The questionable value of the Nobel Peace Prize

[Skybird]

China has tried to intimidate states so that they will not send representatives to this year's peace Nobel prize, and it seems that at least five states, amongst them Russia, will not join the festivity indeed, for whatever the reason is, Chinese pressure or other. The price is being rewarded to political activist and dissident Liu Xiaobo, locked in prison since years for criticising the regime in Bejing. Since the decision of the Nobel committee, his wife is under house arrest, too.

Now, I certainly do not express sympathy for the Bejing regime to lock away Xiaobo. But I must say that although they are firing their criticism not for honest, but opportunistic reasons, they have a very valid point when saying the original intention of Nobel when founding the Peace Nobel prize is completely forgotten and distorted today. You can see that also in the long list of totally misled nominations for the pörize over the past many years.

Because Nobel did not meant the prize to be a reward or recognition of civil right movements, social reforms and taming of ethnic conflict, but precisely and exclusiovely for substantial acchievements on behalf of demilitarisation in the world. This and nothin g else was - and is - the exlcuisve intention of the prize. Now reflect some of the names that have received the prize nevertheless.

Let'S look back on just the last ten years.

2000 Kim Dae Yun was the winner, for "for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular". Was Nobel's intention to reward demilitarisation met? No.

2001, it was the UN and Kofi Annan, for "for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world". Not onmly does the UN fail it'S own inetention, it also fails regarding Nobel's definition of the prize'S criterion.

2002 Jimmy Carter, for "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." Acchieved Demilitarisation? Fail.

2003 Shirin Ebadi, for "for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children." Total and complete failure, these themes have nothing to do with arms reduction and demilitarisation. Fail.

2004 Wangari Mutha Maathai for "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". Fail. This has nothing to do with the intention of Nobel of rewarding acchievements regarding demilitarisation.

2005 the International Atomic Energy Agency and El Baradei, for "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way". Now, here we have a prize winner who by his aim and goal at least tries to fit into the category of "demilitarisation", but a prize is not given for hoped future develoepments, but for already acchieved imporvements. That the Agency was in any way successful to prevent proliferation and hinder states of getting access to nuclear weapons, not to mention to achieve the reduction of such arsenals, is open for debate.

2006 Muhammad Yunus, for "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work". The Nobel Peave Prize is not meant to award social work and social improvements. Fail.

2007 Al Gore, for "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Environmental protection agendas and demilitarisation are two different things. Fail.

2008 Maathi Ahtisaari, for "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts". Did he succeed in acchieveing demilitarisation? That is at least qustionable, I mark him mostly for his Israel-hostile basic attitude profound Islamophilia. Thus I tend to see hiom as a Fail, but okay, leave his award open for debate. If somebody can show where he succeeded in acchieveing demilitarisation or arms arsenals - feel invited to post it.

2009 Barak Obama, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Fail. He voiced an inention of "no nukes worldwide". Whether he meant it serious, or that is realistic, is something different, nor has he acchieved anything. The prize is no reward for cooperative diplomacy and intentions.

2010 Liu Xiaobo, for "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". Fail. The Nobel Peace prize is no human rights award.

Wik,ipedia holds a list of all Nobel winners, and the reason for their wins. Judge yourself how many of them fulfill the criterion of having achieved real demilitarisation, or showed sufficient intention and dedication for acchieving it. As I see it, most names are complete failures. The criterion of "demilitarisation" is not open for interpretation, as I see it. Only to what degree not only acchievements, but also just ongoing attempts and dedication for this goal could be considered sufficient, can be debated.

Now, a Norwegian lawyer named Heffermehl seems to have stirred up a controversy in Norwegian, when having attacked the misled practices of the Award committee in a book, calling the Nobel Peace Price a "Norwegian Parliament Price".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Heffermehl

I read aboiut him one or two weeks ago in a German essay. Ironically, I must agree with a Chinese article that summarises his agments like this:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has no respect for founder Alfred Nobel's will and the Peace Prize has actually been turned into the "Norwegian Parliament Prize," said Norwegian lawyer Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who has been studying the laureates and Nobel's will, to Xinhua.

"Prizes awarded no longer respect Nobel, who wished to support global disarmament," Heffermehl said. "On the contrary, the prizes (now) reflect the attitudes of Norwegian politicians who believe in military strength, loyalty to NATO, and subservience to the United States of America."

On October 8 the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo. Heffermehl said it was not a courageous move by the Nobel Committee.

"Again this year, even reminded of its legal obligation, the Nobel Committee did not dare to confront the force most powerful in world affairs – the military-industrial juggernaut," he said.

