Under the Will of Alfred Nobel, 5 prizes were to be awarded annually, one of which was for Peace. This prize, he wrote, should be awarded to the person who, in the preceding year, had
"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."
Over the years, the Prize has been awarded to a variety of people and organisations, not all of whom have made obvious such contributions. To my mind, this year's award follows this trend in recognising someone who's done nothing tangible in the pursuit of any of the stated objectives.
The Pakistani schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, is the youngest person ever to be given a Nobel Prize. The award, which she shares with an Indian 'child rights' campaigner', has been given for their "struggle against the suppression of children and young people".
What has this to do with 'fraternity between nations', the 'abolition or reduction of standing armies' or the 'holding or promotion of peace conferences' ? If anything, the activities of the 2 recipients have created conflict within their respective religious groups (she is Muslim, he a Hindu) and have done nothing to promote peaceful co-existence. Yes, they may well be right in their campaigning and their objectives may well be laudable, but peace is not any part of their aims. They are actually demanding major change in entrenched societies, something which is never well received and something which often leads to misery and bloodshed.
Both Nobel recipients may well be due recognition and awards, but the Nobel Peace Prize is the wrong one.
No comments:
Post a Comment