Nobel Peace Prizes 'are being awarded illegally'

[IndianaGreen]

Nobel Peace Prizes 'are being awarded illegally'

Norwegian author claims the committee behind the coveted award routinely violates the terms of Alfred Nobel's will

By Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Sunday, 25 July 2010

Can we have our Nobel Peace Prize back, please? We got most of our decisions wrong. We should have laid much more emphasis on abolishing the military and outlawing wars, but we didn't. Such is the message about to go out to the more undeserving winners of one of the world's most coveted awards.


More than half the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1946 have been awarded illegally, says Fredrik Heffermehl, a Norwegian lawyer and peace activist, because they do not follow the expressed will of the millionaire inventor of dynamite. He says all but one of 10 prizes awarded since 1999 are illegitimate under Norwegian and Swedish law.

Mr Heffermehl's verdict, which caused controversy when it was set out in his book Nobels Vilje (Nobel's Will) published in Norwegian in 2008, is likely to stir up passionate discussion next month when Greenwood Press publishes Picking Up the Peaces: Why the Nobel Peace Prize Violates Alfred Nobel's Will and How to Fix It.

Mr Heffermehl's book emphasises that Nobel's will concentrated on rewarding the struggle to end wars through an international order based on law and abolition of military forces. Few of the recent winners can be seen to have engaged in that struggle. Among those awards he names as illegitimate are: Mother Teresa (1979); Lech Walesa (1983); Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (1994); Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi (2003); Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai (2004); and Al Gore (2007).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nobel-peace-prizes-are-being-awarded-illegally-2034970.html

[Demeter]

1. Bless the Peacemakers

and bring on the popcorn! :popcorn:

[ChazII]

2. Interesting. n/t

[saltpoint]

3. Hark, ladies and gentlemen -- the smell of alley rodents

lurks hereabouts, as to object to the spirit of the Peace Prize on "legal" grounds suggests that 'peace' is objected to by the accuser, Heffermehl's creds notwithstanding.

Margaret Mead, to name just one soul, disagrees sharply with Heffermehl's narrow interpretation, as she believed that 'peace' is an intrinsic value which can and should be part of the lives of children from the earliest age so as to manifest itself as a permanent value in their expectations as adult.

One could cite many things requiring attention of the world community which warrant global emergency response a long time before one argues on the "legality" of the awarding of the Nobel.

Never met Heffermehl, but he doesn't seem to me to be adding a whole hell of a lot to matters at hand.

[xocet]

9. Come on....

Heffermehl is simply stating that the criteria that Nobel had in his will and that were to be used to award the Peace Prize are not being followed by the Nobel Committee. It is ridiculous to claim that Heffermehl is objecting to peace:

http://www.nobelwill.org

Can you specifically cite a link to Margaret Mead disagreeing with "Heffermehl's narrow interpretation"?

Margaret Mead (1901-1978) (www1.voanews.com/a-23-2010-01-17-voa1-84658937.html)
Heffermehl's Nobels Vilje (2008) (vidarforlaget.no/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=444)

Since Mead died 30 years before the publication of Heffermehl's book, I doubt that you can, but maybe they discussed the topic prior to 1978. If so, please provide the link.

[saltpoint]

10. I know the dates in question of the current Heffermehl

and the late Mead.

Mead's emphasis was on cultural imperatives, and of those, my characterization is correct, demonstrable in any of her writings. She would not have considered opposition to militaries and their works as pre-eminent modalities to build peace.

Heffermehl is objecting to peace by nickel-and-diming the Committee's technicality in awarding people it feels best represents it. If 'peace' is in fact a cultural value its presence is worth standing for, and the legalities of the Nobel Committee notwithstanding, peace was stood for a long time before Heffermehl was in diapers.

Adults must choose systems of prioritization. I objected to the system Heffermehl chose and for my part, would choose Mead's model instead.

[xocet]

11. Sorry....

It may be nitpicking, but to characterize the situation properly, one would state that her writings do not lend support to his position.

She is dead - she may or may not agree depending on her reading of his position, but, obviously, she can no longer consider his position. Thus, it not legitimate construct a position for her; i.e., you really do not know what her position would be. To state otherwise is not defensible.

Given what you have said, though, could you please provide a specific link to something she has written that directly addresses the topic of the original post? It would be interesting to read some of her relevant writings. It is always good to have an author's works recommended. Thanks.

