In a shocking decision President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. It has been a decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism. The question that comes to my mind straight away is 'Since when have we started giving Nobel Awards for encouragement'. This is a ridiculous decision, I am in no way denying the efforts that he has put in to 'change the International Climate' but the question is what has he really accomplished that he gets this award.
As I googled the news I found most of the people having the same opinion as me. I would like to clarify that I am a big fan of Obama and his policies but Nobel Prize just went over my head and I am not able to digest the fact. I also read few comments on this decision and liked a few. The most interesting one was from my school friend Rahul "Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize.. I mean, like, really?? Gandhi didn't get one for what he did in 50 years and Obama gets one for the past 9 months?! Sheeeesshhh!!".
I have even read the arguments given by the members of the jury in favour of Obama and trust they all are factually correct but somehow I am unable to digest it. It is noteworthy that The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change. The decision has come as a surprise to many but let us hope that the decision forces and influences Obama to carry forward his good work with more thought and interest.
As I googled the news I found most of the people having the same opinion as me. I would like to clarify that I am a big fan of Obama and his policies but Nobel Prize just went over my head and I am not able to digest the fact. I also read few comments on this decision and liked a few. The most interesting one was from my school friend Rahul "Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize.. I mean, like, really?? Gandhi didn't get one for what he did in 50 years and Obama gets one for the past 9 months?! Sheeeesshhh!!".
I have even read the arguments given by the members of the jury in favour of Obama and trust they all are factually correct but somehow I am unable to digest it. It is noteworthy that The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change. The decision has come as a surprise to many but let us hope that the decision forces and influences Obama to carry forward his good work with more thought and interest.
Could not resist commenting ...
ReplyDeleteThe way I interpret the decision is either the committee is too much biased or presently we do not have too much of option. Anyway in my opinion what cuts off Mr. Obama's claim to Noble is the fact that he has raised the risk of terrorism to the world by funding Pakistan's corrupt defense system without any credible evidence of their effectiveness in war against terrorism. It would have been better to award Mr. Rajapakshe instead for wiping out the LTTE menace successfully.
pooor people hungry people......
ReplyDeleteI recently read mid october addition of "the day after" magazine in which they have explained the selection process of nobel peace prize. They have written clearly that its almost a year process. Invitation letters send out in september and deadline for nomination close not later then Feb 1 and after that committee begins its work of short listing the names. It will be surprise for all of u if I tell you with reference of this magazine that President Obama was nominted for this esteem prize within 12 days after he became the President and even gets 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. That was fast analysis of committee. I just want to ask was this committee not so good in 1937, 1938, 1939 & 1947 when Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for non-violence.
ReplyDelete