Peace Nobel for OPCW

Skybird · 10-11-13, 06:49 AM

In principle, if the organisation would have really proven itself against resistance and in real challenges, it would be a decision that is okay, because the Peace Nobel Prize has been meant by Alfred Nobel to reward achievement sin demilitarization and military disarmament. Ecology, feminism, civil rights - all this has had the intention by Nobel being abused in the past. Not to mention the highly dubious winners of recent years, with the EU and Obama topping the hit list of absurdities.

However, there can be little doubt that the OPCW is given the prize now to boost its status in Syria. It is not a reward for past accievements. While by nature the work of the OPCW fits Nobel'S intention of "rewarding achievements in demilitarization", it has so far not proven itself in the face of real opposition and challenge, "working under fire", so to speak. So far it helped voluntary actors (countries) that wanted to get rid of their chemicals voluntarily, and did cooperate in that. Mostly we are taking about the heritage left after some civil war in some third world country ended.

Even that may not be seen as a serious obstacle to award the OPCW the Nobel. What spoils it for me is that once again the committee tries to not reward but to get actively engaged in politics by giving the price in advance - with regard to Syria - and merely hopes to push things at the direction the committee wants the to go. It is not the committee's duty or right to push things where it wants them to go. It is to decide past, proven, historic achievements. Anything else is a violation of the prize as it was intended by the founder.

The decision is not as questionable as the prize given to let's say Arafat, Gore, Obama or the EU. But due to the "Syrian intention" that by all reason due to the timing is springing into the eye and can almost be taken for granted, it sorts itself into the long line of other, weak decisions made by the committee. This decision today at least does nothing to restore some of the corrupted reputation of the prize.

One can tolerate the decision. Applauding it one must not.

Schroeder · 10-11-13, 07:25 AM

The peace prize has become a farce over the last couple of years. I just hope it doesn't damage the reputation of the other Nobel Prize categories.

Skybird · 10-11-13, 08:14 AM

If looking at the list of winners (wikipedia,), I need to go back to 1997 to find the last winner (International Campaign to ban Landmines) that could be tolerated if insisting on Nobel's definition of the peace award. Then 1987 Oscar Arias Sanchez maybe, for achieving substantial diplomatic advance in ending mututal military intervention and interfering in Central America. 1978, Sadat for the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for which he payed with his life.

I stopped looking before 1960.

There are plenty of names and candidates whose presence on that list simply is annoying, and an offence that caricatures the award's meaning. Most names seem to have nothing to do with the peace award's idea at all.

Women's rights, equality of whatever a kind, wanting a better world, ecology, stop planting terror bombs, medical aid, just debating a weapons-free world - all this should not qualify anyone for the Nobel peace award.

Jimbuna · 10-11-13, 08:14 AM

^ Agreed

Platapus · 10-11-13, 08:50 AM

I think it is important to recognize that there is a difference between the scientific and literary Nobel prizes and the Nobel peace prize.

The Nobel peace prize has always been political and should not be considered in any way, equal to the other five (since 1969) more academically aligned Nobel awards.

Skybird · 10-11-13, 09:02 AM

It should be seen as what it is, and should be by the intention of the founder: an award for significant achievements in demilitarization and arms reduction. Not more, not less, nothing else.

I mean you also do not win an Oscar for exceptionally managing a ski ressort.

eddie · 10-11-13, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

I mean you also do not win an Oscar for exceptionally managing a ski ressort.

10-11-13, 06:49 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,666 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Peace Nobel for OPCW In principle, if the organisation would have really proven itself against resistance and in real challenges, it would be a decision that is okay, because the Peace Nobel Prize has been meant by Alfred Nobel to reward achievement sin demilitarization and military disarmament. Ecology, feminism, civil rights - all this has had the intention by Nobel being abused in the past. Not to mention the highly dubious winners of recent years, with the EU and Obama topping the hit list of absurdities. However, there can be little doubt that the OPCW is given the prize now to boost its status in Syria. It is not a reward for past accievements. While by nature the work of the OPCW fits Nobel'S intention of "rewarding achievements in demilitarization", it has so far not proven itself in the face of real opposition and challenge, "working under fire", so to speak. So far it helped voluntary actors (countries) that wanted to get rid of their chemicals voluntarily, and did cooperate in that. Mostly we are taking about the heritage left after some civil war in some third world country ended. Even that may not be seen as a serious obstacle to award the OPCW the Nobel. What spoils it for me is that once again the committee tries to not reward but to get actively engaged in politics by giving the price in advance - with regard to Syria - and merely hopes to push things at the direction the committee wants the to go. It is not the committee's duty or right to push things where it wants them to go. It is to decide past, proven, historic achievements. Anything else is a violation of the prize as it was intended by the founder. The decision is not as questionable as the prize given to let's say Arafat, Gore, Obama or the EU. But due to the "Syrian intention" that by all reason due to the timing is springing into the eye and can almost be taken for granted, it sorts itself into the long line of other, weak decisions made by the committee. This decision today at least does nothing to restore some of the corrupted reputation of the prize. One can tolerate the decision. Applauding it one must not. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-11-13, 07:25 AM	#2
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	The peace prize has become a farce over the last couple of years. I just hope it doesn't damage the reputation of the other Nobel Prize categories. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

10-11-13, 08:14 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,666 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	If looking at the list of winners (wikipedia,), I need to go back to 1997 to find the last winner (International Campaign to ban Landmines) that could be tolerated if insisting on Nobel's definition of the peace award. Then 1987 Oscar Arias Sanchez maybe, for achieving substantial diplomatic advance in ending mututal military intervention and interfering in Central America. 1978, Sadat for the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for which he payed with his life. I stopped looking before 1960. There are plenty of names and candidates whose presence on that list simply is annoying, and an offence that caricatures the award's meaning. Most names seem to have nothing to do with the peace award's idea at all. Women's rights, equality of whatever a kind, wanting a better world, ecology, stop planting terror bombs, medical aid, just debating a weapons-free world - all this should not qualify anyone for the Nobel peace award. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-11-13, 08:14 AM	#4
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,678 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	^ Agreed __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

10-11-13, 08:50 AM	#5
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,381 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I think it is important to recognize that there is a difference between the scientific and literary Nobel prizes and the Nobel peace prize. The Nobel peace prize has always been political and should not be considered in any way, equal to the other five (since 1969) more academically aligned Nobel awards. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

10-11-13, 09:02 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,666 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It should be seen as what it is, and should be by the intention of the founder: an award for significant achievements in demilitarization and arms reduction. Not more, not less, nothing else. I mean you also do not win an Oscar for exceptionally managing a ski ressort. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 10-11-13 at 09:14 AM.