The Nobel Peace Prize; or Pissing on the Prose of Alfred B Nobel

When all else fails, read. Apparently, such Nobel pundits as Rush Limbaugh, Liz Cheney, and Glenn Beck don't really need to do that since it's much easier to fabricate the truth than to search for it, so I'm here to help them out. The Nobel Committee is very specific about its process. In the first instance, this is the nominating procedure for the Peace Prize:

Qualified Nominators
The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

In other words, almost anyone associated with a university in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter) can nominate anyone for a Peace Prize. That would, of course, eliminate Limbaugh, Cheney, and Beck, since they're not associated with any university. The deadline for all nominations is February 1st and the "Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for selecting the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian Parliament). The Committee's composition reflects the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting, and is assisted by specially appointed expert advisers." The fact that it came as a "surprise" shouldn't have been because unlike leaks in Washington, Nobel announcements were, are and always will be, well, secret.

But the key thing in establishing who is awarded a Nobel Prize, regardless of category, is based upon Alfred Nobel's will in which he wrote the following:

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. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part 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. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not.

In the area of peace, Nobel was patently clear that the award should be given "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."

It should be patently obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read what the Nobel committee looks for and what Obama has attempted to do since his inauguration that his actions fall within the purview of what Alfred Nobel deemed awardable vis-à-vis his will which is the basis for the Nobel committee's decision. It's absolutely unconscionable that the negative reaction to a sitting US President for receiving the Nobel Award would cause the Nobel Committee to defend its decision. No other country on the face of the planet would react so negatively to the granting of such an award as to cause the committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland to say, "We simply disagree that he has done nothing...He got the prize for what he has done." Jagland then went on to say, "My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous."

He further added that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel in his 1895 will. It is painfully apparent that such reactions are hedged in a kind of political hegemony promulgated by the far right that not only attempts to undermine Nobel's own dictate, but that presages a kind of vitriolic intolerance that undermines the entire principle on which the Peace Prize was founded and in large measure merely for the sake of corporate sponsorship. So, while Limbaugh, presumably immune to virus that is hubris, makes his case by screaming into a microphone and tugging at his polo shirt, the rest of us are left asking ourselves the question: Where's Ed Murrow when you need him?

Comments

[anonym MN]

So, the prize is to 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."

Then what peace conference or reduction in standing armies did the nobel awardees listed below achieve? The committee has long ago abondened Nobel's guidelines, which were written during a time of empires. Nobel's words are so dismissed that they are never even alluded to in the reasons for the awards.

If then guidelines are supposed to be meaningful then this award is even less credible as the process implies that as of Feb/09, Obama had these achievements in the bank. Take it for what it is, a political statement made by a small country with an agenda.

Partial list and some quotes for the awards.


Wangari Maathai: for "holistic approach to sustainable development that embraces democracy, human rights and women's rights in particular. "

Shirin Ebadi (iranian civil rights activist with little, if any, trans-border influence) "for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children."

14th Dalai Lama (aside from advocating for tibet... what exactly?)

Lech Walesa (fraternity? standing army reductions? peace conference?)

Rigoberta Menchú Tum: "in recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples"

[mjeffn]

goopers are angry because Bush and Cheney nominated themselves and did not win.

[PWM]

Good point.

[PWM]

And the GOPeers also think Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

[EugeneMorgan]

Of course Obama deserved it. Arafat got one. They seem to have similar feelings about Israel.

[PWM]

Arafat recognized the right of Israel to exist, breaking the long standing position of the PLO, which were a major obstacle to peace.

[BEHM777]

Thanks for the TRUTH. Interesting how little insight or editorializing is needed when the TRUTH is presented.

[annis]

It is so heartening to read your intelligent essay - and so discouraging to read half (4) the comments here.

[anonym MN]

Intelligent? Shouldn't the author check to see if the point he is making is actually valid? If the prize committe have given up on Nobel's words shouldn't the author be careful not to rely on those words to make his point?

Nobel clearly envisioned his award for politics and diplomacy that advanced peace, not civil rights and humantarian efforts. Over the past 25 years, the definition of "peace" grew to include humanitarism/civil rights along with not making war.

Ironic, the author is a professor of comparative literature but he never compared Nobel's words to the reasons given for the awards over the past 20 years. Had he done so he never would have rested his entire thesis on a long ago abondoned premise.

[gurukalehuru]

It is their prize to give. If someone gives someone a gift, it is really, really, really bad manners to criticize their choice, to say "Hey, why did HE get that, and I didn't"
I'm waiting for the Republicans to turn and run from the room, crying and shouting that nobody loves them.

[JMBrodie]

The GOP is having a Kanye moment.

[Foreground]

It might be more accurate to say that Kanye had a brief GOP moment.

[anonym MN]

you know, that's just funny. I had to chuckle.

[fallingsky]

the fallacy of this logic is that Pres Obama was nominated 12 days after he was inaugurated , thus the basis of the award , per Nobel, would be based upon those twelve days,,,therein lies the criticism, not from Rush and Beck and Hannity , rather from the academia of Britain, Germany, France et al.

[YankeeCanuck]

If that is so, then let the dissenting "academia" of those countries do as the Nobel committee suggested-- award their own prize.

[Foreground]

He kept John "Bomb Iran" McCain and Sarah "God Wanted Us to Invade Iraq" Palin from getting elected. That was a pretty hefty blow for World Peace.

[anonym MN]

Yes, but still not a peace conference, a reduction in standing armies or promotion of fraternity. unless it is enough not to be Bush, in which case the other two would have won as well...

[mjeffn]

yeah right. Obama materialized as a fully actualized adult just in time to run for President. Before that he didn't exist. Talk about fallacy and fallacious argument - sheesh.

[PWM]

I have yet to see any credible information on when or who nominated him. But the fact is that the committee does not work on merely what was presented but do their own investigation up to the moment they decide to debate who will get the award.

[berrycooda]

With all the problems with our economy...­maybe the committee
thought we could use the money.

One thing this has done for the President, is to put a heavy weight
on his shoulders.­..He has a lot to live up to.
With two wars and Iran...goo­d luck with the peace thing.
Russia is already saying we should go easy on Iran so that sounds like
there is more pressure than we need to deal with.
We are trying to have peace with Russia and have given up the shield that was supposed to go in Poland because of them....No­w they are giving advice on how to deal with Iran.
Good luck, Pres. Obama you have your work cut out for you.
and Congrats for bringing the Peace prize to America...­we need it.

[DaveVentura]

The writer claims that Obama got his award for what he has done since his inauguration (in others what he has done since the end of January of this year):
"It should be patently obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read what the Nobel committee looks for and what Obama has ATTEMPTED TO DO SINCE HIS INAUGURATION that his actions fall within the purview of what Alfred Nobel deemed awardable vis-à-vis his will which is the basis for the Nobel committee's decision."
However, the writer themselves quotes that the Nobel goes to what was done the PRIOR year - in other words what Obama did before his inauguration:
"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."
If the Nobel Peace Prize Committee gave the award to Obama for what he did this year, they violated Nobel's will if they based the award on what Obama has done since his inaguaration, while on the other hand if they awarded it based on what happened in 2008, that would mean running an election campaign is enough. At least with the likes of Arafat there was the signed Oslo accords and even that award I think came too soon if he should have gotten it at all. If Obama is going to be successful, why not award him after he at least has something signed like Arafat?

[PWM]

I agree. The critics are simply too lazy to visit the Nobel website to read the reason it was awared to him.

[propitiousmoment]

Excellent, thank you. It is unconscionable that the Nobel committee should have to defend this award. I can't believe that anyone could be so ignorant or small-minded as to question it.