Nobel Peace Prize (1901-1933): The Great Illusion
Written by Eric Walberg    Saturday, 20 November 2010 04:58    PDF Print E-mail

Everyone knows that Alfred Nobel created his eponymous Peace Prize partly to assuage his guilt for unleashing dynamite on an already saber-rattling world. Fewer know that he wrote at the time that if the world still needed the prize 30 years later, we would "inevitably lapse into barbarism".

Still fewer know that he 'invented' MAD (mutually assured destruction), long before the atom bomb. He once speculated to his assistant, friend and future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Bertha Suttner (1905) that he would like to invent "a substance or a machine with such terrible power of mass destruction that war would therefore be made impossible forever".

His own proposal for world peace was "a treaty by which the governments bound themselves jointly to defend any country that was attacked. By degrees this would lead to partial disarmament, which is the only thing possible, since there must be an armed force for the maintenance of order."

In a cloak-and-dagger finish to his career as inventor-philanthropist, his hand-written will, composed without a lawyer a year before his sudden death in 1896, was contested by a shocked family (he was a bachelor with no children), delaying the awarding of the first prizes. He added a whiff of anti-colonialism to the prize by entrusting it to Sweden's quasi-colony Norway, which achieved complete independence only in 1905.

Now that the prize is alive and well 110+ years on and more than 100 million war dead later, it is worth looking back at some of the more outstanding or unusual winners. It is a motley crew to say the least, including Teddy Roosevelt (1906), Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (1973), Begin and Sadat  (1978), Arafat, Peres and Rabin (1994) and Obama (2009) to name the most controversial winners. In defense of the peace prize committee, it has been argued that it made its awards with a healthy dose of wishful thinking, hoping to give its blessing to intractable problems.

20 times it has gone to organizations (4 times alone to the Red Cross – 1901, 1917, 1944, 1963), despite Nobel's express wish that it should not go to organizations, but to committed individuals. 20 times it was not awarded at all, most recently in 1966-7 and 1972, due to war and committee discord. So far only 51 times has it been awarded to one individual, 24 times jointly, 12 times to women. Once the award was refused (Le Duc Tho), once awarded posthumously (Dag Hammarskjold in 1961) and once awarded to a previous Nobel laureate (Linus Pauling was awarded the chemistry prize (1954) and peace prize (1963)). The greatest peacenik of the 20th c, Mahatma Ghandi, was nominated 4 times (shortlisted with Adolph Hitler in 1938) and passed over 4 times.

Sometimes it balanced a pacifist like Jane Addams(1931) with a strident critic of pacifism (Nicholas Butler); sometimes it threw the prize money at wealthy public figures with little to recommend them, as in 1925 (Sir Austen Chamberlain and Charles Gates Dawes). It has generally been the kiss of death for politicians, as Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), Shimon Peres (1994), Kim Dae Jung (2000) and Barack Obama have discovered. Lester Pearson was the only Canadian to win (1957), and it can be argued it did him little good politically.

Browsing through the official site, I have found a few gems. In this 2-part survey, I would like to highlight a few dark horses and reflect on the changing face of the Nobel Peace Prizes over the past 110 years.

Before WWI, it was awarded mostly for humanitarian work, to the organized peace movement, or to prominent members of the establishment promoting mediation, arbitration and international law. After the disarmament conference in The Hague called with great pomp by Tsar Nicholas in 1899, the burning question was 'Does disarmament lead to peace or must we build an international order to obviate the need for arms?' The sad story of disarmament campaigns since then can only be rivaled by the even sadder story of attempts to build an international order that can do away with the need for arms.

The inter-war years were the period in which major liberal-conservative politicians predominated as laureates, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, the second American president to win the Prize (1919) for his efforts to establish the League of Nations.

A winner who is now largely forgotten is the 1933 recipient Sir Norman Angell, like Nobel a life-long bachelor, born to a well-to-do British family. He was slight and only 5’ tall, but took to the road at 17, emigrating to America to work as a ditch digger, cowpuncher, homesteader, prospector, and, finally, reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. He returned to England, became a pacifist, and wrote his best-selling The Great Illusion (1910, revised 1933), in which he posited that the common economic interests of nations make war futile. He tried in vain to keep Britain out of WWI, was a fierce critic of the Versailles treaty, became a Labour MP (1929-31), and was knighted in 1931.

The cult popularity of The Great Illusion gave rise to  "Norman Angellism", which holds that "military and political power give a nation no commercial advantage, and it is impossible for one nation to enrich itself by subjugating another." Angell wrote close to 50 books over a long career as peacenik, with such prescient titles as America and the New World-State: A Plea for American Leadership in International Organization (1915) and America's Dilemma: Alone or Allied? (1940), and died in 1967 at the age of 94.

