Not so prestigious or noble
The media often describe the Nobel Peace Prize as the world's most prestigious prize. That is, however, slightly bizarre for at least two reasons: first, there exists no system or set of criteria to rank prizes in various fields in terms of prestige.
Secondly, over decades, this Prize has been awarded to people and organisations that reveal a careless interpretation of Alfred Nobel’s short and precise will, if not a direct violation of what he intended his Prize to support.
A more benign interpretation could also be that it is prestigious because it has a focus on what is probably worldwide seen as the most noble or highest value, namely peace. Or, in a banal materialistic sense, that the huge amount of money accompanying the Prize makes it ’prestigious.’
A few introductory considerations
This article discusses what has gone wrong with this prize and how to rectify it to make it a truly prestigious peace prize. However, before we move into issues of substance, let me say this:
Firstly, I'm writing from the West, at a moment in Western history in which the word ’peace’ has become a taboo word, a word that you hardly hear anymore in research, politics, and the media. Thus, it is complicated to have a serious discussion about what peace is or could be and to assess in which ways the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded wrongly or, as I said, in violation of Alfred Nobel's will.
As indicated by statements made by some Western leaders in relation to the NATO-Russia conflict playing out in the tragic war in Ukraine, peace is now something you reach only by weapons, armament, deterrence and even warfare. And, if so, some past laureates would indeed qualify the Committee, however not Alfred Nobel.
If such an absurd or George Orwell-like definition of the concept of peace is applied and believed, few will see any problems with the Nobel Peace Prize. This argument is not as far-fetched as it may seem because the Nobel Peace Committee operates in a political environment in more than one way. More about that below.
Secondly, a word about my own relationship to the Nobel Peace Prize. The reader should know that I have been nominated for it a number of times without the slightest expectation of ever receiving it. Many peace academics who are much more qualified than I have also been nominated and never received it. The fact is that while other Nobel Prizes have often been given to innovative researchers and other academics, the Nobel Peace Prize has never been awarded to a peace scholar (but to lots of (Western) politicians, diplomats, organisations, etc).
Thirdly, I have been engaged in this issue since 2007. In that year, I served as a visiting professor at Nagoya University in Japan, and my Norwegian friend, TFF associate, peace worker and lawyer, Fredrik Heffermehl, and I began to correspond across the globe why Al Gore, Bill Clinton’s Vice President 1993-2001, received that year’s Nobel’s Peace Prize for his work for the environment. After all, he had been co-responsible for the US violence wrought upon Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan under the Clinton administration.（https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-nobels-will-2/）
Since we both thought that this was a gross violation of the will of Alfred Nobel, we decided to start an investigation and a public education process, seeking to enlighten the world about just how grossly the words in Alfred Nobel’s will and the broader intentions were ignored, if not also violated in legal terms too.
Fredrik Heffermehl, who sadly died in late 2023, did 99% of the work from 2007. He did meticulous research and wrote two now classical books about the Prize, the second of which was published right before his passing - The Real Nobel Peace Prize. A Squandered Opportunity to Abolish War. All about it here. (https://realnobelpeace.org/)
In short, I'm not a newcomer to the field, but I'm also not one who has spent over 15 years doing research, including in the archive of the Nobel Committee in Oslo, as Heffermehl did. But I have supported his work intensely over the years, published his shorter works and written many shorter articles myself. And I remain seized with the matter.
What Alfred Nobel wanted and wrote
In 1895, Alfred Nobel (1833～1896), who was a wealthy Swedish industrialist and the inventor of dynamite,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel)
divided his donation into parts, e.g. for literature and medicine, and listed them in his will. Here his words on the part allocated to peace - clear and short: ”… and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” He adds that the prize ”for champions of peace [shall be awarded] by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting.”(https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-nobels-will-2/)
That’s all.
It should be enough to understand what the inventor of dynamite had in mind - regretting perhaps his explosive invention - and taking into account that he was strongly influenced by and a friend of Bertha von Suttner (1943～1924), who was an Austrian-Bohemian noblewoman and famous for her work for peace with her pacifist novel, Lay Down Your Arms! She also became his secretary in Paris, where he signed his will.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_von_Suttner)
Let’s dwell a bit on the main words in his formulation: fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, for holding or promoting peace congresses, and he or she or the organisation must be a champion of peace.