Nobel's will stipulates that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

"Very long ago, the committee forgot that Nobel made a fundamental choice of approach to peace, between two opposing ideas of security," Heffermehl said. "Instead of relying on strength and threats, Nobel wished nations to develop a deep mutual trust and abolish their military forces and arms industry."

Heffermehl accused committee members, which he said comprised of retired lawmakers, of ignoring the indisputable evidence of Nobel's will and the rule of law.

In his most recent book, "The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted," Heffermehl writes that the committee is free to make decisions without any instructions from Norwegian authority, but because most are retired politicians with a "Cold War mindset," they lack understanding of how Nobel wanted to promote peace. He criticizes Norwegian politicians and the Norwegian Nobel Committee's attitudes toward democratic ideas.

"The mission of the Nobel Committee is to help achieve a new level of civilization and rule of law on the international level and free humanity from the deadly grip of militarism," Heffermehl insisted. "I am sure that Norwegian lawmakers will soon realize that it is a legal obligation to appoint a committee of people dedicated to Nobel's ideas."

http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-1...t_21138688.htm

I stress again, I do not sympathise with the Chiense regime and quote it for that reason. But the way he is summarised here matches exactly he has been quoted and reported about in German media as well. You will note the indication that he has a slightly wider understanding of the Prizes' intention, than I have expressed before. If he would use my criterion, he would need to become even more biting in his criticism.

The two major books by Heffermehl are "Peace is possible" from 2000, and "The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel really wanted", from 2010.

As I see it, the Nobel Peace Prize is abused in two ways: not only is the original intention behind it violated in case of most nominations and winners, but also has it become a prgmatic tool of trying to push wanmted poltical agendas in given parts of the world, that way it is a strtaegy of action, not a reward for acchieved merits (whioch became painfully clear last year when the declared Obama the winner - for having acchieved nothing.

Nobel would turn in his grave.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nobel would turn in his grave.

What a waste of a noble (pun intended) idea.

[the_tyrant]

the nobel peace prize is a joke
its now the "annoy dictators prize"

[MH]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

the nobel peace prize is a joke
its now the "annoy dictators prize"

You mean Noble piss(them off) prize?

[SteamWake]

Lets see who was the latest recipient of this prize?

[Rockstar]

Question the value of the prize? Why not especially when it's named after someone who made a fortune on manufacturing military armaments. Nobel had absolutely no interest in promoting peace only the selfishness of his own legacy after his death.

Nobel Peace Prize? Try maybe the I Made a Fortune in Military Arms and Now Want You To Think Well of Me After I Die Prize.

[AVGWarhawk]

The last recipient of the prize leads me to believe this prize has become absolutely meaningless.

[tater]

The Nobel Peace Prize had meaning? Who knew?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Question the value of the prize? Why not especially when it's named after someone who made a fortune on manufacturing military armaments. Nobel had absolutely no interest in promoting peace only the selfishness of his own legacy after his death.

Nobel Peace Prize? Try maybe the I Made a Fortune in Military Arms and Now Want You To Think Well of Me After I Die Prize.

That is somewhat in opposition to how German Wikipedia describes his biography (with the English entry having nothing to say on his relation to the military and war):

Nobels Einstellung zum Krieg

Nobels zentrale Erfindungen Dynamit und Sprenggelatine waren entgegen weit verbreiteter Ansicht nicht zur Kriegsführung geeignet. Nur das rauchschwache Pulver Ballistit ist eine Ausnahme. Es revolutionierte die gesamte Schusstechnik, von der Pistole bis zur Kanone. Der Reichtum seines Vaters begründete sich vor allem auf dem Krimkrieg und dem Sezessionskrieg, an denen dieser mit der Herstellung von Minen verdient hatte. Nobel hasste den Krieg zwar, war aber der Meinung, eine besonders starke und schreckliche Vernichtungswaffe würde die Menschheit vom Krieg abschrecken und wollte seine Arbeit diesem Ziel widmen. 1894 kaufte er sogar den schwedischen Rüstungsbetrieb Bofors. Mit seinen Sprengstoffen wollte er das Schwarzpulver revolutionieren und das Werk seines Vaters verbessern, auch war sein Forscherdrang ein Faktor der Entwicklung.
Über diese Ansichten diskutierte er auch intensiv mit Bertha von Suttner, die 1878 auf Nobels Stellenanzeige die Stelle einer Privatsekretärin angenommen hatte, sie jedoch bereits eine Woche später wieder aufgab. Sie wurde später eine bedeutende Friedensaktivistin und vermutlich prägte der ständige Briefwechsel mit ihr wesentlich Nobels spätere Haltung zum Krieg und regte ihn zur Stiftung eines Friedensnobelpreises an, mit dem Bertha von Suttner 1905 ausgezeichnet wurde.

