Does Obama Deserve The Nobel Peace Prize?
He is the first black American president with an Islamic background,with charisma and promising speeches, but are promises the only thing he made? Is his name worthy of standing next to those of Doctors Without Borders, Dalai Lama, Frederic Passy,Mother Teresa? Does Obama deserve the Peace Prize because of his message on nuclear weapons? Should the Nobel institution award him the Peace Prize in order to encourage his message of nuclear non-proliferation - to profess support? (As is stated by the Nobel institute as the main reason for awarding him the prize).
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
The award of the peace prize is based on hope.
others agree with this.
This is potentially of immense significance, hope breeds peace. It is a necessary component of it. Obama has made the world hopeful of a fairer and more just international order. A hope that has not yet really encountered the buffers of reality. In that sense this may be the best time to give Obama the peace prize.
Hope is not something tangible. It may be something that Obama has helped to give the world for the moment but that will fade. Indeed it already has. Therefore it is not something that should deserve a peace prize. Praise perhaps but no award. Anyone who took over from George W. Bush would have gained alot of goodwill from around the world simpl,y because the world desperatly wanted a change in leadership in the USA. As this would have happened anyway no matter who became President this is no reason to give someone one of the most globally respected prizes.
A quick check-list of qualifying actions should include:
Close Guantanamo and release anyone who cannot be tried in a normal US court.
End the war in Afghanistan.
Negotiate seriously with North Korea and Iran about nuclear weapons.
Refuse to sell Britain an upgrade to Trident.
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Hope is not enough.
Responsibility & the Scales of Morality
The idea that anyone should be awarded the Peace Prize for promoting peace is, obviously, a good thing. However, when the person you are awarding a Peace Prize to has committed far more wrong than right, the Peace Prize then becomes illigitimate.
Obama is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians, along with crippling sanctions against Iran and North Korea (resulting in a life far worse for their citizens), he has not closed Guantanamo Bay, he is still going ahead with the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq and he still finances terrorist states and war criminals (the biggest recipient of these finances is Israel - a regular perpertrator of war-crimes and significant breaches of human rights).
Would we award Hitler an award for moral character because he spoke out against the harmful effects on one's health through smoking? Of course not!
One good reason is not enough in the face of dozens of bad ones.
Both North Korea and Iran need to be sanctioned- if not worse- to punish them and stop them from making nuclear weapons.
Although this is a seperate debate (one that already exists on DebateWise- "Is Israel a Legitimate State") Israel is not a terrorist state, it is one that strives towards peace and therefore deserves the full funding of the United States government.
This point against is based on sweeping generalizations. It is not a real argument to compare Hitler's personal hygiene to Obama's peace processes.
What has he actually done?
Surely the Nobel Peace Prize, a highly coveted accolade, should be awarded to someone who has or helped to achieved peace. So far Barack Obama has done neither as far as I have heard. Past recipients of the award have spent a lifetime working for peace. Obama's nomination was based on his activities during the first 12 days of office. Obama did nothing to qualify for the award during his first few days in office.Thinking about it isn't good enough. Claiming it's what you would like isn't good enough either. Ever Miss World has claimed they want world peace too. Should they then receive a nobel prize? When the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, a deal struck between Isreal and Palestine and Third world debt wiped out so those countries can rebuild, Barack Obama can claim the peace prize. Until them being American President doesn't qualify.
It would be an exercise in futility to ask Obama to achieve miracles that are not humanly possible before giving him a Nobel Prize. What we should rather do is look at the processes he has set in motion and the hope he has given to the people of the world. Peace can be a passive process, it does not necessarily have to take the form of active intervention. There are many who think that Barrack Obama's policies and outlook are enough, in his position, to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Are these enough to take an award?
Barrack Obama may the first black American president with an Islamic background. Maybe this event is a revolution. He may also give a message of nuclear non-proliferation - to profess support. Is it really enough to take his background and his beliefs as indicators of what he will achieve. We should have waited until he had actually done something before we awarded him the prize. Has he done enough to rank among Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa?
What do you think?