A Low Year for the Peace Prize
In Alfred Nobel's will, about his five prizes, it is said about the Peace Prize that it shall be given "to the person who 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" -
Or, in the original, "åt den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och afskaffande eller minskning af stående armeer samt bildande och spridande af fredskongresser" -
I'm not an Obama hater. I think he is less evil than most of his predecessors; but he is the supreme commander of a belligerent super power. He is in war, and if he is retiring from Iraq, he is on the other hand advancing in Afghanistan.
So much for "the abolition or reduction of standing armies". He hasn't torn down Pentagon.
And as "for the holding and promotion of peace congresses", he hasn't had time yet, and I don't know if he has the ambition.
As for "fraternity between nations", he has done some rhetorics, but not much action.
So he doesn't fulfil the criteria for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has done worse mistakes than this one in the past (Henry Kissinger being perhaps the most extreme one), but it's more than bad enough.
It should be remembered that a Nobel Prize is not a public prize. It is a private prize that has got a lot of publication (more than it deserves, I think).
The Nobel Prizes are paid by the interest of Alfred Nobel's privat capital, and they are governed by his personal will.
That's why there can't be added any new Nobel Prizes.
(No, the Swedish National Bank's prize of economics "in memory of Alfred Nobel" is not a Nobel prize. It is a parasite prize.
And the Right Livelihood Award is not an "Alternative Nobel Prize", although often so called - and not protesting as vehemently as it should.)
And that's why they must be given for things done, not for things to be done.