Norway's Nobel committee has picked the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, and will announce it next week. As usual, the winner is likely to symbolize Norway's peculiar foreign policy attitudes (peace is a process, violence never solves anything, unity is more important than action) more than any actual achievements. As usual, I and others will roll our heads and shake our eyes.

It's easy to do that, of course, and fun, (and necessary! Hard to believe, but people here really do take this prize seriously.) But let's try something constructive for a change: I want you all to suggest some alternative candidates - not necessarily for a peace prize, but a prize that rivals the peace prize. Let's call it the Anti-Nobel Liberty Prize for outstanding contribution to humanity's search for freedom, wealth and happiness in the year that went by, or something like that. If there are any good ones, I may pick a winner, and announce it on the 10th. The obvious warblogger candidate is of course George W. Bush for liberating the people of Iraq and introducing democracy in the Arab world, but he is perhaps too obvious and too obviously anti. Lesser known candidates might make the prize more interesting.

So there you have it. The "committee" (me) is open for nominations.

I hereby nominate George W. Bush and Tony Blair, for their tireless work in liberating 20 million people over the past 2 years.

Of course, knowing the perennial stupidity of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, they will probably nominate some completely HORRID person like former gov. George Ryan or someone irrelevant like Bill Clinton.

Last year I started a second blog, the Henderson Prize for the Advancement of Liberty http://hpal.blogspot.com The prize follows the same general idea: honoring those who further freedom through influence or force. I've beat Vegard Valberg in the race for least frequently updated blog :-) having given out the award on only two dates. Last one went to the movers and shakers of the Velvet Revolution, given out on May Day, of course.

I'll wait for the long-term results to come in before considering Dubya for the HPAL. But I can't think of anyone who's freed more people in 2003.

At least one blogger thinks there shoudl be a Nobel War Prize.

http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_10_13_volokh_archive.html#85573210

While I agree that the Iraq war was necessary and just, I don't think Bush or Blair should receive a peace prize. The spirit of the Nobel peace prize is to give it to someone who promotes peace through other means than war, IMO. I think Churchill was a hero, but I'd not give it to him, either.

But, well, I don't see any obvious candidates. There are jailed human rights activists in countries like China and Iran, and a few moderate voices of sanity in the Arab dictatures.

How about Reporters Without Borders, which were thrown out of the Libyan-lead UN Commission on Human Rights? I think the UN deserves a snub more than RWB (RSF) deserves a prize, though.

Vaclav Havel

http://www.reason.com/0305/fe.mw.velvet.shtml

If the leadership of France and Germany and Belgium had been more like him, maybe--just maybe--Saddam would have seen the obvious and maybe--just maybe--he would have swallowed his honor and gone into exile and war would have been averted.

Jan??? Arafish has a Nobel and so does the previous pres of South Korea. --The spirit of the Nobel peace prize is to give it to someone who promotes peace through other means than war, IMO.--

At this point in time, it's not the reality of the Nobel and we have to deal w/the reality of the situation.

And Johan, they've liberated over 40 million, don't forget Afghanistan. Karzai's almost finished w/their constitution.

My money's on Chirac.

Chirac, uh? Ties strangely in with the Dilbert Weasel Awards.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/shop/html/weasel_poll.html

Stefan Sharkansky started this last year (Rice and Rumsfeld :-)) and has also begun awarding similar prizes for earlier years. His nominations are open, here.

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/001086.html

The jury isn't in yet for Blair and Dubya - clearly, they had a more shaky basis for going to war than say Churchill did, and we don't know if they'll succeed in turning Iraq into a democratic society.

Probably the smartest and most influential person on the Iraq war was Paul Wolfowitz. I think maybe Åsne Seierstad deserves recognition for actually reporting what she saw (and not what was politically correct) from Afghanistan.

How about Bibi Netanyahu? He has tirelessly advocated for the expulsion of Arafat - if this had been done two years ago, hundreds of Palestinian and Israeli lives could have been saved, and there may even have been an independent Palestine by now.

I hate evrth concerning Bush and politics! Brrrrr

Surely, if Nobel were alive today, he would demand that the Ronald Reagan and (even more so) his administration be given a Nobel Peace Prize for every remaining year of Reagan's life. Who could have imagined that it was possible to bring down a massive, nuclear-armed totalitarian empire with scarcely a shot being fired? This is exactly what Nobel was trying to promote. Instead of rewarding terrorists, tyrants, incompetents, megalomaniacs and Quixotes, the Nobel could at last be given to a genuine saint.

I nominate Uday Hussein. To quote Shakespeare, "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." That goes double for Qusay, too. Their deaths made the world a much better place. Rape and torture are way, way down in Iraq. Freedom and happiness are way, way up. Hopefully we'll get Daddy soon for the trifecta.

Yes, Uday did indeed bring peace (in a manner of speaking) to a great many people. And now Uday himself is at peace, so you might almost say he's doubly qualified.

Yes, Uday did indeed bring peace (in a manner of speaking) to a great many people. And now Uday himself is at peace, so you might almost say he's doubly qualified.

The Cuban civil rights activists who have been sentenced to prison for many years for advocating fundamental freedoms such as free speech, free press and the right to vote. Most of these true civil and human rights activists will die in prison since they are middle aged and have been sentenced up to 30 years. I don't know the exact number but I believe there are about 30 activists.

Iranian girl says that Hashem Aghajeri is one of the top candidates. How about endorsing the democratic movement in Iran by choosing him?

http://iraniangirl.blogspot.com/2003_09_28_iraniangirl_archive.html#106494516333861330

Well, since South Korean (ex-)President Kim Dae-jung got his Nobel Peace Prize not long ago, it must be time to give one to his North Korean Partner-in-Peace, Kim Jong-il, in return for his having not yet invaded the South.

I nominate the 300+ US and UK soldiers, and countless dead Iraqi people (kids too) for furthering liberty in this year. I can't wait for next year so I'll also nominate the Future Freedom Fighters for Peace in Iran, or wherever.

I nominate the 300+ US and UK soldiers, and countless dead Iraqi people (kids too) for furthering liberty in this year. I can't wait for next year so I'll also nominate the Future Freedom Fighters for Peace in Iran, or wherever.

The guidelines for the Nobel prizes were stipulated in Alfred Nobel's will ( http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nobel/biographical/will/will-full.html ). The part concerning the Peace award reads as follows: "...and one part 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." You only have to consider how Dubya has handled his relations with Europe to see that the first part of the sentence disqualifies him... ;-)

As for the statement "As usual, the winner is likely to symbolize Norway's peculiar foreign policy attitudes", I recommend a look at http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/peace.html . You'll find that it's actually a rather diverse crowd, including Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Lech Walesa, Menahem Begin and Henry Kissinger as well as Yasser Arafat and Michail Gorbachev. Norwegian the choices may be, but peculiar to this country they certainly ain't.

Eirik: The winners may represent many countries and ideologies, but our _motivation_ for awarding them the prize is peculiarly (though not exclusively) Norwegian. The prize for Kissinger was not meant as legitimation of his foreign policies, nor was the prize for Arafat meant as support for his war against Israel. We interpreted their actions in two particular conflicts as representing _our own ideas_ about peace and diplomacy.

The obvious riposte to this must be: the motivation of any one person or group is always in the eye of the beholder. Your view of the Nobel committee's interpretation of international politics is interesting, but surely you do not claim that it is an established fact? Through its long history the committee has always been a source of controversy, and has been been a favourite target of both left and right. In the 1930's the far right criticized it for giving the award to Carl von Ozzietsky, in the 70's chairwoman Aase Lionæs was a favourite target of the left. Now it seems as if the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. It's said best in Ecclesiastes 1:9 :-)

Eirik: Norway has changed a lot since 1901. I haven't looked closely at the peace prize winners of the 1930's etc., and I don't think I would learn much about the commitee's current practice if I did.

It's not an established fact that "peace is a process", "violence never solves anything", and "unity is more important than action" is the worldview of the Nobel comittee. Like everything else, it's an opinion. But I believe it fits, not only for the Nobel commitee but for much of Norway in general. One word for this worldview is neo-pacifism, a toned down but equally naive form of pacifism.

Btw, just realized something: The perfect decision if the Nobel committee wants to make a statement tomorrow, another "kick in the leg" for Bush, will be not to hand out the prize at all. The last two winners have been high-profile champions of the neo-pacifist alternative to American unilateralism. If they want to continue that trend and make an anti-Bush statement, not handing out the prize will be the best way to do it. It will be more noticed, and it's exactly the right year to do it.

"...I don't think I would learn much about the commitee's current practice if I did." Now there's an interesting statement. Essentially you're making a sweeping statement about Norwegian policies ("One word for this worldview is neo-pacifism"), exemplified by the Nobel awards, while simultaneously saying that you don't need to do the research to back up your claim. I can only hope that your views on other matters are more firmly founded than this.

Huh? Explain to me what the 1930's winners of the Nobel Peace Prize tell us about how the prize is awarded today. I don't see a connection. I've never made any claim whatsoever about Norway's foreign policy attitudes in the 30's. It's probably an interesting subject, but I don't know enough about it. I do know a few things about our current worldview, and that's what I'm write about.

Bjørn,
I think the Nobel Prize winners of the past are interesting in that there seems to be a consistent pattern of (as in your words above) "(peace is a process, violence never solves anything, unity is more important than action) more than any actual achievements" as old as the prize itself.

My "favorite" example is the 1937 laureate, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, who I wrote up here: http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/000268.html.

Today's Nobel Prize to Iranian lawyer Shirin Ebadi was an unusually good Nobel award. Nevertheless, I went ahead with the Sharkansky Peace Prize award that I decided upon before the Nobel was announced: http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/001129.html

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/472