Prince of Peace Prize
"(The Peace Prize shall 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 conferences."
Will of Alfred Nobel, signed Nov. 27, 1895
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by a committee of the Norwegian Parliament consisting of four women and one man, will be presented to President Barack Obama. Why was he chosen? Perhaps Obama, like music, " has charms to soothe the savage breast "(1), especially when the savage breast belongs to of one of the female members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
The prize will put Obama in the company of three previous US Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter). TR settled the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson proposed the League of Nations, and Carter brokered the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation (Egypt). . The Prize also went to Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese official Le Duc Tho in 1973 for settling the Vietnam War, which ended two years later in a Communist victory. Perhaps the most notorious example was the 1994 award to Yassir Arafat (2), who had previously devoted his life to murdering Israelis, and resumed doing so a few years later.
Although Obama's achievements in securing peace pale before those of TR and Carter, he has certainly promoted peace conferences, one of the activities Mr Nobel chose to honor. Barack Obama has, in the past few months, expended substantial political capital in a vain effort to jump-start talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority. (3) He has also adopted a less confrontational approach toward some other nations than that of his immediate predecessor, and maybe that was a key factor in his selection. The President himself admitted that he does not deserve the Prize, and many of his critics agree with him on that point, if no others.
One of the problems with the Nobel Peace Prize is that there is no waiting period between the activity honored and the awarding of the prize. Certainly the awards to Le Duc Tho and Arafat would not have been made several years later, in view of their subsequent actions against the cause of peace. The Catholic Church does not declare someone a saint until at least fifty years after the person has died, so that the candidate's works could be evaluated in the light of history. Nobel might have been well advised to follow the Church's example in awarding the Peace Prize, even if the waiting period were five or ten years.
But the more serious objection to the Prize is that while "holding and promoting peace conferences" are cited as activities to be honored by the award, even though conferences often do nothing for peace (4), other actions that really advance the cause of peace, like blowing away the Osirak Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (5), are not honored at all. When faced with an aggressive tyrant like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Sadam Hussein, the best way to seek peace is by resolute resistance to threats and aggression, rather than holding conferences or seeking "reduction of...armies" as advocated by Alfred Nobel.
Maybe there should be a new prestigious international prize to be awarded to the person, nation or group that took the right action at the right time to prevent or limit the destruction of war. But this new award should be made in retrospect, well after the consequences of such action will have become clear.
If only men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump would read this blog, perhaps they would be inspired to establish such a prize in their wills.
Meanwhile Barack Obama will join Mother Teresa as a Nobel Peace laureate. But, Barack, you are no Mother Teresa!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Mourning Bride, by William Congrave, 1697.
(2) Along with Yitzchok Rabin and Shimon Peres. In retrospect, none of them earned it.
(3) As Glazerbeam readers know by now, such talks are doomed to failure.
(4) The Versailles Peace Conference led to World War II, and the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference led to nothing, for examples.
(5) Menachem Begin, who ordered the reactor attack, had already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for the Peace Treaty with Egypt.
Will of Alfred Nobel, signed Nov. 27, 1895
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by a committee of the Norwegian Parliament consisting of four women and one man, will be presented to President Barack Obama. Why was he chosen? Perhaps Obama, like music, " has charms to soothe the savage breast "(1), especially when the savage breast belongs to of one of the female members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
The prize will put Obama in the company of three previous US Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter). TR settled the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson proposed the League of Nations, and Carter brokered the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation (Egypt). . The Prize also went to Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese official Le Duc Tho in 1973 for settling the Vietnam War, which ended two years later in a Communist victory. Perhaps the most notorious example was the 1994 award to Yassir Arafat (2), who had previously devoted his life to murdering Israelis, and resumed doing so a few years later.
Although Obama's achievements in securing peace pale before those of TR and Carter, he has certainly promoted peace conferences, one of the activities Mr Nobel chose to honor. Barack Obama has, in the past few months, expended substantial political capital in a vain effort to jump-start talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority. (3) He has also adopted a less confrontational approach toward some other nations than that of his immediate predecessor, and maybe that was a key factor in his selection. The President himself admitted that he does not deserve the Prize, and many of his critics agree with him on that point, if no others.
One of the problems with the Nobel Peace Prize is that there is no waiting period between the activity honored and the awarding of the prize. Certainly the awards to Le Duc Tho and Arafat would not have been made several years later, in view of their subsequent actions against the cause of peace. The Catholic Church does not declare someone a saint until at least fifty years after the person has died, so that the candidate's works could be evaluated in the light of history. Nobel might have been well advised to follow the Church's example in awarding the Peace Prize, even if the waiting period were five or ten years.
But the more serious objection to the Prize is that while "holding and promoting peace conferences" are cited as activities to be honored by the award, even though conferences often do nothing for peace (4), other actions that really advance the cause of peace, like blowing away the Osirak Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (5), are not honored at all. When faced with an aggressive tyrant like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Sadam Hussein, the best way to seek peace is by resolute resistance to threats and aggression, rather than holding conferences or seeking "reduction of...armies" as advocated by Alfred Nobel.
Maybe there should be a new prestigious international prize to be awarded to the person, nation or group that took the right action at the right time to prevent or limit the destruction of war. But this new award should be made in retrospect, well after the consequences of such action will have become clear.
If only men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump would read this blog, perhaps they would be inspired to establish such a prize in their wills.
Meanwhile Barack Obama will join Mother Teresa as a Nobel Peace laureate. But, Barack, you are no Mother Teresa!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Mourning Bride, by William Congrave, 1697.
(2) Along with Yitzchok Rabin and Shimon Peres. In retrospect, none of them earned it.
(3) As Glazerbeam readers know by now, such talks are doomed to failure.
(4) The Versailles Peace Conference led to World War II, and the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference led to nothing, for examples.
(5) Menachem Begin, who ordered the reactor attack, had already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for the Peace Treaty with Egypt.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 4:25 PM
1 Comments:
Regarding your footnote #3. It is incorrect to assert that all of the readers of your The Glazerbeam know that peace talks between the Israeli government and the Palestinians can never yield a lasting and secure peace; but only that the impossibility of it, is your contention. And no doubt there are many who ardently will agree with you, but only time will tell which position is correct. A lot of highly improbable things once declared unimaginably impossible, have been found to be ultimately quite the opposite, but only because there remained those who refused to surrender to their own lack hopeful vision.
Post a Comment
<< Home