Not so Nobel: Using a Prize to Reward Potential Instead of Accomplishment
Saturday, October 10, 2009 at 1:57PM 
This painting (from nobelprize.org) of Alfred Nobel in his lab was made 22 years after his death. Nobel was a modest fellow who generally avoided publicity.They did what?
As many others around the world, I was more than a little puzzled when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to US President Barack Obama yesterday. This is not just because I disagree with his politics, but because my immediate thought was, "But he just started!"
Although I left Norway for America almost 20 years ago and have spent my whole adult life here, I learned about the history and purpose of the Nobel Prize as a young lad. Norwegians are (or at least were back then) generally proud of having been given the task of handing out the Peace Prize; understandable if you know something about Norwegian and Swedish history in the last 150 years.
Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist and engineer, the inventor of dynamite, a brilliant entrepreneur, and a major arms manufacturer. He was a versatile man of impressive intellectual gifts, mastering six languages and having a play printed by the time of his passing on December 10, 1896. He lived to be 63 years old and one gets the sense that this was a man who lived life to the fullest.
Before they had Twitter, they had premature obituaries
In 1888, seven years prematurely, the French newspaper Idéotie Quotidienne published an obituary titled, "Le merchand de la mort est mort" ("the merchant of death is dead"). The obituary condemned Nobel for making money on weapons manufacturing, though he probably made most of his money on commercial explosives used in mining and construction.
The premature obituary (it was actually his brother who had died) is said to have had an impact on Alfred Nobel's thinking. So seven years later, in his 1895 will, Nobel allocated the bulk of his estate to five annual prizes; for accomplishments in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and for contribution to world peace. He wrote that the latter prize should be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
Source: http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html
Himself Swedish by birth, Nobel made a significant gesture in deciding to hand the responsibility for awarding the Peace Prize to the Norwegian Parliament (the other four were delegated to Swedish institutions). In 1905, less than ten years after Nobel's passing, Sweden and Norway split into two independent countries again. They had co-existed in an involuntary and increasingly tense union since 1814. To avoid Norway waging a bloody war of independence, this had been a carefully negotiated "personal union", with a common king shared by two independent parliaments, cabinets, and prime ministers, situated in the capitals Stockholm and Oslo.
Nobel never did explain exactly why he gave the job to the Norwegian parliament. It has been speculated that since the Swedish parliament handled all foreign policy in the Swedish-Norwegian union, Nobel assumed that the Norwegian parliament would be more detached in their considerations, and not so bound by national interest. It is also possible that Nobel realized that his very own country had been holding its neighbor in an uncomfortable bear hug for several decades and that Norwegians, if given a choice, would much prefer to be completely independent again. So it is possible that his decision was a peace gesture in itself, though that is my own speculation.
To its credit, the Norwegian Parliament in 1904 formed an external committee which was off-limits for members of the Norwegian government. This, in theory, would further avoid making the committee too dependent on national interests. Based on the list of past laureates, I think they have largely succeeded in this regard, but that’s not to say that the committee is apolitical. By its very purpose it cannot be, since war and peace belong in the domain of politics. The committee must take a stand as to what ideas and activities contribute to reducing war.
Just who gets a Nobel Peace Prize anyway?
There is generally a significant amount of debate leading up to the committee's decision and in the weeks and months following. As with others around the world, Norwegians still tend to believe that someone who has had some significant impact is more deserving of the Peace Prize than those who are merely advocating positions.
Dissidents and leaders who themselves have been involved in significant personal struggle, even without having achieved major changes, have from time to time been awarded the Peace Prize. In the case of a dissident living under a repressive regime, even being nominated brings encouragement, prestige, and through all the international attention, a protection of sorts. It would simply be too embarrassing for most of these regimes to execute a Nobel Laureate such as Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma.