I can't prove it, but I suspect Angell's first and best book was the inspiration for Jean Renoir's anti-war film of 1937 La Grande Illusion, since its theme -- that war corrupts both victor and victim -- is Angell's very thesis. "Wars destroy in a few months what took a society centuries to build," wrote Renoir in 1974.
***

The following excerpts from Angell's Peace Prize speech "Peace and the Public Mind" give an idea of his penetrating logic.

In the year that Hitler came to power, he wrote:
Nationalism is a gravely dangerous because it "finds response in deep human impulses, instincts, in psychological facts which we must face.”
Peace through strengthen "defies alike ethics, equality of right, and arithmetic… Each denies to the other the right he claims for himself.” The argument goes: "We give you our most positive assurance that that power will be used purely for defense. And by defense we mean this: that when we get into a dispute with you as to our respective rights, when, that is, the question is whether you are right or we are right, what we mean by defense is that we shall always be in a position to be sole judge of the question. And so much stronger than you, that you will have to accept our verdict without any possibility of appeal. Could anything be fairer?"

As the League of Nations withered on the vine, he put the case for collective action clearly:
"We use power, of course, in the international fields in a way which is the exact contrary to the way in which we use it within the state. In the international field, force is the instrument of the rival litigants, each attempting to impose his judgment upon the other. Within the state, force is the instrument of the community, the law, primarily used to prevent either of the litigants imposing by force his view upon the other. The normal purpose of police - to prevent the litigant taking the law into his own hands, being his own judge - is the precise contrary of the normal purpose in the past of armies and navies, which has been to enable the litigant to be his own judge of his own rights when in conflict about them with another. In the days when every householder had firearms as a matter of course, when the security of each household depended mainly upon its own powers of defense, highwaymen and bandits were very much more common than they are now when not one house in a thousand has any firearm at all. Plainly, therefore, the relatively greater security of today is not due to the improvement of household firearms because they do not exist. The improvement is due to the development of the collective method of defense within the state.

While national economies moldered in the Great Depression, he wrote:
"Wealth, in our modern world of intricate division of labor is a flow, a process, analogous to keeping the traffic moving upon the highways of the world. If that traffic is blocked, as it inevitably is blocked, by the dislocations that follow wars, such as unpayable debts, which create in their turn a maldistribution of monetary gold, which involves in its turn dislocation of the whole credit and monetary system, disorganization of the exchanges -- if that sort of thing happens, then material ceases to be wealth. The Brazilian burns his coffee, the Norwegian his fish, but neither burns the coal of the British miner, who goes without both the coffee and the fish. But traffic can be kept moving in one way only, by traffic rules. But a great popular press in Britain protests clamantly every time an international conference is called for.”

His argument concerning human nature vs behaviour:
"Nine out of 10 of the critics of the peace movement get the argument turned upside down. 'You cannot change human nature' has become a sort of incantation with those critics. Perhaps you cannot 'change human nature' -- I don't indeed know what the phrase means. But you can certainly change human behavior, which is what matters, as the whole panorama of history shows.”

To the extent that Canada still has sovereignty as a small nation, Angell gives some hope:
"It is the little states, like this one of Norway, which have today evolved the highest civilization and the greatest social stability, have developed, more than others, the art of free and peaceful life together. They, more than others, may show the way by which the world may be led to security and peace.”

http://www.peacemagazine.org/ (2002, revised 2011)

 

From Peace & Socialism

  • Fighting the enemy at times means fighting your erstwhile comrades-in-arms, writes Eric Walberg

    The phenomenal success the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has had since it began in 2005 has attracted attention from all corners of the political spectrum -- for better or for worse. Israel is scared. Israeli thinktanks have described BDS as a greater threat to Israel than armed Palestinian resistance. At the same time, at the forefront of the movement against what is now widely called Israeli apartheid are Jews -- Israeli and diaspora. This is not surprising, as Jews have traditionally been active in “political mobilisation and opinion formation”, according to Benjamin Ginsberg.

  • Interview by Jonathan Reynolds, an anthropologist who writes for spikemagazine.com and author of two books on the Maya and Guatemala

    Q: For a work of geopolitical history, I found the book a real ‘page-turner’.

    A: Thanks. It’s gratifying that this came across. So much of the critique of imperialism is depressing and boring, and puts the reader off. The history is fascinating, if horrifying.

    Q: I was impressed by the great sweep of the argument, and how the details of the history of imperialism as you write about it are integrated so well into it.

