“The escalation of troops and the use of drones to kill innocent people makes a farce of this Peace prize. Honor someone who truly makes a difference towards peace, not someone who changed his tune once he became President and disillusioned so many who had supported him.” — Mary P., Wamego, Kan.
This is but one person among a growing number of individuals that are signing a petition to have President Barack Obama’s 2009 Nobel Peace Prize award revoked, despite the fact that it is not possible to revoke the award.
Currently, 18,416 people have signed the petition, which urges the Norwegian Nobel Committee to rescind the peace prize it awarded to President Obama. Among the other comments from signers of the online petition:
“There are hundreds of real peace heroes. Please select any one of those and remove politics from a once respected award.” — David P., Homer, Alaska
“He didn’t deserve it to begin with — he hadn’t done anything when it was awarded. Now he has done things that are certainly contrary to the idea of Peace.” — Daria S., Venus, Penn.
“For every baby that has been killed in the senseless wars abroad. For every gun given to militants to destroy Syria and remove Christians from their home. For every extra-judicial murder and persons sent to Guantanamo without charge. For every single non-violent offender rotting in the American jail system. OB [President Obama] makes peace impossible in my mind and in the hearts of millions all around the world installs hate and rage.” — Anonymous, United States
“The awarding of the Prize to Obama in view of words and promises only was scandal enough; but his actions in office have clearly demonstrated anything but peace, so that the scandal is compounded. Revoke this award, to avoid damaging the Prize, to repair its reputation, and to avoid disrepute by association to those deserving people who have received the Prize.” — Anonymous, no location disclosed
“Killing citizens of foreign countries in undeclared wars is the opposite of “peace.” Detaining and torturing people without trial or due process is the opposite of “peace.” Giving yourself authority to kill the citizens you represent via a drone strike is the opposite of “peace.” Is there even one reason why he should have a Nobel Peace Prize?” — Scott R., Santa Clarita Valley, Calif.
“The Nobel Peace Prize Committee should not award any such prize to any political figure to any country that wages war against any civilians or any non-aggressive country. Take the award away from not only Obama, but also Kissinger, Carter, Wilson, Roosevelt. The only U.S. citizen deserving of this prize in the past century has been Martin Luther King.” — Judy G., Columbus, Ohio
A complicated award
Alfred Nobel’s will — which establishes the Nobel prizes — states, in regard to the Peace Prize, “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: … one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Traditionally, the Peace Prize honored the most notable individual expression of peace and humanity globally, in spite of overwhelming human suffering.
On occasion, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has made controversial choices on to whom the prize should go. In 1906, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the Peace Prize. Roosevelt was a war hawk; in the Spanish-American War, he formed his own all-volunteer brigade — the Rough Riders — and led a raid on San Juan Hill in Cuba, for which he received the Medal of Honor posthumously. Despite the fact that he negotiated the Russian-Japanese truce, he was not truly interested in peace as much as he wanted to avoid a world war. Roosevelt famously coined the phrase “speak softly and carry a big stick” in summary of his use of military force in the Caribbean, namely the forced removal of Panama from Colombia in order to push through the construction of the Panama Canal.
When Roosevelt received his award before the Storting in 1906, the president of the legislature, Gunnar Knudsen, emphasized the progressive role of the United States in the peace movement: “The United States of America was among the first to infuse the ideal of peace into practical politics. Peace and arbitration treaties have now been concluded between the United States and the governments of several countries. But what has especially directed the attention of the friends of peace and of the whole civilized world to the United States is President Roosevelt’s happy role in bringing to an end the bloody war recently waged between two of the world’s great powers, Japan and Russia.”
The idea of the United States being an agent of peace has motivated many Peace Prize decisions. This is seen in the awarding of the reward to Elihu Root, former secretary of state, in 1912 — the Nobel Committee ruled that Root did not actually meet the standards of peace set out by Alfred Nobel, and his award was held over a year to 1913; Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, who in 1973 received the award with Le Duc Tho — the North Vietnamese negotiator at the Paris Peace Conference and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), who received his prize in 1964 while being targeted and blackmailed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s COINTELPRO.
During the 1973 presentation, the chair of the Nobel Committee, Aase Lionæs, explained why the committee awarded statesmen: “… the Nobel Peace Prize has [also] been awarded to persons exercising political responsibility and heavily committed to the confusing maelstrom of events. They were awarded the Peace Prize because in the course of their activities they had indicated the road that should be followed … They were awarded the Peace Prize because, within the framework of the politically possible, they championed a peace which, though it might not be perfect, was nevertheless a step along this road.”
Obama’s Peace Prize was not, as many have guessed, to persuade him to take a peaceful course in his presidency — although it was hoped that it would influence his foreign policy. The president was awarded the prize for his efforts toward preventing nuclear proliferation and his advocacy of climate change — two issues that were de-emphasized during the future course of his presidency — during his first 100 days. Despite the fact that most Americans thought that the president did not deserve the prize, the awarding of it to him was consistent with Nobel precedence and was predicted by oddsmakers.
It should be noted that Alfred Nobel himself was an armament manufacturer that forged war cannons, as well as being the inventor of stabilized nitroglycerine, or dynamite.
Under the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, Objects of the Foundation, § 10, “No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.”