The Nobel Peace Prize is a Joke
The recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama shows that the award really isn't about merit or accomplishment, but about making a political statement.
In 1994, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. What did he do to win the prize? After decades of being a terrorist leader, he basically made a promise to stop doing terrorism. That's right. Decades of terrorism, combined with a promise to stop blowing up innocent women and children, equals Nobel Peace Prize.
The awarding of Arafat the peace prize in 1994 showed that the prize was not so much about actual accomplishment, but, rather, about making a political statement. In that case, the Nobel Committee wanted to send a statement that they supported the accord that Arafat had reached with Israel. The accord hadn't actually done anything; and there was no evidence that Arafat would actually stick to the agreement (and later history showed that he, indeed, didn't abide by the agreement - never removing from the PLO/PA charter the call the remove Israel from the face of the earth; never reaching a final agreement with Israel, despite the many offers presented to him (including the one by Ehud Barak that gave the Palestinians just about everything they wanted, which caused the world to realize that Arafat was not really interested in a final peace agreement with Israel); and never abandoning terrorist activities, as later evidence showed that, while renouncing the terrorist group Hamas in public, in private he was secretly smuggling in arms for them).
Yet for the Nobel Committee, signing a piece of paper saying he promised to be good and stop blowing people up, with no actual evidence to show that that would be the case, was enough for them. The Nobel Committee wanted to send a message that they supported the peace accord, despite Arafat's long history of terrorism. The award that year was a political statement, not an award for actual accomplishments.
In 1989 the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And, while I wouldn't begrudge the Dalai Lama a Nobel Peace Prize; the timing of it, right after the Tiananmen Square incident in China (which opposes the Dalai Lama), again shows that the prize is a political tool more than an actual prize (though, admittedly, the Dalai Lama deserved it more than Yasser Arafat - and probably more than most who have received it).
And, of course, in 2007 Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Basically, he made a movie the year before about climate change and went around talking about it.
Now, I support Al Gore's work. And I'm glad he's doing it. But, again, a brief history in something that the Nobel Committee approves of seems to be more important than spending years or decades actually accomplishing something.
Which brings us to today's announcement about Barack Obama. Two weeks into his term as U.S. president, he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. And less than one year into the term, with no real accomplishments under his belt, he wins it.
According to the Associated Press, the Nobel Committee awarded it to Obama because:
In other words, it was because he brought a "new mood" and made "pledges" that he was awarded the prize. But not for any real accomplishments.
More telling, perhaps, is this statement by Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:
That just about says it all. Three years from now, when Obama might have some real accomplishments, it could be "too late" to respond, according to the chairman of the Nobel Committee. But now is the time to "respond."
Does that sound like an award to you? I mean, have you ever heard of giving out an Academy Award for a film in progress? Do they say, "Next year, after the film is made, it may be too late. Now is the time to give out the award, while they're still making the film"?
No, that would be absurd. Obviously, awards are only given out after the thing they're awarding is complete.
But political support - that has to be given at the right time, while the thing being supported is still in progress.
And thus, the Nobel Peace Prize, rather than being an award given to those who have actually accomplished something towards world peace, is really nothing more than a political tool - a way of giving a very big nod towards those people or movements that the Nobel Committee wants to see succeed - whether it be U.S. presidents, eco-filmakers, or terrorists.
It doesn't really matter what they've done. All that matters to the Nobel Committee is what the nominee PLANS to do. And if what they plan to do is big enough or great enough, then they are awarded the prize.
So, really, the Nobel Peace Prize is no prize at all. It's really more of a grant for future work - a way of saying, "We believe in you! We want you to succeed. And so here's a prize and some money to help you with that."
And that's what makes the Nobel Peace Prize a joke. As a political tool, it's very important and very weighty. But as a prize for actual accomplishments? It's nothing more than a joke.
Some interesting links:
An excellent article on past winners of the Peace Prize: http://www.redstate.com/cassandraeffect/2009/10/09/obama-joins-long-line-of-nobel-peace-prize-losers
An excellent video by Ron Paul about the award: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcDk-bNoc8
A very funny piece by Red State Update: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w9p7L4nS4g
A very interesting piece from The New Ledger: "Obama’s Nobel Prize: The World as Farce": http://newledger.com/2009/10/obamas-nobel-prize-the-world-as-farce/
In 1994, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. What did he do to win the prize? After decades of being a terrorist leader, he basically made a promise to stop doing terrorism. That's right. Decades of terrorism, combined with a promise to stop blowing up innocent women and children, equals Nobel Peace Prize.
The awarding of Arafat the peace prize in 1994 showed that the prize was not so much about actual accomplishment, but, rather, about making a political statement. In that case, the Nobel Committee wanted to send a statement that they supported the accord that Arafat had reached with Israel. The accord hadn't actually done anything; and there was no evidence that Arafat would actually stick to the agreement (and later history showed that he, indeed, didn't abide by the agreement - never removing from the PLO/PA charter the call the remove Israel from the face of the earth; never reaching a final agreement with Israel, despite the many offers presented to him (including the one by Ehud Barak that gave the Palestinians just about everything they wanted, which caused the world to realize that Arafat was not really interested in a final peace agreement with Israel); and never abandoning terrorist activities, as later evidence showed that, while renouncing the terrorist group Hamas in public, in private he was secretly smuggling in arms for them).
Yet for the Nobel Committee, signing a piece of paper saying he promised to be good and stop blowing people up, with no actual evidence to show that that would be the case, was enough for them. The Nobel Committee wanted to send a message that they supported the peace accord, despite Arafat's long history of terrorism. The award that year was a political statement, not an award for actual accomplishments.
In 1989 the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And, while I wouldn't begrudge the Dalai Lama a Nobel Peace Prize; the timing of it, right after the Tiananmen Square incident in China (which opposes the Dalai Lama), again shows that the prize is a political tool more than an actual prize (though, admittedly, the Dalai Lama deserved it more than Yasser Arafat - and probably more than most who have received it).
And, of course, in 2007 Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Basically, he made a movie the year before about climate change and went around talking about it.
Now, I support Al Gore's work. And I'm glad he's doing it. But, again, a brief history in something that the Nobel Committee approves of seems to be more important than spending years or decades actually accomplishing something.
Which brings us to today's announcement about Barack Obama. Two weeks into his term as U.S. president, he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. And less than one year into the term, with no real accomplishments under his belt, he wins it.
According to the Associated Press, the Nobel Committee awarded it to Obama because:
"They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change."
In other words, it was because he brought a "new mood" and made "pledges" that he was awarded the prize. But not for any real accomplishments.
More telling, perhaps, is this statement by Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee:
"Some people say — and I understand it — 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."
That just about says it all. Three years from now, when Obama might have some real accomplishments, it could be "too late" to respond, according to the chairman of the Nobel Committee. But now is the time to "respond."
Does that sound like an award to you? I mean, have you ever heard of giving out an Academy Award for a film in progress? Do they say, "Next year, after the film is made, it may be too late. Now is the time to give out the award, while they're still making the film"?
No, that would be absurd. Obviously, awards are only given out after the thing they're awarding is complete.
But political support - that has to be given at the right time, while the thing being supported is still in progress.
And thus, the Nobel Peace Prize, rather than being an award given to those who have actually accomplished something towards world peace, is really nothing more than a political tool - a way of giving a very big nod towards those people or movements that the Nobel Committee wants to see succeed - whether it be U.S. presidents, eco-filmakers, or terrorists.
It doesn't really matter what they've done. All that matters to the Nobel Committee is what the nominee PLANS to do. And if what they plan to do is big enough or great enough, then they are awarded the prize.
So, really, the Nobel Peace Prize is no prize at all. It's really more of a grant for future work - a way of saying, "We believe in you! We want you to succeed. And so here's a prize and some money to help you with that."
And that's what makes the Nobel Peace Prize a joke. As a political tool, it's very important and very weighty. But as a prize for actual accomplishments? It's nothing more than a joke.
Some interesting links:
An excellent article on past winners of the Peace Prize: http://www.redstate.com/cassandraeffect/2009/10/09/obama-joins-long-line-of-nobel-peace-prize-losers
An excellent video by Ron Paul about the award: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbcDk-bNoc8
A very funny piece by Red State Update: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w9p7L4nS4g
A very interesting piece from The New Ledger: "Obama’s Nobel Prize: The World as Farce": http://newledger.com/2009/10/obamas-nobel-prize-the-world-as-farce/
Comments
glad to see your blog is back!
So who do you think should have won? I say Emma! :D
By the way, you might want to do some more research into the whole anthropogenic global warming concept before you give Al Gore props for his movie (which was full of false data and concepts which have since been widely disproven).
Some books I might recommend are: Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer, The REALLY Inconvenient Truths by Iain Hamish Murray, and The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon. (The last is a little more difficult unless you're more scientifically minded than I am.)
I was aghast when I found out that the nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace Prize was two weeks after Obama was signed into office. If Obama had wanted some free publicity and props, he would have turned it down (at least, that's what I think he should have done--smart political thinking).
Ancy (From when you posted your blog on the discussion about SG:U "Life")
P.S. And yes, I know I've done nothing with my blog. :P I was planning on doing some analysis of the language media uses, showing its bias, but decided it was too depressing.
"I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."
For further fascinating research, here are some good sites to start with:
http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.monbiot.com