3 ms·

If you won any other Nobel Prize (including the literature) is because you deserve it. If you won the Peace Prize, is only partially because you deserve it, but

by soneca 12y ago

If you won any other Nobel Prize (including the literature) is because you deserve it. If you won the Peace Prize, is only partially because you deserve it, but also because you need it. Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics in their own countries/communities. They need an international prestigious stamp to show that they are on the right side of history and have international support. But also you need to deserve it. Malala has the perfect balance of both. She is incredibly smart, self-conscious, has a natural sense of dignitiy and integrity that protect her from the traps of ego and fame - something very hard to do for any human being, let alone a teenager. She is making quite an impact on girl's education. But also she needs it badly. Her life is constantly in danger and this stamp and support from the Nobel Prize will protect her life and her struggle. More people in her community will consider that she might be right. Red Cross is another example of both deserving and needing the prize. They must enter the worst war zones, and all sides must believe they are not spies for the enemy. Their brand is the most important brand in the world. Then you have Obama. His prize is controversial because he obviously didn't deserve it. But the commitee thought he needded it, and I agree. Not because he needed more power or validation, like Malala. But he could use a "nudge" to improve peace in the world. Sure, it was a risky move - and didn't pay well. But it is part of the goal of Nobel Peace Prize as I see it: help the laureates to do the right thing toward peace. So I don't think it was a necessarily bad move. But it surely hurts its brand. I think the commitee should be more conservative about who deserves its prize; but I agree that is also important to find who need it.

desireco42 12y ago
Pretty much agree with your analysis, I think you explained Obama's prize very well. It is not only case and they made several very controversial awards recently, which did hurt it's brand. I personally think Nobel prize lost it's prestige and became very political, and not only for peace one. I don't care any more who gets one, it's not important. It's role like ultimate prize is very positive thing and I think world needs something like this, just not Nobel any more.
MichaelApproved 12y ago
To understand why Obama won the prize, you need to understand about the history of the prize. The prizes were created because Nobel was upset that his invention of TNT caused so much destruction in the world. At the time, TNT was a WMD. Obama's worked to reduce nuclear weapons while in the US Senate. That effort would've made Nobel proud. Further, Obama recently removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile. If he didn't earn it before this, he definitely earned it now. This is directly at the heart of why the Nobel prize was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.
- beeworker 12y ago
  I believe you mean Putin removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemic...) -- without Russia the US could have officially gone to war with Syria. The continued meddling Obama's supported in the middle east, and the utter failure in taking ISIS seriously, should be enough to strip him of any peace price.
  - kolev 12y ago
    Isn't US at war already breaching the sovereignty of Syria by bombing its territory and training and supplying mercenaries with arms?
- kolev 12y ago
  Don't give too much credit to Obama, please! He is no different than his predecessor in deeds, only in words. I have no doubts that he pressed Nobel Prize directly or indirectly not to give Snowden what he well-deserved. I can't believe there are fans of Obama in this community knowing what NSA under him did, is doing, and will continue to be doing! The drones, the militarization of the Police Force is also happening under him, so, he was elected on false promises, lied many times, and was recorded saying "I'm very good at killing people." without any sign of shame.
lexcorvus 12y ago
Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics More accurately, they are usually taking the politically fashionable stand on controversial topics. If you can imagine a Nobel Peace Prize being granted to a vocal defender of apartheid or a staunch opponent of abortion, you imagine a world very different from the one we live in. If you think, "and thank God for that", it simply means that your political beliefs are fashionable, too. Being on the "right side of history" just means that your side won. Louis XVI was on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't mean we should all become Jacobins—although, in many ways, we have. (I'd guess the Nobel Peace Prize committee would have little problem endorsing liberté, égalité, fraternité.)
- icebraining 12y ago
  Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was an opponent of abortion. So was Mother Theresa, of course.
  - lexcorvus 12y ago
    You're right, and I should have been clearer. I was referring to the implausibility of someone being awarded the Prize for working against abortion. I'm sure many laureates incidentally oppose abortion, but it's hard to imagine the leader of a prominent anti-abortion organization being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that work.
webnrrd2k 12y ago
I know it's kind of cynical, and I'm probably wrong, but I thought Obama won the Nobel peace prize because he wasn't George W. Bush. It was more about the Nobel Committee sending a message to the US about the previous disastrous presidency than anything else. The way I remember the political mood at the time we could have elected a dead cat and half of the world would have been ecstatically happy.

by soneca 12y ago

desireco42 12y ago

Pretty much agree with your analysis, I think you explained Obama's prize very well. It is not only case and they made several very controversial awards recently, which did hurt it's brand. I personally think Nobel prize lost it's prestige and became very political, and not only for peace one. I don't care any more who gets one, it's not important. It's role like ultimate prize is very positive thing and I think world needs something like this, just not Nobel any more.

MichaelApproved 12y ago

To understand why Obama won the prize, you need to understand about the history of the prize. The prizes were created because Nobel was upset that his invention of TNT caused so much destruction in the world. At the time, TNT was a WMD. Obama's worked to reduce nuclear weapons while in the US Senate. That effort would've made Nobel proud. Further, Obama recently removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile. If he didn't earn it before this, he definitely earned it now. This is directly at the heart of why the Nobel prize was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.

beeworker 12y ago
I believe you mean Putin removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemical_weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria%27s_chemic...) -- without Russia the US could have officially gone to war with Syria. The continued meddling Obama's supported in the middle east, and the utter failure in taking ISIS seriously, should be enough to strip him of any peace price.
- kolev 12y ago
  Isn't US at war already breaching the sovereignty of Syria by bombing its territory and training and supplying mercenaries with arms?
kolev 12y ago
Don't give too much credit to Obama, please! He is no different than his predecessor in deeds, only in words. I have no doubts that he pressed Nobel Prize directly or indirectly not to give Snowden what he well-deserved. I can't believe there are fans of Obama in this community knowing what NSA under him did, is doing, and will continue to be doing! The drones, the militarization of the Police Force is also happening under him, so, he was elected on false promises, lied many times, and was recorded saying "I'm very good at killing people." without any sign of shame.

lexcorvus 12y ago

Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics More accurately, they are usually taking the politically fashionable stand on controversial topics. If you can imagine a Nobel Peace Prize being granted to a vocal defender of apartheid or a staunch opponent of abortion, you imagine a world very different from the one we live in. If you think, "and thank God for that", it simply means that your political beliefs are fashionable, too. Being on the "right side of history" just means that your side won. Louis XVI was on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't mean we should all become Jacobins—although, in many ways, we have. (I'd guess the Nobel Peace Prize committee would have little problem endorsing liberté, égalité, fraternité.)

icebraining 12y ago
Wangari Maathai, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was an opponent of abortion. So was Mother Theresa, of course.
- lexcorvus 12y ago
  You're right, and I should have been clearer. I was referring to the implausibility of someone being awarded the Prize for working against abortion. I'm sure many laureates incidentally oppose abortion, but it's hard to imagine the leader of a prominent anti-abortion organization being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for that work.

webnrrd2k 12y ago

I know it's kind of cynical, and I'm probably wrong, but I thought Obama won the Nobel peace prize because he wasn't George W. Bush. It was more about the Nobel Committee sending a message to the US about the previous disastrous presidency than anything else. The way I remember the political mood at the time we could have elected a dead cat and half of the world would have been ecstatically happy.