Obama's Nobel Prize
In an interesting move, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. Here is a link to the article. Here is your question: should the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to people in order to encourage their initiatives, or only to people whose initiatives have succeeded already?
posted by Crosby | 3:46 PM
13 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think that this will encourage and maybe even force Obama to follow up on his plans. Although, that was not what the Nobel Peace Prize was meant to accomplish. It is a prize not an incentive.
I would like to agree with the comments made by Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win: "The award is a farce. What has he done? Woodrow Wilson had done the treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. Teddy Roosevelt had ended the Russo-Japanese war. President Obama got his for his general splendor and for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he offers engagement and bending-a-knee to the United Nations. They love that in Norway but the reason Americans are stunned is because that is not what a president here is elected to do for his own country."
President Obama has obviously done absolutely nothing to deserve this prestigious honor, and his notions of his intentions to do anything in his presidency, in my opinion do not deserve a peace prize if they did follow through. This award really should go to someone who has accomplished an amazing feat in helping the world take a step forward in relations, insight or new technology. Truthfully, people lie, especially politicians. Because President Obama makes a “promise” of diplomacy and disarmament, absolutely does not mean that he will follow through on those claims (which he has not). Alfred Nobel intended for the prize to go to the person who has done the most to promote peace and act toward peace. President Obama, in his young administration, has been all talk and no action.
I have to admit that I am a staunch supporter of President Obama, but I think by its very nature any "prize" is intended to reward accomplishment. I also question whether the President of the United States of America is going to be inspired to greatness because he won a Nobel Prize.
That being said, I do have significant disagreements with some of what you said, mirandar2013, despite how well you articulated yourself. Primarily, I don't think it's true that Obama has been all talk and no action. I certainly don't think he has accomplished enough to earn a Nobel peace prize (although I'm not really sure who has this year) but he has made very concrete accomplishments.
I'd like to highlight some of the excellent diplomacy he has carried out with regards to Russia. Earlier this year he convinced Russia to allow the US to transport military supplies over its airspace. This not only saves us time and money, but represents a huge diplomatic leap in US-Russia relations. Russia has been increasingly belligerent towards the West in recent years, and many experts have claimed a renewal of Cold War era tension. But Obama's skillful diplomacy has helped allay these fears.
But in a more general sense, Obama has reached out to the world in a way that has signaled the end of Bush's "cowboy" diplomacy. Instead of the polarizing rhetoric that other nation's are either "with us or against us," Obama has opened his hand to other nations and invited them to work with America in building a better and more peaceful world that benefits not only the US but every other country. It remains to be seen both whether Obama will deliver on his promise and whether other nations will step up, but it is important not to underestimate the impact this change in tone has had on every aspect of our foreign relations.
I think they should have waited until Obama actually finished his peace making endeavors. It makes the prize seem less prestigious when they give it to a person just because they thing they are going to do something great. Even Obama seemed a little taken aback at his exception speech.
I agree with shafferd, because by giving a prize to someone to finish their goal, you are in a way forcing them to finish that goal. If they do not finish that goal, the public outrage over them not doing this will hurt them more than not getting that prize.
I definetly think that they should have awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize once he had accomplished peace and finished what he was doing. That's like giving a kid candy while they're throwing a fit. They got something out of doing nothing. It's pointless. This decision needs to be really thought out in my opinion.
I think it should be to people who have already succeeeded. If we start handing out the Nobel Peace Prize to people who we THINK are going to accomplish something it may never happen. They could always fail at what they're doing which wouldn't help anyone so we should not give the prize out before someone accomplishes something.
I agree with Amanda, I think while the person receiving the Nobel Peace Prize may have good intetions but they could easily be converted into something bad.I think that after the deed is done then the person should be awarded.While I think Obama's ideas are in the right place, I still think he should follow through before being given the prize.
I think the Nobel Peace Prize should only be given to people who have already accomplished what they intended to. Despite one's best intentions, it is possible for the best-laid plans to unravel. I am not saying by any stretch that President Obama's plans will not succeed, however. I simply think that the Nobel Peace Prize is for completely accomplished endeavors.
Well I'm glad the majority of us agree on this point. How do you guys think this will affect the future of the Nobel Peace Prize?
I do not think that it will have a major impact on the prize although next time they will most likely make a better decision and everybody will just forget about it.
I agree with you Connorr because, sure some of the things he says he is going to do may win a peace prize, but giving the prize before he carries through defeats the purpose.
Post a Comment
<< Home