This questions fuels much discussion, particularly since the latest presidential address on the first of December, when Barack Obama confirmed the shipment of 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan in order to intensify the combat against the Taliban and Al Qaïda.
A recent poll conducted by CNN indicates that at least 19 percent of Americans believe that their President deserves this prize versus 40 percent who firmly feel that the Nobel Peace Prize should not have been awarded to him. A slight consolation is that 35 percent of the respondents predict that by the end of his term as head of state, Obama’s actions could potentially merit this sought after title.
Without a doubt, this explains why the first black president of the United States received this prestigious prize, accompanied by a grant of $1.4 million, with dignity.
In his acceptance speech, Obama did not shy away from referring to the heated controversy that he found himself thrown into by being awarded this prize. As commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, he currently supervises two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
History will determine if this selection was justified.
However, the institution of the Nobel Prize is strongly divided by this choice because of the previously woven lines between Barack Obama and Thorbjorn Jagland, the president of the Nobel committee. Any allegations of corruption could severely tarnish the image of this illustrious committee.
Normally, the Nobel Peace Prize rewards “the personality who has contributed the most or best to the connection of peoples, the suppression or reduction of permanent armies, and the assembly and spread of progress towards peace.”
Originally, Alfred Nobel had chosen to give this award for supporting military action, not for awarding a chief of state’s good intentions.
In this context, does the American president Barack Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded last night in Oslo, Norway?
Edited by Jessica Anderson