both have promoted a theory of anthropogenic global warming that, while lucrative to both of them, and almost religiously popular with the extreme left, has been widely and soundly discredited.

In fact, through its long history, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to only four U.S. presidents. I've already mentioned Obama (almost before he was elected -- there are some who have opined that he would have received the prize even if he had lost the election) and Carter (21 years after he left office). The other two were Teddy Roosevelt (1906) and Woodrow Wilson (1919), indisputably two of the founders of the modern "progressive" era. No conservative U.S. president has ever won a NPP. (Yes, TR was a Republican, but hardly like today's brand of Republican. And he was certainly no conservative.)

In the final tally, US President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize largely for offering the world hope, rather than for any practical achievements, and possibly as an encouragement for what he might accomplish after receiving the prize.

Carter's popularity had declined throughout his presidency. Walter Anderson took votes away from Carter and Ronald Reagan was able to take advantage of Carter's unpopularity to win the election.

E2020