Clearly, what Alfred Nobel wanted with his prize was to contribute to demilitarisation, disarmament, army abolition, global friendship, peace through negotiations, and the like. He wanted to reduce the potentials and resources that go into militarism, war planning and warfare.
The first thing one observes, therefore, is that - within his legal will - his prize can not go to human rights advocates, environmental activists or researchers, or to women's issues, humanitarian work or organisations like the EU that received it in 2012; all EU members uphold standing armies and arms factories, and some have and others host nuclear weapons.
His precise definition should also prevent the widespread thought that the Prize can be awarded as a general Do-Good Prize. But the fact is that very few people who deal with the Nobel Peace Prize, for instance, once a year when it is revealed who the laureate will be, have never read the lines above.
Many people do wonderful work in this world, but it doesn't mean they should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, which has a distinct and well-formulated goal.
A will written in 1895 may have to be adapted over the years to what peace and the challenges to peace are today. It can be argued that it is also essential to work for peace with Nature and peace among cultures or genders. But Alfred Nobel had a specific dimension of peace in mind - not an everything-peace concept.
Hence, in legal and moral terms, the Committee is tasked with respecting his words and can not deviate from the original intention written into his will.
If a person or organisation has done reward-worthy work for human rights, there are several human rights prizes worldwide; the same applies to many other fields. However, only one globally known prize is defined as serving to reduce military violence worldwide, namely Alfred Nobel’s.
The Nobel Committee’s political, expertise-defying composition and role
You’ve read Nobel’s words above to the effect that the Prize ”for champions of peace [shall be awarded] by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting.”
Noteworthy is that the Norwegian Storting (Parliament) shall select five persons to form the decision-making Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Alfred Nobel does not state that the Committee shall be composed of members of the parliament.
Given that all other Nobel Prizes are decided by experts in the respective fields - for instance, the one in Literature by the Swedish Academy - it is indeed conspicuous that the Norwegian parliament from Day One decided that the majority of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee members should be MPs.
Find here the present (2024) composition of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:(https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/)
By the way, it is strange that there are photos and names but not even the shortest CV on the official homepage. But here are the basic facts about them elsewhere:
Jørgen Watne Frydnes, the Committee chairman, is Secretary-General of the Norwegian PEN; he has a bachelor's in political science and a master’s in international politics, has held various NGO positions related to human rights.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rgen_Watne_Frydnes)
Asle Toje, Deputy leader of the Committee, is Cambridge-educated, PhD with a thesis on “American Influence on EU Security Policies.” According to Wikipedia, he belongs to the neoclassical realism school, and he is best known for the "transatlantic bargain" thesis: that the US presence through NATO and European integration in the form of the EU constitutes a so-called "integrated complex.”(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asle_Toje)
Anne Enger, member, is a former MP, leader of the Centre Party and former Minister of Culture.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Enger)
Kristin Clemet, member, is a former MP for Norway’s Conservative Party, Bachelor of Commerce, former political advisor in the Ministry of Industry and Minister of Government Administration and Labour.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Clemet)
Gry Larsen, member and former Norwegian politician for the Labour Party, now general manager of the Grieg Group’s holding company, board member of the World Wildlife Fund and Oppsal Football Club.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gry_Larsen)
Olav Njølstad, secretary, is a Norwegian historian, biographer and novelist, director of the Nobel Institute.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olav_Nj%C3%B8lstad)
What to make of this?
First, none of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee members has any expertise in peace - peace philosophy, peace education, peace research, peace-keeping, peace-making, peace theory, peace culture, peace activism, peace politics - or peace as defined in different cultures.
And as far as we know, none have been on the ground in a conflict zone, analysed conflicts and contributed to peaceful solutions through peace mediation or other peace-making methods.
Secondly, even if a general expertise in peace were present, there is no evidence - judged from these Wikipedia pages - that the Committee members have any particular, relevant knowledge about or experience in the specific, limited war- and militarism-reducing definition which Alfred Nobel defined so clearly and aimed to reward.
