On Friday, Oct. 11, former President Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his peacemaking and humanitarian work over the last 20 years. On Monday, Carter was off to monitor Jamaica's parliamentary elections, but not before the Nobel Committee's Chairman made clear that his award was meant as a criticism of the Bush administration and its plans for war in Iraq.
Although the Peace Prize often carries a political message, it usually is not this overt -- and for good reason. By placing the Prize in political context and attaching political messages to it, the Nobel Committee diminishes its recipients' honor and cheapens its own mission. If the Nobel Committee is to preserve the honor of the Prize and the integrity of its mission, it must stand above politics and let Nobel laureates win on their own merit.
Carter is eminently deserving of the Nobel Prize. Presidents are rarely expected to make humanitarianism a second career upon leaving office and they typically become consultants, corporate board members and expensive lecturers. But while so many others use their legacy for personal enrichment, Carter has understood that the star power of the presidency can be used for more meaningful ends, even by a president years out of office.
Since leaving the White House (where his 1978 negotiation of the Camp David accords might also have earned him a Nobel), Carter has indeed become a professional peacemaker and humanitarian. He has facilitated cease-fires in Sudan and the former Yugoslavia, helped eradicate tropical diseases and monitored elections worldwide. Through his Atlanta Project and his work with Habitat for Humanity, Carter also has worked to resolve problems of domestic poverty.
With such an impressive record, Carter is surely deserving of the Peace Prize and the Nobel Committee should have given it to him without regard for political considerations.
In its citation of Carter, the Committee made an implied criticism of the Bush administration, stating that Carter's work is especially significant "in a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power." In remarks shortly after the Prize was awarded, Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge made the criticism more pointed, saying that the Prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken."
The Committee's criticisms may or may not be warranted, but whatever their merit, they cannot be attached to the Peace Prize without diminishing the importance of Carter's work. Carter's projects over the past two decades have made a meaningful difference in the world that is above any political consideration. But by politicizing the award so directly, the Committee has unfairly suggested that Carter's work is of secondary importance to its own political goals. Carter should not be cast as a foil to President Bush and his achievements should not be used as a vehicle for criticizing the administration. Carter's work alone is sufficient basis for his prize and the Committee should not diminish his honor by framing it in political terms.
The Nobel Committee also has strayed from its own mission in lacing the Peace Prize with political subtext. Alfred Nobel did not want his prize to be used for political purposes and, according to the Committee's Web site, he "may
have feared that the highly political nature of the Peace Prize would make it a tool in power politics and thereby reduce its significance as an instrument for peace."
Although the Committee's criticism of the administration is not quite an intervention in power politics, it is an attempt to influence decisions that are more properly left to the world's political leaders. By weighing in on a political debate, the Nobel Committee confirms its founder's fears and becomes but one more actor in the political process. The Committee exists not to demand peace itself, but to recognize and reward those individuals who do. If the Committee is to maintain the integrity of its mission, it must avoid confusing these roles and resist the temptation to use its prestige improperly.
Besides straying from its founder's goal, the Nobel Committee may also diminish its own importance by publicly opposing a war that increasingly seems inevitable. The Committee's objections will not likely be heeded and its opinions will seem slightly irrelevant if a war does indeed occur. The best way to maintain the lofty stature of the Peace Prize (and thus, its value as an instrument of peace) is for the Nobel Committee to avoid entangling itself in losing political battles.
Jimmy Carter's Peace Prize was well deserved and long overdue, but the Committee should not have cheapened it by suggesting that the award was politically motivated. If the Peace Prize is to remain a meaningful acknowledgement of peacemakers and humanitarians, Mr. Berge and the Nobel Committee must stand above politics and base their decisions on merit alone.
(Alec Solotorovsky is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
