Editor’s Note: The Nobel Peace Prize has been a ridiculous joke for a number of years now – most notably when the elite committee awarded Barrack Obama the prize in 2009 before he even got started as President (they claimed it was to ‘encourage him’ to deserve their pre-award), but it’s latest gaff has signaled its dive off the edge of reality – proving that the Nobel Institute exists to shape public perception, and has no relation to what is actually happening in the world. One would expect the EU to return the award, and give it someone more deserving, but will it? Of course not, no one does such things these days – they will take it and run. It is a corrupt institution. What an embarrassment to humanity in the year 2012.
The Nobel Peace Prize is the sacred elephant of the liberal establishment. It is sometimes awarded to good people who have done great things, but equally often to unworthy recipients as a gesture of pious hope.
The world applauded when it was presented to Martin Luther King in 1964, to Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991, to Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk two years later.
Sensible people sighed when the prize went to Henry Kissinger and Viet Cong leader Le Duc Tho in 1973, who stitched up a charade of a Vietnam peace deal as a figleaf for surrendering the country to the Communists; to Egypt’s leader Anwar Sadat and his Israeli counterpart Menachem Begin in 1978 for their Middle East deal which brought no lasting peace; and to Barack Obama in 2009 for his commitment to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which are still mired in bloodshed.
In all these cases — and many more besides — the Nobel Committee was obviously seeking to say to the winners and to the world: ‘We welcome what you are attempting to do, and hope that giving you the Prize will make you try even harder for the cause of peace.’
These are the sort of decent, woolly-minded sentiments that country vicars unleash on their flocks every Sunday. But the consequence is that too many Nobel Laureates are honoured for aspirations rather than achievements, for proclaiming objectives which go unfulfilled, or for displaying an illusory semblance of virtue.
Switched-on Greeks demonstrate the true nature of the bailouts and austerity forced upon them by the bankers in Northern Europe.
However, this year, the 93rd in which the award has been made, the committee has surpassed all previous follies and travesties. The peace prize has been given to the European Union. The award, it is said, recognises six decades of commitment to the advancement of peace, reconciliation and human rights.
If the judges think the EU is a worthy winner on these criteria, we might start fantasising about the other candidates who probably crossed their minds.
Presumably somebody spoke up in favour of Russia’s brutal Vladimir Putin. There must have been a strong lobby for Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, for her splendid diplomatic efforts on behalf of Las Malvinas.
The Beijing government cannot have gone unnoticed, for its doughty efforts to start a war with Japan in the East China Sea.
A good case might be made for President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, for promoting harmony among his six wives. There might well have been some especially deserving leader of the Taliban who attracted the interest of the Nobel Committee.
But, in the end, the winner obviously had to be the EU. If one is going to have a laugh, one might as well make it a big one.
After all, the judges could take into account rioting in the streets of Greece, Italy and Spain in protest against eurozone austerity measures.