Nobel committee is too political

October 12, 2009
The China Post

Ever since the Nobel Peace Prize started being awarded in 1901, the Norwegian Nobel Committee in charge of selecting laureates has made many surprising choices.

But this year's decision to grant the honor to U.S. President Barack Obama has stunned just about everyone and even embarrassed Obama himself.

The committee, made up of five little-known Norwegians appointed by the country's parliament, selected President Obama despite his term beginning a mere two weeks before the deadline for nominations.

Many reports have pointed out the obvious fact that while President Obama has made history and generated goodwill around the world, his young administration has yet to score any major achievements promoting world peace, not to mention far lesser domestic goals.

President Obama himself was clearly unaware that his nomination for the prize would be taken seriously and has done nothing wrong by announcing he would humbly accept this honor.

However, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has once again tarnished its reputation by making a political and partisan selection.

In its announcement, the committee left no room for doubt that it was pleased to see the departure of former U.S. President George W. Bush and his policies.

While committee members are free to think what they want about Bush, this blatant partisanship violates the will of the prize's founder, Alfred Nobel, who willed the prize to be granted to persons working to reduce standing armies, organize “peace congresses” and promote “fraternity between nations.”

Even though he merely inherited them, President Obama is still commanding American forces in no less than two ground wars, including one in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, as well as a worldwide effort against terrorism that includes use of military force.

And at the time of the award's announcement, President Obama was pondering a request from his generals requesting the dispatch of even more U.S. troops to fight Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

This is hardly the first time that the committee has made a controversial choice.

In 1973, the committee selected Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their role in negotiating a peace settlement between the U.S. and North Vietnam that led to the end of the Vietnam War.

Le Duc Tho refused to accept the prize, while Kissinger was pounded with snowballs by angry Norwegian demonstrators when he turned up to accept his prize due to the controversial American bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia that pressured Hanoi to negotiate.

In the end, Hanoi ignored the lauded peace agreement and hardly two years later, North Vietnamese tanks were rumbling through the streets of Saigon.

In 1992, the committee chose Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchu for her work in publicizing the plight of indigenous people in her country.

It was later revealed that her famed autobiography contained outright lies, such as her claim that her father was a landless peasant who had founded a left-wing peasants' rights movement.
Menchu had claimed never to have attended school, but turned out to have attended Catholic schools through the eighth grade.

In 2007, the committee gave the prize to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore for his work in promoting global awareness about climate change.

This raised questions about political correctness in the committee, since global warming is not yet considered to be a definite science and even if it was, climate change is not directly associated with issues of world peace.

The list of obvious choices who never received the award is long, starting with India's legendary Mahatma Ghandi, who was nominated four times during his life yet never chosen.

Pope John Paul II, who played a major role in restoring freedom in Eastern Europe, was also passed over.

Former Philippine President Corazon Aquino, whose overthrow of authoritarian rule in the Philippines became an inspiration for democracy movements around the world, was also never chosen by the committee.

Conditions surrounding the choice of Nobel Peace Prize winners are naturally subjective and there is surely no way to ensure that all future choices will avoid controversy.

However, the committee would be wise to change its method of selection and avoid issuing partisan statements when granting the award.

Many observers have suggested following the example of committees choosing laureates for other Nobel prizes by basing the choice on past achievements rather than future potential and star power.

If the committee continues to make highly partisan and political choices, the prestige of the prize will continue to fall and less people will pay attention to the winners and the noble causes they represent.