President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[krazeeboi]

President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Associated Press (AP) By KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers Karl Ritter And Matt Moore, Associated Press Writers

OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.

"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then 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 selection to some extent reflects a trans-Atlantic divergence on Obama. In Europe and much of the world he is lionized for bringing the United States closer to mainstream global thinking on issues like climate change and multilateralism. At home, the picture is more complicated. As president, Obama is often criticized as he attempts to carry out his agenda — drawing fire over a host of issues from government spending to health care to the conduct of the war in Afghanistan.

U.S. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele contended that Obama won the prize as a result of his "star power" rather than meaningful accomplishments.

"The real question Americans are asking is, What has President Obama actually accomplished?" Steele said.

Obama's election and foreign policy moves caused a dramatic improvement in the image of the U.S. around the world. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Jagland said.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made no secret of his admiration for Obama, called the decision the embodiment of the "return of America into the hearts of the people of the world."

But Obama's work is far from done, on numerous fronts.

He said he would end the Iraq war but has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012.

He's running a second war in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan — and is seriously considering ramping up the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others, too.

"I don't think Obama deserves this. I don't know who's making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity," said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. "Since he is the president, I don't see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Obama has said that battling climate change is a priority. But the U.S. seems likely to head into crucial international negotiations set for Copenhagen in December with Obama-backed legislation still stalled in Congress.

Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, questioned whether Obama deserved it now.

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," Walesa said.

"This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act," Walesa said.

Last year's prize winner, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, saw the award as vindication that Obama "is ready to seriously seek a solution to the question of Israel and Palestine," he told Finnish broadcaster YLE.

"Of course, this puts pressure on Obama. The world expects that he will also achieve something," Ahtisaari said.

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Like the Parliament, the committee has a leftist slant, with three members elected by left-of-center parties. Jagland said the decision to honor Obama was unanimous.

The award appeared to be at least partly a slap at Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.

"You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase," Jagland said. "And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize."

Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize, though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.

"The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given to someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said Obama's award shows great things are expected from him in coming years.

"It's an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all," Tutu said. "It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope."

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

Wilson received the prize for his role in founding the League of Nations, the hopeful but ultimately failed precursor to the contemporary United Nations.

The Nobel committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.

But there has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."

Obama also has attempted to restart stalled talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, but just a day after Obama hosted the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York, Israeli officials boasted that they had fended off U.S. pressure to halt settlement construction. Moderate Palestinians said they felt undermined by Obama's failure to back up his demand for a freeze.

Obama was to meet with his top advisers on the Afghan war on Friday to consider a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as the U.S war there enters its ninth year.

Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan earlier this year and has continued the use of unmanned drones for attacks on militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategy devised by the Bush administration. The attacks often kill or injure civilians living in the area.

Nominators for the prize include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee decided not to inform Obama before the announcement because it didn't want to wake him up, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

"Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do," Jagland said.

[Nikkol]

I think that I'm in shock.....moreso that thoe he may be a good person for it, I think this is a bit premature...

[Poetricia (G.A.P.)]

Oct 9, 2009 13:27:41 GMT -5 Nikkol said:

I think that I'm in shock.....moreso that thoe he may be a good person for it, I think this is a bit premature...

agreed.

the global cult like worship of this man is getting old!
i am not part of the sheep, and for that i suppose i will be stoned.
oh well, i can take it.

[krazeeboi]

I don't think I see anything resembling "global cult-like worship" going on, but as Americans, I think that although we know that much of the world flat-out hated us while Bush was in office, we are very unaware of how palpable and intense that hate was abroad. Despite all that is amiss at home--staggering job losses, rising unemployment, the declining value of the dollar, etc.--the world still views the United States and its president as the leader of the free world. Obama is receiving this award, in part, because his approach is not like Bush's at all, and Obama's commitment to diplomacy, international cooperation, and nuclear disarmament is an extreme contrast from the paradigm of our last president.

Secondly, I thought (and maybe still think) that this award is a bit premature also, but then I learned that the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't always award actual accomplishment; it is sometimes based on aspiration. The Nobel Peace Prize committee cited his "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- an acknowledgment that those efforts have yet to yield results. This in itself isn't so unusual; after all, Archbishop Desmond Tutu received the prize on an aspirational basis in 1984--ending apartheid in South Africa, which didn't actually happen for another 10 years. And there are other similar examples as well.

There is a downside to this though, a big one: it could become an albatross around his neck, especially with the big foreign policy decisions that loom on the horizon. Will he send more troops to Afghanistan? What will we do with Iran? How will talks with North Korea go? Any one of these situations has the potential to blow up in his face (no pun intended), and it would only give his critics more opposition--despite the fact that the president recognized that he himself was surprised at his nomination, recognizes that he hasn't really accomplished anything yet on the foreign policy front that would advance his goals, and apparently didn't even have the chance to possibly decline the award.

[anointedteacher]

Obama Nobel Peace Prize Hailed In Kenya As A "Win For Africa"

Read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-h_n_314994.html

LONDON — The choice of President Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize was cheered Friday by a global chorus from European leaders to minibus passengers in Kenya – but it also elicited criticism over the decision to break with tradition and recognize hopeful promise over concrete achievement.

Obama is seen as having changed the direction of U.S. foreign policy, reversing many of his predecessor's unilateral policies and emphasizing the need for diplomacy, cooperation and mutual respect.

Last year's prize winner, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, said the Nobel committee wants to encourage Obama to push harder for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"Of course, this puts pressure on Obama," he said. "The world expects that he will also achieve something."

Many admirers lauded the new president for his willingness to reach out to the Islamic world, his commitment to curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons and his goal of bringing the Israelis and Palestinians into serious, fruitful negotiations.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said Obama's award shows great things are expected from him in the coming years.

"In a way, it's an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all," he said. "It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope."

He described the prize as a "wonderful recognition" of Obama's effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the Nobel committee's decision to reward Obama's multilateral approach to the world was "great news."

"President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world's biggest problems: climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges," Ban said.

In the Kenyan city of Kisumu, the home province of Obama's father, radio shows interrupted broadcasting to have live phone-ins so callers could congratulate Obama on his win. Traders in the market huddled around hand-held radios and touts shouted the news from the windows of local minibuses.

"When I heard it on the radio I said Hallelujah!" said 65-year-old James Andaro. "It's God's blessing. This win is for Africa."

But there was far less enthusiasm in areas where America's foreign policy is resented.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the awarding of the prize "hasty and too early."

"We have no objection if this prize is an incentive to reverse the warmongering and unilateral policies of the previous U.S. administration and if this encourages a policy based on just peace," the semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted Mottaki as saying in an exclusive interview.

"The appropriate time for awarding such a prize is when foreign military forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and when one stands by the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people," he was quoted as saying.

In the Gaza Strip, leaders of the radical Hamas movement said they had heard Obama's speeches seeking better relations with the Islamic world but had not been moved.

"We are in need of actions, not sayings," Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said. "If there is no fundamental and true change in American policies toward the acknowledgment of the rights of the Palestinian people, I think this prize won't move us forward or backward."

In Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are engaged in a war against Taliban insurgents, President Hamid Karzai praised the Nobel decision, but others seemed unimpressed.

A spokesman for Karzai said he hopes the peace prize "will ultimately lead to peace and stability in Afghanistan and our region."

Kabul resident Abdul Rasoul disagreed.

"The peace award which has been given to Barack Obama is not right because under Obama a lot of civilians have died here in the bombing," he said.

Other Afghans complained there has been no change in U.S. policy since Obama took over.

In Vienna, former Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity."

Still, some said the award came too soon, in light of the lack of tangible progress toward the vital goals of bringing peace to the Middle East, persuading Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and improving relations with North Korea.

"The award is premature," said Eugene Rogan, director of the Middle East Center at Oxford University in England. "He hasn't done anything yet. But he's made clear from the start of his presidency his commitment to promote peace. No doubt the Nobel committee hopes the award will enhance his moral authority to advance the cause of peace while he's still president."

Massimo Teodori, one of Italy's leading experts of U.S. history, said the Nobel decision is a clear rejection of the "unilateral, antagonistic politics" of Obama's predecessor, George Bush.

"The prize is well deserved after the Bush years, which had antagonized the rest of the world," Teodori said. "President Obama's policy of extending his hand has reconciled the United States with the international community."

Reaction was far more muted in Pakistan, where many have criticized U.S. policies.

In Pakistan's central city of Multan, radical Islamic leader Hanif Jalandhri said he was neither happy nor surprised by Obama's award.

"But I do hope that Obama will make efforts to work for peace, and he will try to scrap the policies of Bush who put the world peace in danger," said Jalandhri, secretary general of a group that oversees 12,500 seminaries. "This prize has tripled Obama's responsibilities, and we can hope that he will try to prove through his actions that he deserved this honor."

[krazeeboi]

Someone said it more succintly than I:

"I take the award as a symbol of the world's thanks to the American voter for not electing the next Bush (McCain)... They can't give the award to 'the American voter' though, so they gave it to the guy the voters elected."

[anointedteacher]

Pres. Obama going to give the whole 1.5 million dollars award to charity... He said he will accept it as an encouragement and not as an achievement.... I am so proud of him... I do not worship him.

Not only Pres. Obama restored diplomacy and changed foreign policy from being bully (Bush bad attitudes toward foreign leaders) to an outreach hand... He have made USA safer from terrorists. We was hated, but now we are highly respected. That's a major change in 8 months

Read below : www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/cheney-and-co-all-quiet-counterterrorism-front

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama visited the National Counterterrorism Center outside Washington and declared that "because of our efforts" al Qaeda and its allies have "lost operational capacity." He cited recent arrests of terrorist suspects in Colorado, New York, Illinois, and Texas, asserting that these actions have made the nation safer. Afterward, his critics responded with...silence. Since Obama was sworn in, conservative hawks, led by former Vice President thingy Cheney, have been pounding the president for being weak on national security, accusing him of leaving the country vulnerable to another catastrophic attack. But this chorus of scaremongers tends to go mute when the Obama administration scores apparent counterterrorism successes. Cheney, for instance, hasn't said anything publicly about the arrest last month of Najibullah Zazi, the Denver airport shuttle driver, and others accused of planning an al Qaeda bombing operation.

Nor have Cheney and his amen corner acknowledged other gains in the fight against al Qaeda. Instead, it's been a fussillade of potshots. Let's roll the tape.

On February 3, two weeks after Obama moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Cheney told Politico that there is a "high probability" that terrorists will launch a nuclear or biological strike on the United States and that they would have a better chance of success thanks to Obama's policies. He added, "When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry." In mid-March, Cheney said Obama's actions will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

On April 1, Abdullah Hamas al Filistini, reputedly a senior al Qaeda trainer, was killed by a CIA Predator drone strike in Pakistan—part of the search-and-bomb program started by President George W. Bush that the Obama administration has continued. Cheney said nothing about this attack. But three weeks later, the ex-veep again slammed Obama. Referring to the president's banning of extreme interrogation techniques (a.k.a. torture), Cheney huffed during an interview with Sean Hannity that the "Obama people" believe that they don't need "tough policies."

In May, Cheney made a similar claim on Face the Nation, asserting that under Obama the nation will not have "safeguards" against terrorists. And at a much-covered speech at the American Enterprise Institute—delivered the same morning Obama was giving a speech on national security and civil liberties—Cheney again charged that the administration was placing the United States at risk by adopting "half-measures" in the fight against Islamic extremists: "There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance." That same day, GOP chair Michael Steele accused the Obama administration of endangering the nation by planning to shut down the Guantanamo detention facility. Five days later, Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican House whip, claimed that the Obama crowd had a "lack of regard for national security."

