3 out of 5 Members on Nobel Peace committee not in favor of Obama

by Rhonda J Mangus | October 17, 2009 at 04:22 am

547 views | 78 Recommendations | 28 comments

According to Norway's top-selling daily Verdens Gang (VG) 3 out of 5 members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee were not in favor of awarding President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and it appears Chair and committe member of the Nobel Committee Thorbjorn Jagland, a strong supporter of Obama, was successful in persuading Aagot Valle (Socialist Left Party), Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (Progress Party), and Kaci Kullmann Five (Conservative Party) to nominate in favor of Obama.

It cited anonymous sources for a rare leak of the committee's work, meant to be kept secret for 50 years. Committee members are appointed by Norway's parliament but are meant to act independently.

Obama was awarded the prestigious prize on October 9 for efforts to "strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people." The decision was met with a mixture of praise and skepticism, and Obama himself said he was "surprised."

The tabloid daily said all members believed Obama had taken solid initiatives toward nuclear disarmament and reconciliation. The discussion was rather about whether Obama had achieved enough in nine months in office.

VG said one of the newly elected members, Aagot Valle from the Socialist Left Party, had strong objections to giving the prize to Obama.

"I had expected a debate, especially around the issues I find problematic, the war in Afghanistan," Valle told daily Bergens Tidende earlier this week.

Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, a former member of parliament for the opposition right-wing Progress Party, believed it was too early for Obama to win the prize, according to the paper.

Kaci Kullman Five, the Conservative Party's leader from 1991-94, also voiced opinions against the decision, VG said.

"The decision was unanimous," Jagland said when announcing the prize. Jagland, from the ruling Labour Party, was recently elected Secretary-General to the Council of Europe.

Jagland had strongly supported Obama as his top choice, VG said. It said he was apparently supported throughout by the other Labour appointee, Sissel Marie Roenbeck.

Jagland is known in Norway for liking dramatic gestures but is prone to gaffes.

Read about Nobel Peace Prize Committee members Thorbjorn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, and Agot Valle at The Norwegian Nobel Committee website.

Related stories on NowPublic by this Author:

Chavez joins long list of critics of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize's Most Famous Omission

Online Petition Targets Nobel Peace Prize Committee

Related NowPublic coverage The Nobel Peace Prize

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Hugh Askew

at 04:34 on October 17th, 2009

WHAT? Arm twisting? Politics?

say it aint so, Rhonda!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 04:50 on October 17th, 2009

I wish I could "say it aint so,...!" Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!:)

sara star

at 05:29 on October 17th, 2009

Right Livelihood Award, or the Alternative Award is a lot more meaningful than the NPP, where transparency and global particitation is welcome as opposed to the elitist group of the NPP.

Forget Norway, let's talk about Sweden, who started the Alternative Award, whereby anyone can nominate anyone for their work in humanity, unlike the elitist group the NPP. Started in 1980, this year it has recognized four humanitarians who have worked tireless for concrete results.

We have to stop buying into such things as NPP, and giving this worthless award so much meaning or weight, why? - just because a few people said so?

Times are changing, and what we thought was so important is often seen as an illusion, now. For example (a little off topic) Citizen Journalism or Participatory News Networks are gaining popularity as opposed to the Big Media - who didn't report such important events such as the TearDrop Monument which was a monumental gesture to the USA from Russia.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 05:29 on October 17th, 2009

Thank you for bringing our attention to Sweden's Alternative Award, sara. At this point I think I have to agree with you that "We have to stop buying into such things as NPP, and giving this worthless award so much meaning or weight,...?"

Thanks again!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 05:40 on October 17th, 2009

"Times are changing, and what we thought was so important is often seen as an illusion, now. For example (a little off topic) Citizen Journalism or Participatory News Networks are gaining popularity as opposed to the Big Media - who didn't report such important events such as the TearDrop Monument which was a monumental gesture to the USA from Russia."

Yes, times are changing! Thank you for your additional thoughts and the links, sara:)! Thank you for the recommend as well!

albertacowpoke

at 06:33 on October 17th, 2009

This is interesting, especially if it is true. I doubt we will ever find out for sure.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 06:36 on October 17th, 2009

I think so too, albertacowpoke! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!

However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I doubt we will ever find out for sure." :)

albertacowpoke

at 06:49 on October 17th, 2009

I meant that there has been a lot of denial of Mrs. Biden's comment. So I can assume that she told the truth, but who knows for sure.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 06:54 on October 17th, 2009

Oh, I see:)! I think you meant for these comments to reflect here.:)

Babel-Fish

at 07:58 on October 17th, 2009

Well what do we think the Nobel prize is not worth much points or Obama should not of got it be cause it is worth point.

So we are say the swedes not so well known award is worth more brownie points. Of course Obama was not honored there.

What I see is jealousy anti Obamaism and racial discrimination and of course much amusing rants. Well its hanging up on the white house wall and is now history and nothing no one can do about it. However it could haunt Obama if he does not achieve peace and does not get rid of the nukes. lol. Fuel to the republicans and thats why I find it amusing.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 08:14 on October 17th, 2009

Babel-Fish, although I don't agree with your comment (brownie points, jealousy, anit-Obamism, and racial discrimination), I do agree that it "...is now history..."!

