It is no mystery that last week the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded U.S. President Barack Obama with a Nobel Peace Prize. Neither does it come as a surprise that the controversial decision brought on mixed reactions. Yet the question that has grasped the minds of the masses is how exactly does someone win a Nobel Peace Prize?
Not to shatter lifelong dreams, but contrary to recent popular belief, the win does not come from fruitless promises. According to an article on About.com, the process is complex and overwhelming, starting with nominations that can often be kept secret for fifty years.
According to the Nobel Peace Prize website, nominees are chosen from a specific pool of candidates ranging from non-profitable organizations to government officials on the ground that they “have 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.”
In spite of that, the person who is selected by the committee does not have to have their work completed. It is the initiative that counts and merits the triumph, which is to serve as a significant turning point in fulfilling the suggested tasks.
When picking the winner, the pool of contenders is shrunk down to 5 to 20 people, and further reviewed and debated across the board of committees, until a unanimous vote is made.
So, how exactly did President Obama walk away with such an ostentatious title when he himself has only delivered promises, and thus far no evocative actions?
According to The Lede, the New York Times news blog, the answer has been the subject of arguments across the world with some people claiming Obama is more than merely a politician, but rather “the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world’s biggest problems.” Others, however, are disgruntled with the committee’s choice, emphasizing that nominating a person who had only been in office for 12 days shows the problems of today’s society.
According to The Lede, the renowned director of the Norwegian Center for Human Rights at the University of Oslo and human rights title holder in Norway, Nils Butenschon, said that Obama had not yet accomplished acts of substance, and therefore, should not have been nominated this year.
“It seems premature to me,” Mr. Butenschon said. “I think the committee should be very careful with the integrity of the prize, and in this case I don’t think we are in a position to really evaluate the full impact of what this candidate has achieved. Sometimes of course the prize is awarded to people who are in the process of making history, so to speak, but in this case I think it is too early to know that.”
Nonetheless, despite the steadfast steaming reactions, the committee remains silent about its decision saying only that Obama was chosen for "his extraordinary efforts" in promoting diplomacy between nations and peoples.
Obama’s win is not the first one to spark controversy. According to Newsweek’s blog, Wealth of Nations, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, and Woodrow Wilson are a few who were thought to be undeserving of wearing the same title as Mother Theresa due to their past histories and spoiled efforts.
Still, as Newsweek’s blog put it, “the dual warlike and peacemaking natures of these laureates are perhaps appropriate: we wouldn't be the first to point out the irony of a peace prize named for the man who invented dynamite.”
No comments:
Post a Comment