What specific initiatives did Obama cite in his 2009 Nobel lecture as reasons for the award?

1. What the Nobel Committee said — diplomacy, nuclear disarmament and climate

The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s press release and facts page list three concrete threads it credited: Obama’s efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples; his support for the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons; and his constructive role on climate change — all presented as a coherent new “climate” in international relations that the Committee hoped to encourage ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The presentation speech: “lowering the temperature” and broad initiatives

Chair Thorbjørn Jagland’s presentation speech framed the award as recognition of a suite of early initiatives rather than a single accomplished treaty: from outreach to the Muslim world and re‑engagement with multilateral institutions to rhetorical leadership inspiring cooperation on global challenges — phrased as “lowering the temperature in the world” and creating space for diplomacy ^[3].

3. What Obama said in his Nobel lecture about why he’d been chosen

In his December 10, 2009 Nobel lecture (full text published by the Nobel Foundation), Obama acknowledged the paradox of receiving a peace prize while a commander‑in‑chief and explained his balancing of force and diplomacy; the lecture underlined his emphasis on strengthening international institutions and seeking disarmament and human rights — themes that mirror the Committee’s reasons ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Specific policy initiatives mentioned in contemporary descriptions

Public and institutional summaries — including the Nobel facts page and U.S. diplomatic statements — pointed to Obama’s early diplomatic initiatives: outreach to foreign publics, renewed emphasis on arms control/non‑proliferation, and engagement on climate talks (including Copenhagen later that month) as the concrete policy moves the Committee said merited the prize ^{[1] [6]}.

5. How journalists and commentators framed those initiatives

Major outlets and commentators noted that Obama’s lecture and the prize highlighted tensions between war and diplomacy: his rhetoric about a “just war,” his defense of using force in limited circumstances, and his call for stronger international institutions and human rights reinforced why the Committee emphasized diplomacy and disarmament rather than a single treaty achievement ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

6. What the sources do not claim or detail

Available sources do not claim the Nobel was awarded for completed multilateral treaties or for the successful resolution of a specific conflict in 2009; rather, they frame the prize as recognition of initiatives, tone‑setting, and leadership that the Committee sought to encourage ^{[2] [3]}. Sources do not list a single legislative or diplomatic treaty as the decisive action covered in the Committee’s rationale ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Competing viewpoints and controversies noted in the record

Reporting and later commentary documented controversy: some political figures and commentators argued the Committee awarded the prize prematurely, saying the initiatives were still nascent and unproven; others defended the decision as a vote for tone and diplomatic possibility ^{[7] [9]}. The Nobel materials themselves emphasize the prize’s role in stimulating causes — an implicit acknowledgement that the Committee sought to bolster nascent policies rather than reward completed outcomes ^[3].

8. Why the Committee’s wording matters

The Committee used language that rewards “extraordinary efforts” and the creation of a new diplomatic climate, not specific, completed policy victories ^{[1] [2]}. That phrasing explains both the Committee’s choice and the political pushback: an award intended to encourage further action versus a retrospective honor for finished achievements ^[3].

Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided documents (Nobel pages, presentation speech, contemporary reporting). For claims beyond those texts — for example, granular details of internal U.S. policy moves or later assessments of outcomes — available sources do not mention them and further reporting would be required ^{[4] [1]}.