Wish it were feasible to revoke the Nobel Peace Prize! Especially when some individuals upon whom this supreme honour is bestowed, show, by their subsequent actions and behaviour, that they are more suited to a ‘prize’ or ‘badge’ of shame associated with war and destruction or violence and bloodshed.
Consequently, it raises questions about the appropriateness of honouring individuals like Menachem Begin with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. This was the leader of the Zionist Irgun group responsible for numerous atrocities in 1948, notably the Deir Yassin massacre.
Similarly, individuals such as Shimon Peres, who oversaw several tragic massacres in southern Lebanon in 1996, including the Qana massacre, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 105 Lebanese and the injury to around 150 others.
These people and their actions prompt reflection on the selection criteria for such prestigious awards.
Another person who comes to mind is Aung San Suu Kyi, the State Counsellor of Myanmar. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her advocacy of non-violent resistance, and has, since then, faced criticism for her role in the violent persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim minority.
This stark contradiction raises concerns about the appropriateness of awarding her the Nobel Peace Prize, given the subsequent actions that conflict with the principles it is meant to honour.
What kind of peace are they really talking about, and what criteria define peace for them? Why hasn’t the Nobel Peace Prize been revoked from those with innocent blood on their hands? These examples make us question the logic of bestowing the Nobel on individuals or groups for peace, when their actions are anything but peaceful! In fact, after having received this honour, they have been involved in terrible acts that have stained them with the blood of their victims.
Peace isn’t just a word. It is the foundation of life and the core of people’s existence. Without it, opportunities for life decline, prosperity fades and the world is engulfed in destruction, murder, war and bloodshed.
It has become evident, not just to me but to all of us, that the so-called ‘peace’ championed by these biased awards is not a genuine peace as we understand it. Instead, it seems to be a hollow claim made by individuals who lack mercy and compassion.
We are entitled to ask: What message is the Nobel Peace Prize conveying when its history is sullied by the names of warlords, whose acts of violence have resulted in the unforgettable deaths of thousands? Does the notion of humanity take on different meanings when it comes to ‘global prizes’?
Indeed, many of these so-called Nobel Peace Prize laureates, are, in reality, perpetrators of war crimes. Time and again, they have shown no hesitation in maintaining a façade of false peace before the international community. Instead of working towards genuine peace, they have continued down a path that paves the way for wars and genocide. This is starkly evident in the ongoing strife in the Gaza Strip, where the recipients of this award are implicated in the daily suffering and bloodshed. Unfortunately, similar scenarios unfold in other regions across the globe.
A critical reassessment of the award selection process is imperative, particularly for candidates in the human rights domain. One key criterion should be that recipients must refrain from intertwining human rights advocacy with political activities. Failure to adhere to this condition should warrant the withdrawal of the award in the future. This measure ensures that the accolade is granted solely based on an individual’s commitment to human rights without any influence from political affiliations or perspectives.
It seems necessary to establish alternative awards that are more neutral, transparent and specifically designed to champion the causes of the vulnerable. It should recognise individuals who are committed to tirelessly working for peace, justice and the promotion of humane values within societies. These awards should gain appreciation and support from individuals and organisations dedicated to fostering positive change in oppressed communities.
The lessons learned from past events underscore the reality that many international organisations, institutions and committees are not immune to charges of bias or even corruption. For instance, a notable organisation like the United Nations endorsed the American invasion of Iraq, relying on the pretext that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time. This highlights the need for more impartial recognition platforms that truly uphold the principles they aim to celebrate.
We cannot passively accept the notion that the ideals imposed by the West – democracy, freedom, equality, and even the Nobel Peace Prize – merely serve as instruments to exert control over our thoughts and capabilities. It becomes imperative for us to forge our own ideals, establish our own accolades, and showcase to the world our genuine vision of justice, charity and peace.
akram@fp7.com
&uuid=(email))