[sbt]

I think awarding it to Obama was the wrong decision. That said, people sometimes misunderstand what the Nobel Peace Prize is about. "Peace" is interpreted in a very abstract sense by the committee and should perhaps be better understood as "Civilizational Progress". The reason the committee awarded it to Obama was because it wanted to commend the progress the US has made on the Civil Rights movement. Dr. Martin Luther King received the peace prize, and Obama is seen as a culmination of this movement. In short, Obama's prize should be seen as a prize given to the American people for their progress.

[RajT88]

Obama himself was somewhat mystified by the award.

But it is indeed as you say: the thinking process is somewhat opaque at times. I watched the announcement just now from the Nobel museum in Stockholm where they discussed it. It was inevitable that the award this year would relate to Russia somehow, but they thought it inappropriate to award to a leader actively waging war (even a defensive war).

Discussed yesterday when we were there was your talking point about Obama's award being about what he represented and not about anything he did.

[zozbot234]

Alfred Nobel specifically requested that the prize be awarded "to the person or society that 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." You can definitely view Dr. King's work as furthering brotherhood among nations, since so many wars are motivated by ethnic conflict and Civil Rights are critically important to defusing such conflict; but the prize is not merely intended for "civilizational progress" of any arbitrary kind.

[oezi]

If you think it was a wrong decision who should have received it in 2009?

Also I think the civil rights argument seems wrong to me. Citing Wikipedia:

"Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals."

[2muchcoffeeman]

I think the other way to look at it, is that the prize can also be a political tool. That’s how we achieve peace after all.

You’re not just recognising the progress he US might have made, but signalling the current leader that hey, you could also leave your mark. Obama seems like a pretty reasonable and intelligent person to me. He probably thought about why they awarded it to him.

[ak_111]

In this case they should have awarded it to one of the civil right movements. The symbolism of awarding it in the first year of Obama's presidency would have had the same impact in underscoring the civilisational progress of having him elected without making a mockery of the award. Trump bombed an order magnitude less civilians than Obama ever did per year in office. He even comes close to Bush's record.

If you want to award to him I think awarding it for his nuclear treaty with Iran comes closest to making sense.