(This was published in the Dhaka
Courier on 27 July 2012)
The sway and domain of politics are
so extensive and intricate that almost everything revolves around politics,
directly or indirectly.’ Nobel Peace Award (prize)’, indeed the most
prestigious and illustrative award of the time, space and dimension in our history,
is also not free from such politics. This politics may rightly to be named
‘Politics inside Noble Award’. It is played in such an invisible and sophisticated
manner and mode that can rarely be detected with open eyes. Even in-depth and
close studies may not cope with such clandestine reality and truth. Since it is
now the number one internationally recognized award, all the techniques and
devices of politics are necessarily touched and marked with highly
international standard and gravity. There prevails a kind of belief and
understanding in the minds of many that getting a Noble Peace Award means
making a room in the galaxy of immortals dividends of which are double in
nature i.e. one relates to name and fame and money and honor during the period
of the recipient’s longevity and the other relates to the post-death legacy and
immortality. Thus, Nobel peace prize has uniquely become ‘noble and novel’ in
words and spirit.
The Peace award was set up with
unambiguous goals: the award would be given to those who "have done the
most for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing
armies and promotion of peace congresses But
such criteria were not met all the time.
Awarding peace award to a voice in
the communist/socialist bloc and awarding the same to a candidate in the
capitalist bloc also carry significance largely. When a person from the former
zone is chosen and selected for this it means he is fighting against the
so-called system and administration of communist/socialist dictatorship widely
known as arch enemy to capitalistic world. Cases of Lech Walesa, Mikhail
Sergeyevich Gorbachev, 14th Dalai Lama and Liu Xiaobo are recent examples of
it. It readily goes in favor of
capitalist world. But when this is given to a candidate from the capitalist
bloc it implies that interests of the policy-makers and welders are greatly
looked after otherwise in the final end. Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Mohammad Anwar Al-Sadat, Al
Gore, Shirin Ebadi, Mohammad
Yunus and Barack Obama mar be glaring references here
Many are behind it while there is an
instance to say ‘no’ to it. Available records show that the Nobel Peace Prize
has been awarded 92 times to 124 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2011 – 99
times to individuals and 23 times to organizations. With the award to Ellen
Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman in 2011, a total of 101
individuals and 23 organizations have been awarded the Peace Prize. Since
International Committee of the Red Cross was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
1917, 1944 and 1963, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1981, that means 101
individuals and 23 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. With
due respect to the Norwegian Nobel Committee and to the recipients it can
safely be said that it has over the period of time inevitably become an object
of severe criticism as politics ranging
from national to regional to international
compacts made its distinct presence even in choosing and selecting such
Nobel laureate(s) starting from 1901 to 2011. Few cases may fittingly be
illustrative here.
In recognition of his efforts for
peace and understanding in the Western Hemisphere,
his trade agreements and his work to establish United Nations Cordell Hull was honored with Nobel
Peace Prize 1945. But the public documents show that In 1939, the ship SS St
Louis sailed out of Hamburg into the Atlantic Ocean carrying over 950 Jewish refugees, mostly
wealthy, seeking asylum from Nazi persecution just before World War II.
Roosevelt showed modest willingness to allow the ship in, but Hull,
his Secretary of State threatens to withhold their support of Roosevelt
in the 1940 Presidential election if this occurred. Roosevelt
denied entry to the ship. The ship was forced to return to Germany and
many of the passengers ultimately ended up dying in Concentration Camps.
Nobel Peace Prize 1992 was won by Rigoberta
Menchú. Facts came to light that there had been some evidence pointing to her
as a fraud in her purported autobiography of her life in Guatemala in the late
1950s, portrayed in her 1987 book I, Rigoberta Menchu—where some facts
regarding her family history and circumstances were specifically altered by her
to supposedly better. Who shall take
care of it? Should it be Noble Committee
or the people outside the Nobel Committee?
Nobel peace prize 1994 went jointly
to Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, and President
of the Palestinian National Authority, Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister of
Israel. and Yitzhak Robin, Prime Minister of Israel, for their efforts
to create peace in the Middle East and Nobel peace prize 1978 moved jointly to Mohamed
Anwar Al-Sadat, then President of the Arab Republic of Egypt and Menachem
Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, for negotiating peace between Egypt and
Israel, were considered by many during that time as ‘carrying no significance
from the point of view of the end product of the agreement in reality’ and
today the world knows very well what the truth is. The Camp David Accords
were, in effect, two accords that provided the basis for the continuation of
the peace negotiations: a 'Framework for Peace in the Middle East' and a
'Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel.' All these are now merely
valuable documents in history, although desired successes are far away. Awarded
the prize jointly with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, Peres was responsible
for developing Israel’s
nuclear weapons arsenal, and was later blamed for the Qana Massacre in 1996.
