Then Nobel Committee is made up of politicians, not angels

[SidneyCarton]

Peace Prize winners are not divinely appointed, nor are they always saints (remember, Yasser Arafat, among others has won this prize).

I personally feel that the Nobel Committee ought to have given President Obama's efforts time to bear fruit, instead of giving him the prize now, but I understand the rationale behind it. If nothing else, it is meant as a final rebuke to President Bush and his cronies, who put him up for the prize for several years running. The whole argument is, that the prize has been awarded not for the policies that President Obama has continued, but those which he has repudiated, or is in the process of repudiating. If the President is wise, (and he has given me no indication otherwise at this point) he will spend the rest of his time in office proving to us and the world that however premature the awarding of this prize might be, it was awarded to the right man.

Hence President Obama has my congratulations in this perplexing and unexpected honor, and my best wishes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Arafat earned the award at the time it was given.

It shouldn't be considered his fault that his co-winner - Rabin - was killed by his own people in order to (successfully) end the peace process.

[imdjh]

2. sure he did

[SidneyCarton]

3. Fair enough.

As Mr. Arafat is dead, his intentions in 1992 cannot be fairly judged. His subsequent actions show an unsavory nature, that illustrates the simple fact that winning the Nobel Peace Prize neither confers, nor infers sainthood.

That said, I agree, the murder of Rabin derailed the peace process in a manner that has yet to be rectified.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. To be fair, subsequent actions of co-winner Shimon Peres show the same thing.

Let's face it - Arafat, Rabin, and Peres tried to do the right thing, and the will of the citizens in both Palestine and Israel caused it to go sideways. That they strived for peace in the face of death was worthy of a Nobel Prize, and no subsequent actions should diminish that.

You are correct. It is a recognition of people who do great things in a moment in time. It is not sainthood, and it is rarely a lifetime achievement award.

[HamdenRice]

5. Another tarnished Nobel -- Kim Dae Jung

South Korean president -- went from political prisoner condemned to death several times, hours from execution, to president, and he almost ended the hostilities between North and South Korea.

After his presidency apparently a lot of corruption scandals were revealed. I remember how excited we were as students when he was elected in SK, and I hadn't been following SK news, so I only learned recently of his disgrace when he died and the US papers did his obituary.

[SidneyCarton]

6. Good point.

It is a matter that we often overlook in general. Good deeds are done by men and women, who are flawed, and whose subsequent actions may or may not reinforce the good done before. In some sad cases it actually negates it. Richard Nixon, for all his corruption, also signed into law comprehensive environmental protections. FDR, for all his excellent works, signed the order that put the Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII. Thomas Jefferson, the man who so eloquently penned the idea that all men were inherently equal, was simultaneously using Sally Hemmings as his mistress, while owning her as a piece of property.

[JackRiddler]

9. Um, Kissinger?!

From that moment any Nobel Peace Prize jury decision became moot, except for the undeserved reception the announcement gets every year.

[HamdenRice]

10. I was looking at it as a list of people who did good but with some flaws

i.e., not including evil incarnate.

[JackRiddler]

11. Seems to me that the best use of such a prize...

is to give small, courageous groups a PR boost they could actually use to advance their cause. That's the case with Ban Landmines, Doctors Without Frontiers, Grameen Bank, Rigoberta Menchu, or Ebadi's fight for women's rights in Iran. But the little parliamentary reading circle in Oslo wastes that opportunity when they instead pick a sitting politician. To me it shows they greatly overestimate their power to influence the world in realpolitik fashion. (I think you'll concede that's what they must think they're doing with Obama.)

[JackRiddler]

7. From a realpolitik perspective, this premature award almost seems like sabotage.

Do you buy the rationalizations for escalating the Afpak war, or for doing anything other than departing? I don't.

But let's hypothesize someone who does, and believes staying in Afpak is the right policy for securing peace in the long run.

Such supporters of Obama's policy might admit that the Nobel prize is counterproductive: from now on, the award to Obama will be cited most often as a sarcastic commentary, to be trotted out every time the US bombs people in Afghanistan.

[SidneyCarton]

8. Indeed, it may well be that the Nobel Committee is trying to force Obama's hand.

This is entirely possible, and frankly something hitherto unforseen. One danger in this is that while it damages Obama's prestige, it also puts the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize at risk too.

Though I see your point, and it is a good one.