The Nobel Peace Prize is basically a joke. The longest running argument for this is that while the other four prizes judge discoveries or inventions based on not on only their own merit, but also how they have helped mankind, the Peace Prize is really judged on neither. The other four are often granted years or decades after the initial discoveries being awarded were made...once their potential has started to show (of course there are many exceptions as sometimes things are a big fucking deal right from the start). The Peace Prize, on the other hand, is (usually?) granted based solely on events of that year, before the actual ramification or effects are known and have been criticized for being tainted by bias right from their inception.
A popular topic of criticism for the Peace Prize is how Gandhi was never awarded one while alive and they refuse to post-posthumously award one in any case. It seems a bit ridiculous considering some of the awards they've given out went to people who pale in comparison (even while he was alive and active).
This is probably the most ridiculous one I know of to date. Certainly, some are more controversial, but at least there is an actual argument for awarding them. Arafat won his not because of his past, but because of what he accomplished in that year - returning with the message that violence wasn't going to solve the problem and negotiating the Oslo Accords with Yitzhak Rabin and the Secretary of Defense (or something like that) of Isreal....which is a pretty big deal. Kissinger has also been pretty controversial, but he was awarded it for his involvement in the Paris Peace Accord rather than his influence in American foreign policy in the past. Controversial? Of course, but at least there's an argument there whether or not you agree with it.
Obama, on the other hand, is pretty much a farce. The guy hasn't done anything that could be even remotely construed as deserving it. Not only has he not done anything, he hasn't really even actively pursued achieving peace. I'm not saying he's doing a bad job or isn't a good leader, and I'm not implying that he's not moving promoting peace and diplomacy in general, all I'm saying is that it's undeserved at this point. Maybe when the troops are pulled out Iraq or Afghanistan is 'officially' independent and stabilized. Maybe when he negotiates a cease fire between two countries or actually gets some countries to sign onto a new treaty against nuclear proliferation or promising disarmament. For now? Not a chance.
And, for the record, I am well aware of why he was awarded it according to the committee, but it's equally retarded and most likely just an afterthought. People have been criticizing the peace prize for years as slowly becoming purely aspirational in nature, but also as a platform for political opinion. This kind of seems to support that. I personally think Obama was picked partially because of his celebrity appeal, partially because of the transition to the aspirational nature (which I think is ridiculous and might as well call for the award to be abolished), but also just as a knock towards the previous administration and the American right wing in general.....which would not be the first time.
