Friday 13 October 2006

Pic of the day: War is Hell. (The artist's concept of Hell - before it froze over - is from the role playing game Oblivion.)

Nobel Peace Prize

I have to disagree with the Nobel Committee this year. They awarded the prize to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below". This is certainly praiseworthy, put it is prizeworthy? More to the point, is this what the Nobel Peace Prize was meant for? I think not.

It is not that I don't want Yunus to have his well deserved place in the history books. I just think his work, important as it is, is tangential to peace in its primary definition, absence of war. It is true that in general, prosperous societies with independent women tend to be less warlike than poor, patriarchal societies. But it is certainly not a law of nature: The rich and fairly egalitarian USA invaded the poor and patriarchal Iraq and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths above and beyond the already dismal figures under its previous dictatorship. The connection between alleviation of poverty and world peace may be strong but it may flow differently from what people imagine.

While it is true that prosperous nations are more reluctant to wage war (as they have so much to lose), it also works the other way: Nations which are peaceful and democratic (or at least dedicated to the rule of law) tend to grow rich. In fact, I would claim that any nation that manages to avoid war and civil war for 100 years would grow rich, no matter its history or location. I mean this quite earnestly. But of course even this would be a challenge for many former colonies, which have wildly different ethnic groups within their arbitrary borders, groups that also extend into other countries that may be at war with each other elsewhere. To be honest, I would recommend dividing nations rather than risking a civil war. Even if it means that you are giving some minority the land with the mineral resources or the best farmland or whatever. Because if a nation remains peaceful and stalwart in the rule of law, it can become prosperous even on a rocky island chain or in a landlocked mountain region, or even if it is just a single city.

Since peace and prosperity strengthen each other mutually, it becomes less important to redefine "peace" to include other good things, and more important to strengthen the direct work to avoid or end outright war and civil war (which not only is never civil, but generally is the worst of wars).

If there really were no candidates directly engaged in ending military conflicts, then perhaps the prize could get a year of rest. This would command more respect when it was finally given again. But this year there were actually a couple candidates. And even if not, there are others that come to mind more readily than a financial institution. For instance there are several religious movements that exhort their members (and anyone else who might listen) to refuse to bear arms. In some cases, they have laid down their lives on behalf of this dedication to peace. I think these should come before even the most benevolent of moneylenders in the line to receive a peace prize.

Over the last couple decades, there has actually been a marked reduction in military activity in the world. In part this could be due to the Cold war slowly being defused, the straw men of Kremlin and Pentagon having lost their funding and their excuses for terrorizing the populace. And better communications in general may also claim some credits. These days, you can read blogs from all over the world and realize just how precious a human life is, even if it is outside your borders. Also young people travel and work abroad more than before, and get to see with their own eyes that the old stereotypes are not entirely correct. All these processes are likely to continue, and the world lurch toward peace unless someone makes an effort to stop it. But we could still need whatever encouragement is available, for the process is not foolproof ... as the case of the USA shows.

This is the second "tangential" Nobel Peace Prize in such a short time. You may remember the African woman who received the prize for planting trees, and who within hours called a press conference to tell the world that the HIV virus was invented by white scientists to target the blacks. This is what happens when it becomes more important to find a candidate from the right part of the world rather than focus on the essential task of ending war. Please, no more of this. Professor Yunus deserves recognition for what he has done, not for some imaginary construed reason. And the Nobel Prize deserves to be restored to its original intent.