News Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

[Pengwuino]

There were so many opportunities for powerful political and diplomatic wins here in declining the prize - it stuns me that Obama failed to do so.

BUT, it would remove all doubt that the Peace Prize is completely political. It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation and to people who have already received it who genuinely deserved it. If he accepts it, you can at least argue that it was simply a big big stretch to give it to him or at the worst, a mistake. If the recipient doesn't even accept it with these circumstances, that's even worse than saying it's a mistake IMHO.

I see it as saying, for example, how a referee calls something in a sport. If the referee makes a terrible mistake and let's say, people claim its because the referee favors one team, then that's fairly bad. However, if the team the call favored even said it was wrong, that brings the whole system into question; that even people who would benefit call attention to an error is huge.

 

[turbo]

Mister? That's a funny title for a bird.

Pairs of Mr. Pengwuinos have happily protected and incubated eggs and hatched and reared the chicks.

 

[Hurkyl]

It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

 

[lisab]

In the near future, President Obama will make a difficult decision about Afghanistan. How ironic will it be should he decide to send in ~40,000 more troops (quite possible, maybe even likely)?

And [STRIKE]I want to believe that this award will affect that decision[/STRIKE]...I really don't think it will.

oops, edit: I want to believe it *won't* affect that decision!

 

[Hurkyl]

And I want to believe that this award will affect that decision...I really don't think it will.

I want my elected leaders to make decisions based on available facts and designed to best achieve good^* goals.

A leader whose decisions are influenced by silly political stunts like this is exactly what I don't want.


*: I won't attempt a definition of "good"[/size]

 

[mheslep]

BUT, it would remove all doubt that the Peace Prize is completely political. It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation and to people who have already received it who genuinely deserved it. If he accepts it, you can at least argue that it was simply a big big stretch to give it to him or at the worst, a mistake. If the recipient doesn't even accept it with these circumstances, that's even worse than saying it's a mistake IMHO.

I see it as saying, for example, how a referee calls something in a sport. If the referee makes a terrible mistake and let's say, people claim its because the referee favors one team, then that's fairly bad. However, if the team the call favored even said it was wrong, that brings the whole system into question; that even people who would benefit call attention to an error is huge.

I agree - we are in the latter condition, and thus the need to take this opportunity to stop the slouch towards empty meaning. Obama could have done that today in an hour. It need not have been all critical either. Presidents, good ones, are adept at saying 'look how great this could be' without scolding.

 

[turbo]

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

I'm with you on this one. Obama could have said something like "I have not accomplished enough to warrant this prestigious honor, and I ask that the committee please accept my heartfelt appreciation, and choose an alternate recipient. Please choose somebody who has already accomplished much to advance world peace, and who might have some financial constraints limiting their work that this prize might alleviate, so that they can continue their work, and perhaps expand their influence and magnify the good that they have already accomplished." No harm, no foul. Obama comes off as gracious (when is he not?), the committee gets to continue their work and re-evaluate the nominees, and everybody (including Obama) benefits when the award is made. If a woman in a Muslim regime like Indonesia or a repressive state like Myanmar got the prize for trying to secure basic freedoms for other women or dissidents in general, would that be so bad? Just think - $1.3M is going to go a hell of a lot further in a 3rd world country than it would here. Sometimes, establishing little pockets of freedom and justice can advance the cause of a greater peace, since terrorism is so frequently brewing in places that enjoy neither.

 

[mheslep]

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

Exactly

 

[lisab]

I want my elected leaders to make decisions based on available facts and designed to best achieve good^* goals.

A leader whose decisions are influenced by silly political stunts like this is exactly what I don't want.


*: I won't attempt a definition of "good"[/size]

Oops, see my edited post.

 

[rootX]

He is too sexy when he is on the stage.

Or,

maybe judges wanted to have influence on Obama's future decisions.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm with you on this one. Obama could have said something like "I have not accomplished enough to warrant this prestigious honor, and I ask that the committee please accept my heartfelt appreciation, and choose an alternate recipient. Please choose somebody who has already accomplished much to advance world peace, and who might have some financial constraints limiting their work that this prize might alleviate, so that they can continue their work, and perhaps expand their influence and magnify the good that they have already accomplished." No harm, no foul. Obama comes off as gracious (when is he not?), the committee gets to continue their work and re-evaluate the nominees, and everybody (including Obama) benefits when the award is made. If a woman in a Muslim regime like Indonesia or a repressive state like Myanmar got the prize for trying to secure basic freedoms for other women or dissidents in general, would that be so bad? Just think - $1.3M is going to go a hell of a lot further in a 3rd world country than it would here. Sometimes, establishing little pockets of freedom and justice can advance the cause of a greater peace, since terrorism is so frequently brewing in places that enjoy neither.

This is thinking only about the present though. What about next year? or the year after? Unless you're idealistic like you're being and they give it to someone who is unquestionably worthy of the prize, you'll have controversy over its awarding since now the political factor will be even more apparent.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is thinking only about the present though. What about next year? or the year after? Unless you're idealistic like you're being and they give it to someone who is unquestionably worthy of the prize, you'll have controversy over its awarding since now the political factor will be even more apparent.

Er, I do want them awarding the prize to someone who is unquestionably worthy.

 

[Pengwuino]

Er, I do want them awarding the prize to someone who is unquestionably worthy.

Except it's already known they don't and haven't at times. This just makes it worse.

 

[mheslep]

I toss my shoe, steel toed boots, and everything else nearby at the smug Crowley:

Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/state-dept-better-to-get-thrown-accolades-than-shoes.php

 

[lisab]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

OK, I just checked my hotmail account and I got the same letter. But I don't understand the subject title: "Not the first, but the last". Huh?

 

[arildno]

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

 

[Astronuc]

Nobel Peace award stuns even O aides
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/nobel_peace_award_stuns_even_aides_Yve8xmY1IsSd2Au9azigJJ

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded yesterday to President Obama in a stunning choice that left much of the world wondering why the committee chose to bestow the honor on the new president.

The predawn announcement from Oslo, Norway, even shocked the White House.

"It's not April 1, is it?" one incredulous presidential aide said when told of the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision by an ABC News correspondent.
. . . .
The president said he was "surprised and humbled," and conceded that the critics had a point.

"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," he said.

"I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."
. . . .

So it seems Obama will accept the award. I'm interested to see 'how he leads the nation in confronting the challenges of the 21st century.'

Analysis: A great prize, but will it help goals?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091010/ap_on_an/us_obama_nobel_analysis
Ummm -what goals?

Are these really the goals - rid the world of nuclear weapons, to forge Mideast peace and stabilize Afghanistan, to halt climate change?

The widespread reaction, however, when the stunning news hit the nation was: For what?

Yep.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is an interesting observation in an AP analysis:

Comments from Nobel committee members revealed that they fully intended to encourage, not reward. Consider this: The nomination deadline was only 12 days after Obama first entered the Oval Office. It's an enduring myth that the prize is only about accomplishment — it actually was created as much to supply momentum for peace as to celebrate it.

Indeed, with a leftist slant, the five-member committee was applauding Obama as much for what he's not — his predecessor. Former President George W. Bush was much reviled overseas for "cowboy diplomacy," the Iraq war and his snubbing of European priorities such as global warming.
. . . .
"I hope it will help him," Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said of the award. "Obama is the right man at the right time, and that's why we want to enhance his efforts."

Ref: Analysis: A great prize, but will it help goals?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091010/ap_on_an/us_obama_nobel_analysis


I think it extraordinarily bad precedent to award the prize in hopes of future action that may or may not occur or be successful. Everyone should be working towards the "fraternity of humanity", but certainly some work harder at it than others, even putting their lives on the line to establish peace or justice or goodwill . . . .

 

[arildno]

This is the work of Mr. Jagland, who not only was appointed to the Comittee this year, but was straight ahead made Chairman (VERY unusual in the history of the Comittee).

While the comittee members generally have been politicians, they have tended to be RETIRED politicians, or who have primarily made their names outside of politics.
(In the 50's the chairman was Gunnar Jahn, a top-notch economist, and in the 1990's, Francis Sejersted, primarily known as a professional historian).

Thus, the prize has been unfortunately politicized, and the strong ties Mr. Jagland has with our current Prime Minister shows that the Labour Party has descended to the level of augmenting its own prestige by "forcing" Mr. Obama to come to Oslo by awarding him the Nobel Prize and make the hosts proud of themselves..

 

[russ_watters]

These threads have been moving far too fast for me to make much of a useful contribution, but I was also surprised by the physics prize being awarded for decades-old inventions.

 

[russ_watters]

Jimmy Carter is an interesting case too:

Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/11/carter.nobel/index.html

 

[arildno]

These threads have been moving far too fast for me to make much of a useful contribution, but I was also surprised by the physics prize being awarded for decades-old inventions.

The Peace Prize is, in accordance with the will of Alfred Nobel, to be awarded by a committee of 5 members appointed on six-year terms by the Norwegian Parliament, and is not in any way institutionally related to the Swedish Academy that deals out the other prizes.

 

[waht]

more mishaps:

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Comments from Nobel committee members revealed that they fully intended to encourage, not reward. Consider this: The nomination deadline was only 12 days after Obama first entered the Oval Office. It's an enduring myth that the prize is only about accomplishment — it actually was created as much to supply momentum for peace as to celebrate it.

This seems a bit silly. I am quite certain that a major reason for the prize is to encourage but I have always seen it as encouraging further work by someone who has shown a capacity to accomplish their aims.
edit: They may as well give one to Kim Jong Il to encourage him to not be a petty dictator.

I was a bit surprised by this but not much really. So many people seem to be truly "taken" with the man. I like him myself. Things like this though just seem to reinforce the 'messiah' image that Rush and the like attribute to Obama. It even made me think of the people who think that he is the anti-christ who will supposedly be loved by all the world. Maybe I should start building a shelter before 2012 gets here.


Nice title by the way Arildno.

 

[Astronuc]

I am quite certain that a major reason for the prize is to encourage but I have always seen it as encouraging further work by someone who has shown a capacity to accomplish their aims.

I am afraid with logic such as encouraging further or rather future work, one might imagine that the Peace Prize could be awarded Osama bin Laden and/or al Qaida if they state that they have decided 'not to attack' the US or other nations/peoples.

I'd like to see bin Laden and al Qaida (and Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, . . . . ) disarm and renounce violence - but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Pinu7]

The Peace Prize is, in accordance with the will of Alfred Nobel, to be awarded by a committee of 5 members appointed on six-year terms by the Norwegian Parliament, and is not in any way institutionally related to the Swedish Academy that deals out the other prizes.

Yeah, but Nobel willed that his other prizes(including the one for Physics) should be awarded within a year of discovery. However, the committees have disobeyed this rule only awarding the prize to those scientists with noncontroversial contributions to enhance their own "prestige" instead of those scientists ,that actually deserve it, sooner.

 

[arildno]

Yeah, but Nobel willed that his other prizes(including the one for Physics) should be awarded within a year of discovery. However, the committees have disobeyed this rule only awarding the prize to those scientists with noncontroversial contributions to enhance their own "prestige" instead of those scientists ,that actually deserve it, sooner.

Having looked a bit, I found the following excerpt of the will here:

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

This holds for all prize winners, including th Peace Prize.

That the one-year limit is not very practical is quite another matter.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Jimmy Carter is an interesting case too:

Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq."

I remember that. I also remember thinking at the time that Carter had every right to be furious and to tell the Nobel committee where they could stick their prize, but he's too much the gentleman for that. Just look at it from his perspective: "We don't really think you've earned this on your own, but we wanted to use your prize as a method of political criticism directed at someone else."

 

[Hans de Vries]

I've seldom seen a Nobel price decision so warmly embraced by both right wing
and left wing world leaders alike:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2385339&postcount=52

So where is all the decline and fall?The decision is simply a reinforcements of the man's ideas and attitudes which
made a change for the better in the network of global political relationships.
Apparently they simply like it, agree with it and see him as a positive factor.

What makes me happy is the reaction of all these politicians and that again
gives me a bit of hope and it reassures me that the decision was right.
The Nobel price as a support, or "call to action", being embraced by global
leadership means that it's embraced as a "call to action" by them all and for
them all and that is what makes me happy.

So, and now you can all go on with the nitpicking...Regards, Hans

 

[arildno]

He hasn't done anything as yet, Hans.

That is the trouble.

The "improved climate" obamamaniacs blather about is their own sense of empowerment, i.e, it is an expression of their personal fantasies, not of realities forged by Mr. Obama.

Furthermore, what else could leaders of countries like Angel Merkel do than congratulate Mr. Obama?

Should they have said "he didn't deserve it"?

Heard about..diplomatic repercussions?


This is just like the fairy tale by H.C Andersen, "The emperor's new clothes":

All the courtiers and responsible adults clap their hands admiringly, praising the fine, almost translucent qualities of the emperor's new clothing.

Only the little child behaves irresponsibly, namely by shouting out: "Why is the emperor walking about nude??"