The Nobel Peace Prize should not have been awarded this year. In fact, it probably should not have been awarded on many occasions in the past couple of decades.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
The Nobel Peace Prize should not have been awarded this year. In fact, it probably should not have been awarded on many occasions in the past couple of decades.
That isn’t meant as a slight to Nihon Hidankyo, the Japanese anti-nuclear weapon organization, which received the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. It’s also not meant as a slight to the many heroic recipients who were given the award in recent years after they put their personal freedom and even their own lives on the line to make our world a better place.
They have fought against violence, pollution, inequality, and all forms of suppression, and that is admirable.
These activists and officials deserve all kinds of awards, accolades, and financial support.
However, very few of them met the criteria that Alfred Nobel laid out in his will when he established the peace prize named after him.
He wrote that the award should go 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.”
That is not what has been happening… and it’s not for a lack of opportunity. The world is experiencing armed conflicts in abundance right now. Sadly, peacemakers are in much shorter supply.
Therefore, the Nobel Peace Prize has often been a symbolic award more than anything else in recent years. It has either gone to groups like the European Union or the UN’s World Food Programme, or individuals fighting oppressive regimes that had earned the ire of the Nobel Committee.
Barack Obama even won simply for being elected.
But wouldn’t it be most symbolic if the committee declared that nobody was worthy this year?
That would not be without precedent. In fact, it has happened many times in the past, most recently in 1972.
Why not now?
“Well, guys, the Middle East is burning, and none of the players seem interested in peace. Then we have the war in Ukraine, and we are all seeing what’s going on there. And then there are all of those regional conflicts and civil wars that nobody in the West cares about because they are not happening in places where a lot of white people are affected. As a result, there will once again be no Nobel Peace Prize this year. See you next time. Peace!”
That might be more effective than giving the prize to, for example, Narges Mohammadi for “her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all.”
Again, and we cannot stress this enough, that is worthy and heroic work. It’s just not about the “fraternity of nations” and all that stuff.
Not awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for a while would also raise the stakes.
The list of laureates is quite illustrious and includes Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Nelson Mandela.
These are historic figures.
Imagine joining that group by being the first recipient after a multi-year break.
“While the Committee has not been awarding a Nobel Peace Prize since 2024, we are happy to announce that, finally, we have found somebody worthy of the award. After years of violent conflict in Israel and the surrounding region, the work of Jacob Mandelbaum and Abdul al-Kassir, who founded ‘Forward Together,’ was instrumental in forging a lasting peace.”
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Sadly, since this is not on the horizon, it’ll just be activists for the foreseeable future.
Or, maybe, let’s just give the Nobel Peace Prize to Northrop Grumman for “designing weapons that more effectively end wars.”
In his Navigating the Insanity columns, Klaus Marre provides the kind of hard-hitting, thought-provoking, and often funny analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
