I’ve always been acutely interested in the Nobel Prize for Peace since the day I first discovered that it was pretty much an attempt by Alfred Nobel to buy back his reputation. As the inventor of Dynamite and Ballistite, he feared that his legacy would be that of a warmonger and arms profiteer – that his family’s good name would be forever tainted. So, with stunning insight into what we would now call PR, he decided to use his fortune to endow in perpetuity those prizes that now bear his name.
Leaving aside the fact that this is essentially an amusingly callow act, the Prize for Peace did it’s job and became almost universally respected as the premier badge of honour for statespersons of any kind, willing or accidental. In the last few years, however, there has been a general realisation of the power that the award bestows on it’s recipients – that it opens doors and grants a basis for argument in ways that were previously unavailable – that it also enables change. To a committee of those passionately interested in promoting peace, this is an opportunity that you really cannot miss, and so they started getting creative with the rules – started actively using it to empower agendas rather than rewarding success.
Logically, the next step in the discussion is to debate the pros and cons of such a decision, but I’m less interested in arguments like ‘it would be irresponsible to *NOT* make use of such an opportunity to mong peace’ or ‘it is not being applied correctly according to the rules the committee is bound too’. I’m more interested in the real and unintended effects of this course of action. I believe that by using the award in this way the committee members are rapidly spending the value of the prize – that soon all value built up over the years will be lost, and that the award will have no greater effect than trying to empower a diplomatic mission by waving an Oscar for Best Actor.
I think what I may be getting at is that if the committee really want to change the way the prize is allocated – to make it a tool for promoting peace, rather than a reward for achieving it – then maybe the change should be a smarter one; To create a new prize for hope and promise while keeping the existing one for it’s intended (and valuable) purpose – of rewarding success in the pursuit of peace.
Nobel rendered the prize to the level of Cracker Jack prize when it awarded Al Gore with one in 2007 for his awesome work on climate change.
Not stopping there, Nobel rendered the prize meaningless when it gave it to Obama for.. uh.. nothing.
If either of these two gentlemen had any honor, they would have rejected the award. But we knew they wouldn’t, didn’t we?
The Nobel Committee has insulted every past award winner for their amazing achievements and contributions. Being awarded with the prize now takes on a different meaning when the recipient realizes they are joining the ranks containing these two clowns.
What a farce and what an insult.
Thanks for taking the time to share your strong opinions, but I think you’ve pretty much missed my point. Perhaps you’d like to actually *read* the post now.
It is being presumptuous that I did not *read* your post.
I was responding to this :
“…the committee members are rapidly spending the value of the prize “
Fair point. Apologies.