    A: Again, thanks. I couldn’t have done it without the internet. I really should have put Wikipedia in the acknowledgments, although this must be treated circumspectly – it allows you to track down hundreds of details in seconds that are essential to making a credible argument. Again, much of the literature is either too detail-heavy or too generalized. In writing both my articles over the past decade, and this (and another book) over the past four years, I developed a style where I try to include as many relevant details as possible without sinking under their weight.

  • Two weeks ago I published a review of Eric Walberg’s invaluable new book Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games. I was left with a few questions which Eric was kind enough to address.

    Gilad Atzmon:  Hello Eric; thanks for finding the time to talk. I would like to begin if I may, with a few short questions: firstly, what is self-hatred?

    Eric Walberg: Buddhism is based on the annihilation of the self. Islam – on the total submission of self. It’s at the heart of Christian beliefs too. (I don’t know about Judaism.)  Self-hatred has respectable roots.

  • As oil prices soar and countries think twice about expanding nuclear power, we should be careful about where to point the finger, says Eric Walberg

    Japan’s trauma following the partial meltdown of nuclear reactors in Fukushima has once again brought to the world’s attention the dangers of nuclear power. From the start, it was clear that a broad advocacy of nuclear energy is bad ecology. Splitting the atom (or worse, fusing atoms) unleashes intense heat and radiation and produces poisonous waste that lasts for up to 10,000 years or more.

  • 31/1/11

    Waiting for my flight to Munich in Toronto, a voluble American my age struck up a conversation. Ed is an attorney from Atlanta with 7 kids -- 3 from his first marriage, 2 from his second wife's first marriage, and 2 from their marriage. "A typical American family these days," he said, meaning the mixed marriage rather than the number of kids. He launched unbidden into a scathing critique of the US, saying it was basically a basket case, becoming a totalitarian monster, and that he was looking for a place to move to with his family.

    When I told him I was going to Cairo, he asked if Egypt was a good prospect. Considering it was in the midst of a revolution, I suggested he consider Cyprus as a better option.

  • 2010 was a tough one overall. Public discontent with governments and economic policy brought people out on the streets to protest. US wars, occupation and threat of war in the Middle East and Asia were never far from the headlines. Elections around the world led  in most cases to further tensions. There were few outright winners and many more losers, with most developments a mixed bag.

  • Much is being made of North Korea’s shelling of one of 30 disputed islands, Yeonpyeong, which houses a South Korean military base, well inside what should be a demilitarised zone between the two Koreas resulting in the deaths of two South Korean marines and two civilians. The borders were unilaterally drawn by the UN at the end of the 1950-53 war and the countries are still officially in a state of war. Rumours are that the incident is connected to the possible transition of power from North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to his son Kim Jong Un, or to North Korea’s recent announcement that it is proceeding with its nuclear programme.


    The skirmish began Tuesday when North Korea warned the South to halt military drills at the base, after which Seoul began firing artillery directly into disputed waters within sight of the North Korean shore. The North retaliated by shelling the Yeonpyeong military installations. Seoul responded by unleashing its own barrage of howitzers and scrambling fighter jets over the North, killing far more North Koreans though the actual number is not yet know.

    The words of condemnation -- of the North -- from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and US President Barack Obama for the “provocation” flowed, as expected. Obama used the occasion to reaffirmed plans to stage joint military exercises later this week in the Yellow Sea, the latest in its own provocations of both North Korea and China this year, following the sinking of a South Korean warship in an earlier joint US-South Korean military “exercise”. Accusations that North Korea torpedoed the Cheonan, killing 46 sailors, were undermined by evidence pointing to the US itself. Pyongyang denied responsibility.

    400 of the 1,700 residents of Yeonpyeong were evacuated. Instead of demilitarising the disputed islands and agreeing to mediation, the South Korean government announced it would strengthen its military forces there and halt aid to the North, while the North warned of more military strikes if the South encroaches on the maritime border by "even 0.001 millimetre."

    That the provocation is from the South Korea side, with its pro-US President Lee Myung-bak, who has made his anti-communist sentiments clear in the past, is confirmed by the fact that the incident failed to scare off investors, with South Korea's stock market experiencing only a momentary ripple.

  • With the rise of Hitler, the Peace Prize committee finally mustered up the courage to take on Nazism, and awarded the 1935 prize to Carl von Ossietzky, a German journalist and pacifist who had spent several years in Papenburg-Esterwegen, a Nazi concentration camp, convicted of high treason and espionage in 1931 after publishing details of Germany's violation of the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding an air force and training pilots in the Soviet Union. (Ironically, the verdict was upheld by the Federal Court of Justice in 1992.) At the time it was a highly controversial decision, with two jury members resigning, fearing a political fallout with the Nazis.

