Fact check: What were the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009?

1. Summary of the results

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama based on specific criteria that were officially stated in their announcement. According to the committee's press release, Obama received the award "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" ^[1]. The committee placed special emphasis on Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons ^{[1] [2]}.

The official criteria focused on:

• International diplomacy strengthening - Obama's efforts to improve diplomatic relations globally
• Cooperation between peoples - His work to foster international collaboration
• Nuclear disarmament vision - His goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons ^[2]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question about criteria omits several crucial contextual elements that emerged from the analyses:

• Significant controversy surrounded the award - The decision was met with widespread criticism, with many arguing that Obama "had not had any impact worthy of the award" ^[3]
• Even Obama's supporters questioned the decision - Many of his own supporters believed "the prize was a mistake" ^[3]
• The committee's strategic motivations - Sources indicate the committee "hoped the award would strengthen Mr Obama" ^[3], suggesting political calculations beyond traditional merit-based criteria
• Historical context of previous recipients - The Nobel Peace Prize had traditionally been "given to political dissidents and freedom fighters with long histories of great personal sacrifice against brutal oppression," making "Obama's record, though laudable, thin in comparison" ^[4]
• Later regret from Nobel officials - A Nobel secretary later expressed regret about the Obama peace prize ^[3]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks about the criteria. However, it lacks important context that would provide a complete understanding:

• The question implies standard, merit-based criteria when the 2009 award was notably controversial and potentially motivated by the committee's desire to influence Obama's presidency rather than recognize past achievements
• Missing the temporal context - Obama received the award very early in his presidency, before substantial peace-related accomplishments could be evaluated
• No acknowledgment of the exceptional nature of this particular award compared to historical precedent, where recipients typically had "long histories of great personal sacrifice" ^[4]

The analyses reveal that while the official criteria were clearly stated, the actual decision-making process involved considerations beyond traditional merit, making the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize one of the most controversial in the award's history.