Syed Badrul Ahsan
The Nobel Prize for Peace has of late been losing its shine.
One can hardly deny, now that this year’s prize has collectively gone to people and organisations in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, that there has been a strong whiff of political motivation involved in the process. The prize has gone to Ales Byalyatski in Belarus, the organisation Memorial in Russia and the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine.
Given the crisis erupting over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February this year and the headlong rush by the West – Nato, the EU and a multiplicity of governments – into arming the Zelensky government to the teeth to combat Moscow’s forces, it is hardly any surprise that the Nobel for Peace this year has fallen into the pattern set by western politicians.
And there’s the rub. The Nobel Committee, which has often made controversial selections of peace prize winners in our times, ought to have done better, especially by taking into account individuals and organisations elsewhere around the globe before making its decision.
An individual like Hakainde Hichilema, the new President of Zambia who has inaugurated a fresh new beginning in ensuring democracy and human rights in his country, would have been a welcome recipient of the prize. Pakistan’s Edhi Foundation, which has for decades been instrumental in providing relief assistance to millions of people in distress, could have been another candidate.
There has been no consideration of journalists jailed for their boldness of expression in countries like Egypt. Many women in trouble with the authorities in Saudi Arabia have been ignored. Because the authoritarian governments in those countries are friends with the West? And then there is the matter of Julian Assange. Why ignore him?
The list of some recent winners of the Nobel Peace Prize raises a good number of questions about the procedure applied to the selection process. Back in 1973, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were jointly awarded the prize for peace in the mistaken belief that peace had come to Vietnam.
The war still raged and Le Duc Tho, from principle, declined the award. Kissinger accepted it happily. That was rather disturbing, for the Nobel Committee patently ignored Kissinger’s role in the bombing of Cambodia, in his hostility to Bangladesh’s struggle for freedom and his active support for the overthrow of the socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile.
The Nobel Committee did the correct thing of awarding the peace prize to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for his efforts toward making peace in the Middle East. Statesman-like, Sadat travelled to Jerusalem with his peace offering and then initialled the Camp David agreement with Israel.
But having him share the prize with Menachem Begin diluted the importance of the prize. It should have gone solely to the Egyptian leader. Prizes ought not be awarded through keeping everyone happy.
People around the world were flabbergasted when Barack Obama was awarded the prize even before he had settled comfortably into the presidency of the United States. Obama himself was taken aback by the news that the prize was his.
On what basis the Nobel Committee gave Obama the award has never been explained. Emotions generated by the arrival of a non-white in the White House appears to have been a motivation behind the decision.
The Nobel Committee has never considered such individuals as Mao Zedong and Zhou En-lai for the peace prize even though the two Chinese leaders, in statesmen’s role, went forth in inaugurating a brave new enterprise with the United States in 1972.
The Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev was given the prize when it became clear that his country was coming apart. That was his reward for presiding over the fall of communism and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Perhaps Mao and Zhou would qualify for the prize had China begun to collapse on their watch?
Mahatma Gandhi, that celebrated prophet of non-violence, was never given the Nobel for Peace. But men like Lech Walesa, who with western backing tore into communism in Poland, easily got the prize. Shirin Ebadi received the prize because of her opposition to the ayatollahs of Iran.
Liu Xiaobo’s reputation as a dissident in China remains remarkable, but did that qualify him for the peace prize? How is it that Nehru, Sukarno, Nasser and Tito, statesmen who developed the theory of non-alignment, were not considered for the prize by the Nobel Committee?
The shooting of Malala Yousafzai shocked the world. And yet the question remains, of whether what the Taliban did to her was a good reason for the Nobel Prize for Peace to go to her (in association with Kailash Satyarthi). Aung San Suu Kyi and Abiy Ahmed were properly given the award, the former for her role in speaking up for democracy in Myanmar and the latter over his efforts in ensuring a democratic opening in Ethiopia.
Ironically, though, a post-award Suu Kyi and a post-award Abiy Ahmed went for moves that undermined their reputations grievously. Suu Kyi stayed silent over the persecution of the Rohingyas; and Abiy had his air force bomb civilians in Tigray. The Nobel Committee has no mechanism for withdrawing awards given to individuals.
The Nobel Committee never took into consideration the achievements of Fidel Castro in building a strong health system in Cuba, in giving its people renewed confidence in themselves following the overthrow of the corrupt Batista regime.
The committee had little time to focus on the leaders of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan as they went about building a structure of peace in South Asia through the tripartite agreement of April 1974. It looked away from the bus diplomacy Atal Behari Vajpayee undertook in his search for peace with Pakistan in the 1990s.
When globally recognised awards are seen to be handed out on political considerations, they raise a good number of legitimate questions. More importantly, the respect associated with such awards takes a slide downward, to a point where they are not taken seriously anymore. Much a similar sentiment is coming to be associated with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Left-wing governments in Chile, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia have lately busied themselves in initiating programmes aimed at the uplift of the poor and the creation of welfare-oriented societies. Will the Nobel Committee have time for a study of such developments? – The Business Standard
