Wall Street Journal

An award often tinged by politics

The Peace Prize has more often than not, sought to influence the world’s opinion, according to this article, and so, the decision to award Obama is not incongruent to some the earlier ones. In fact, the award “has throughout its history been captive to the politics of the time”. It quotes instances: “In October 1989, for example, with China’s Tiananmen Square uprising still fresh, the committee announced it was awarding the prize to Beijing’s nemesis, the Dalai Lama.”

The article quotes Scott London, co-author of a new book on Nobel lectures with his historian grandfather, Irwin Abrams: “‘The Norwegians know they have the opportunity to influence world opinion twice a year’—when they announce the prize and when they award it. ‘And they want to make the most of it.’”

A clear political statement was also made, according to WSJ, when “in the early part of this decade, some of the committee’s citations became pointedly aimed at the George W Bush administration. In 2002, former President Jimmy Carter won the prize. In praising Carter’s lifetime of work on peace and social justice issues, committee member Gunnar Berge made reference to the fact that the US government was fighting in Afghanistan and gearing up for war in Iraq at the time.”

The Australian

Stardust no substitute for achievement

Here’s some blunt criticism: “One thing is reasonably clear, through the fog of war and diplomacy, there is nothing reliably noble about Nobel prizes. Many of the people who ought to have won it didn’t. Several who certainly shouldn’t have won it did, such as Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho of communist North Vietnam,” it says. It adds that the nominations for the award were sent in by February 1, 12 days before Obama had even become president.

... contd.