Next, imagine that three ex-MPs and two academics from other fields awarded the prize in physics, literature or medicine?
How prestigious - rather than amateurish - would that be felt by the world? How serious would the respective professions have perceived if that was the case?
The truth is that official Norway, a member of NATO, long ago hijacked the Nobel Peace Prize and let politicians decide who to choose as if peace does not require any expertise, as if peace was not a science with a body of knowledge, and as if peace was something everybody could be an expert in without education or experience.
There is a very interesting introduction to the Committee on the official Nobel Peace Prize homepage: (https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-committee/)
”According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the prize to champions of peace is to be awarded by a committee "of five persons, to be elected by the Norwegian Storting". The rules subsequently adopted by the Storting state that the members of the Nobel Committee are elected for six year terms, and can be re-elected. As far as possible, the composition of the Committee is to reflect the relative strengths of the political parties in the Storting.” (My italics).
This last sentence clearly shows how closely - and politically - the Nobel Committee is related to the Norwegian parliament; Nobel never said a word about that relative strength - and we may also ask why that balance would have any impact on the work to find the best ”champion of peace.”
Nowhere is there any discussion of the fact that Alfred Nobel never stated that the awarding Committee should consist of MPs. He stated that the Committee’s five members should be elected by the Norwegian Storting; he did not write ”from or of the Parliament or among MPs.
In that light, the words in the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation speak volumes about the mentioned hijacking of Nobel’s Peace Prize away from every peace expertise and placing it, instead, in official Norway’s non-expertise parliamentary hands:
”The adjudication needed for the award of the Peace Prize shall be carried out by the committee of the Norwegian Storting referred to in the will, known as the Norwegian Nobel Committee.” (My italics).
Those legal terms, of course, are well-considered and deliberate. This secures, as it seems, that the Nobel Peace Prize will never be awarded on the basis of independence from Norwegian (and allies’) politics or on the basis of genuine peace expertise. One must also question whether any group of people from a small NATO country could be competent to decide about a prize that, by definition, is global in framework, scope and intentions?
In all fairness, the official Nobel Peace Prize homepage contains one article by Øyvind Tønnesson, ”Controversies and criticisms” which focuses on these issues.(https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/controversies-and-criticisms/)
What should have been done?
Very simple: The Norwegian parliament should have set up a selection committee and collected data about experts with different backgrounds from around the world and, based on that, select a Nobel Peace Prize Committee that did not consist of Norwegian ex-parliamentarians but of a wide variety of peace experts worldwide.
Instead, what we have today is the Norwegian Parliament’s Whatever Prize misusing Alfred Nobel’s name and ignoring his visionary intentions about a disarmament, more peaceful world.
And thus, the world’s peace movements have been deprived of the - allegedly - most prestigious prize.
Let us round off this argument by pointing out that the Committee occasionally has found laureates which fully qualify Alfred Nobel’s intentions and words. The Committee is not prevented from rewarding anti-militarism and disarmament work; the problem is, instead, that it feels entitled to hand out the prize to persons and organisations who do not qualify but fit Western political correctness even in contravention to Nobel’s clear will.
Among the highly relevant laureates one may mention Bertha von Suttner (1905), International Peace Bureau (1910), John Mott (1946), Philip Noel-Baker (1959), Dag Hammarskjöld (1961), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964), Alva Myrdal (1982), International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, IPPNW (1985), Michael Gorbachev (1990), Jody Williams (1997), International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (2017) and Nihon Hidankyo (2024).
First of all, here follow a few of the wrong-to-disastrous decisions that could have been avoided had Nobel’s will been respected: ILO (1969), Henry Kissinger (1973), Mother Theresa (1979), Elie Wiesel (1986), Shirin Ebadi (2003), IPCC (2007), Martti Ahtisaari (2008), Barack Obama (2009), Liu Xiaobo (2010), the European Union (2012), Malala Yousafzai (2014), Maria Ressa (2021), Dmitry Muratov (2021), Ales Bialiatski (2022), Memorial (2022), Centre for Civil Liberties (2022) and Narges Mohammadi (2023).
