Tweet

 Skriv ut utskriftsvennlig side

Et par anbefalinger til hvordan vi kan unngå enda flere pinligheter og et (langt) sammendrag av internasjonale kommentarer til Thorbjørn Jaglands stunt.

Thorbjørn Jagland har brakt Nobelkomiteen og Norge i vanry. Det finnes en enkel løsning på det: Jagland må straks fratre sitt verv, og forlate Norge. Han har jo allerede, ved hjelp av omfattende lobbying og bruk av skattebetalernes penger, fått seg et verv som leder for en enorm prateklubb uten reell innflytelse – Europarådet. La ham greie seg med den.

Det er også på tide å tenke igjennom sammensetningen av Nobelkomiteen. Nå sitter det bare avdankede norske politikere der. Fei dem ut, hele bunten! Sett inn fagfolk, og gjør juryen internasjonal. Den norske nobelkomiteen har gjentatte ganger vist at den ikke har kompetanse til å gjøre denne jobben. Omtrent annethvert år er det flaut å være nordmann på denne tiden av året.

Mye er allerede sagt i Minervas spalter om tildelingen av fredsprisen. Istedenfor enda en gjennomgang fra min side, vil jeg nedenfor sitere bredt fra internasjonal presse. Utvalget er ikke tilfeldig eller balansert, men trekker frem vurderinger jeg finner riktige og viktige. Mine egne uthevninger er inkludert. Jeg har bevisst utelatt det aller meste fra den amerikanske høyrefløyen, siden mye av kritikken er veldig forutsigbar. 

Når det er sagt, er fordømmingen av valget utbredt, så de holdninger som her fremkommer er ikke så langt fra internasjonal konsensus. Det er en uendelighet av kommentarer å velge fra, og flere kommer stadig til, men ett sted må jeg sette strek, og det blir her, men jeg kan ikke love at det ikke blir flere bloggposter om temaet.

For dem som holder ut, har jeg lagt inn litt comic relief til slutt:

Time Magazine snakker litt med norske kommentatorer:

Even in the peace prize’s home country, there was widespread disapproval of the choice — so much so that some critics suggested it was high time for Sweden, which manages all the other Nobel prizes, to take back the peace prize. ”Obama said today that he was surprised and humble, and even that he did not honestly feel he deserves the prize,” Jan Gunnar Furuly, writer for Norway’s biggest newspaper Aftenbladet, said in an Email to TIME.” I think most Norwegians do not understand the decision to give Obama the prize, and a lot of us are really embarrassed over the fact that the committee could give it to the president after so short time. For a long time the Swedes have argued that they should take over the responsibility for the prize. Now they have really good arguments for that.” Echoing that sentiment, Jan Arild Snoen, columnist for the conservative Norwegian website Minerva, said, ”To award the peace prize to a sitting president during a war which he not only supports but actually wants to increase troops for, is very peculiar. I think there is a danger that it will make Norway look silly.”

Michael Grunwald, Time:

Congratulations to President Barack Obama, recipient of the 89th Nobel Prize for Peace, as well as the fourth Nobel Prize for Not Being George W. Bush. The NPFNBGWB was first established in 2002, when the Nobel Committee awarded its Peace Prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, ostensibly for monitoring elections in far-flung hellholes, but really for being the most prominent American critic of then President Bush’s buildup to a war in Iraq. The NPFNBGWB returned after a short hiatus in 2005, when the prize went to the International Atomic Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei for refusing to confirm the existence of Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction before the war in Iraq — in other words, for standing up to Bush. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change probably deserved the Nobel in 2007 for spreading the word about global warming, but the committee wouldn’t have dreamed of adding former Democratic Vice President (and almost President) Al Gore if it hadn’t wanted to contrast his advocacy with Bush’s climate denial. (…)

There will of course be some bogus cover story about Obama’s vision for nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace and climate change, but the anti-Bush message couldn’t have been clearer if the Nobel had gone to Keith Olbermann. (…)

And it probably won’t do Obama any favors; he wants to be a leader, not a symbol, and honoring him for his rhetoric about a new American approach to diplomacy only reinforces the meme of his critics that he’s merely a man of rhetoric.

James McIntosh, Financial Times:

It appears to be an award primarily for not being George W. Bush, since Obama’s entire achievement so far is, um, to reverse Bush’s American unilateralism. This is done in the hope – stress, *hope* – that it leads to something positive in world politics. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a bad thing; but it won’t be Peace Prize-worthy until he has made it work.

Peter Baumont, Guardian:

The reality is that the prize appears to have been awarded to Barack Obama for what he is not. For not being George W Bush. Or rather being less like the last president. The question now is whether having being anointed perhaps too early by the committee, a Nobel prize earned so cheaply and at so little cost will help him in his efforts on the international stage or rather be an albatross around his neck. Something against which all his future efforts will be judged – and perhaps found wanting.

Simon Reid-Henry, venstreorienterte New Statesman:

So it came out of the blue did it? Not likely. This was the last in a series of three presidential choices whose logic now reveals itself to be clear: from former President Jimmy Carter in 2002, to would-be President Al Gore in 2007 (joint with the IPCC), and now recently-elected President Barack Obama in 2009, a remarkable run of US politicians as Nobel Peace Laureates comes to an end, neatly bracketing – and standing as pointed rejoinder to – the Bush years.

Anyone saying the Peace Prize Committee does not have a political agenda needs to consider the timing and nature of these choices more carefully.

Mark Halperin, Time, som nettopp har gitt Obama A- for hans første ni måneder som president:

Barack Obama’s critics have long accused him of being a man of ”just words,” rather than concrete actions and accomplishments. The stunning decision to award him the Nobel Peace prize for, basically, his rhetoric, will almost certainly infuriate his detractors in America more than it will delight his supporters. (…)

Even some neutral critics will agree that the honor seems, at a minimum, premature. Obama has been in office less than a year, and has few tangible accomplishments deriving from the speeches he has given or the preliminary talks his young government has engaged in. And the award comes at a time in which Obama’s role as a war president – in Afghanistan – is front and center. It isn’t quite as inexplicable as Marisa Tomei’s Best Supporting Actress Oscar, but it seems pretty close.

Mer via Time:

”Frankly, it seems premature when he hasn’t been in office even a year yet and has not yet actually achieved the goals he set out — although he certainly has made some very noteworthy efforts,” says Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for nonproliferation at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies. ”I think he will be embarrassed by it, and it will be unhelpful in the domestic milieu.”

London Times refererer en tidligere prisvinner:

But Bobby Muller, who won the Nobel Prize as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, told The Times: “I don’t have the highest regard for the thinking or process of the Nobel committee. Maybe Norway should give it to Sweden so they can more properly handle the Peace Prize along with all the other Nobel prizes.”

Lech Walesa og andre polakker er litt forundret:

“Who? What? So Fast?” a shocked Walesa said when reporters told him about the latest Obama win. “Well, there’s hasn’t been any contribution to peace yet. He’s proposing things, he’s initiating things, but he is yet to deliver,” he said. (…)

“Nobel Shnobel,” said Bartosz Weglarczyk, commentator for daily Gazeta Wyborcza. “Obama has great potential, great possibilities, but the peace prize for plans to do something? Chinese dissidents lost as usual because they can no longer plan anything. It’s absurd.” (…)

Political scientist Zbigniew Lewicki, professor at Warsaw University, thinks the committee’s decision “is absurd.” “For the first time the prize was given to someone who has plans, but no achievements,” he said. “This is a purely political decision that could also be called a perverse verdict.”

APs Hvite Hus-korrespondent:

The prize seems to be more for Obama’s promise than for his performance. Work on the president’s ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.

And what about peace? Obama is running two wars in the Muslim world — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and can’t get a climate change bill through his own Congress. His scorecard for the year is largely an “incomplete,” if he’s being graded. (…)

He said he wants a nuclear-free world. But it’s one thing to telegraph the desire, in a speech in Prague in April, and quite another to unite other nations and U.S. lawmakers behind the web of treaties and agreements needed to make that reality.

Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:

This is ridiculous — embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being – and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

“Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying. (…)

What does he do for an encore? Somebody, quick, call the pope.

Kevin Drum, venstreorienterte Mother Jones:

I’m going to head out into the blogosphere and see what people think of this.  But before I do, I just want to say that this is ridiculous. I mean, I’m all in favor of making wingnut heads explode, but the guy’s been in office for slightly less than nine months. That’s barely enough time to make a baby, let alone bring world peace. Shouldn’t the luminaries in Oslo have waited until he had done something more significant than making nice with his former primary opponent before declaring him a man for the ages?

Oh well.  Sometimes people do dumb things.  At least we get to see wingnut heads explode.

UPDATE: OK, I’ve now spent a few minutes taking in reaction from all corners. Is there anyone who’s defending this choice? Couldn’t they have just given it to Bono instead?  At least then maybe we’d get some nice music at the awards ceremony.

Richard Kim, venstreorienterte The Nation:

Yes, the president has said he wants a world free of nuclear weapons, but as Jonathan Schell wrote in our pages, he has a long way to go before that vision becomes reality. That path must include the US Senate ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty, and even a full court press from the White House can’t guarantee that will happen this fall.

