- #106
- 10,123
- 137
I am saddened at seeing how the current committee behind the Nobel Peace Prize does no longer understand the mandate they have been given by the will of Alfred Nobel, and the accrued tradition from previous committees and award-winners.
Well into the 1980s, and also 1990s, the tradition was alive and well, but in the 2000s, the Committee has veered into a number of positively strange decisions.
If we look at the first decade of the twentieth century, all prizes except for the 1906, went to representatives of organizations devoted to peace, international arbitration and/or de-armament (in addition to Dunant's prize in 1901, for the founding of the Red Cross).
The 1906 was awarded President T. Roosevelt for having effected several peace treaties, in particular that between Russia and Japan.
This pattern of either giving the prize to a "grass-roots" movement that has worked tirelessly for several years, for some important aspect of "peace", or to a politician who has succesfully negotiated some such peace, has been recognizable well into the 1980s and 1990s:
To look at those from the 1980s:
Since the will of Alfred Nobel mentions the importance of working towards the "fraternity of mankind", to award human rights activists (working for EQUAL human rights, that is!) with the Peace Prize can hardly be said to violate the spirit behind the prize:
Universally recognized individuals like Lech Walesa (1983), Desmond Tutu (1984), Elie Wiesel (1986) and the 14th Dalai Lama (1989) appears on the list, along with organizations like:
1981: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1988: United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
, while the 1980 and 1982 went to peace activists like Esquivel, Myrdal and Robles.
The only significant politician to be awarded the peace prize was Costa Ricas president Sanchez in 1987, in particular for the peace accords signed in Guatemala that year.
The pattern from the first decade of the Prize's existence is entirely recognizable with that of the 1980s.
In the 1990s, one might well regard it as inauspicious trend that the following politicians were awarded the prize:
Gorbachev (1990), F. W de Klerk (1993 along with the hardly controversial choice Mandela), Arafat (1994) Hume&Trimble (1998)
More traditional prizes were given to Aung San Kyi (1991), Rigoberta Menchu (1992), Pugwash (1995), International campaign for the Ban on Landmines (1997) and Médecins Sans Frontières (1999)
In the 2000s, the old pattern has clearly been breaking up:
In 2000, South Korea's president Kim Dae-jung was awarded the prize for his "sunshine policy", in PARTICULAR for his attempts on rapprochements with..North Korea!
Somehow, to desire accomodation with an extremely oppressive regime like North Korea was now to be hailed as working for "human rights".
In 2004, Wanghari Matthai gets the prize for tree-planting projects in Africa.
Surely a worthy project, but is this really in accordance with the tradition accrued to the Peace Prize??
Similarly with the 2007 prize to Al Gore, and the micro-financing projects from the Grameen Bank in 2006.
The prize in 2005 for the International Atomic Energy Agency seems rather odd, as well.
With the 2009 prize to a President for his ability to generate enthusiasm and high hopes, rather than any concrete results, the Nobel Committee has shown itself determined to play politics, and therefore, self-destruct into irrelevance.
A prize like the Nobel Peace Prize can only maintain its integrity by keeping true to its tradition, and to pick solid candidates of universal recognition for their work.
To play politics, which is the chairman Jagland's STATED justification, namely ("It is now that OBama has changed the climate, it would be "too late" to give it to him in 3 years time) is to seriously misunderstand the legacy he has been appointed to manage.
Since he is STILL an active politician, who just recently was appointed the head of the European Council (not to be confused with the EU), he has drawn serious criticism from the opposition that he cannot have this double role.
Hopefully, he will be pushed out of the Nobel committe, but since his political pupil, Jens Stoltenberg, is now the prime minister in a simple majority cabinet, it is not very likely.
The official 1901-2008 list of winners can be found here, with links to biographies, presentation speeches, etc:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.html
Well into the 1980s, and also 1990s, the tradition was alive and well, but in the 2000s, the Committee has veered into a number of positively strange decisions.
If we look at the first decade of the twentieth century, all prizes except for the 1906, went to representatives of organizations devoted to peace, international arbitration and/or de-armament (in addition to Dunant's prize in 1901, for the founding of the Red Cross).
The 1906 was awarded President T. Roosevelt for having effected several peace treaties, in particular that between Russia and Japan.
This pattern of either giving the prize to a "grass-roots" movement that has worked tirelessly for several years, for some important aspect of "peace", or to a politician who has succesfully negotiated some such peace, has been recognizable well into the 1980s and 1990s:
To look at those from the 1980s:
Since the will of Alfred Nobel mentions the importance of working towards the "fraternity of mankind", to award human rights activists (working for EQUAL human rights, that is!) with the Peace Prize can hardly be said to violate the spirit behind the prize:
Universally recognized individuals like Lech Walesa (1983), Desmond Tutu (1984), Elie Wiesel (1986) and the 14th Dalai Lama (1989) appears on the list, along with organizations like:
1981: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1988: United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
, while the 1980 and 1982 went to peace activists like Esquivel, Myrdal and Robles.
The only significant politician to be awarded the peace prize was Costa Ricas president Sanchez in 1987, in particular for the peace accords signed in Guatemala that year.
The pattern from the first decade of the Prize's existence is entirely recognizable with that of the 1980s.
In the 1990s, one might well regard it as inauspicious trend that the following politicians were awarded the prize:
Gorbachev (1990), F. W de Klerk (1993 along with the hardly controversial choice Mandela), Arafat (1994) Hume&Trimble (1998)
More traditional prizes were given to Aung San Kyi (1991), Rigoberta Menchu (1992), Pugwash (1995), International campaign for the Ban on Landmines (1997) and Médecins Sans Frontières (1999)
In the 2000s, the old pattern has clearly been breaking up:
In 2000, South Korea's president Kim Dae-jung was awarded the prize for his "sunshine policy", in PARTICULAR for his attempts on rapprochements with..North Korea!
Somehow, to desire accomodation with an extremely oppressive regime like North Korea was now to be hailed as working for "human rights".
In 2004, Wanghari Matthai gets the prize for tree-planting projects in Africa.
Surely a worthy project, but is this really in accordance with the tradition accrued to the Peace Prize??
Similarly with the 2007 prize to Al Gore, and the micro-financing projects from the Grameen Bank in 2006.
The prize in 2005 for the International Atomic Energy Agency seems rather odd, as well.
With the 2009 prize to a President for his ability to generate enthusiasm and high hopes, rather than any concrete results, the Nobel Committee has shown itself determined to play politics, and therefore, self-destruct into irrelevance.
A prize like the Nobel Peace Prize can only maintain its integrity by keeping true to its tradition, and to pick solid candidates of universal recognition for their work.
To play politics, which is the chairman Jagland's STATED justification, namely ("It is now that OBama has changed the climate, it would be "too late" to give it to him in 3 years time) is to seriously misunderstand the legacy he has been appointed to manage.
Since he is STILL an active politician, who just recently was appointed the head of the European Council (not to be confused with the EU), he has drawn serious criticism from the opposition that he cannot have this double role.
Hopefully, he will be pushed out of the Nobel committe, but since his political pupil, Jens Stoltenberg, is now the prime minister in a simple majority cabinet, it is not very likely.
The official 1901-2008 list of winners can be found here, with links to biographies, presentation speeches, etc:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.html
Last edited:
