But, the reason he got it was that he was the first black president. And, I think that's okay. It was a symbolic moment of reconciliation between an formerly enslaved people and their oppressors. I saw it as an award to the American people, accepted by their highest elected representative on their behalf, for the progress we've made in race relations (which has been considerable, despite the problems that persist). Btw, here's their rationale for that award, which sounds like total partisan bs. If that's the real reason that wanted to pick Obama, I give them a big fat http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html [rquoter]The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened. 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. 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. For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."[/rquoter]
They gave it to a state? I guess that makes sense,... if you're one of those folk who worship the state and prescribe to it's religion.
I agree that what you're saying has happened. I disagree as to the centrality of the role of the EU in fixing that. I'm certain it plays some role, but I don't think it's a major role. I could be misreading, but I get the impression you think that the EU is mostly responsible for fixing those problems? It's mostly an economic union with barely an political union. It's a collection of about half of Europe, formed by the "inner six" countries and it excludes major players like Russia and the UK. fraternity between nations abolition or deduction of standing armies holding and promotion of peace congresses The criteria is not improvement in these areas. If it was, the EU would be a decent candidate given their particularly brutal recent history. I'm still not sure they should win the international peace prize which can go to any individual or organization. But it would be a choice which holds some merit in my eyes even if I disagreed with the choice. But the award is for most of best work done for those 3 things. In that sense, the answer to has the EU done the most of the best work for those 3 areas at an assessment point in 2012 where they have been eligible for it since 1993? I think the answer is a resounding "no". I think this award is meant to make those being critical of the EU look bad, just like the award for Obama. The EU is not a joke, I think they've made tremendous progress and provided tremendous lessons despite their mistakes. The specific committee which chose the EU is a joke though and if we look at the history of winners it's clear just how much of a joke - even if the opinion of this committee and the public intersect occassionally. I don't know that we can expect much more from IIRC a collection of retired EU member state parliamentarians. I believe Nobel's nephew was highly critical and publications have slammed them for trying to further Norwegian interests with the prize by awarding it to those they want to motivate or achievements which are really old. My issue is mostly with the dissapointement given that no other peace prize generates quite as much exposure, and that's squandered with these types of choices. If we're going to give it to people who we want to motivate or give more exposure to advance peace, how about a leader of a peaceful resistance which in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Palestine, Israel, China, Russia, etc. Many choices that can achieve great dividends if we're dead set on abusing Nobel's intentions. It's dfficult to make an assessment for this type of award, but I'm sure they can do better if they want. It's becoming a bit embarrassing for the world, and right or wrong the world does see this as the world's peace prize.
Look at what I was responding to. I do not discredit the award. mc mark made a snarky comment to somebody that basically said that since they were b****ing about Obama getting the award is akin to b****ing about a Chinese author getting the literature award. My post was directed toward pointing out what a crazy assertion it is to say that the two things are the same.
No, I think the EU is symbolic of post-war European peacefulness, the cause of which is actually more geo-political. But, it is generally true that heavy economic interdependence discourages war, so the Union is a guarantee of sorts.
I voted for Jason Russell of Invisible Children fame -- I felt that if he were to win it would bring credibility back to the award.
