Skip to main content

This Year's Nobel Prize in Peace

A map of Tunisia class=

The Peace Prize this year went to four Tunisian groups collectively called the National Dialogue Quartet.

I'll link you to Reuters' discussion of the particulars here.

What is enduringly fascinating about the Peace Prize as an institution is that there is this tug-of-war (please excuse the term if it seems like an inapt pun, but it is the name of a game!) between two very different conceptions of what the search for peace means, and how one advances it.

On the one hand, there is Peace From Above. Peace, on this view (which one would expect would be the intuitive view of a man who became wealthy from dynamite) is something gifted to us by heads of state, or their immediate appointees, who confer and converse and otherwise hobnob with one another. They recognize in their own more sober moments that war is a bloody and expensive business and they come together to resolve it.

In this mode the committee gives us awards for Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (1973), Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin (1978), Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), and Barack Obama (2009). Obama got the award before he had had a chance to get the Oval Office seats warm from his butt, so one gathers it expressed a hope he would work the Peace-from-Above magic.

The other model I would call, as you might expect, Peace From Below. Grass-roots groups sometimes give the world hope by showing that there are other ways of thinking about and acting on conflicts, ways that don't involve being or toadying up to a head of state or chief executive. The committee sometimes does give awards recognizing this, especially if the heads of state and their cronies have been living down to their nastier selves of late and there isn't anything conspicuous to reward there.  Thus we have recently seen an award for Mohammud Yunus, which in essence celebrated the idea of micro-credit, and one for Malala Yousafzai, who quite nearly lost her life due to her desire for an education, and who has become an unelected and appointed symbol of that  desire.

This year's award is to an intermediate sort of recipient. It is to a political and not-especially grassroots collection of groups, but a mega-group working as I understand it well below the heads-of-state level. Which model of peace making one might take this to imply remains a matter of interpretation.

It may just mean that the committee members want to celebrate the fact that there was at least one country that participated in the "Arab spring" without disastrous results.

Comments

  1. I would hesitate to say that Kissinger "resolved" the Vietnam war, because the U.S. was the aggressor. The U.S. could have "resolved" the war by ceasing its aggression. Kissinger's role was to delay that cessation until the U.S.'s victims met U.S. demands. Giving him the peace prize was comparable to rewarding a kidnapper for releasing his victim after the kidnapper received the ransom he demanded.

    Of course, the U.S. lost the war, so it did not receive all the "ransom" it had initially sought; perhaps the only ransom it sought through the negotiations was to create the false appearance of achieving "peace with honor," to use Nixon's phrase. Le Duc Tho, incidentally, declined the prize.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…