Nobel Peace Prize: Apparently, it's Always Been Political
The Hill recently pondered how the Nobel Peace Prize 'turned political,' a revelation akin to discovering water is wet. While they decry recent choices, (like Obama's 2009 win before drone strikes escalated), they conveniently gloss over the persistent, undeniable political utility of such accolades. Does anyone recall Henry Kissinger sharing the prize in 1973 for 'peace' in Vietnam, just as
carpets of bombs were still settling in Cambodia? Or how about Menachem Begin, who oversaw the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, receiving it in 1978 for negotiating peace with Egypt, a negotiation enabled by significant U.S. diplomatic pressure and financial leverage? The prize's 'politicization' isn't new; it's a feature, not a bug, for an institution operating on the global stage. It often functions
as a soft power endorsement, particularly for figures aligning with Western liberal democratic ideals, or at least, those who serve a strategic purpose. To feign shock now suggests either a profound lack of historical awareness or a deliberate attempt to frame criticism of certain recipients as an aberration, rather than a consistent pattern of leveraging prestige for political ends. One might
wonder if the concern only arises when the 'politics' don't align with preferred narratives.