What was the Nobel Committee's official citation for Obama and how was it justified?

1. The citation spelled out: ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy’

When the Committee announced the award on 9 October 2009 it gave a concise, public citation: Obama received the prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The public statement singled out his vision of a world without nuclear weapons and the “new climate” in international politics he had created in his first year ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What the Committee said it valued: disarmament, dialogue and a new tone

Beyond the headline phrase, the Committee attached “special importance” to Obama’s stated commitment to nuclear disarmament and to dialogue as instruments to resolve conflicts. The official notes emphasised his initiative in re‑engaging the United States with multilateral institutions and in reaching out to relations such as the Muslim world — framed as changing the international atmosphere and strengthening diplomacy ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

3. Why the timing matters: award given very early in his term

Nobel officials and commentators repeatedly noted the odd timing: nominations had closed just days after Obama took office, so the prize was awarded largely on promises and rhetoric rather than sustained policy outcomes. That timing shaped both the Committee’s justification — wanting to endorse a shift in tone — and much of the subsequent critique that the prize recognised potential rather than a record of achievement ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Public and political reactions: praise, bewilderment and political readings

The citation itself generated polarized responses. Supporters said the Committee rewarded a constructive reorientation of U.S. diplomacy; critics argued the Committee had rewarded words more than deeds, since major policy results were still pending. Contemporary coverage and later retrospectives capture both views: outlets citing the Committee’s language recorded its emphasis on climate and disarmament, while critics emphasized the premature nature of the award ^{[2] [1] [5]}.

5. Inside the Nobel world: later second‑guessing

Reporting and scholarship inside Norway show internal ambivalence after the fact. Geir Lundestad, former director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute (who observed committee meetings but had no vote), later wrote that he regretted the award because the Committee had expected the prize to strengthen Obama’s hand and it had not produced that effect — an admission that complicates the Committee’s original confidence in its own justification ^[4].

6. How the Committee’s language framed an uncertain experiment

The Committee explicitly framed the prize as an attempt to encourage a specific international policy direction — greater U.S. engagement, nuclear disarmament, and dialogue — rather than to reward a completed peace achievement. That framing explains both the Committee’s public claim and why commentators treated the award as an intervention ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

Limitations and sourcing

This account draws only on the provided materials: the Committee’s public citation and contemporary reporting ^{[2] [1] [3]}, contextual summaries ^[5], and later commentary including internal Nobel reflections ^[4]. Available sources do not mention other possible private committee deliberations beyond what Lundestad and public statements revealed; they also do not provide the full internal minutes of the Committee’s deliberations (not found in current reporting) ^[4].