Email This to a Friend
New ‘Peace’ Prize Laureate Was Accessory to War
Martti Ahtisaari, Finland's ex-president, is yet another bizarre choice for the Nobel committee.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee has returned to its roots — at least if the Associated Press is to be believed. Commenting on the committee’s selection of the former president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, as this year’s Nobel laureate, the AP wrote: “By selecting Ahtisaari, 71, a seasoned conflict mediator, the Norwegian award committee returned to honoring traditional peace work after years where they recognized accomplishments in economics and safeguarding the environment.” Now, it is certainly true that the Nobel committee has in recent years made a practice of bestowing the award upon persons and/or organizations whose accomplishments, such as they are, bear no evident connection to matters of war and peace. Last year’s award to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was only the most recent in a whole series of puzzling choices in this regard.
But on closer inspection the choice of Ahtisaari is no less puzzling and hardly any more “traditional.” Traditionally — i.e., when the bestowal of the prize really did have something to do with peace — the idea was to bestow it upon persons and/or organizations that had actually contributed to achieving or fostering the latter in a concrete situation of conflict: notably, for instance, political leaders who had negotiated or championed peace agreements among hitherto warring parties. Think, for instance, of the 1994 award to Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, on the one hand, and Yasser Arafat, on the other, following the signing of the Oslo Accords.
Martti Ahtisaari, however, is best known for having his name attached to an agreement — the famous “Ahtisaari Plan” for the final status of Kosovo — to which the concerned parties, Serbia and the formerly merely provisional government of Kosovo, never in fact agreed. In the meanwhile, that plan is quite simply being imposed on one of the parties: namely Serbia, which has thereby seen a large chunk of its territory forcibly removed from its authority. (On the history and details of the “Ahtisaari Plan,” see my December 2007 article “Ahtisaari or Bust.”)
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
John Rosenthal’s writings on European politics and transatlantic relations have appeared in English, French, and German in such leading publications as Policy Review, Les Temps Modernes, and Merkur. He holds a PhD in philosophy and he taught political philosophy and classical German philosophy before turning to journalism. More of his work can be found at Transatlantic Intelligencer.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. Marc Malone:Sounds like the Libs have taken over the Nobel Prize committee, too.
Oct 14, 2008 - 2:54 am 2. Bill Chapman:I think it’s a shame that the prize didn’t go to Esperanto. Esperanto is really a remarkable triumph, a successful planned language.
Take a look at http://www.esperanto.net
Oct 14, 2008 - 3:25 am 3. Suzanne Pomeranz:Nothing new – in fact, the prize to Yasser Arafat (and to Rabin & Peres) was for exactly what Mr. Rosenthal explains in his final sentence – no peace was made and only war ensued from the Oslo Declaration of Principles for Negotiation, a war we are still fighting 15 years later after that fateful handshake on the south lawn of the White House and the awarding of the Noble “Peace” Prize which has become the laughing stock of all such awards.
Oct 14, 2008 - 4:18 am 4. Rubicon:Lets be realistic folks. Organizations like the Nobel Committee all over the world, have been infiltrated by leftists whose ideas of peace & unity, call for all to observe only the leftist perspective.
Oct 14, 2008 - 6:45 am 5. Eowyn2:Kosovo “might” be recognized as an independent nation by the “world community” (read: United Nation & NATO), but when one looks at many of the facts surrounding this situation, perhaps someone goofed big time in permitting that independence movement to succeed!?!
As for the Nobel Committee, well, they along with numerous other organizations have been co-opted & corrupted to reflect only the socialist view. As such, they award each other, they recognize each other, they praise each other, they establish their own idea of success.
Its like Hollywood who conducts awards ceremonies bought & paid for, and conducted by, the very people making awards to each others. Its a self congratulatory system to make themselves all feel important & to claim pedigreed accomplishment.
What bunk. Respect for the Nobel went away long ago. Respect for the Academy Awards went long before that!
If Stalin were alive, he could very well receive the Nobel Peace prize for the pacification of the balkans.
Oct 14, 2008 - 7:39 am 6. Promoguy:Does any body really care about who wins these prizes anymore, other then the jerks that get them and the cash?
Oct 14, 2008 - 7:49 am 7. Michael W. Perry:The Nobel Peace Prize has always had a major problem. Alfred Nobel’s will called for it to be awarded to those who tried to achieve peace by disarmament and fighting militarism. That was the popular “answer to war” mindset in his day. It’s also one reason why we had appeasement and war in the 1930s.
But that means that it is really a Noble Peace-by-certain-means Prize. It isn’t really a peace prize. It’s goal isn’t lasting peace, it’s encouraging certain techniques that may promote peace but also may make war more likely and more horrible.
For parallels, imagine that the Nobel Prize for physics specifies that the winner must advance the physics of Newtonian mechanics. Einstein couldn’t win, nor would anyone who helped developed quantum mechanics. The physics prize would hinder the advancement of physics. It would be a Physics-by-certain-means Prize.
Similarly, suppose the prize in chemistry took a strong stance about atomic theory. that for medicine said it could only go to those who treat illnesses with medications and not surgery, and that for economics specified certain economic theories had to be reinforced. All would be by-certain-means prizes.
The Noble Peace Prize should be going to those who do the most to establish lasting peace without prejudicing the means. In some cases, early military intervention, say with French troops when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, offers the best chance of preventing a war. In other cases, even a massive invasion like that at Normandy plays a major role in ending the series of wars between France and Germany. In fact, a good case can be made for awarding the 1945 Nobel Peace Prize to Eisenhower. An even better case can be made for awarding the prize to Bush for the Iraqi invasion. His decision transformed Iraq from a country that invaded its neighbors every decade or so, into would that’s likely to become a stabilizing, peace-enhancing force in the region.
