Before we jump into this week’s topic brief, check out the official video from NobelPrize.org’s YouTube channel on their rationale for the selection of Barack Obama as a 2009 Nobel Laureate.
By Logan Scisco
When people first heard the news about Barack Obama being awarded the Noble Peace Prize they probably thought it was some kind of joke. I can admit to having this reaction. The reason is not that Obama is a failed president or I have some type of anti-Obama bias. It is simply because the Nobel prize traditionally has awarded individuals based on their actions, citing concrete achievements and progress as opposed to hopes for what might happen in the future. With President Obama having been in office for only nine months and without any significant changes
The Nobel Peace Prize is an award that comes from the estate of Alfred Nobel, the creator of dynamite. Nobel created five awards, given for peace, chemistry, literature, physical science, and medicine. The peace prize and these other awards are determined by a Norwegian committee. The criteria given for the peace prize, which carries with it a $1 million reward is the following: that a person should “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.”
Obama’s victory in the prize came as a shock to many and has prompted a debate over the merits of the prize and sparked a small political controversy in the United States. The controversy might be the only thing that unites conservatives with Hamas and Hugo Chavez. This brief will examine the justification behind Obama receiving the award, the reaction of the globe and fellow politicians in the U.S., and how this prize could play a part in Obama’s future agenda.