Obama’s Nobel citation speaks of shared values – is hope on top?

October 9, 2009

obama-at-unThe statement announcing the Nobel Peace Prize for U.S. President Barack Obama says that “his diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population”.

(Photo: Obama at the United Nations, 23Sept 2009/Kevin Lamarque)

Is there actually a set of values and attitudes shared by most people around the world? It would be interesting to know exactly what the Norwegian Nobel Committee meant by this. Are they talking about some vague form of world political consensus or even global ethics? The citation text mentions Obama’s “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons” and his preference multilateral diplomacy, dialogue and negotiations. But none of these efforts has yet borne much fruit.

The citation also mentioned the “hope for the future” it said Obama has given the world. Hope is a powerful force, both in personal and political life. In the Christian tradition, it’s a theological virtue as important as faith and love. And it is a key element of the Obama “yes we can” message.

Do you think this is what they gave him the Peace Prize for?

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

8 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

So essentially Obama got the award for winning the presidency, and for being popular in Europe. Not for anything he has actually done to forward the interests of peace.

As of today, the nobel peace prize is meaningless. It is just given to whoever we like, without actual consideration of what they did to deserve it.

Way to go, Obama. You just killed the nobel peace prize. I hope it was worth it.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

This is a funny statement… “Shared by the majority of the world’s population”… Are these guys at nobel prize nuts? Do they have some shame left? They reinforce the Charles Darwin message that europeans are descendants of chimps trying to hang to branchless trees.

Posted by Atom | Report as abusive

“As of today, the nobel peace prize is meaningless. It is just given to whoever we like, without actual consideration of what they did to deserve it.” – Anon

Wait, you’re talking about a prize won by Kissinger. How can any ‘peace’ prize won by Kissinger not have died then? Your sour grapes are pathetic. It’s not like the guy awarded it to himself. Be mad at the Nobel committee if you want, but the recipient had nothing to do with it.

Posted by Steven | Report as abusive

Kissinger was given the award for assisting in the ceasefire with North Vietnam.

Many people (myself included) don’t think he should have gotten the prize. But at least it was given for actual things he did.

Obama has done nothing. He has been given this award simply because of his popularity.

He might be a beacon of hope. Or a sign that Europe loves America now. Or a promise of better times. Or a source of kudos to America.

But these have nothing to do with the peace prize, or the actual peace work this award is supposed to recognise. And Obama’s winning this award has forever destroyed the meaning behind it.

And because the winning of this award is the product of Obama’s cult of personality, which he had a direct hand in creating, he is also personally to blame for this affair.

Whether he accepts or rejects this award, the damage has been done. Both to the nobel peace prize itself, and him being made to look like a over-worshipped fool.

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

The only Nobel Prizes that have any value are the science ones; the literature and peace prizes are complete jokes.

Posted by kalpel888 | Report as abusive

Do you moderaters do anything at all? Do you actually post comments or just ignore everthing and let it self delete or something–stop being so picky. 5 comments in the last 2 hours?? come on.

Posted by POST SOMETHING | Report as abusive

If Al gore had won the presidency instead of Bush and was leaving office,would Obama have received this award? Probably not!so the conclusion is that this was handed to president Obama not because of what he has achieved which considering it was awarded after only eleven days in office,but as a protest against George Bushes presidency.Any other conclusion can only validate that this was a decision that was political motivated.

Posted by brian lee | Report as abusive

Personally I think that he was given this so that we wouldn’t try to impeach him for being the idiot that he is and worse of all for the majority of our nation being bigger idiots. Not sure who is worse him or Hilary, but if we don’t wise up and do something about both of these and his czars, the America that so many thousands have died for, won’t be here for our future generations. And I can in all honestly say, I voted against both of them!!!!