John Podoretz, neokonservative Commentary:

The Michael Moore of Oslo

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Neokonservative David Frum:

That Nobel was not a gesture of Obama-worship by left-leaning Norwegians. It was the very opposite: It was a pre-emptive strike against Obama, an attempt to neutralize him. How can a Peace Nobelist strike Iranian nuclear plants? Or wage a protracted war in Afghanistan? Or tell the Palestinians, “Sorry, that’s the best offer, take it or leave it”? The hope of course is that he cannot.

We’ve heard a lot over the past few years about radicals trying to achieve their aims through “lawfare.” Here’s a new concept in asymmetric conflict: “prizefare.” The Nobel Committee was not rewarding Obama. It was attempting to geld him.

Jyllandsposten på lederplass:

Han er dermed den første politiker, der modtager denne anerkendelse uden at have præsteret et eneste målbart politisk resultat. Det er tankevækkende og siger en del om verden anno 2009 i almindelighed og om Nobelkomiteen i særdeleshed. Man spejler sig i Obama, lytter til hans skøntale og håber på en bedre verden. En sort Messias har gjort sin ankomst. Obama er blevet en slags global psykoterapeut, der skal få os alle til at føle lettelse i en brutal og uoverskuelig verden. (…)

Hvorfor er Obama ivrig efter at møde den ene diktator efter den anden, mens han ikke ønsker at se Dalai Lama? Hvorfor står Obama sammen med Egypten bag en resolution i FN’s Menneskerettighedsråd, der sælger ud af religions- og ytringsfriheden? Iran er muligvis millimeter fra at have atomvåben, men Obama har ikke været i stand til at gøre noget ved den udvikling, selv om han efter præsidentvalget afslørende en skuffende vilje til at lade den demokratiske bevægelse i Iran i stikken, hvis blot han kunne få en dialog med præstestyret. Mellemøsten er ikke kommet et skridt tættere en varig fredsløsning, forholdet til Rusland er kun marginalt forbedret, og der er tegn på, at det amerikansk-europæiske forhold er på vej ind i endnu en blindgyde. Læg hertil at situationen i Afghanistan er forværret, og at Obamas krig i den del af verden risikerer at blive hans Vietnam.

Alt i alt ikke just et billede, der maner til at falde i svime og uddele fredspriser. Nobelkomiteen har gjort Obama og freden en bjørnetjeneste, for der findes ikke et eneste eksempel på, at flot tale alene har gjort verden til et fredeligere sted.

Claus Christian Malzahn, Der Spiegel:

Awarding him the Nobel Prize now is like giving a medal to a marathon runner who has just managed the first few kilometers. (…)

Naturally it is possible to reward diplomatic efforts and thus make them more effective. The former German Chancellor Willy Brandt greatly benefited from that in 1971, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his famous Ostpolitik policy of rapprochement with the Warsaw Pact states. At the time, Brandt was no less controversial within Germany than Barack Obama is within the US today; the opposition was up in arms and ridiculed him in the most objectionable fashion. But Brandt, who like Obama was a fan of international diplomacy, had already signed the Eastern Treaties when the committee handed down its decision.

In contrast, who has accepted Obama’s outstretched hand today? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The Taliban? North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il? Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? None of them. Nowhere is there any success in sight.

Michael Russnow, venstreorienterte Huffington Post:

Whatever one might feel about Obama, he has not earned this singular award. Few American presidents have received it and of those who have it was bestowed after they’d been engaged in something special. Theodore Roosevelt had helped to negotiate peace in the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson had tirelessly worked for the creation of the League of Nations — a struggle that was blamed for causing the serious stroke he suffered, which left him disengaged in the last years of his presidency.

Jimmy Carter received the Peace Prize after he left office, but in the wake of huge achievements monitoring worldwide elections and in his efforts with Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the poor.

Peter Beinart:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments

But Obama will survive this award. The damage to the Nobel Committee itself will be greater. They’ve clearly fallen in love with celebrity, and with the idea of shaping the course of history—in other words, they’ve fallen in love with an absurdly grandiose conception of their role. The Nobel Prize Committee should be in the business of conferring celebrity on unknown human-rights and peace activists toiling in the most god-forsaken parts of the world; the people who really need the attention (and even the money). It should be in the business of angering powerful tyrants by giving their victims a moment in the sun. Choosing Barack Obama, who practically orbits the sun already, accomplishes the exact opposite of that.

Mehdi Hassan, venstreorienterte The New Statesman:

I am still rubbing my eyes in disbelief. So what are the odds? The week I write a cover story for the New Statesman, arguing that President Obama has turned into “Barack W Bush”, and is emulating his predecessor’s policies on human rights, civil liberties, Afghanistan and a whole host of other issues, the bloody Norwegians go and give him a Nobel Peace Prize. You couldn’t make it up.

Anthony Faiola, Washington Post:

Their decision to honor President Obama less than nine months into his term, however, has critics questioning whether one of the globe’s most prestigious awards has become largely a European political seal of approval. They noted that, in choosing Obama, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was celebrating a U.S. leader whose politics are perhaps closer to Europe’s own than any president since Jimmy Carter, another winner of the prize.

