Glenn Reynolds weighs in on the debate as to what is more embarrassing, awarding that prize to President Obama less than a year after his inauguration or to the EU."AT LEAST WHEN THEY GAVE OBAMA THE PRIZE, HE HADN’T FAILED YET." Hadn't thought of it in those terms but he is right.
Frida Ghitis argues that the Committee lost an excellent opportunity to show that it really believes in peace and freedom. True, but hardly for the first time though, possibly, Ms Ghitis did not notice it before. Or, maybe, she mentions this every year.
Kristian Berg Harpviken, the Director of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, was interviewed on the subject and sounded a little bemused, not to say irritated. He also pointed to an important aspect:
It's a bit different, though, in Norway and internationally. In Norway, this decision is deemed to stir considerable controversy, precisely because the issue of EU membership is so controversial in Norway, and many critics here see this already as the politicians on the Nobel Committee trying to use their platform there to affect Norwegian domestic politics.In fact, Norway has voted twice to stay out of the EU but it is well known that Thorbjørn Jagland, the Chairman of the Peace Prize Committee and a man with an "interesting" political career, would like to see the question reopened and Norway vote the right way at last.
The all-important question remains: which president will go to Oslo to collect the prize? The secondary question is what will happen to the money? I suppose it could be thrown into the general melting pot of debt and default.