Why?
The New York Times says (blacks are mine):
“In a stunning surprise move, the Nobel Committee announced Friday that it had awarded its annual peace prize to President Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
“There was no immediate reaction from the White House about the announcement, which drew a mixed reception in some parts of the world.”
Yes, it’s a stunning surprise: a Peace Nobel winner, president of a country with nuclear arms and at war in two other countries.
Too much, too soon.
This is premature.
Speeches over actions.
Image over policy.
Looks like a joke.
You don’t give Nobel prizes for hope.
But perhaps this is the first one.
Expect a lot of backlash for the Nobel and Obama (the BBC website has right now more than 2000 negative comments).
As you know, I like Obama but I don’t like Nobel politics.
In Feacebook, George Stephanopoulos says:
“Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when word came in on their blackberries. “It’s not April 1st, is it?” said one. President Obama was as surprised as his staff.”
Alastair Duncan adds:
“I helped a lady and her baby off the bus today. Nobel prize please”
A reader of The Guardian sees Holywood next:
“Obama deserves an Oscar rather the the Nobel prize. What a farce !”
BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds is right:
“In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honouring his intentions more than his achievements.”
So Andrew Sullivan is happy:
“If any person has done more to advance some measure of calm, reason and peace in this troubled word lately, it’s president Obama. I think the Cairo speech and the Wright speech alone merited this both bridging ancient rifts even while they remain, of course, deep and intractable. He has already done more to heal the open wound between the West and Islam than anyone else on the planet. I’d just add one caveat: the American people who elected him deserve part of the credit too. Now he needs partners to help him.”
But this time I am with Robert Reich:
“I’d rather Obama had won it after Congress agreed to substantial cuts in greenhouse gases comparable to what Europe is proposing, after he brought Palestinians and Israelis together to accept a two-state solution, after he got the United States out of Afghanistan and reduced the nuclear arm’s threat between Pakistan and India, or after he was well on the way to eliminating the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. Any one of these would have been worthy of global praise. Perhaps the Nobel committee can give him half the prize now and withhold the other half until he accomplishes one or more of these crucial missions.
Giving the Peace Prize to the President before any of these goals has been attained only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight — temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does. Yet there’s time. He may yet prove to be one of the best presidents this nation has ever had — worthy not only of the Peace Prize but of every global accolate he could possibly summon. Just not yet.”
Tags:
Andrew Sllivan,
George Stephanopoulos,
Hope,
Obama,
Pezce Nobel Prize,
Robert Reich,
The New York Times,
politics