“This decision does represent a European worldview,” said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a London-based think tank. “You’ve got the Nobel Committee reaching out across the Atlantic and saying, ‘Look, here, finally a U.S. leader who also represents our same values.’ ”

Politico samler korte kommentarer fra sitt panel:

Thomas W. Lippman, author and journalist, adjunct senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations: The Nobel Peace Prize has an ignominious history and this latest farce won’t restore its luster. It is no knock on President Obama to say that he hasn’t done anything to earn it, as he would be the first to acknowedge. Afghanistan? Middle East? Darfur? Burma? Somalia? Ciudad Juarez? Kashmir? Swat Valley? Ingushetia? Everyone can make his own list of trouble spots that continue to fester, and with all due respect the president hasn’t quelled or even made substantial progress on any of them. I don’t think Obama falls into the same category as Yasser Araft or Le Duc Tho, but at the very least this award is premature.

Pejman Yousefzadeh, Attorney and blogger: A truly absurd decision, with no basis, no material support, and no justification whatsoever save the decision to bandwagon in favor of a political figure whose personal popularity may well be transient, and who has achieved nothing tangible whatsoever to deserve the Peace Prize.

There is nothing about Barack Obama’s efforts to “strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” that can in any way, shape, or form be called “extraordinary,” in large part because no American President can do anything diplomatically within the first ten months of his/her first term that can be called “extraordinary.”

Ronald Reagan also famously had a “vision of a world free from nuclear arms.” Why didn’t he ever get the Nobel Peace Prize? Indeed, why give the Peace Prize to anyone who believes that nuclear weapons–which have in fact kept the peace by serving as a deterrent to the commencement of massive conventional land wars in the past–ought to be abolished?

Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Affairs, Harvard: I only hope that President Obama now decides to do something to earn the prize he’s won.

Kenneth E. Scott, Parsons Prof. of Law emeritus, Stanford Law School: As an American, who can disapprove? Expressions of esteem for our President can only bolster our effectiveness on the international stage, though by how much is rather conjectural. If I were a Norwegian, I might have some qualms. The Peace Prize has more and more become an indication of support for political positions, rather than a recognition of extraordinary accomplishments. It devalues the Prize to make it their equivalent of American Idol, but that is their concern.

Economist:

Although the prize may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing around trying everything without yet achieving much.

One might point to Mr Obama’s lauded decision to close the military prison for terrorist suspects in Guantánamo Bay, and his explicit rejection of the use of torture by American spies and interrogators. Both are welcome, but for now Guantánamo Bay remains open. Carrying through on promises is proving far harder than making them. Similarly Mr Obama made progress encouraging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold talks about peace earlier this year, but as he is distracted by other concerns both parties have since drifted away from negotiations. And so far North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Russia—among others—have offered nothing of substance to demonstrate that a policy of engagement will bring more results than Mr Bush’s tough line.

Gideon Rachman, Financial Times:

It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace – Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka? The peace prize committee say that he is being rewarded for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”. But while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort” – my kids get them all the time – I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.

Michael Binyon, The Times:

Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished. 

Og litt comic relief til slutt. Reason TV deler ut en rekke andre priser til Obama.

George Stephanopoulos har samlet relevante vitser: Obama also awarded Nobel prize in chemistry. “He’s just got great chemistry,” says Nobel Committee.

Richard Cohen, Washington Post:

In a stunning announcement, Millard Fillmore Senior High School chose Shawn Rabinowitz, an incoming junior, as next year’s valedictorian. The award was made, the valedictorian committee announced from Norway of all places, on the basis of “Mr. Rabinowitz’s intention to ace every course and graduate number one in class.” In a prepared statement, young Shawn called the unprecedented award, “f—ing awesome.”

At the same time, and amazingly enough, the Pulitzer Prize for Literature went to Sarah Palin for her stated intention “to read a book someday.”

I denne kategorien plasser jeg også deler av Jan Egelands forsvar for prisen i Aftenposten. Han og andre AP-topper er omtrent de eneste i denne verden som helhjertet støtter denne tildelingen. Som jeg har blogget om tidligere, dreier universet seg rundt sitt naturlige midtpunkt, nemlig Jan Egeland. Det gjelder også i denne forbindelse. Det er derfor bare rett og rimelig at han får det siste ordet.

”Jeg har møtt Obama ved flere anledninger, og hadde blant annet en fantastisk samtale med ham da jeg var undergeneralsekretær i FN. Han ga meg personlig støtte for det arbeidet jeg gjorde i forhold til Darfur, og hadde en sjelden holdning blant amerikanske politikere om at USA måtte hjelpe FN i å lykkes.”