[saltpoint]

14. Well, I certainly agree that she's dead.

There's not much of an argument to be had there.

The fault is mine, not Margaret Mead's, because I did not clearly make the distinction I was going for. Don't fault her work, as it is consistently thorough and really landmark stuff.

“Peacekeeping--like housekeeping--is a series of repetitive, time-consuming, often menial tasks which need to be continually accomplished, so that we may incorporate the need for peace into the expectations of children.”

--Margaret Mead

Mead's work bolsters the argument for trans-cultural studies. It's anthropological but it's much more as well. She is willing to look far back into the traditions and values of a culture in order to make claims on humans' chances at dignified survival for future generations.

She is as much a futurist in this regard as she is an anthropologist or writer or any other thing she's awfully good at.

If she believes that peace can be integral because it is an inherent good, and because children thrive if peace is (by degree) definitional to their culture, then opposition to war alone is only one component, and "a series" of tasks demanding continual accomplishment needs to be undertaken. I'm not sure 'cultural identity' is possible in cultures which define themselves by unending warfare. Athens is one way and Sparta another, and the treasure of gifts from Athens has been definitional and enduring. Sparta's warrior culture is what threatens it.

The Nobel Committee seeks to assert the values peacekeepers assert, which for many of us would include work protecting the environment or work in which the "menial" tasks of peace-keeping are preserved, disseminated advanced, honored.

Mead is comprehensively delightful in talking about kids and grownups and culture, and I hope you will not disregard her sleeves-rolled-up wisdom and wise heart just because I fucked up the wording in my post.

[Warpy]

4. Yet he didn't mention Henry Kissinger

who, IMO, was the most grotesquely inappropriate of all.

That really shoots the hell out of his credibility.

[w4rma]

5. I would bet that it is because he supported Kissinger for a Peace Prize. (nt)

[Recursion]

6. But Kissinger *was* actually engaged in demilitarization and international law

That's the worst part of this whole thing: Kissinger did the sort of thing Nobel wanted: work on international treaties and demilitarization (he was the big nuclear arms reduction guy, though that isn't what he got the Nobel for).

[Warpy]

7. And the ouster and murder of Salvador Allende in Chile

and who knows how many thousands in the soccer stadium in Santiago? That was a year before they awarded that POS the prize.

Arafat was also going through the motions, much the way Kissinger was over Vietnam.

They both left stinks in the noses of civilized people.

[Kringle]

16. so what?, that doesn't undo what he did .nt

[xocet]

8. No offense, but that is a pretty weak analysis of the article....

The reporter selected which Nobel Peace Prizes to mention in the linked article. The author of the book Nobels Vilje has a more comprehensive list that divides the prizes into the categories of (legitimate) Nobel (Peace) Prizes and of Committee (-awarded) Prizes - see the quiz located half-way down the page at the link below for the prizes from 1960 to 2009:

http://www.nobelwill.org

The Kissinger/ Le Duc Tho (1973) Prize is noted as a Committee Prize and not as a legitimate Nobel Prize.

NOTE: It is extremely pathetic to fail to distinguish between the author of a book which is mentioned in a reporter's article and the reporter who wrote the article that mentions the book.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Just reading the article I disagree with Heffermehl's narrow interpretation.

Mr Heffermehl's book emphasises that Nobel's will concentrated on rewarding the struggle to end wars through an international order based on law and abolition of military forces. Few of the recent winners can be seen to have engaged in that struggle. Among those awards he names as illegitimate are: Mother Teresa (1979); Lech Walesa (1983); Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin (1994); Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi (2003); Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai (2004); and Al Gore (2007).

(snip)

The relevant sentence setting out the terms of what he called a prize for the "champions of peace" is: "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."

What is the definition of fraternity?

If this virtue were extolled on a global scale to such an extent would it lead to or contribute to the abolition and/or reduction of standing armies and the promotion of peace?

I most assuredly believe it would, therefor I see nothing inconsistent with the awarding of those prizes and the intent of Alfred Nobel.

Thanks for the thread, IndianaGreen

[MissDeeds]

13. Important topic

Especially now... It has become more of a popularity contest that does not rely on actual efforts on the part of the recipient to end wars and bring about peace. It is disgraceful that anyone who has a war agenda can be awarded a prize for peace, let alone have the audacity to accept it.

[awoke_in_2003]

15. yea, the pukes have a new talking point. nt