Nobel Peace Prize and the Dolphin

So the Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union “for [having] over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” Wikipedia says the prize is worth US$1.2 million. I wonder if EU will give the money to Greece or Spain or… Goldman Sachs. Perhaps this prize will revive rating agencies’ faith in the EU and encourage them to stop lowering their ratings. L’espoir fait vivre

Western Europe (and not the whole European continent) has indeed been more peaceful compared to the era before WWII. But, forgive me not being a European, many of these same countries have been involved in conflicts and wars elsewhere in the world with and without United Nations mandate. “Over six decades” even includes a period during which some of these peace-striving states were still colonizing other countries in the world.

I guess this prize is meant to encourage the laureate to “contribute to the advancement of peace” in the rest of the world calling for another prize in 2070. And I say this because it’s the only explanation I found three years ago when the prize was awarded to US president Barack Obama. Again l’espoir fait vivre. That prize not only pushed Obama to work hard in order to really deserve it, with close to no result one must admit. It also pushed some others to spread peace and democracy in the world. I am actually surprised that EU was found more deserving than say former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and democracy-evangelist-in-Libya Bernard Henry-Levy. Unless the Norwegian Committee decided to postpone till things calm down in Libya and in neighbouring Mali. Or if a war is launched “on terror” in Mali, to make a bundle prize for Obama, Sarkozy, BHL, Hollande and, I would happily add Tony Blair and George W. Bush pour l’ensemble de leur oeuvre.

And since I am at nominating future laureates and because of what I wrote above, I think I will just do like some of my compatriots and petition for Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to be rewarded for all what he did in Algeria and elsewhere. It is a shame the prize cannot be given to dead people because otherwise I would have nominated Chadli Bendjedid and Benbella whom I just discovered to be angels from all the tributes people paid to them after their passing away.

Speaking of Algerian candidates, Algerian author Assia Djebbar has failed once again in getting the Nobel Literature Prize (these Chinese are taking everything) for which she is nominated every year by Algerian newspapers (don’t laugh!) and despite Ariel the Dolphin’s prophecy.

I just watched “5 broken cameras” (trailer here), the film made by Emad Burnat on the resistance of the inhabitants of Bil’in, and I think Emad, these people, “Fil” who died in the film, etc. should get this Nobel Peace Prize. But hey doing so means Palestinians will take over all the prizes for many years to come.

I shouldn’t care much about this. The physicist I am is more interested in Serge Haroche and David Wineland.


6 thoughts on “Nobel Peace Prize and the Dolphin

  1. Although, I don’t give a damn about prizes in general, even in scientific domains or litterature, I believe that speaking highly for the european union makes sense. It is not the behavior of a particular state in this union that is rewarded but the act of union between them. A prize given to a tool that made the tribes A,B,C… to live in peace between them instead of war makes sense even if you do not belong to A, B or C… tribes. But you speak of european union as if it was the tool of colonization.
    I think that what europeans did with their union is an unprecedented step for human beings. Frontiers have always moved after invasions or as a separatist will, alliances have always been made of some against some others but for the first time in human history, frontiers have been suppressed, local governments have abandoned parts of their sovereignty to build something bigger, a peacefull area of common interests between people. This enterprise is unique but very fragile because of the human tendency of sefishness and tribal reflexes especially when times are hard. That’s why it makes sense to support it as a unique human enterprise to be as much as possible extended and imitated.

    For the possible cadidates that you list for Nobel prize (Obama’s one was a stupid decision, IMHO), I see only one guy, guess who? Chadli Benjedid 🙂 for his efforts to reactivate maghreb union (our regional EU) and his steps to solve that stupid conflict with morrocans for that aim.

  2. Noway José. I think the Nobel Prize for Peace (and that for literature) is one of the best excuses to shove a lump sum of money where one wants to without really worrying about anything. If Israel is being portrayed as the peace striving nation that is the beacon of the Middle East, anybody could be a potential candidate for this Prize. The question is, why the EU now? Everybody knows why.

    • Pas d’accord Hector.
      To this question : “Is EU a positive initiative for peace?” My answer is Yes. To “Is Israel a peace striving nation?” my answer is : certainly not. It is in contrary a danger for global peace not only regional. To the question : “Are the Nobel prizes (even scientific ones) decided by a committe under the supervision of the superpower and in general for its interests?” My answer is in general yes. “Has the prize for EU this year something to do with the debts crisis in Europe that put the union in danger?” Obviously Yes.
      In my comment, I answer only the first question because I felt that the article of Mnarvi’s answer to this question is no. The other questions are independent.

  3. I hate saying this, because it means no heated debate will start, but I agree with you QatKhal even on the first question. My answer to it was “Western Europe (and not the whole European continent) has indeed been more peaceful compared to the era before WWII.”
    Ok I didn’t make it a major point in my post because, despite all what you said in your first comment, Europeans (states and people alike) are not all equal in this EU. And yes, I do still consider these as individual states, which for some misbehave abroad, since the political union is yet to come. The third reason is because this prize rationale is just BS and, as hinted in my post and confirmed by algerianna and yourself, we know the real reason behind this year’s choice.

    It is disappointing that an institution such as the Nobel Peace Prize which is meant to shine high in the skies and help improve the World by giving the example is actually (borrowing algerianna’s words) “the best excuse to shove a lump sum of money (and political credit I may add) where one wants to without really worrying about anything”.

    Now I never heard of José and Hector but I am MnarviDZ and I approve their candidacy for 2013’s Nobel Peace Prize.

  4. Pingback: Obama’s Peace Prize « The Sexy Politico's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s