Opinion: Case against Nobel Peace Prize

A sense of contradiction is in the name. The “Nobel Peace Prize” is not supposed to generate conflicts, or disagreements that can snowball into something worse, or bitterness or downright hatred.

Most of all, the “Nobel Peace Prize” shall never potentially encourage a “dishonest policeman” scenario. By that, and no disrespect to the police who are doing their jobs admirably with total sacrifices and dedication, the Nobel award could tempt powerful or able people who do not really believe in peace to secretly facilitate wars so they can become heroes.

Besides, if you are a real peace lover you don’t want to disturb peace, do you? If your nomination or winning of the prize will do just that, what do you do?

Peace is good, and those advocating it deserve to be recognised. But goodness must give up recognition every time whenever the virtuous cause they promote is at stake.

In other words, the “Nobel Peace Prize” cannot afford a slippery slope. Otherwise, mockery will prevail and beat the founding principles of the award.

The above is the argument against the Nobel Peace Prize, which US President Donald Trump is rumoured to be seeking and his alleged aspiration has been boosted by the agreed ceasefire at the Thai-Cambodian border.

There are more cases against the award, though.

Politicisation, or “small” wars being ignored, or Nobel judges allegedly being biased in favour of big-name and influential

candidates were key reasons why the Nobel Peace Prize of certain years were anything but peaceful.

A major example presented itself in 1973. The prize went to a North Vietnamese communist leader and late US Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger for a ceasefire in the Vietnam War and a withdrawal of American forces.

We can’t proclaim two men who beat the living daylights out of each other and then agreed to stop fighting as the most peaceful guys in the neighbourhood, can we? Moreover, the award-winning Vietnamese and Kissinger could not be the only ones who wanted peace in Vietnam, could they?

Granted, the two prize winners were instrumental in the process of ending the war, but who else could have ended it, a Russian?

The New York Times dubbed that year’s award the “Nobel War Prize”, and one popular quote in The Washington Post said “The Norwegians must have a sense of humour”.

There are other major ironies and controversies but they may pale if Donald Trump wins it this year. Don’t forget that his government stealth-bombed Iran without declaring a war, has been causing Civil War fears among many world citizens, and among his key backers for the Nobel Peace Prize are Benjamin Netanyahu and the Cambodian leaders.

And don’t underestimate what high tariffs can do to cause social strife and eventually disturb peace in several parts of the world.

The Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary History describes the Nobel Peace Prize as "the most prestigious prize in the

world", according to Wikipedia.

For about one and a quarter centuries it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to people who 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.”

To be fair to Trump in case he is officially among this year’s nominees, the Prize is never shy of controversies, and government leaders with very few exceptions were accused of supporting or condoning violence in one way or another.

But shouldn’t that be the reason why the Nobel Peace Prize should be no more? Wars can’t be ended by people who don’t have political powers and only those with political powers can start wars.

Make no mistake, recognition is great, but it can promote dangerous vanity if we are not careful. Which brings us to the “dishonest policeman” scenario we had been talking about.

It’s a scenario where one causes sufferings or grievances in order to have a chance to play a hero and get compliments and honor in the process.

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the five Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel, a Swedish industrialist, inventor and armaments manufacturer. Why he added Peace to Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine and Literature is a subject of speculation.

Some Nobel scholars have suggested it was Nobel's way to compensate for developing or helping develop destructive forces. His inventions included dynamite and ballistite, both of which were adopted or embraced militarily and used violently during his lifetime.

If the atonement theory is right, there are more things he would regret if he had known. As they say, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, so even the best of intentions can backfire. His included.

He sought to recognise good deeds, but the question of who the peacemakers are, annually, is way too complicated for a small group of people to judge.

Recognition can come in some other forms, not the world’s “most prestigious prize” that might tempt some to kill to try to win. For example, some kind of compilations can be gathered under the Nobel institution’s name and be publicised yearly.

To true peace lovers, that would be sufficient.