The practice of using the Nobel Peace Prize to award advocacy in addition to or instead of accomplishment began as recently as 30 years ago, according to this article in The Times: http://tinyurl.com/yza47x8
Even so, if we look at the list of past Laureates, one thing is clear: These are mostly people who, whether we agree with their ideas and actions or not, and I frequently don't, have at least labored for years, even decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates
Note again the words I quoted from Nobel's will: "the person who SHALL HAVE DONE the most or the best work". Not, "might do", or "will hopefully do". The Peace Price is just that, a prize, and like most other prizes it is supposed to be given in recognition of some sort of accomplishment. We do not give gold medals to athletes because they show up, or because they really wanted to win, or because WE really wanted them to succeed. Or do we?
Waiter, there is no steak in this steak salad!
The nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace Prize is February 1. On that day, Obama had been in office for TWELVE DAYS. Committee rules allow committee members themselves to submit nominations up until their first meeting after this date, but even if Obama was thus nominated, the committee cannot have had more than a few weeks to go on by then.
But let's be generous; let's look at the entire NINE MONTHS that President Obama has been in office thus far. Here are some of his "accomplishments” – and trust me, I'm happy to give appropriate credit to his predecessors, too:
The Taliban is winning in Afghanistan because we are unwilling to send the troops needed to end that conflict. We are equally unwilling to leave the Afghanis alone to decide for themselves whether they want to live in the middle ages or join the civilized world. Meanwhile, American soldiers are dying thanks to hand-wringing in Washington, which sounds like politics as usual to me. Track record so far: things are getting worse.
Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is itself under siege from its own branch of the Taliban, which just attacked their Army Headquarters. Osama bin Laden is widely believed to be in hiding in Waziristan, close to Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. The Pakistani government will not let us enter Waziristan, historically an autonomous region, because they are afraid to upset their own citizens, who are unsympathetic to the United States. Meanwhile, weapons, money, and supplies are being smuggled into Afghanistan. As most of you know, of course, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so if they are taken over by the Taliban you now have nukes in the hands of Islamic Terrorists. Track record so far: again, things are getting worse.
Not to be outdone, the holocaust-denying President of Iran, who has repeatedly threatened to attack the United States and extinguish Israel, is marching steadily towards possessing a nuclear bomb while playing a brilliant game of diplomatic dodgeball. Track record so far: things are getting worse; Iran is even closer to having the bomb.
North Korea continues to mock the civilized world as it pursues its nuclear program while oppressing its own citizens in what must be one of the worst regimes in the world. Track record so far: no change. Extra credit goes to Obama's last several predecessors on this one to be sure.
We have excitement closer to home too. The drug war in Mexico is resulting in deaths North of the border, and US Governors are more than a little concerned about the lack of Federal support. But my brilliant friend from Latvia who wants to work as a corporate lawyer after finishing law school here, she gets plenty of Federal "support" in the form of a byzantine immigration bureaucracy that makes it very hard for her to remain here. Track record so far: no change.
In Honduras, Obama and his State Department have sided with ousted President Zelaya, a political ally of Venezuela's socialist dictator Hugo Chavez. Zelaya was constitutionally dismissed by that country's Parliament and Supreme Court. This was after Zelaya had ignored a Supreme Court ruling that it would be unconstitutional for him to use government resources to hold a referendum seeking to change the constitution. Aside from a range of socialist changes to the constitution, there was concern that it would be changed to extend the current presidential term limit of a single four-year term. Track record so far: we have made things worse in Latin America by emboldening Chavez and betraying the constitutional democracy in Honduras by in effect telling them they should violate their own constitution. For more background on this, I highly recommend this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mary O'Grady.
But let's not neglect Europe. As he signaled he would do during the election campaign, Obama has caved in to Russia on missile defense, betraying our allies in Eastern Europe, who had already exposed themselves to Russian ire by agreeing to host US missiles aimed to protect Europe against an attack from Iran (and, presumably, Pakistan, in case they are taken over by the Taliban). Track record so far: we have compromised with the increasingly less democratic Russia, and pulled the rug out from under the feet of our allies in Eastern Europe. It's 1968 all over again, for those of you who know what that means.
In virtually every geographical region, President Obama has either been unable to take steps to improve the situation, or he has begun by compromising with repressive regimes and emboldened enemies of individual rights and freedom. To a large extent this is due to his ideology, of course, but where there is inaction it is also sometimes due to the fact that with a new administration, tens of thousands of people change jobs and there is a big learning curve for the new people coming in. There is also a lot of work to establish or reestablish new working relationships, both internally and around the world.
We don't give medals for hope
Even if you wholeheartedly agree with Obama's ideology, you cannot deny that no dramatic change has as of yet taken place. There has certainly been no breakthroughs in reducing violence or threats from repressive regimes around the world. If you don't agree with Obama’s ideology, and would like him to make changes, I agree that so far it looks bad, but in any case he has barely gotten started in office and even if he were to change course, there is not that much that you can do in a few months. Foreign policy is a supertanker, not a speedboat.
Either way, if we are to go by the wording in Alfred Nobel's will, President Barack Obama just does not qualify to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It is understandable, therefore, that many people view the Committee's decision as more of a political endorsement, an encouragement of Obama’s kinder, gentler, multi-lateral foreign policy. Leaving aside that if one is to judge by history, being more gentle with those who seek to do harm is unlikely to result in less repression, violence, and war, awarding political intent is not what the Nobel Prize is for. America may be more popular abroad now, and Obama is certainly more warmly received than his predecessor, but the Nobel Peace Prize is not a popularity contest.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a prize for those who have done the most or best work to contribute to world peace. It is not a scholarship for people with high potential and good intentions. Because the Committee has strayed so far from what Alfred Nobel himself clearly intended, I now regard the Nobel Peace Prize as increasingly meaningless. I feel certain that Alfred Nobel himself would be equally dismayed by this year's decision.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (16)
Here's the Wiki entry:
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Ha-Ha -- must have been an impressive 12 days as you mention in the article!
Actually, it's not a bad idea to have politicians do nothing - in fact, I'd prefer if politicians do absolutely nothing at all and leave me alone. Laissez Faire!
As I wrote on Twitter: "Nobel prize for Obama = world's best 80/20 rule (#Pareto principle) implementation."
Maybe even 95/5 rule...
Thank you for a response to the news about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize that isn't knee-jerk, but gives us all some background and facts about both the prize and why awarding it to Obama is premature.
I voted for Obama, but I cannot, in all honesty, congratulate him on receiving this award. I want to see some action from him first. I also worry that the Peace Prize may distract Obama from the very large, very necessary work he has domestically, like the US economy.
Thank you, Frode for this post.
I woke up Friday morning, turned on the radio to my regular morning news, and heard that Obama had been awarded the Peace Prize. My shoulders immediately rubbed my eyes and looked out the window as I thought I had, quite possibly, woken up in some alternate universe where up is down and down is up. What had he done to earn it, I wondered? As the morning grew lighter, I realized I wasn't alone. Still, I wondered what the true purpose of the prize was anymore. Thanks for straightening us out with the real story.
Let's hope that next year, the Peace Prize doesn't pull an American Idol episode again.
Abi Sutherland addresses the period of accomplishments the nomination covers on the blog Making Light. The people deciding the award looked at the entire period up until the decision, through the autumn, not just up until February, when he was nominated.
To some extent, that's hair-splitting. Even today, he hasn't accomplished much as President. He's only been in office less than 10 months, even the most enthusiastic Obama supporter would have to concede he hasn't had time to accomplish much.
Time Magazine's TV critic, James Poniewozik, has comments on the David Letterman scandal that I think are very applicable here: "With politicians and personalities alike, we tend to overlook transgressions, barring an actual crime, if they deliver for us, be it laughs or pork. Of course, we are always ready to be deeply outraged by moral failings of the people we didn't like to begin with."
The parallel: You, who oppose Obama, write a long blog post denouncing the Nobel decision and declaring that it's the end of credibility for the Nobel Peace Prize. I support Obama: I think the decision was an odd one, probably a bad one, but I shrug it off. Not my business, really, I say to myself. The Nobel committee has a long history of awarding its so-called Peace Prize to some mighty warlike leaders: Theodore Roosevelt, who never met a war he didn't like, and Woodrow Wilson, who talked about peace but got the US into World War I.
As far as I'm concerned, the prize jumped the shark when they gave it to Yassir Arafat.
Very well written, very factual. A great post. Thank you.
Mr. Odegard, very interesting article and great information. You make some very good points, but I have some different opinions too.
Ok, so he was nominated for this prize at 12 days of being president. So what? I don't understand why people make such a big deal on those 12 days. The Nobel Prize is not given to presidents, but to people. And I'm sure he was not nominated based on those 12 days only. It would be ridiculous to think that. Not only that, but the committee voted months after, giving the nominees more time to prove they're worth of such a prize.
Now, the last one who deserves criticism is Obama himself. Why bashing on this guy? It's not his fault he got the prize, a committee voted for him! So let the guy do his job, he didn't vote for himself. If you are not happy with the judges decision, go after the judges.
But ok, in regards to Obama I have to disagree when you say he has done nothing.
You can't deny him winning the presidency last year brought a very positive mood to millions of Americans and millions more around the world; people who felt their lives could see a better tomorrow. He has been the first president to send greeting messages to the Muslims around the world who celebrated Eid al-Fitr, and to the Jewish who celebrated the new year, Rosh Hashanah. I strongly believe the power of such messages contribute to peace.
I share a different opinion about Iran; he has started dialogue with this nation regarding their nuclear technology, when for years Bush did nothing but threatened Iran. It is not easy dealing with them, especially since they have always felt threatened by the US and Israel, but Obama is treating them at the same level (not looking down on them) and I think this is a very positive initiative that could bring peace to the region.
Of course there's a lot to do: he has promised to end the Iraq war, although we still need to see that (plus the end of the Afghan war).
By the way, who were the other nominees for the prize? And why doesn't anyone talk about this? Maybe then we could compare the achievements of all in all fairness. Peace.
I am encouraged to see the comments to my Nobel Peace Prize post and I would like to respond to a couple of things.
First, on the period of accomplishments. It is no doubt true that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee looked at what Obama was doing during his first nine months in office. It is doubtful, however, that Nobel intended for the committee to function as sort of a foreign policy watchdog which, once having accepted a group of contenders by February 1, monitors them throughout the next eight months to determine who is the most deserving.
I again refer to the wording in Alfred Nobel's will, where he writes, "the person who SHALL HAVE DONE the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." Nobel didn't write, "is currently doing", or, with apologies to Eddie Murphy, "what have you done for me lately."
But let's accept, for the sake of argument, that Nobel would have disagreed with me, and that in today's more technological society, such monitoring is practical. With the prize itself having attained great prestige, one could envision contenders roaming the world holding speeches and hoping to be nominated for the peace prize. While some of that has no doubt taken place over the last hundred years, if the committee was to have worked this way, every year would have a peace prize silly season. The prize would quickly have lost its prestige as it would have been seen more as a means of giving a political nod to contemporary rhetoric rather than rewarding past work and accomplishments. Thankfully, the committee has historically managed to steer clear of this, and in almost all cases has awarded the prize in recognition of a body of work stretching over many years.
But let me grant that the committee has the ability to monitor world events as they evolve, and that favorable and unfavorable information can come to light as they continue their deliberations throughout the year. As I pointed out in my post, in virtually NONE of the significant Theatres around the world have we seen improvements. Rather, things are still going in the wrong direction. While I am sympathetic to the view that Obama inherited a difficult world from his predecessor, rhetoric aside, he has not had much of a practical impact.
Those who are sympathetic to Obama based on his ideology might feel that Obama was a worthy nominee in part because of what he had said or done BEFORE he took office as President of the United States. But if one examines Obama's career, he has had virtually NO INVOLVEMENT in foreign policy, military matters, or international human rights work prior to assuming office. It was widely reported, I seem to recall, that his choice of a more seasoned Senator, Joe Biden, as his running mate, was in large part made because he needed the presence of an experienced figure to counter critics who pointed out his lack of experience with world affairs.
So what, exactly, did the committee base their decision on over these past few months?
Several people have referred to how Obama has "improved the mood" and or that he has “improved the international climate”. I think it is true that Obama is perceived as doing a much better job listening to the grievances that nations around the world have had with American foreign policy in the recent past. But the Nobel Peace Prize is not a prize for improving people's mood. Improving communication can be beneficial, but it objectively falls short of the criteria that Nobel himself established in his will. I am not joking when I say that Twitter has done more for improving global communication and transparency than any politician could have. Twitter coverage of the recent election fraud and subsequent violent treatment of demonstrators by the government of Iran is a good example.
One commenter asks about the other nominees for the prize this year. One was Chinese activist Hu Jia, who is serving a three-year jail sentence for his attempt to let people know about the plight of persecuted Falun Gong members. Another was Dr. Sima Samar, founder of an organizations that runs hospitals, schools, and health clinics in war zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A third nominee: Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist in Congo, who treats women gang-raped by the Conglese militia. These are all people who have risked their lives for years to fight against repressive regimes. I don’t think these people strictly fit with Nobel’s criteria either, but if we are to reward people for trying, their personal engagement over a period of years certainly prove them more deserving than a President who so far has not ended a single conflict.
While the committee is surely authentic in its enthusiasm for President Barack Obama, its selection has managed to create a potentially awkward situation for the Obama administration. I believe White House officials are telling the truth when they say that they did not seek the Peace Prize. White House officials were not only surprised, they were also keenly aware that with the prestige conveyed by the prize come very high expectations. Not only is receiving a prize that the majority of people clearly do not think Obama is qualified for a potential embarrassment. The Obama administration must now also grapple with the perception that its foreign policy might be held hostage by the prize. In other words, if Obama is persuaded that he must take military action, expect to see worldwide condemnation along the lines of "But you can't do that, you got the Nobel Peace Prize!"
The committee also risks severely undermining the prestige of the Peace Prize, especially if Obama continues to have no significant practical impact on world affairs. The selection, admits committee Chairman Jagland, a "gamble." No one should be happy with this situation, but if you like Barack Obama you should be even less happy than I am.
Hey Frode--excellent post! I agree wholeheartedly...
When Immanuel Nobel was forced into bankruptcy and left Stockholm and his family in 1837 to start a new career in Finland and in Russia, to support the family, Andriette Nobel started a grocery store which provided a modest income. Meanwhile Immanuel Nobel was successful in his new enterprise in St. Petersburg, Russia. He started a mechanical workshop which provided equipment for the Russian army and he also convinced the Tsar and his generals that naval mines could be used to block enemy naval ships from threatening the city.
thanks a lot dear, im very interesting for your article. im very impresing for this :)
jasa iklan
I Will continue to follow the development of your next websites, thank you, please do not forget to link me, thank you
thank you.
เกมส์
Nobel Prize was never given who deserves to
Obama received the award as if it stopped the war in Iraq...because it promised when he was elected
Aces High hypocrisy award
Religion needs some sort of a nobel prize. The Nobel Religious Progressive Prize maybe? Nobel Tolerance & Love Prize? Oh, here’s a good one: The Nobel Prize for Spiritual Innovation in Church Life. The Nobel Prize (Swedish: Nobelpriset), as designated in Alfred Nobel’s will in 1895, is awarded in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace!
Not planning up ahead. Lack of a proper plan is the biggest mistake made by novice investors. Finding a house after forming a proper investment strategy is the right way instead of looking for a house to fit the plan. Many make the mistake of buying a house because it seems to be a good deal and then trying to see how they can fit it into their plan.