The Noble Peace Prize should be awarded in two ways. First, as in other fields including economics, to those who best advance our understanding of the causes and prevention of war. In that area, a book arguing the value of a strong military to oppose aggression might win. And second, to those who actually do something practical to establish lasting peace. They might prevent fighting at all, but they might also fight and win in such a way that they establish a lasting peace.
That’s the change that needs to be made to the Nobel Peace Prize. As it is currently and formally established, it’s really a Nobel Peace-by-certain-means-but-also-war-in-many-cases Prize.
And any way you look at it, the refusal to give the prize to President Reagan is the greatest shame in the history of the prize. Reagan worked humanely, systematically and effectively to end a Cold War that could have killed several hundred million people in a few hours. Even if the Noble Prize endures for a millennium, it can’t erase the shame of that failure.
–Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II.
Oct 14, 2008 - 8:04 am 8. iconoclast:The Nobel Peace Prize is just a propaganda award that the committee uses to promote their confused and contradictory attitudes toward conflict. I remember when Carter was awarded the Peace Prize–the prize committee was foolish enough to announce that Carter was chosen in order to specifically chastise George Bush. Certainly not because Carter–an anti-Semite and pro-muslim terrorist pos–had done anything concrete in terms of creating a lasting peace anywhere.
But this particularly choice will definitely come back to haunt the civilized world. The precedent of Kosovo has already been cited by the Russian Federation as justification for the partial dismemberment of Georgia. It will be cited again–if needed–for the partial dismemberment of the Ukraine. One cannot wonder if the precedent could be used again in the USA SW if millions of illegal immigrant peasants agitate to leave the USA.
Oct 14, 2008 - 8:29 am 9. Marco di Luce:whoever gave the nobel peace prize to yaser arafat would give the prize to any one!
Oct 14, 2008 - 9:12 am 10. Kim Zigfeld:What’s really outrageous about this action is not that the recipient is unworthy but that so many desperately worthy candidates have been ignored.
I would point to Lidia Yusupova, who routinely faces death threats as she carries on the heroic work of Anna Politkovskaya, fighting for human rights against barbaric and systemmatic persecution by Russian authorities in Chechnya. It’s not as if the Committee didn’t know about her, she had been nominated — and not for the first time either.
By ignoring those who risk their lives on a daily basis struggling for peace and human rights, the Nobel Committee is slowly rendering itself obsolete and encouraging abusive regimes to continue persecuting those who dare to stand for peace.
Oct 14, 2008 - 9:36 am 11. Bugs:I’m waiting for a recipient to turn down his or her award, citing the problems discussed here as justification. Unfortunately, the only Americans in a position to do so are probably the physicists, and I imagine they’re too detached from the rest of the categories to care.
Oct 14, 2008 - 10:22 am 12. iconoclast:Well, giving Krugman (a Keynesian, of all things) the Nobel Prize for economics demonstrates the power of politics over content.
Oct 14, 2008 - 11:32 am 13. myth buster:“They create desolation and call it peace.”
Oct 14, 2008 - 11:44 am 14. Gudrun Eussner:Here is an article about the “International Crisis Group” in the Balkans for those who read German, written in May 2001. You will find George Soros, Martti Ahtisaari, Wesley Clark, Louise Arbour, Carla del Ponte and others.
International Crisis Group, Selbstdarstellung. Artikel vom 8. Mai 2001
Oct 14, 2008 - 12:34 pm 15. Roderick Reilly:Giving out prizes for “trying” or “meaning well” makes perfect sense in the Special Olympics, but to give such “prizes” to adults for the same reason when all that was achieved was more bloodshed and ill-will is criminal.
Nobel Peace Prizes should only be given out sporadically when an actual concrete peace accord is hammered out and abided by. Ironically, by my definition, Jimmy Carter deserved a peace prize for the Egypt-Israel accord, but not for all the other well-meaning but counter-productive crap he was praised for. Henry Kissinger did not deserve a peace prize for the Geneva accords that “ended” the Viet Nam war.
Oct 14, 2008 - 3:35 pm 16. Eric R.:Given the virulent, irrational and insatiable anti-Semitism shown by the European left, they would probably give Ahmedinejad the Peace Prize — after nuking Israel into a Second Shoah.
Oct 14, 2008 - 5:10 pm 17. Anthony:Is there not peace in Kosovo? Much more so than there was 5 years ago. Ahtisaari brought peace, much the same as Le Duc Tho, a previous laureate did.
Of course, the Nobel committee’s overlooking of Eisenhower and Nimitz in 1946 is unforgiveable.
Oct 15, 2008 - 7:36 pm 18. Michael T:Any credibility of the Peace Prize was lost the moment they gave it Arafat in 94. Who really cares?
Oct 17, 2008 - 9:37 pm 19. Lina:I think all the people on here upset about the great Ahtisaari win are mostly Israelis, illegal land owners, racists, and murderers of innocent citizens, children, women, elderly…who are afraid of the type of work done by Ahtisaari to “God forbid” come to Israel and bring peace to ALL and relieve the Palestinians of the hell of a life they lead today because of Israel, also bringing peace to the decent peace loving Israelis thathave to suffer from their governments garbage. Note: Anti Israel does not equal Anti-Semitism and those expressing their regret of Arafat winning the prize should do their homework and find out about what Rabin and Peres’ governments did to innocent Palestinians. Of course, the stupid people that follow the same narrow minded line of thought of George Bush will spit out comments about Palestinian terrorists and bla bla bla, ya we know they exist-but many more exist in Israel, the whole Israeli IDF and government practice the same terrorstic tactics and they are theives! Thieves of land that is nottheir own, I have never heard of a Palestinian steeling anything from anyone.
Dec 16, 2008 - 10:31 am