New York Times skriver:
"In a stunning surprise, the Nobel Committee announced Friday that it had awarded its annual peace prize to President Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” less than nine months after he took office."
New York Times har också ett citat från Nobelkommitténs ordförande Thorbjorn Jagland som motiverar valet av Obama med uppenbara politiska skäl och säger:
“We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.”
Ett makalöst påstående, minst sagt. Och om någon trodde att Nobelkommittén var objektiv och granskade sina fall utan politiska agendor så torde det uttalandet ha skingrat alla sådana föreställningar.
"The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the most powerful platforms in the world. Winners get immediate global attention and the chance to meet and influence leaders and governments everywhere. Think of it as a megaphone through which worthy, but very often obscure, activists or politicians or environmentalists can shout their message to a gathered crowd.
That's just one of the reasons the Nobel Committee's decision to award this year's Peace Prize to Barack Obama is such a stunning surprise. Obama has the world's most powerful platform: the White House. And you don't need a megaphone when you're the U.S. President. You speak and people listen."
Tidningen skriver vidare:
"...now Obama is the Nobel Peace Prize winner. "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 Non-proliferation 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."
That's an understatement. As TIME's Mark Halperin notes on The Page, "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."
Tidningen Times Online skriver:
"Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace."
Och The Economist skriver:
"BARACK OBAMA, who has been America's president for just nine months, has won the 2009 Nobel peace prize. Perhaps the Nordic judges felt it was a suitable consolation after Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro in its bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. Or the prizegivers might have felt moved by Mr Obama’s personal story: that a mixed-race man is president says much about the peaceful progress on race relations in America. Instead they emphasised Mr Obama’s aspirations and his commitment to diplomacy, even if, so far, he has achieved little that is concrete."
Omdömena är i de snällaste fallen skeptiska. Kritiken från den konservativa högern kommer förmodligen att vara obarmhärtig - och detta fredspris kommer knappast att bidra till någon "fredsprocess" på den inrikespolitiska planhalvan.
Se även tidigare inlägg:
Nobels fredspris går till.... Obama... 20091009