A Norwegian lawyer and author, Frederick Heffermehl, has prompted the Stockholm County Administrative Board to launch an investigation into the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, arguing that the committee has violated the terms of Alfred Nobels will, which established the prize.

Heffermehl has written that, in his view, over half of the awards since 1946 have not conformed with Nobels intentions and told the  Associated Press: “ Do you see Obama as a promoter of abolishing the military as a tool of international affairs?”

Maybe that Seal Team Six wrap-up in the State of the Union speech was a bit too much?


7 Responses to The Nobel Committee Wants Its Peace Prize Back?

  1. jimspice says:

    You gotta admit, the Obama prize was kinda hinky. I just got a kick out of it because it drove the right nuts.

    • Locke says:

      It was really the timing more than anything that was the biggest problem at least to me. At some point down the road, at least an argument could have been made that he deserved it. But when it was awarded, he quite simply hadn’t don’t anything to be deserving – when you consider awarding it to him came at the price of other very deserving recipients it greatly undermined their credibility.

      • Locke says:

        he quite simply hadn’t don’t anything

        Ugh. I’ve got to stop posting from my phone. The autocorrect is obnoxious sometimes.

        Guess I could always actually proof read my posts first. Nah. 🙂

  2. Woodeye says:

    Now we’ll take back the other award he didn’t deserve… the Presidency.
    Nobama 2012

  3. In the book that led Swedish authorities to investigate the Nobel Peace Prize awards the award to
    president Obama is thoroughly discussed, here a relevant part:)

    “Quite a few commentators felt the committee had made a pitiful figure. A proud Nobel committee should bestow luster on others, not borrow light from shining stars. ….The 2009 prize meant that in the course of seven years Geir Lundestad, the professor of modern U.S. history, would have managed to host three American leaders: Jimmy Carter in 2003, Al Gore in 2007, and now Barack Obama in 2009.
    A common reaction was that this was too early. From serious com- mentators to ‘‘people in the streets’’ and stand-up comedians, many ridiculed the prize for a president ‘‘who had done nothing yet, no result to show . . . nothing more than words so far.’’ Many in the media and the general public rightly observed that Obama had been president for only 12 days at the cutoff date for nominations for 2009.
    As to the accusations of Obama not having achieved anything, I tend to disagree. Obama has done more than words, for example, by dropping the antiballistic system in East Europe.4 In addition, words are deeds in international affairs. In diplomatic discourse fine nuances send subtle signals that are watched and interpreted with the utmost care. Words change the world and the language on the urgency of nuclear disarma- ment in Obama’s Prague speech in April 2009 did change the political landscape. Only weeks before the Nobel announcement, Obama had chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council that agreed unanimously to a resolution committing nations to address nuclear disarmament. The United States, which had snubbed the United Nations for eight years, seemed to have returned to the world organization, and Obama had achieved a shift in several important fields of international diplomacy.

    Obama’s words on nuclear disarmament came at a particularly oppor- tune time, when a full year of preparations remained before the April 2010 nuclear review conference in New York. Under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) reviews must take place every five years. These conferences have always been the scene of endless foot-dragging. The five nuclear-armed states have been unwilling to disarm, which was their part of the 1968 mutual commitment to a nuclear weapons–free world. Instead, they keep requiring that the rest of the world must abide by the treaty and abstain from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    But how could the committee select the leader of the most powerful military the world has ever seen, currently involved in two wars, for Nobel’s disarmament prize? The U.S. president could make embarrass- ing decisions during the two short months remaining before the award ceremony. A fairly common reaction was that a clumsy and badly informed committee had complicated things for Obama, adding to his heavy burden and diverting attention when he had endless foreign and domestic problems to tackle. Media reactions were mixed, to say the least, but the award met with the usual friendly comments from prime ministers and political colleagues around the world.”

    (Excerpt from Fredrik S. Heffermehl The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel Really Wanted (Praeger, 2010 – for later editions see http://www.nobelwill.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *