by BluePlatypus
Here I was with a long diary on the state of European and Scandinavian Social Democracy that I was looking forward to not having anyone read, when this whole Nobel thing came along and upset my plans.
<...>
To recap, my main point in the entry yesterday was some often-missed points: That the Nobel Peace Prize is in fact, activist by its very nature. That it is
often used not only to
reward efforts, but to
support them.
Since then a few omissions have come to mind, so just to add to the list:
"Obama's being rewarded just for not being Bush"So? And you could say: "Nelson Mandela got the prize simply for not being
P. W. Botha". Unless you take into account the ideological differences between the two, and why the Nobel committee thought those differences were important, it's a fairly meaningless statement.
The fight against racism, BTW, has
long been a topic of the Peace Prize. Ask Mandela, or Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King. The former two have praised Obama highly of course, and Tutu has
explicitly commended Obama's Peace Prize. It's hard to imagine MLK being of a different opinion.
Okay. But let's just pretend that Obama doesn't deserve the prize. The Norwegian Nobel committee went nuts. Temporarily insane. They were blinded by his message and imagery.
If he's
that potent a symbol - that he can seduce the entire Nobel committee, isn't that worth something in itself? Symbols are not unimportant, and the Nobel Prize itself is evidence of that. What's Aung San Suu Kyi done lately? Not much. Symbols are important, and the Nobel Prize has recognized plenty people 'merely' for what they stand for, rather than what they've accomplished in practice.
The committee, are all
professional politicians. The chairman, Stoltenberg, has served as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of his country. In the terms of accomplishment that the pundits now give such import, he's got
them beaten by miles. (How many nations have you lead, Joe Scarborough?). Anyone who claims that they're ignorant or politically naive in
any way needs to back that up with some very solid merits, or take a slice of humble pie.
Which brings me to the main point I forgot:
The Nobel committees don't give a flying f--k what you think. Get the big picture: There are two reasons the Nobel prize has achieved the stature it has. The first is its rather unique nature, being essentially the first prize of its kind, and really, the only prize of its kind - given its stature.
The second is the
absolute integrity and secrecy of the prize committees.
It's
their opinion that matters and their opinion only. It doesn't matter what you say, or what the million talking heads say. The committee doesn't care -
it's their job not to care. Their job is to make up their minds who
they think the best candidate is and make that decision. With no outside influence.
When was a Nobel laureate announcement ever leaked? When did you hear that a Nobel was 'bought' or that they'd 'given way to public pressure'? The answer is never, unless you count the inevitable weak rumors and sore losers.
It's not because that pressure doesn't exist. That pressure is
massive. Businesses, Universities, entire
nations sometimes try to campaign for a Nobel. It doesn't work and it's never worked.
The people I know on the committees have certainly never said a word to me. I doubt very much they tell anyone: Not their spouses, not their dogs. Because it is considered an honor just to be on the committee, and because they share the opinion that I'm expressing here: That the prestige and existence of the award is dependent on their integrity. (Add to this that Scandinavians in general are simply honest folks, not prone to conspiracy, corruption and backroom-dealing. They always rank among the least corrupt nations in the world)
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