Thank you for sharing your opinion and for the recommendation!:)

Babel-Fish

at 08:38 on October 17th, 2009

I don't just visit nowpublic its also glean opinions from else where, not blaming people here. But I do see venom from the far right so to speak.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 08:55 on October 17th, 2009

Babel-Fish, my point is that not every criticism of President Obama is about jealousy, anit-Obamism, and racial discrimination.:) Let's just call it a 'cop-out'!:) People really need to 'keep it real'.:)

Rhonda J Mangus

at 09:27 on October 17th, 2009

Here's how President Obama views 'the hate': Nine-year-old asks Obama: "Why do people hate you?"

"Some of it is just what's called politics, where once one party wins then the other party feels it needs to poke you a little bit, to keep you on your toes. So you shouldn't take it too seriously."

158

at 09:39 on October 17th, 2009

Great story.

Pointing out how Obama got the award or pointing out he did little to advance peace is not necessarily far right or racist or anti Obama. As with Bush some criticism of Obama is partisan and irrational but there is valid reasons to criticize-and praise- both of them.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 09:40 on October 17th, 2009

Thank you, 158! Your read, comments, and recommendation are always appreciated!:)

rng

at 11:44 on October 17th, 2009

Actually opining that Obama didn't deserve the award is a criticism of the award givers not the recipient. Obama had nothing to do with the decision. Thus, the criticisms about the award decision process have nothing to do with him. The comments could be racist against Scandinavians though (joking!)

Roy C

at 11:47 on October 17th, 2009

Since he could have refused the award, he has become co-responsible.

rng

at 12:59 on October 17th, 2009

Incorrect. Two separate issues and decision criteria. If could have refused prior to award finalization, your point would be logically valid. He could not effect outcome so it is not. Whether he should have accepted the award is valid but very different decision and discussion. This confusion occurs when the condemnation is centered around a generic condemnation as an individual, rather than the actual case in point. It is logically flawed - I hate x, y likes x, x should reject the advances of y as he is not worthy. This is where you have to remove self from the argument to understand the resultant confusion in the logic flow

Barbara McPherson

at 11:47 on October 17th, 2009

I don't remember but someone might. Was there this much controversy when Henry Kissinger received the Peace Prize? Now there was an inappropriate award!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 15:19 on October 17th, 2009

Barb, thank you for reading, commenting, questioning:), and for the recommendation! The answer to your question is, "Yes, and not only Henry Kissinger". The Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy.

158

at 12:15 on October 17th, 2009

Actually, according to Mr Nobel,

during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses---wikipedia

Kissinger held a peace conference with N Viet Nam, the war ended, the US and N Viet armies were reduced, ths S Viet army ceased to exist.

Just what Mr Nobel asked for.

Barbara McPherson

at 08:38 on October 18th, 2009

I hold a different viewpoint on that history. Kissinger was one of the advisors in the prosecution of the Vietnam War. He is credited/blamed for the policy to bomb Laos and Cambodia, destabilizing the governments there and leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. After the N. Vietnam fighters invaded Saigon the Americans fled the capital leaving loyal S. Vietnamese to face the wrath of the conquering army. It was an ignoble era in the history of the United States and one that cost the people of SE Asia millions of lives as well as many young people from America as well.

Roy C

at 13:07 on October 17th, 2009

RNG, your infallible pope, His Holiness Obama I, could have refused the award had he not been in full grip of getting some of that narcissism-supply refreshed at the UN and from the Nobel committee.

Obama has no judgment outside of how to grandstand making promises. Yes, he promised very well to end earmarks, and put the bills on line to review them and to balance the budget and to be bi-partisan.

He ain't done none of it.

rng

at 13:27 on October 17th, 2009

You apparently have some need to construct every sentence that references Obama with some insult such your infallible pope, His Holiness Obama, the demigod Obama etc Why is that? What is it about this specific individual that produces such a vitriolic reaction from you? Why do you need to belittle?

You also know whenever you have to descend to Jung, I yawn. It is the bolt hole for the non-argument as you just classify any disagreement as narcissism or failure to connect to the spiritual self etc. You can't rationally combat it, as it is not rational, it is like attempting to debate religion with a believer, when cornered it is the magical workings of God's intent that we cannot comprehend for its complexity. Jung is just another faith

I can understand the criticism of Obama's policies but this outright need to attack the very sinew of his being consistently, I find problematical. For some reason, he appears to offend you by his very existence and achievement.

BTW the way, I don't term him infallible. I just pointed out the flaw in your logic is all.

EMO (not verified)

at 13:14 on October 17th, 2009

I think it's much to early to award Obama the noble peace price. It seems like an upfront payment for peace to me.

Paschen

at 17:18 on October 17th, 2009

The emphasis was on Mr. Obama his efforts to disarm Nuclear weapons, Ironically it was Putin that urgent the US for the past decade to disarm Nuclear weapons and to agree to a global Nuclear free disarming by having Russia and the US lead the way.

Further it was putin that urgent for a resolution in the Middle east conflict, It was Putin that warned against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, this along with former French President Chirac and former German Chancellor Schroder that all 3 tried very hard for peaceful solutions in all international crisis and for advocated military disarmament.

I am not against Obama receiving a Nobel price for his work, however I do think that this Nobel price was premature and even offensive to those that did some real hard work for decades toward peace wish the US undermined at every turn.

Off course Mr. Obama is not to blame for the nomination here, and may deserve it as well once his work bears fruits. However, he could have declined it and pointed out that others far more deserving where overlooked here.