| Klikk her for Norsk versjon |  |
|||||||
What happened to the Nobel Peace Prize?
(An English version is in preparation - please register
Short sample text:: "Fredsförfäktare" - a fourth criterion!! «Fredsförfäktare» - a fourth criterion! The three criteria (brotherhood, disarmament, peace congresses) are Nobel´s own words on what kinds of peace work he wished to reward. In the very modest measure posterity has been at all interested in the precise words he used to describe the peace prize, these three criteria have been the subject of such interest. It was almost like making a great invention to discover, working with the text of the will, that there is another description of intention in Nobel´s short text - a fourth criterion. However, the dictionaries do contain the verb förfäkta and the noun förfäktare, in German verfechten and in Norwegian forfekte. The idea is to promote something, fight for something. The most interesting variety seems to be the following synonym of the verb förfäkta: «eagerly advocate a certain opinion». Nobel actually created both a new word and a new prize for those who eagerly advocate peace. Nobel did not establish a «peace prize» The work of interpreting a will centers around the words found in the text; so much so, it is easy to forget that other words may be just as important - the words that are not used. For over a hundred years much has been written and said about the Peace Prize and the proper understanding of peace. Again and again the word "peace prize" has been the point of departure for thought and discussion about the content of a peace prize in a modern age. This is all very well - if Nobel had ever used the word. Since Nobel never mentioned the words peace prize, such speculation is nothing less than a major blunder. It is clearly unacceptable to choose a new word as basis for interpretation, instead of sticking to the words that the testator actually used in his will. The consequence is that one has to disregard all interpretations of the will that are not based on Nobel´s own text. While Nobel never used the words peace prize, he promised Bertha von Suttner several times to «do something big» for the movement. She was disappointed when, instead of a considerable cash amount, all the peace movement got was a prize. One example of such free fantasy based on the word «peace prize» is the speech that Egil Aarvik, as Chair of the Committee, held for Lech Walesa (1983). Seeking to explain and justify this prize, he gave the concept «peace prize» a life of its own: ... "We believe that it is in the spirit of Alfred Nobel's legacy that the Peace Prize should be a gesture of solidarity with those who, in the service of peace, campaign for humanity's highest ideals." Mr. Aarvik emphasizes that the Nobel Committee should be entirely autonomous in its decisions, which is a correct description of principle, but not of practice. He fails to specify what guidelines in the will he relies on, not at all surprising since Nobel did not specify such guidelines as he mentions. The word peace (Scandinavian: "fred") can only be found twice in Nobel´s will, as parts of the compound words peace congresses ("fredskongresser") and champions of peace ("fredsförfäktare"). Since the expression peace prize was not used by Nobel, the Nobel Committee is left with six expressions to take into consideration when it decides on deserving and rightful recipients of the prize: Two general expressions, for all the five prizes: and four expressions that apply particularly to the peace prize: Stage 2: Translation from 1895 to 2008 The aim of the interpretation today must be to translate the purpose defined by Nobel in 1895 to the present time, seek to refind and recognize, as far as possible, Nobel´s own intention in today´s world and formulate it in the usage of our time. Democracy, human rights, justice, environment, energy and resource conservation: there are many activities that have something to do with peace. But Nobel had a narrower definition of the kind of peace work he wished to stimulate; he would reward certain forms of work to abolish the military in order to stop all wars. It is a decisive insight that Nobel did not establish a prize for «peace» in whatever guise, but a prize for work for peace in certain ways and certain fields.
|
||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||
In a new book, Nobels vilje, Fredrik S. Heffermehl, a Norwegian lawyer and peace activist, delivers undisputable evidence that Nobel intended to support the "Champions of peace", he wished to reward the struggle to end wars through an international order based on law and abolition of military forces. Since 1948 the parties in the Norwegian parliament have misused the Nobel committee seats to reward party veterans lacking insight in the peace politics that Nobel wished to support. Over half of the awards since 1946 have not conformed with the intention of Nobel, who wished to change the international system in order to end wars and armaments. Post-disaster repairs would not do. The prize has long ago ceased to challenge the forces it intended to combat and instead been used to promote Norwegian policies and business interests. Heffermehl claims that the Norwegian parliament and the Nobel committee have violated the law for six decades.