This was early: "Surprised, humbled Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize". This is yet something else unexpected. Who would have thought that Mr. Obama would get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize so early in his presidency (he has been in power for less than 9 months) and win?

The first sentence is "President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism". OK, Mr. Obama has achieved some progress in reducing arms and some progress in diffusing tension with the Muslim world, BUT THERE IS MUCH WORK STILL TO BE DONE.

Here's how the president reacted to the news that he had won one of the world's most prestigious honors: "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize. I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for ALL NATIONS (including China, with its supposed 8% growth) to confront the challenges of the 21st century". This is an example of Obama's humility.

The next step, of course, is to find out what other people are saying about this very unexpected event/occurence. So, who agrees and who disagrees with the decision to give Mr. Obama one of the most prestigious honors available? In an attempt to justify their decision, a statement released by the Nobel Committee said: "Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics". Yes, in SOME ways. In other words, the international perception of the United States isn't SO bad anymore. It isn't even close to being as bad as it was during the Bush administration (there's that comparison with Bush again). "MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. DIALOGUE and NEGOTIATIONS are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts" over the wars/armed confrontations that George W. Bush seemed to prefer.

According to Aagot Valle, a Socialist Left Party legislator, this award represents "support and a commitment" for the president. More specifically, Valle said: "And I HOPE (that) it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament (in general)". The key word again is "hope".

According to Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland, "Some people say and I understand it, isn't it too premature? Too early? Well, I'd say that IT COULD BE TOO LATE TO RESPOND THREE YEARS FROM NOW. It is now that we have THE OPPORTUNITY to respond - all of us". The key word is obviously "opportunity".

"In Europe and much of the (rest of the) world, he is lionized (i.e. idolized) for bringing the United States closer to the world on issues like climate change and multilateralism", which is good, but having said this, "At home, the picture is (much) more complicated. As president, Obama is often criticized as he tries to carry out his agenda - drawing fire over a host of issues such as government spending to health care to the war in Afghanistan". The deficit has been and will continue to be there for the foreseeable future, but some people are still nostalgic for the old health care system (i.e. completely privatized health insurance), which, again, is unsuitable because this system leaves millions without sufficient coverage. "The war in Afghanistan", however, is a legitimate concern.

Of course, Republicans have a lot to say about Mr. Obama winning one of the most coveted prizes in the world. According to Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, "The real question Americans are asking is: what has Obama actually accomplished?" Steele is contending that a significant reason that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was his "star power", which, we have to admit, is somewhat true. But again, Mr. Steele is PLAYING POLITICS. He should have congratulated Obama and he didn't.

Ahmad Shabir, an 18-year-old student from Kabul, was also skeptical: "I don't think Obama deserves this. I don't know who's making all the decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity". Obama has certainly contributed to peace and humanity so perhaps Shabir hasn't had the chance to experience this. "Since he is (i.e. has become) president, I don't see any change in US strategy in the wars in IRAQ and Afghanistan". Shabir isn't qualified to comment on Iraq.

"Archbishop Desmund Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said Obama's award shows great things are expected from him in the future". Can the president handle yet more expectations from a former recipient?

Specifically, Tutu said: "In a way, it's an award coming near the beginning of the first term OF A RELATIVELY YOUNG PRESIDENT (actually, Obama is the youngest president in US history) THAT ANTICIPATES AN EVEN GREATER CONTRIBUTION towards making our world a safer place for all. It is an award that speaks to the PROMISE of President Obama's messge of HOPE". Recurring themes of "contribution", "promise" and "hope".

According to Massimo Teodori, an Italian expert of US politics, Obama's win of the Nobel Peace Prize "was a clear rejection of the "unilateral, antagonistic politics" of (who else but) George W. Bush". Wow. "unilateral, antagonistic politics" is pretty strong condemnation.

More specifically, Teodori says: "The prize is well-deserved, AFTER THE BUSH YEARS, WHICH HAVE ANTAGONIZED THE REST OF THE WORLD". Stepping up the attacks on the ex-president. "President Obama's policy of EXTENDING HIS HAND has reconciled the United States with the international community". The key phrase is obviously "extending his hand". In other words, President Obama IS LEADING IN A WAY THAT COMMANDS RESPECT INSTEAD OF ALWAYS DOMINATING INTERACTIONS AND EXPECTING EVERYBODY ELSE TO CATCH UP.

Also congratulating Mr. Obama was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a staunch US ally: "I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH YOU in the years ahead to advance peace". The key/critical phrase is obviously "I look forward to working closely with you", proving again that life is not a 1-man show.

However, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's message was only lukewarm: "We are in need of ACTIONS, NOT SAYINGS. IF THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL AND TRUE CHANGE in American politics toward the rights of the Palestinian people, I think (that) this prize won't move us forward OR BACKWARD" which is yet another interesting thought/remark.

Finally, Taliban spokesman "Quari Yousef Ahmadi accused Obama of "having the blood of the Afghan people on his hands". This is disgraceful. The Taliban attack and are "bloody" by definition.

To conclude:

• Obama can simply ignore the Taliban spokesman's comment.
• As far as the imbalance between the Israelis and Palestinians are concerned, this will take time to sort out. There's no "magic bullet" that will fix this problem overnight because it was created over a long period of time.
• The final comment to make is that the most basic criteria to qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize is that the person has to seek diplomacy first. This means that Hong Kong chief executive Donald Tsang, along with his cronies Edmund Ho, Stanley Ho and above all, the disgraceful Stephen Lam will never be eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize because these people will go berserk every time somebody disagrees with China. Although we didn't mention this, another critically important factor in winning (or even being considered for) a Nobel Peace Prize is a broad and BALANCED perspective. This means that A PERSON CANNOT BE BLINDLY FAITHFUL TO ONE COUNTRY AND EXPECT TO BE RESPECTED OR APPRECIATED. Who will respect someone who claims that a country has never made a mistake? Countries are made up of people and EVERYONE makes mistakes.