You maybe mistake him with his father who made a fortune by producing mines for the military.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I usually read Skybird's posts for their depth and insight. In this case, I needed only to read the title to agree.

The Nobel Prize has long since been transformed into a political tool.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I usually read Skybird's posts for their depth and insight. In this case, I needed only to read the title to agree.

You now can grab a laptop and then read the rest secretly in your cellar.

It's all in German, and ****.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Solace

It's all in German, and ****.

And - what...?

Google Bot Translation:

Nobel's attitude to the war

Nobel's dynamite and blasting gelatin key inventions were contrary to popular opinion not suitable for warfare. Only the smokeless powder Ballistit is an exception. It revolutionized the whole shooting technique, from the gun to the gun. The wealth of his father founded mainly on the Crimean War and the Civil War, where he had earned from the production of mines. Nobel hated the war, though, but felt a particularly strong and terrible weapon of destruction would deter mankind from war and wanted to dedicate his work to this goal. In 1894 he even bought the Swedish arms company Bofors. With his explosives, he wanted to revolutionize the black powder and improve the work of his father, even his inquiring mind, a factor of development.
On these views, he also discussed intensively with Bertha von Suttner, who had in 1878 adopted at the site of a job advertisement Nobels private secretary, but she already gave up a week later. She later became a major peace activist and probably the permanent correspondence with her impressed Nobels later attitude to the war and encouraged him to the foundation of a Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to Bertha von Suttner 1905.

[FIREWALL]

The NP like The International Olympics Commitie are both a Joke.

[Skybird]

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses", writes Wikipedia.

Let drive the name research a bit further. Some more of the more popular, well-known names of laureates.

1999 Medicines Sans Frontiers, for "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." - Fail by definition.

1994 Arafat, Rabin and Peres"to honour a political act which called for great courage on both sides, and which has opened up opportunities for a new development towards fraternity in the Middle East." - Sorry, wishful thinking only, not to mention that to me Arafat will never be anything else but a bomber, murderer and terrorist. Fail.

1993 Mandela and de Klerk, for "for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa." - Demilitarisation, arms control, peace between nations? Fail.

1991 Aung Saan Su Kyi, for "her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights." - Ha snothing to do with Nobel's intention. Fail.

1989 Dalai Lama, because "in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [he] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people." - He has not acchieved anything in saving Tibetan culture, which is subject to the systematic effort by the Chinese to eliminate it as an existing tradition and functional ethnic community (which btw qualifgies it as genocide by the UN defintiion of the term): Fail. This also does not meet the intention of Nobel: Fail again.

1986 Elie Wiesel, becasue he was "Chairman of "The President's Commission on the Holocaust". Fail.

1984 Desmond Tutu. "Bishop of Johannesburg; former Secretary General, South African Council of Churches." Fail.

1983 Lech Walesa. "Founder of Solidarność; campaigner for human rights." Fail.

1981 UN High Commissioner for refugees. "An international relief organization founded by the U.N. in 1951". - Fail.

1979 Mother Teresa. "Leader of Missionaries of Charity". - Fail.

1977 Amnesty International, for " protecting the human rights of prisoners of conscience." - Fail.

etc etc etc.



What choices of laureates do I fully agree with ?


1997 Jody Williams, International Campaign to ban Landmines, for "their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines".

1995 Jospeh Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences onSciences and World Affairs, "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and, in the longer run, to eliminate such arms."

1990 Mikhail Gorbatchev, "for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community."

1987 Oscar Maria Sanchez, "for his work for peace in Central America, efforts which led to the accord signed in Guatemala on August 7 this year".

1985 International Physicians for the Prevention of a Nuclear War, "For authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare. The committee believes that this in turn contributes to an increase in the pressure of public opposition to the proliferation of atomic weapons and to a redefining of priorities, with greater attention being paid to health and other humanitarian issues."

1978 Mohamad Anwar Al-Sadat and Menchem Begin, "for the Camp David Agreement, which brought about a negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel."

To stop here. Thjere are two or three more names in that time range where I am not certain what tzo think of them, but the discrepancy between failed and met qualifications of laureates is obvious.

There are quite many names who did remarkable things and efforts for the sake of noble intentions (and also some total non-starters). However, a Prize awarded should reflect the will and definition of criterions the founder of this Award has set, and it should not be given arbitrarily and for very different things, or for egoist motives in order to not reward somebody having acchieved something, but to project influence on demanded future developements.