Secondly, of the 112 prizes awarded between 1901 and 2019, 76 went to the US (21) and European recipients. Heffermehl has also identified who ought to have received the prize. As for the US, Heffermehl concludes that 44 Americans would have quaified according to Nobel’s will and could have received it during this period and that only 4 of those who did receive it were in compliance with Alfred Nobel’s will.
[Fredrik Heffermehl, The Real Nobel Peace Prize, page 350].
Thirdly, it should be clear that the Nobel Peace Prize is basically a Western prize and a prize for - fellow - politicians. While it has been awarded to many ”dissidents” in the East, very few Western ”dissidents” have received it, e.g. people who have worked intensely against US/NATO wars and interventions. Daniel Ellsberg would be an obvious candidate.
In addition, politicians traditionally tend to believe that their own kin are the true peace-makers. Today, however, the argument is related to the above-mentioned idea that peace goes through armament, offensive deterrence, war planning and, if necessary, war-fighting - not through, e.g. diplomacy, the UN and its Charter as well as other provisions of international law or through research, education, dialogue, mediation, UN peace-keeping, etc.
Peace, understood more deeply as the reduction of all kinds of violence, is considered outdated, at least in the Western world, i.e. among roughly 11% of humankind. And that is where the Nobel Committee operates.
Furthermore, it has - as mentioned - never been awarded to a scholar, peace philosopher, theoretician or peace and conflict researcher who has done the best work for directing the world in a less violent direction.
For instance, Gandhi (1869-1948) did not get it, and it was argued after his death that the Committee did not award the prize posthumously; however, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld was awarded the prize - very well deserved - after he was killed in 1961.
Among others who would qualify but never got - or will get - the Nobel Peace Prize, I would mention Johan Galtung, Daniel Ellsberg, Elise and Kenneth Boulding, Richard Falk, Olof Palme, Julian Assange, David Krieger, Gene Sharp, Daisaku Ikeda, numerous local or regional peace movements - to just mention some within the West.
Fourthly, let me round this off by quoting Heffermehl’s summary - a good two months before he died - of his monumental analysis, by some considered the most important book ever written about the Nobel Peace Prize:
He writes that, by September 2023, ”the Norwegian Nobel Committee continues to develop its own prize ”for peace” and ignore Nobel’s specific description of his purpose. Norway’s Parliament has voted twice, unanimously to (save two votes), not to let its selection of award committee members be governed by Nobel’s purpose. The Swedish Nobel Foundation has failed the legal duty of a superior to instruct and control its Norwegian subsidiaries and it never implemented the changes required by the Swedish authorities in 2012.
This cannot continue, it is time to see the world’s military as the common enemy of mankind and start discussing how we can liberate ourselves from its occupation of everyone and everything…” (page 346).
It should not continue but it probably will: Why?
Based upon Fredrik Heffermehl’s experience and on my own, I would say that it will be rather difficult to change this - failed - prize for the following reasons:
● It is placed very firmly in the hands of official political Norway.
● The Nobel Peace Prize Committee oozes old-fashioned modes of operation - just look at the environment in which its members work and are photographed on its homepage; there is something unchangeable about it all: the vested interests and the old, well-established ’group think.’
● It is thus a political prize - with some flexibility to also do the right thing like in 2024 - but NATO Norway would be hesitant, particularly in these tense, dark Cold War times, to change towards Alfred Nobel’s intentions.
● The overall conceptualisation of peace is mainstream and realist and considers disarmament, the abolition of armies and nonviolent action and politics ’unrealistic.’
● The media have hardly ever engaged in a serious discussion; for many years, when media asked me to comment on this or that choice, I found out that virtually no one had read Nobel’s will; they mostly thought it was a Do-Good prize.
● The peace movement has grossly been uninterested or ignorant of the deception and their being deprived of this prize; it seems that they do not think it is worth fighting for.
● Those who have engaged seriously in criticising the Committee’s work have been marginalised, ridiculed and heard their motives questioned. Fredrik Heffermehl’s deep multi-year commitment to the issue is - irrespective of its analytical quality - the example above all.