Interestingly enough, President Jimmy Carter was not included
in the list of winners. Later, the Nobel
Peace Prize 2002 was awarded to Jimmy Carter "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to
international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote
economic and social development’. It had from the start wrought controversy that was
exacerbated further by politically-tinted statements offered by the chairman of
the Nobel Peace Prize committee (seconded and affirmed by Gunnar Staalsett,
another member of the 5-member, secretive Nobel Committee It is not clear to many whether it should
be viewed as consolation or evaluation or mere encouragement.!!
Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus of Bangladesh is beyond question a global name
and fame but awarding him Nobel peace Prize 2006 ‘for his
efforts to create economic and social development from below"
is not very much convincing in its entirety. Here peace has ironically been
tagged with efforts to create economic and social development from below.
This new definition or redefinition or extended definition of peace is not only
bewildering but also embarrassing readily. He could have been
weighed and honored in his own discipline other than in the field of peace.
Because of his oscillating vision and mission taking all from politics to NGO
to social business enterprise he has been faced with series of criticisms at
home in particular. His attempt and failure to build a political party during
the period of army-backed CTG (2007-2008) in Bangladesh
under the blessing of it made him an object of political assaults by the
political parties especially by the AL and BNP, two leading parties, in Bangladesh. A
Noble peace laureate like him is also widely held responsible for coining the
idea of ‘Minus Two Theory’ (meaning forced departure of Sheikh Hasina and Begum
Khaleda Zia for foreign land) during this time. Losing his chair of MD of Grameen
Bank in a legal battle with the government, he is faced now with Himalayan
tussle with the incumbent alliance government headed by Hasina. In fact, his
political ambition caused him havoc in the true sense of the term. Being away
from Grameen Bank, he is at present moving from heaven to earth with his new
enterprise ‘social businesses’, which he claims and believes, shall stand as an
alternative to the rapidly deteriorating capitalism. Here he grossly shifted
from the bases of micro-credits to new bases of social businesses where the
level and standard of capital are not definitely in line with micro-credits.
That’s why, he is sometimes called a man of oscillation in his vision and
mission.
Al Gore,
former Vice-President of USA, got the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on
raising public awareness of Global Warming. There has been some disagreement on
whether the work was related to the stated purpose of the prize or not. In
addition, there is much controversy centering his work in the area of Global
Warming and, in fact, even controversy over whether Global Warming poses a real
threat to mankind. Of late a UK High Court judge decreed that the government
could only send a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” to every school if it was
accompanied by guidelines to point out “nine scientific errors” and to counter
his “one-sided views”. In his film, Al Gore called on Americans to conserve
energy by reducing electricity consumption at home. In August 2006, Gore’s
electricity bills revealed that in one month he burned through 22,619 kilowatts
– more than twice what the average family uses in an entire year. It was widely
reported that Irena Sendler had been nominated for the 2007 prize, which was
jointly won by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore Therefore,
question is, who did play roles to make the issue global and what for?
Reasons for awarding ‘Nobel peace
prize 2009’ to US President Barak Obama
for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples(In fact, In expectation of his grand successes in
the desired fields, which does not match much with the very intent and spirit
of Alfred Nobel) itself still remains shrouded in mystery. Needless to say
twice that US
President is always the key figure in molding, shaping and directing global
politics and economics in its own perspectives. Then what are the end products
of such ‘extraordinary efforts’ in the desired areas in the context of time,
space and dimension? To what extent can a US President be away from its
perception of national interests and dominance over the world? Is it not the
reality that here question of Republican president or of Democratic president
seems to be less important from the standpoint of national interests coupled
with American dominance over the world? How can a person, after becoming a
Nobel Laureate for peace be allowed to voice and play in favor of a group or
state at the denial of truth, justice and fairness to others? How much is it logical
to award Nobel peace prize to a person who has every possibility to do
otherwise for the sake of politics, national interests and dominance over other
state(s)? In fact, Nobel peace award should never be decided and accorded in
expectation of success in future. It is a story like that Judges cannot tell a player ‘take this
award of the race and be serious to win the race’. It is not only folly and
mistake but also a clear manifestation of opportunistic strategy to gain
something otherwise under the cover of award. Let Nobel peace award get rid of
such trap.
Realities unfold the truth that the
other side of the coin carries the load of facts and documents about the
omissions. ‘Foreign Policy Magazine’ has listed Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Václav Havel, Ken
Saro-Wiwa, Sari Nusseibeh and Corazon Aquino as people who "never won the
prize, but should have". Other notable omissions that have drawn criticism
include Pope John Paul II and Dorothy Day.
