I agree with a lot of the reactions to yesterday's news: premature (in his response, the recipient himself implied this too), the third
Non-Bush Prize, at least, in less than a decade,
a joke that devalues the tradition. A lot of fuss because a bunch of Norwegian politicians happen to sit on a large endowment and like to influence international politics with it. But it occurred to me that the fact that just about everyone, in every part of the world, felt the urge to comment (often quite vehemently) on this award that shows that the Nobel Peace Prize really is a kind of universal award, the property, if you like, of all of us. If people didn't see it that way, didn't think they had a stake in it, they would not respond in this way. The award's long tradition, and its many distinguished winners, has played a big role in this, of course. The committee has made interesting choices in recent years. On the whole, however, I wonder if there hasn't been too much Norwegianism. An eagerness to lead at the expense of being satisfied with sticking to more traditional choices. An eagerness also to try to, shall we say, encourage the United States to be more like the rest of civilization (i.e. Western Europe)? Americans will resist those calls, because they're not, and never will be, West European social democrats. Western Europe's reach in other parts of the world will remain equally limited. So let me correct myself: the Nobel Peace Prize matters, but mostly to Norway, the EU, and UN diplomats and bureaucrats; it is the property of a certain international community, those who subscribe to an internationalist, semi-collectivist, developmental ethos. They're influential, not just because of the Nobel Peace Prize, and they do have some good ideas. But in the grand scheme of things, they're probably a minority. And it remains to be seen to what extent the latest American winner of their award is going to conform to their way of seeing the world. He is, after all, the president of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment