You could at least make the case that Obama promoted -- indeed, in a sense, embodied -- "fraternity between nations," for he was incredibly popular with most of America's allies. (See, e.g., his "rock star" reception in Germany.) Even its enemies were at worst ambivalent towards him personally, and at best they were hopeful that he'd bring about positive change. In this sense, he, at minimum, shored up the self-image of the Western world.
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.
If I recall correctly though, Obama won the peace prize shortly after winning the election and ran from a much more doveish platform than he governed from.
He won the prize before actually doing anything more than campaign promises. If we're awarding prizes based on campaign promises...well, there will be some interesting awards, indeed.
The mishandling of the entire middle-east is hard to ignore. If anything, Trump's only consensus wins came from cleaning up the mess in the middle east.
> shored up the self-image of the Western world
Which tells you everything you need to about the Nobel Peace Prize.
If you're going to make claims with such authority, please have the correct information. Sure Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal, but it consisted of very members that US and Pakistan (ISI) helped in their fight against Soviet union, including Osama Bin Laden.
Obama getting the Nobel peace price was when I realised what a big political joke the whole thing is (and I admire Obama!).
It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon.
The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.
So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.
But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.