Such comments have been part of a Republican effort to sow doubts about Obama's commitment to protecting the United States from al Qaeda and other murderous extremists. Yet in the past few months, a number of so-called high-value al Qaeda and Taliban targets have been killed by Obama-ordered Predator strikes in Pakistan. The White House refuses to discuss such assaults, which do result in civilian casualties, and there's no telling the degree to which these attacks truly disrupt al Qaeda's and the Taliban's efforts. Some policy wonks contend that the Predator strikes are counterproductive, for they anger Pakistanis and make it more difficult for the United States to forge a working relationship with a Pakistani government that can be committed to combating al Qaeda and the Taliban. But in the world of counterterrorism, these attacks are regarded as wins. And Cheney, when he was vice president, hailed the Predator as a key weapon in the fight against extremists.

The Long War Journal, a website that chronicles the struggle against al Qaeda and other terrorist movements, tracks the high-value targets killed by CIA drones in Pakistan. Here's its recent list:

* June 23: Khwaz Ali Mehsud, a senior deputy to Baitullah Mehsud, the top leader of the Taliban in Pakistan.

* July 3: Mufti Noor Wali, a suicide bomber trainer for the Taliban and al Qaeda.

* July 7: Kifayatullah Anikhel, a Taliban commander under Baitullah Mehsud.

* August 5: Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban chief in Pakistan.

* September 7: Mustafa al Jaziri, a senior military commander for al Qaeda.

* September 8: Maulvi Ismail Khan, a military commander in the Haqqani Network, a terrorist group responsible for major attacks in Afghanistan.

* September 14: Najmuddin Jalolov, the leader of the Islamic Jihad Group, a breakaway faction of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. He was allied with al Qaeda.

* September 14: Ilyas Kashmiri, the operations commander of the Harakat-ul-Jihad-Islami, a paramilitary organization active in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, and the operations chief of Brigade 313, a coalition of several terrorist outfits.

In counterterrorism terms, this is an impressive tally. (And according to the Long War Journal, Predator attacks in Pakistan in 2008 caused 286 al Qaeda and Taliban casualties; this year, through September, the number is 404.) Killing Baitullah Mehsud was particularly significant. As the Wall Street Journal noted, he was "Pakistan's most wanted man, responsible for a spate of suicide bombings in Pakistani cities in recent years." These attacks included the December 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and last year's bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, which killed 54 people. There was a $5 million bounty on his head for his support of the insurgency in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Journal reported, "the strike on Mr. Mehsud was the first such attack not immediately condemned by Pakistani officials. Pakistan's foreign minister and the head of its Interior Ministry both said the killing was a significant success in the battle against militants." (By contrast, according to US News & World Report, the Bush administration "had refrained from going after Mehsud.")

Also, a US commando raid in Somalia on September 14 reportedly killed Saleh Ali Nabhan, an al Qaeda operative suspected of being part of the operation that bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

According to Nexis and Google searches, Cheney has made no public comment about the killing of any of these militant leaders and operatives. Nor have Cantor, Steele, or any other Republican leader. Nor have Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Certainly, it may be difficult for elected officials to discuss explicitly attacks not officially recognized by the White House, but none of these leading conservatives have acknowledged that the Obama administration has been racking up what are considered successes—arrests at home, attacks overseas—in the fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Instead, this pack has repeatedly brayed about Obama's decisions to end waterboarding and to shut down Guantanamo, depicting these policy shifts as essentially acts of surrender in the struggle against Islamic terrorists. To score political points, they purposefully ignore the battlefield reality. When it comes to what's truly happening on the ground, for Cheney and the others, it's all quiet on the counterterrorism front.

[kitty]

Krazeboi,
Yes I agree... I think the prize won was really for the "American Voter" who realized that Bush and the Republican idea of foreign policy were really getting out of hand... I mean really.... Putting load of people all across the world in jails off of American soil cause you "Claim" that they did something... But you can never actually charge them with a crime. Then claim that BECAUSE they aren't U.S. citizen that they DON'T DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL?
Really who was looking more like Nazi? Bush or Obama?


