News Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall
Click For Summary
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama in 2009 has sparked significant debate regarding its timing and implications for the prize's credibility. Critics argue that the award was premature, as it was based more on Obama's potential and ambitions rather than concrete accomplishments in peacebuilding. Concerns were raised about the politicization of the award process, with some suggesting it risks diminishing the value of the Nobel Prize itself. The committee's decision has led to mixed reactions, with a notable portion of the public expressing skepticism about the justification for the award. Overall, the discussion highlights a broader concern about the criteria for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and its future relevance.
  • #151


OmCheeto said:
Ugh. I do not have time to read all 6,789,651,131 Tom, Dick, and Harry's opinions on the matter. I was supposed to be at the coast an hour ago. Please have someone have the graphs and pie charts ready when I get back tomorrow. Ciao.
So, what you're saying is that the only opinions that matter to you are those of world leaders, who for reasons of political expedience must not come out against it? Talk about confirmation bias! Jeez!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Hans de Vries said:
you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR


and as left wing:

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER
YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER


Regards, Hans
Have you considered that to a Scandanavian, much of the world communtiy is to the right of center? To an American, I doubt any of those could be considered right of center - much less "right wing"!

According to the wiki on her, Merkel is "center right", Sarkozy's party is "center right" and the General...well, he's a general in a military alliance.

But I suppose to someone far out on the left wing, someone near the center would appear "right wing".
 
  • #153
f95toli said:
"Right-wing" doesn't mean "far right" any more than left-wing means "communist" (or even socialist), it just means right of the centre.
Well perhaps this is just a definitions problem - in the US, "right wing" tends to be used synonomously with "far right".
 
  • #154


russ_watters said:
the only opinions that matter to you are those of world leaders
Yes indeed, that's obvious. Also, if you have forgotten, for instance France has not hesitated to stand up against your government in the past.
 
  • #155
russ_watters said:
But I suppose to someone far out on the left wing, someone near the center would appear "right wing".
Yes indeed, that is a matter of perception. But in this discussion, the perception of american citizens is not so relevant : the reason Obama was chosen is because of his contributions to international politics, which american media barely know even exist.
 
  • #156
russ_watters said:
Well perhaps this is just a definitions problem - in the US, "right wing" tends to be used synonomously with "far right".

Yes, I realize that; but historically that is incorrect and it is not what "right wing" means in Europe or -as far as I know- anywhere else in the world.
The difference in meaning is presumably simply a consequence of the fact that US politics is essentially liberal and therefore falls on the right on the political spectrum.
 
  • #157


humanino said:
Yes indeed, that's obvious. Also, if you have forgotten, for instance France has not hesitated to stand up against your government in the past.

We are talking about praise though. Specifically praise going to a praise worthy individual. While one may not agree with the extent of the praise it would not be very politik to argue the praise. It would be like having a person say "I have the most beautiful child in the world" and responding "Well its certainly cute but its no Adonis." It may have worked for Churchill, but... well he was Churchill.
 
  • #158


TheStatutoryApe said:
We are talking about praise though.
If they were strongly opposed, silence would have been quite appropriate. Besides, one can (as Hans suggested) read between the lines
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.
And Obama himself has made it straightforwardly clear what he himself thinks about his prize.
 
  • #159


In all fairness to Obama, he had it thrust on him. I'm sure he didn't see it coming. So hopefully he lives up to expectations - and perhaps exceeds expectations in the global diplomatic arena.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee is another matter, as are the behaviors of other world leaders.

Here it is 2009 and we're repeating the same behavior that's been going on for - well since recorded history and before.

The world seems be trapped in a perpetual cycle of violence and aggression.


And what have you done lately to change that?
 
  • #160


Astronuc said:
And what have you done lately to change that?

An interesting thing happened on the way home from my son's football game. My youngest daughter noticed a small dog rolling around in the busy street (dead animal on road) - then I noticed a little boy running towards the dog (crying). I stopped my vehicle (blocking traffic) and quickly removed both the boy and the dog from traffic. In spite of the situation, everyone in the cars/trucks I stopped appeared to be angry.

Then (of course) the boy's mother came running out and thought I was trying to do something bad to the boy (?). LUCKILY , someone explained my actions to the distraught mother.

As we drove away, my daughter commented that we should have just kept driving.

I wanted to be a smart arse, but instead I spent the next hour explaining why we would do it all again- that we did the right thing and that's what counts.
 
  • #161
I've noticed something of a trend with awards. If you HAVE to make a choice - sometimes there aren't any deserving parties - other times you might have to choose between 2 excellent choices.

Maybe prestigious awards should only be given when deserved, not because of a date on a calendar?
 
  • #162


Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.
 
  • #163
WhoWee said:
I've noticed something of a trend with awards. If you HAVE to make a choice - sometimes there aren't any deserving parties - other times you might have to choose between 2 excellent choices.

Maybe prestigious awards should only be given when deserved, not because of a date on a calendar?

I agree, WhoWee. But is it really true that there is such a dearth of deserving candidates, the award can't be given every year?

How about Greg Mortenson? A guy who builds schools for girls...in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson" , really exceptional. You might even say deserving.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #164


Evo said:
Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

I think Obama did the right thing in accepting the award and saying he hadn't yet earned it. They've put him in a very difficult position - a classic rock and a hard place.

Hopefully he'll be able to wave it around when negotiating with the "difficult states" and tell them the world expects them to work things out. (I'm a businessman - I look for the leverage in every deal)
 
  • #165


humanino said:
If they were strongly opposed, silence would have been quite appropriate. Besides, one can (as Hans suggested) read between the lines
Note the rest of what I posted. I did not suggest that they were "strongly opposed" in which case I think the appropriate response would have been to say so.

Humanino said:
And Obama himself has made it straightforwardly clear what he himself thinks about his prize.
Yes, he pretty much said that he does not deserve it but that he will accept it any way, though in a more politik fashion. Which is Russ's whole point, as far as I can tell, that these politicians are simply reacting (publicly) in the most polite and politically correct manner they can.

Considering what he said about Kanye in private I can only imagine what Obama may have said about the Peace Prize committee.
 
  • #166


Evo said:
Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

Already well over 30 years ago, a perceptive previous prime minister of Norway, Trygve Bratteli, characterized the young Jagland as "dangerous".

Because Bratteli thought him to be a well-meaning idiot with loads of ambition.
 
  • #167
lisab said:
I agree, WhoWee. But is it really true that there is such a dearth of deserving candidates, the award can't be given every year?

The Nobel committee has skipped awarding the Peace Prize several times - for example, during WW1 and WW2, and most recently in 1972.
 
  • #168
  • #169
lisab said:
How about Greg Mortenson? A guy who builds schools for girls...in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson" , really exceptional. You might even say deserving.
Absolutely! So write to Obama or head of state in one's nation, and one's national legislature representative (e.g., Congress person, Senator, . . . ) and request that they nominate Greg Mortenson for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 (or until he receives the award) for his "humanitarian work and advocation of literacy in neglected areas of the world", specifically N. Pakistan and Afghanistan. His organization, Central Asia Institute, is also looking at project in Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. CAI sponsors schools and teachers to educate both boys and girls up to at least grade 5. The schools are built by the local people/community who have a vested interest in education and literacy of their children. In addition, CAI sponsors health centers/clinics and women's centers.

www.ikat.org - one can also donate here.
https://www.ikat.org/projects/cai-programs/
https://www.ikat.org/projects/regional-map/ - showing where programs are in place

Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack has been a long time supporter of Mortenson, and she and 4 other congresspersons publicly stated their nomination of Mortenson for the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
  • #171
arildno said:
Another worthy candidate would have been Messaoud Boulkheir, who for 40 years has campaigned against ongoing slavery in Mauretania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messaoud_Ould_Boulkheir
Certainly a much better choice than say Al Gore and IPCC.

There are many others who seem to go unnoticed.
 
  • #172
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
Hans de Vries said:
you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR...
By EU standards maybe, not by US standards.
 
  • #174
mheslep said:
By EU standards maybe, not by US standards.
Yes, and the Nobel committee indeed acts by EU standards, not by US standards.
 
  • #175


cristo said:
So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:

That's what it seems like. A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.

I agree with the sentiments that he should decline it. He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere. If he accomplishes any of his goals, they can award it later when it's been earned.
 
  • #176


Moonbear said:
A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.
Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?
 
  • #177
humanino said:
Obama soundes genuinely and appropriately incredulous.

And I know this isn't one of our many Fox news threads, but shouldn't there be some irony in MSNBC replaying Foxnews clips so much? Or at least shouldn't there be some royalties in it for Fox?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #178
humanino said:
Yes, and the Nobel committee indeed acts by EU standards, not by US standards.
Well, no, the Nobel committee acts by Norwegian standards. It has been my perception that Norway is to the left of center for Europe.
 
  • #179


cristo said:
So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:
Moonbear said:
That's what it seems like. A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.
A bowl of mashed potatoes can't openly criticize Bush, but yeah, after that, the list gets pretty long. Regardless, since Carter won his peace prize for the same thing, it makes you wonder just how many people can earn a peace prize for the same thing!
I agree with the sentiments that he should decline it. He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere. If he accomplishes any of his goals, they can award it later when it's been earned.
Europeans like him and that's fine - I get it, they felt marginalized and ignored by Bush. But making speeches and talking a good game in your opening tour isn't something worthy of an award. Yeah, I know this is getting repetitive, but oh well: the award is suppoosed to be given for accomplishments and he's accomplished nothing yet (on the "peace" front).
 
  • #180


humanino said:
Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?
Whoa, lighten up!

I may not always agree with Moonbear, but I know what she's saying here. Obama, even by his own words, does not diserve this award.

I voted for Obama, and I still have hope that he can achieve some of the things he promised. To be honest, Obama is in office because people feared Palin. A lot of influential Republicans came out near the end saying that they could not back Palin, she was just too crazy. If McCain had chosen a viable vice president, it's very likley that Obama would have lost. It was that close.

Obama should have turned down the award. His speech saying that "I am not qualified or deserving, but I'm going to take it anyway" was appalling, IMO. He lost my respect. Unless he manages to pull something big out of his a$$ in the next few years, this is going to bite him in the butt in the next election.
 

Similar threads

News Three feminists share Nobel Peace Prize
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News CIA rigged at least one Nobel Prize
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K