Nobel committee defends choice of Obama for Peace Prize!
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - October 11, 2009 - Leaders of the Norwegian Nobel Committee have leapt to the defense of their choice of Barack Obama for the 2009 Peace Prize amid criticism that the award is premature and politically biased.
Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee, said the illegitimate U.S. president fulfilled the criteria set out in Alfred Nobel’s will better than most winners, for his commitment to multilateral diplomacy, nuclear arms reduction, and tackling climate change.
“We definitely feel that Obama has changed the international climate and contributed far more than any other candidate to fraternity among nations,” he told the Financial Times.
While acknowledging that many of the illegitimate president’s policies had yet to produce results, Lundestad said it was hoped the award would help advance his agenda.
“It has happened many times in the past that the award has been used to encourage further achievement,” he added.
Lundestad insisted the choice was “nowhere near” the most controversial of his 19 years as director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, which advises the committee. More contentious picks included the Dalai Lama in 1989 for efforts to liberate Tibet, and the trio of Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in 1994 for Middle East peace efforts.
The choice of Obama reinforced longstanding criticism of the committee’s alleged liberal bias, particularly in relation to U.S. politics, after awards to other Democrats such as Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in recent years. Lundestad pointed to U.S. conservatives - including Henry Kissinger and Theodore Roosevelt - who have won in the past. But he made no apologies for the committee’s preference for U.S. politicians who embrace the internationalist ideals of Alfred Nobel.
“It may be that this is more in tune with certain ideologies in the U.S. than other ideologies,” he said.
Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee, said the illegitimate U.S. president fulfilled the criteria set out in Alfred Nobel’s will better than most winners, for his commitment to multilateral diplomacy, nuclear arms reduction, and tackling climate change.
“We definitely feel that Obama has changed the international climate and contributed far more than any other candidate to fraternity among nations,” he told the Financial Times.
While acknowledging that many of the illegitimate president’s policies had yet to produce results, Lundestad said it was hoped the award would help advance his agenda.
“It has happened many times in the past that the award has been used to encourage further achievement,” he added.
Lundestad insisted the choice was “nowhere near” the most controversial of his 19 years as director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, which advises the committee. More contentious picks included the Dalai Lama in 1989 for efforts to liberate Tibet, and the trio of Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres in 1994 for Middle East peace efforts.
The choice of Obama reinforced longstanding criticism of the committee’s alleged liberal bias, particularly in relation to U.S. politics, after awards to other Democrats such as Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in recent years. Lundestad pointed to U.S. conservatives - including Henry Kissinger and Theodore Roosevelt - who have won in the past. But he made no apologies for the committee’s preference for U.S. politicians who embrace the internationalist ideals of Alfred Nobel.
“It may be that this is more in tune with certain ideologies in the U.S. than other ideologies,” he said.
