According to the will of Alfred Nobel (1833-1896), the peace prize in his name was to be awarded to a person who in the last year, “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.”
While this offers some guidance for the selection of awardees, what does it say as to how the Norwegian Parliament selects the selection committee of 5? And what does it say of awardees’ that have hindered peace, either prior to and following their awards.
Looking back just half a century—the prize began in 1901—it is possible to count more than half a dozen years in which one could and should be suspicious of peace prize recipients. What were the criteria for their selection? What consequences did Nobel committee members intend in their selection? Can it be said the Nobel peace prize has departed from a celebration of genuine peace-making and fallen prey to the politics of the year?
Take for example in 1973, Henry Kissinger, a leader who in addition to years of decisions promoting war in Vietnam ensured Indonesia’s brutal occupation of East Timor. Kissinger won alongside Le Duc Tho—whom many consider to have been an authoritarian ruler. The two won for “jointly having negotiated a ceasefire in Vietnam,” but Le Duc Tho refused the prize, arguing that peace hadn’t yet been established. And two committee members resigned in protest.
In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi won the peace prize for “her nonviolent struggle for democracy and human rights” in Myanmar. As a leader of her country, she has since justified myriad ongoing atrocities against the Rohingya citing a dangerous form of nationalism.
Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin won in 1994 for “their efforts to create peace in the Middle East,” a peace they previously and subsequently thwarted. Committee members also withdrew over this.
Another noteworthy example is the prize given to Kim Dae-jung in 2000 for “his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.” This was also widely contested due to the means he employed.
While differing significantly from the others on this list, Barack Obama won the Nobel peace prize in 2009 for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Afterward he wrote, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.” Why couldn’t the committee have waited to assess the outcomes of Obama’s presidency until after he left office?
Most egregious, Ethiopia’s sitting Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2019 for “his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.”
We have since been watching a brutal civil war unfold—replete with war crimes and crimes against humanity—across northern Ethiopia, the Prime Minister’s forces targeting Tigrayans with nothing short of ethnic cleansing. At the same time, the forces of Prime Minister Abiy’s new-found ally, Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki, stand accused of heinous gender-based violence in this same conflict. Could the Nobel committee have known that Abiy would violate human rights in his own country within a year of his award? Some analysts saw this coming.
At the very least, the Nobel peace prize committee could wait until the end of the terms of sitting leaders before assuming positive outcomes of their earlier actions.
From what I saw of the 2021 nominees, they appear to have been human rights abuse-free, though the full group of short-listed candidates wasn’t made public. Of those that did become known, some still held public office, some hoped to.
The final winners of this year’s Nobel peace prize were Filipino American journalist Maria Ressa and Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov for “their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace.” In contrast to the authoritarian awardees noted above, these two awardees have challenged state authoritarianism.
In the future, it would do a world of good if the committee could also speak publicly on the awards about which they made the wrong choice, and if it could become transparent about the criteria for its current selection process. By doing so, it could still promote peace in Myanmar, and Ethiopia, as well as in Russia and the Philippines.
Comments