Bush and Blair nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

Yes, really.

The Norwegian legislator Harald Tom Nesvik was on CNN last night, and he was talking to Paula Zahn about how he’s nominated Bush and Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize (although it sounds like he missed the deadline for submitting nominations).

(I couldn’t find any coverage of it on CNN’s website, but BBC had a story about it back in February, when nominations were due: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1801773.stm)

It sounds like a publicity stunt more than anything else.

However, it does raise some interesting questions.

–Can Bush and Blair be considered valid candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize in the year 2003?

–Is there any precedent in the awards’ history for recognizing the use of force as a means to achieving peace (this was essentially Nesvik’s argument in favor of B & B’s nomination)?

–If, in the context of the “war on terrorism,” B & B cannot be considered valid candidates at this time, how would that situation have to change before they would be? Or is the war on terror structured in such a way that a peaceful resolution is inconceivable?

–Who is this Harald Tom Nesvik guy, anyway?

I think anybody can be nominated, since that’s really just being submitted for consideration. Anyone know how many people get nominated every year? I’d say the odds of them winning are zero. When they awarded the Prize to Jimmy Carter last year, some of the panel were quite critical of the war effort.

I have a feeling Alfred Nobel would take issue with that nomination.

As for their worthiness:whether or not their actions have actually promoted peace has yet to be demonstrated. They’ve definitely promoted war, that much is clear, so I think they’d be pretty poor candidates.

Here’s some info on how to nominate someone for the Nobel Peace prize.
Some people who are eligible to nominate nominees:
members of national assemblies and governments; university chancellors; university professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology.

All you have to do is talk you representative in congress into it and you too can be nominated.

Winning is a somewhat more selective process.

Well, considering that Alfred Nobel owned Bofors and was referred to as the merchant of death in a mistaken obituary, I’m not sure he’d be on solid ground to take issue with any nomination.

There have been some odd winners of the Nobel peace prize in the past, among them Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat.

I can’t believe that I missed this:

same site cite


I was under the impression that was his whole point of initiating the Nobel Prizes: so that he could leave some other legacy than the invention of dynamite.

Very odd characters to recieve the prize, but at least the prizes were given in context of signifigant efforts toward peace (Olso accords, ending the Vietnam war).

Also, in both cases those prizes were shared with the combatants on the other side. Giving a prize to two warring parties for making peace isn’t so bad to me.

Does anyone have a list of all the vindictives the conservatives were throwing at the Nobel Peace Prize when Jimmy Carter won? I wonder if those folks are doing any significant backpedaling now…

Perhaps I’ll start a rant about Nobel in the pit some day, but suffice it to say that he made a lot of money off of Bofors, which exclusively manufactures armaments. I don’t think too highly of his desire to create a legacy for himself as a man of peace when that wasn’t what he was known as in his lifetime. It wasn’t some misguided misuse of his invention of dynamite by militaries, he was in on the act himself.

There isn’t anything wrong with the awarding of the prize to Arafat and Kissinger, but it did ruffle a few feathers at the time. Le Duc Tho, the co-recipient in 1973 turned down the award.

If a mass murdering son of 10,000 pigs like Arafat can win the “Peace” Prize, then Blair and Bush should be canonized.

Doesn’t make much sense to me, even if you think the war was justified.

If Blair and bush should be canonized then I should be promoted to god as I’ve never been responsible for grief on an international or global scale.

Presumably, it’s because they saved the world from all those WMD.

FWIW, the Bush Blair nomination occured in Feb 2002.

Why would we backpedal now? Some of us view the Nobel Peace Prize as meaningless, except as a political statement by a highly partisan panel of judges. Would it be nice if Bush and Blair received recognition of making progress towards peace (if, indeed, that’s where the Iraqi war leads)? Yeah. Would that change the meaninglessness of the award, given the list of past recipients? No. Is there a chance in hell of it happening? Again, no.

Or it could be because fewer Iraqi civilians (and perhaps fewer Iraqis generally) died during the war than during the average month of Saddam’s reign.

I do not think that “net lives saved” is a basis used in awarding a Nobel nor do I personally believe it should be one. But it is a non-trivial argument.

Unless there is a dramatic change in the next few weeks with regards to weapons of mass destruction, this nomination is a travesty. President Bush either lied or relied on inaccurate information to gain support for his attack on Iraq. I think rewarding that sort of duplicity or carelessness with a Nodel prize would be a nightmare.

Yes, and some of us are mighty cynical now, aren’t we?

You know what - regardless of the merits of removing Saddam, nominating either B or B at this stage is just so ridiculous it’s obscene.

In five or ten years’ time, if and when Iraq is stable, peaceful, and has a good relationship again with America and Britain, fair enough. Maybe it will be a valid nomination. But not now, for god’s sake.