The case of Mahatma Gandhi, pioneer of non-violence movement in British-ruled
India, In spite of his having been nominated for Nobel peace prize for five
times is more interesting indeed. But
he was not finally chosen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee at Oslo simply because of the politics of the
age. It was not possible for the Nobel Committee (then it was composed of the
members of Storting i.e. Norwegian Parliament. In 1977, out of regard for the
Committee's independence, a restriction was imposed whereby current members of
the Sorting cannot be elected to the Nobel Committee. At the same time, the
Committee changed its name from the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting
to the Norwegian Nobel Committee) to take any decision annoying or bypassing the British will (for
more visit page 47 in the web publication of the author’s book ‘O United
Nations’ at ( www.sinha-ounitednations.com).
Plaintive expressions of subsequent Nobel Committees for such mistakes and
follies have been being heard pointedly since 1989 when 14th Dali
Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), Tibet Religious and political leader of the Tibetan
people, was awarded Noble peace prize 1989 for his non-violent struggle in Tibet.
Frankly speaking, the omission of
Mohandas Gandhi has been particularly widely discussed, including in public
statements by various members of the Nobel Committee. The Committee has
confirmed that Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a
few days before his death in January 1948. The omission has been publicly regretted
by later members of the Nobel Committee. Geir Lundestad, Secretary of Norwegian
Nobel Committee in 2006 said, "The greatest omission in our 106-year
history is undoubtedly that Mahatma Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace
prize. Gandhi could do without the Nobel Peace prize, whether Nobel committee
can do without Gandhi is the question". Later, when the Dalai Lama was
awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee uttered that
this was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi"
It is said and heard that had Gandhi
survived he would have been awarded Nobel peace prize 1948 and this is understandable
from the declaration of the Nobel Committee when it decided not to award Nobel
peace prize 1948 to anybody citing “there
was no suitable living candidate." It was, in fact, a mark
of respect to the recently-assassinated Gandhi since the prize cannot be
awarded posthumously. Consequently, one-third of the prize money was
transferred to the Main Fund and two-thirds to the Nobel Institute's Special
Fund. Now comes the asking why is it not possible to bring about reform to the
rigid concept of ‘living candidate’ by adding ‘posthumous” also since reform,
re-definition or extended definition are essentially a natural and scientific
course and method that happens in the context of time, space and dimension? Had
Alfred Nobel been alive these days, he could possibly not have avoided such
reality. Sooner Nobel Committee understands it, better it is for it and all.
Mahatma Gandhi is Mahatma Gandhi
whose standing in the hearts of Indians in particular as a loadstar is a
settled fact. He is to them known as ‘Bappuji’ (guardian) and to the world as
the initiator of non-violence movement. From this standpoint, Nobel Peace Award
is not an additional ornament to the physically departed Gandhi. Rather the
Norwegian Nobel Peace Committee, nay, the Storting should take pride by adding
the name of Gandhi to the galaxy of Nobel Laureates. Sparing debate of ‘living
and posthumous’ for the sake of Gandhi is insignificant here. What remains here
important is that whether the Nobel Peace Committee is in position to come
forward to realize reality objectively after the spirit of the Will of Alfred
Nobel. Sooner Nobel Committee understands it, better it is for it and all.
Or viewed otherwise it is now no
doubt mostly a ‘seal and certificate’ for a man of active politics or of
statecrafts or of the both. Hence, maximum care and analysis should be made
while giving such award to a politician or statesman in particular. It is
better to award ‘a posthumous’ instead of ‘a living candidate’ if the
candidate(s) is a politician or statesman. From this standpoint, reform to the
Afred Will is a further call of time, space and dimension. It can be noted here
pertinently that highest honor/title in the armed forces such as in Bangladesh is
decided for the posthumous not for the living and logic behind this is to keep
and uphold the dignity and invulnerability of the award/title.
Why is the issue of Gandhi being discussed
and even lamented again and again by the Nobel Peace Committee? Reasons are almost
clear and transparent. On all accounts India is coming up strategically,
militarily and economically. Her standing inside and outside the comity of
nations as the largest uninterrupted multi-party democratic country with a
population of eight hundred millions nearly has brought her more colorful and
respectful political entity. It is said that she will be one of the leading
voices in the world before the passage of the 21th century. Therefore, there is
no denying the fact that the UN’s Declaration of Gandhi’s birthday as the
‘International day of non-violence’ may rightly be viewed also, among others,
as a by-product of ongoing regional and international politics in the context
of India’s
visible appearance there. Bravo, bravo O politics, the most opportunistic and
strategic means/tool in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment