The announcement that Barack Obama will receive this year’s Nobel Peace Prize only 10 months into his presidency surprised many, including us. Even more surprising, Obama was nominated for the award only 12 days after he took office. Now F.P. Passport has taken a look at what Obama did in those 12 days to attract the attention of the Committee. [%comments]
A Really Productive 12 Days
TAGS: Barack Obama, Nobel Prize
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Barack Obama didn’t exist before he was inaugurated?
Actually, he probably wasn’t nominated 12 days after taking office — that was the nomination deadline. It’s likely that he was nominated even earlier.
Well I think you can cross two of the bigger ones off the list.
Ordering Gitmo closed is one thing — actually closing it has turned out to be quite another. As things stand now, there’s no foreseeable date for closing it.
And prohibiting aggressive interrogation techniques that the previous administration had rejected six years earlier isn’t particularly groundbreaking — especially when you splice in a loophole or two allowing you to use them in a super-extra-special circumstances.
The nomination had to be in February 1st. That doesn’t mean the committee made the decision on Feb 1st.
That being said I think that giving him the award was a mistake for all concerned. What’s the opposite of Pareto improvement?
A slightly more comprehensive list here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/9/791412/-30+-Reasons-Obama-deserves-the-Nobel-Peace-Prize
Note that Obama had been working on Nuclear non-proliferation issues for atleast 3 years before he became President, traveling multiple times to former Soviet countries as a senator, in pursuit of locking down loose nukes.
Also, being nominated in February doesnt mean that when the final committee decided on his winner, they had to overlook the candidate’s actions sinec February.
While I think it would have been better for Obama to have accomplished something related to “peace” before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t think his premature nomination is all that mysterious. Someone nominated him so that they could consider him when it came time to make the decision. Sort of like putting down a refundable deposit on a purchase. It’s just preserving the option to buy later.
I don’t think Obama should have won, but looking at those first 12 days, the things that jump out are the Gitmo closing and the bit on torture. Many of the worst regimes directly cited US policy as justification for their own torture programs and instances of prisoner abuse. When Bush threw our higher moral standing into the toilet, he gave a carte blanche to the dictators of the world to do whatever they wanted to their own citizens. Its hard to claim the moral high ground when warrantless wiretapping, electrocuting testicles, etc. are all part of your country’s SOP.
By ending those things, Obama sent a signal that US policy can no longer be a justification for others to abuse their prisoners. Sadly, he has since failed to follow up concretely and has allowed too many of the Bush era policies and justifications to remain.
I do not think he deserved the award, but I can see a bit of the logic. If Obama were to really put his foot down on our more anti-human rights policies, it would go a long way towards restoring the moral high ground the US could once claim in condemning human rights violations around the globe. But, as things still stand, too many horrible regimes can still justify their wretched behavior with the excuse, “Well, the US does it too.”
Why is everyone confounding the date of nomination with the date of selecting the winner.