Yared Huluf 12-10-19F
The Chairperson of the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee stood on her feet today 10th December, 2019, for well over 40 minutes fighting and gasping to resurrect the credibility and transparency the institution she leads after repeated ill-conceived awards that were dished out for characters they least deserve. The Nobel Prize was setup n 1985, it would not take 124 years to this day to declared the intent and purpose, it would be obvious to anyone by now and do not need any explanations and clarifications the Chairperson did on a day when one of the prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi is brought to the International Human Right Court to stand trail for crime committed. Obviously, things are not going the way they were intended be. If they had then there would not be any doubt in the mind of ordinary people, let alone to have hundreds of people demonstrating outside the ceremonial place in protest against the award.
A fortune appears to have been spent to display the entire show in taking place in the ceremony on Aljazeera but without any glimpse of those who were demonstrating outside the hall . PM Abiy spoke in English, with few quotations in Amharic and Oromo, so much for the inclusivity he talked much about on the stage to convince his audience.
The problem with the Norwegian Nobel Prize enterprise did not start with PM Abiy Ahmed winning the 2019 prize; it goes way back in time when it chose Aung San suu Kyi as a winner for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights in 1991 two years after house arrest (1989 - 2010) for engaging in non-violent protest against the military dictators of Myanmar (Burma) allegedly in line following the causes of her father Bogyoka Aung San who was assassinated on 17 July 1947 at an age of 32 years (13 Feb - July 17, 1947).
There is no question Aung San Suu Kyi is an extraordinaire personality. She had the courage to fight and fight she did against mighty. That said, she knew the world and her people were on her side. At the time of her arrest nothing had changed in Myanmar, it was business as usual. All the world knew was the intention of Aung San Suu Kyi to stay still and pursue, but an intention is different from what actually materialized. The struggle and resolution on one side, the hope and award offer on the other side, notwithstanding, looking back the massacre of the Rohingya at Rakihina and the plight of those who survived there after happened on her watch pointing to no hard evidence that her fight against the dictators was in pursuit for democracy and human rights for all who deserved regardless.
This makes it problematic to argue that deliberation of an award on the basis of what would happen rather than what actually took place to honour.
Likewise for the sake of consistency this approach was not applied to people like Nelson Mandela who was kept in harsh prison conditions for twenty six and a half years for championing the causes of the South Africans. He was awarded the prize in 1993 after release together with Frederick Willem de Klerk rightly so for the peaceful termination of apartheid and laying the foundation for a New Democratic nation. I call this a noble Nobel Prize. 10 May 1994 he became the president of South Africa.
One need not award for good intensions (even though it is good to acknowledge good intentions) but for a concrete steps taken and see it through that it is in operation.
A similar error taken by the Norwegian Nobel Prize House was on 9 October 2009 when an award was given to Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.
Seven months into his presidency Thorbjorn Jagland, the chair of the Nobel Prize Committee, former Norwegian MP and Secretary General of the Council of Europe stated that: “we have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do.”
Obviously this playing with words. Yes Obama did not make the world a worse place to live in but he did not make it an ideal place to live in ether, although he could not be blamed for the shortfalls.
Two ill judgments in its coffer stashed-in would one expects the Norwegian Nobel Committee to learn its lesson- but it did not when it awarded PM Ahmed Abiy of Ethiopia for forging a peace deal with Eritrea.
Well there is no peace and there is no war. The same situation as it was the past 20 years and goes on. There are many other serious problems the countries are faced with that makes them less to be desired to visit let alone to award and pat the backs of their leaders. It makes one wonder if the Norwegian are doing services for their own and European causes cloaking the poor black man’s clothe.
Or should I wander if the Committee live in the same troubled planet we are all in? Or is it the case - just like the free market- where if one has the money, one has the purchasing power and if one has the power one can bulldoze any contender and get away with whatever one wants. In the socio-economic and political sphere if there is no balance and check, one or a few nations, one or a few cartels, one or a few individuals will call the shot, not only then would they managed to crush any descent but (here is the irony) eventually they’ve commit Suicide not because they came under pressure and stress from others but because of their own fault.
There no doubt the Nobel Prize Committee has good intensions and heart that deserve acknowledgement but it would have been better if awards go based on hard substantive deeds rather than hoped and wishful thinking’s.
I am sure the world has seen and would continue to see extraordinaire people emerging but wouldn’t it be better to acknowledge when and where they emerge rather than as if awarding in a continuous cycle come what may as in the prizes for winning lottery tickets or football games on a guaranteed and regular bases - irrespective of the game was exciting or not? Yes it may take a year, 5 years or more to see extraordinaire emerging, so should the awarding be conducted once in 5 years or 10 years depending on the heroes emerging. This would prevent the rush that leads to misjudgment and misplacement of awards in the wrong hands. It pears that the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee is a fixture in pursuit of 'extraordinaire characters' on a regular basis to award and if there aren't one they have to be invented. This would in turn encourage fraudsters to emerge to claim the award perhaps with the Committee's complicity or not.
But the Nobel Prize Committee is a victim a the forces of market. There is a Tigrygna saying: if a bull befriends a donkey, the bull may not learn how to braying but certainly he did to fart. The Nobel Prize House is part of the system. How could it survive for years pinning down extraordinaire without popping its head now and then on a regular bases and provide the services that justify its existence? Imaging a corner shop that does close its door for six days a week and be able to pay a rent for the building it occupies to do business - it cannot, it will go bankrupt. The Norwegian Nobel Prize is also a business enterprise that could not survive unless it masquerades up and down the market corridors looking for customers.
Back to Front Page