What a Nobel farce

Friday morning, like the rest of the world, I comically spat out my Kool-aid when I heard President Barack Obama had won this year’s Alfred Nobel Prize for Peace. Other Obama supporters I know were scratching their heads at this premature declaration of love from the prize committee. Why did he deserve such a prestigious prize? He has only been in office eight months and has yet to see real, concrete results of his diplomatic efforts. Obama is trying to create peace; but the real problem may lie with the prize itself.

Alfred Nobel, the prize’s founder, has a few curious characteristics for a namesake of a peace prize. Did you know he invented dynamite?

Nobel pioneered the making of nitroglycerin; he also invented the blasting cap, which according to the Encyclopedia Britannica “inaugurated the modern use of high explosives.” He then turned a modest iron mill into a large cannon manufacturing company -- sure sounds like a peaceful guy. But dynamite has its peaceful uses along with those for conflict, just like a U.S. President.

It would have been great if Obama had politely returned the prize. Even he admitted in his remarks Friday that he did not deserve it. If you acknowledge that you don’t deserve something, do the right thing and return it with the suggestion that the committee posthumously award someone more deserving. There are many to choose from: Gandhi, despite being nominated five times, was never awarded the Peace Prize. Who has done more for world peace than him?

What is so great about peace anyway? Isn’t peace the objective of all wars? Pretty much every side in every conflict wants peace; they just want to be the ones who benefit from that peace. Take the American Civil War for example. The North wanted peace; it involved preservation of the Union. The South wanted peace; it preserved its right to secede from the Union and determine its own way of life. The difference is that the South’s idea of peace involved the unjust treatment of a large group of people. Shouldn’t the real prize be for the promotion of justice even if war is necessary? The Peace Prize has had its good moments, which include recognizing the extraordinary works of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, General George Marshall and many other worthy recipients. All of the great leaders who have won the prize have the pursuit of a more just world in common.

If you want a perfect candidate for a leader who embodies what the current Nobel committee values in history, take a look at British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. His appeasement of Hitler through the Munich Agreement in the September of 1938 seems to be the model for a peace agreement that the prize committee would love. Too bad Hitler reneged and World War II broke out. Next time, when the Nobel committee meets behind closed doors, hopefully it will take into account real world results and not attitudes, stances and promises -- sometimes those lead to a more dangerous world.