Kitty

[keita]

War sometimes justified, Obama says in Nobel Peace Prize speech

Friday on CNN.com Live: Will Smith and his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, host an all-star concert paying tribute to the Nobel Peace Prize. Watch live on CNN.com at 2 p.m. on Friday for this special two-hour event.


Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday by talking about war and the limits of non-violence.

But he also praised the peacemakers of the past, and said the world can and should still strive for peace.

"Let us reach for the world that ought to be," he told the 1,000-member audience at Oslo City Hall. "Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace."

The Nobel committee's choice of Obama as this year's laureate sparked controversy, in part because he is a president waging two wars abroad. Obama said force is sometimes necessary, but said that is simply "a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason."

"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms," he said. "The service of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans."

Waging war is not a way of imposing the will of the United States on the world, he said, but a way of seeking a better future for its people.

"The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace," he said.

Preserving the peace in Oslo Thursday came with a price -- $60 million worth of security preparations. Norwegian police said they had more than 2,000 officers on the streets, along with snipers, canine patrols, and helicopters in the air, in the biggest security operation they have ever mounted for a single person.

Force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, Obama said, because inaction can tear at the world's conscience and lead to more costly intervention later.

But peace can be justified too, he said, and he outlined three ways to build a just and lasting peace in the world.

First, Obama suggested the world find a better way to deal with nations like Iran and North Korea that break or ignore rules and laws.

"If we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something," he said. "Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price."

There should be consequences for countries that "game the system," Obama said -- and that may sometimes mean engagement.

But peace, Obama said, "is not merely the absence of visible conflict." He said the world needs to seek a just peace based on inherent human rights.

Obama praised pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar, Zimbabweans who voted despite election violence, and pro-democracy protesters in Iran.

"It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any nation," Obama said.

Obama also defended engagement with such repressive regimes, mentioning President Nixon's trip to China in the 1970s, Pope John Paul II's trip to Poland, and President Reagan's efforts on arms control and talks with the Soviet Union.

"There is no simple formula here," he said. "But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time."

His third point was that peace should be based not only on rights, but also on economic security and opportunity.

"True peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want," he said.

Development rarely happens without security, and security does not exist in places where people don't have enough food, water, or medicine, he said, adding that it also doesn't exist if people can't aspire to decent education or employment.

"The absence of hope can rot a society from within," he said.

Another controversial aspect to Obama's selection was the question of what he had done to deserve the prize. He had been in office for only days when he was nominated, and the prize recognizes his work toward peace for most of 2008, largely when he was still a presidential candidate.

Some of the protesters outside the awards venue questioned whether Obama should have received the Nobel Prize in the first place, with one sign reading, "Obama: You won it. Now earn it!"

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who joined Obama at a news conference earlier in the day, said the prize was deserved because Obama has provided leadership on key issues facing the world like disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, and fighting global warming.

"I cannot think about anyone else who has done more for peace during the last year than Barack Obama," Stoltenberg said. "It is a well-deserved peace prize and hopefully it is really in the best spirit of Alfred Nobel, because it can contribute in itself to strengthening the efforts of the president to work for peace."

Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also said Obama deserved the award. Echoing the title of one of the president's books, Jagland said, "Obama has the audacity of hope and the tenacity to make these hopes come true."

Obama, who earlier in the day said he had "no doubt" that others were more deserving of the award, acknowledged those questions early in his acceptance speech.

"I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage," he said. "My accomplishments are slight."

He said he accepted the prize with "great humility."


LINK

Read a transcript of the acceptance speech
HERE

Every time I hear or read one of President Obama's speeches, I'm more convinced that, for better or worse, his speech library will someday be an authentic, much-read and well-studied American historical treasure.

I'm also and always seriously impressed with his oratory skills, especially as the role model of excellence that they are.

He has my hearfelt congratulations.

And I echo what I believe is a true rhema prophetic word in the article,

"You won it. Now earn it!"