This does not mean that the struggle for a decent, legal and systematic respect for Alfred Nobel’s words and intentions should be given up. It only means that the present Nobel Peace Committee’s solid anchoring in the Norwegian state-political structures is not easy or quick to change.
For those who receive the Nobel Peace Prize, the prize is an enormous recognition and boost of their future activities, potentials and energies. However, we are unaware of any study that has tried to measure the concrete impact, if any, of the Nobel Peace Prize worldwide.
It seems as if the world is only interested in peace when the prize is announced and when it is awarded on December 10 in Oslo.
Perhaps its importance - its prestigiousness - is quite overestimated?
While it was considered uncontroversial before, we have managed to create a certain amount of debate around it. As with every other struggle for change, one can choose to criticise and be against something; one can also have a vision of something new and different and work for it.
Fortunately, some new and smaller initiatives point in the latter, more constructive, direction.
There are many smaller peace prizes worldwide - smaller in the sense that they offer no or minor sums, are more local, and reach local constituencies, whereas the Nobel Peace Prize is world-renowned, comes across as very ”classy” or posh and awards a huge sum.
Wikipedia offers a list of almost 70 prizes, all of which are quite well-known to larger audiences - albeit not as much as the Nobel Peace Prize.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peace_prizes)
Perhaps hundreds or one thousand smaller peace prizes worldwide will do more good in the real world than that of the Nobel Committee, which hands out US $ 1 million to one person or organisation once a year - and seems to be forgotten in between?
One such alternative prize has existed for quite some time but is now terminated. That is ”The People’s Prize for Peace,” which was awarded between 2013 and 2020 by the Orust Peace Movement on the island of Orust outside Gothenburg in Sweden. (https://www.fredsrorelsen-pa-orust.se/fredsprishistorik2020.php)
The initiative for this prize was taken by the movement’s leaders, Ola and Erni Friholt, who were strongly inspired by Fredrik Heffermehl’s persistent work for a Real Nobel Peace Prize. They awarded this prize posthumously to Gandhi in 2015, to Johan Galtung in 2017, and to this author in 2013, as well as to Nordic politicians, activists and educators who had devoted their lives to the causes of true peace and nonviolence.
The People’s Prize for Peace did not come with any money but with a beautiful artistic trophy and document, a seminar with lectures by the laureate and others, a prize ceremony with poetry reading and an exquisite three-course dinner prepared by the local members - all interspersed by music and speeches from the audience. It was always held in an old school building in the countryside. It was humble, humorous and genuinely in the spirit of Alfred Nobel’s words and intentions.
And November 10, 2024, saw the founding of a new Real Nobel Peace Prize. All about it and about its first laureate, David Swanson, founder and director of World Beyond War in the US here:(https://transnational.live/2024/10/26/david-swanson-is-first-to-receive-the-real-nobel-peace-prize-for-2024/)
This new prize includes a one-day Nobel-like ceremony in Oslo and US$10,000 for the laureate.
The background is that, upon his death, Heffermehl left a fortune and a will that made it possible to establish a new Real Nobel Peace Prize. In this way, Fredrik Heffermehl now receives a kind of posthumous reward for his work, converting it from criticism of the existing fraudulent Norwegian government prize to a constructive alternative in both his own and Alfred Nobel's spirit.
So a sad story has a happy end with a promising new beginning, a new true peace prize.
In summary, peace - and peace prizes - develop both through criticism of what is - and what is wrong - and even more from developing constructive alternatives through ’positive’ ideas and actions.
The new prize signifies the latter - and it is not only true to Nobel’s and Heffermehl’s words and intentions but also to Galtung’s Diagnosis, Prognosis and Healing, Martin Luther King’s Beloved Community and Gandhi’s Constructive Program.
Alfred Nobel’s idea - as noble and urgently needed as ever - shall never be monopolised by any government since governments also monopolise military means, militarism, war planning and warfare.
So - let thousands of smaller real peace prizes bloom worldwide so the - not-so-prestigious Norwegian government Nobel Prize will find its place as just one among the many.
Editor | Qing He
Design | Demi
版权所有，侵权必究
欢迎个人分享，媒体转载请回复本微信号获得许可