  • Everyone knows that Alfred Nobel created his eponymous Peace Prize partly to assuage his guilt for unleashing dynamite on an already saber-rattling world. Fewer know that he wrote at the time that if the world still needed the prize 30 years later, we would "inevitably lapse into barbarism".

  • October 2003 -- The America I once knew seems like a distant memory, says one journalist after another these days. But how about this: "Times such as ours have always bred defeatism and despair." Re-reading Einstein's writings on peace, it is clear that America has been through an equally insane fit in the past - such as the madness following World War II.
  • Garment worker, peace activist, mother. Born 1906, sister of composer Leonid Tsukert, wife of poet and peace activist Harold Bates.

    Like a rose bush, Sonja bloomed many times, sending her roots into whatever soil there was, finding nourishment where others found only dirt, and producing beauty and joy where others found only darkness and misery. She was the 4th of 9 children born to a stationmaster on the Imperial Russian railway in eastern Poland.

  • “For centuries, Europeans dominated the African continent. The white man arrogated to himself the right to rule and to be obeyed by the non-white; his mission, he claimed, was to "civilize" Africa. Under this cloak, the Europeans robbed the continent of vast riches and inflicted unimaginable suffering on the African people.”

    --- I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology (1961)


    (Spring 2008) -- The incessant stream of bad news — make that “flood” — from “the dark continent” gives the impression that Africa somehow missed out on the wonders of capitalist development which the West luckily reaped through some quirk of fate. No longer is it acceptable to attribute this discrepancy to skin colour, though that underlying prejudice still survives, seemingly corroborated by World Bank — even holier-than-thou United Nations — statistics.

    So the words and works of Kwame Nkrumah, which inspired a generation, are well worth a second glance. In fact, the greatest African of the millennium, according to the 2000 BBC World Service listeners’ poll, is not Nelson Mandela or even Patrice Lumumba, but Kwame Nkrumah, the man who inspired the movement for African independence, but who has dropped out of Western discourse, for very good reasons.

  • The gloves are off in the battle to shape our "new world order", observes Eric Walberg

    19/2/9 -- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill passed this week will define Barack Obama's presidency. But it is really just the younger sibling to the Troubled Assets Relief Programme. To separate the now trillions being handed out to the banksters from the $800 billion being handed out to the lottery winners is to be ingenuous. The elder sister's patrons are already blackmailing mama Obama, wailing for more trillions or they will plunge the economy into even greater financial crisis. "You ain't seen nothing yet," they hissed to Treasury Secretary Geithner, who, according to economist Michael Hudson, quickly "pledged government financing for as much as $2 trillion... to spur new lending and address banks' toxic assets, seeking to end the credit crunch hobbling the economy."

  • In the second of a two-part series, Eric Walberg looks at the repercussions of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan

    29/5/8 -- While the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq look to be part of an ambitious plan of American domination of the Muslim world, both are proving to be a much greater problem than their shadowy planners supposed. And whatever conspiracy jigsaw puzzle Afghanistan forms a key piece in, it is certainly not one made in Russia, despite current attempts by the United States to paint Russia, formerly enemy number one, as enemy number two, after the current enemy du jour -- Islam.

  • The US is not only repeating all the Soviets' mistakes in Afghanistan, it is showing remarkable creativity in the horrors department, says Eric Walberg in the first of a two-part series
     
    22/5/8 -- Twenty years ago this week (22 May 2008) the Soviet Union began its withdrawal from Afghanistan, eight and a half years after it was invited by the desperate People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had degenerated into intra-party squabbling and was beset by Islamic rebels massively financed by the United States. The straw that broke the Soviets' back was when the US began providing Stinger missiles to Osama bin Laden and his friends.
  • Is there more than meets the eye in the sudden flurry of talk about a world food crisis, asks Eric Walberg

    15/5/8 -- Food protests and riots swept more than 20 countries in early 2008, including Egypt. On 2 April, World Bank President Robert Zoellick told a meeting in Washington that there are 33 countries where price hikes could cause widespread social unrest. The UN World Food Programme called the crisis the silent tsunami, with wheat prices almost doubling in the past year alone,

  • As demonstrators march on the White House with a million signatures on a petition to impeach Bush and Cheney, doubts persist about the event that made them "wartime leaders", says Eric Walberg

    6/9/7 -- Theories about what really happened on 11 September, 2001 continue to inspire books and documentaries and convince otherwise sane, respectable public figures, not to mention the teeming masses. Journalist Robert Fisk recently joined the fray, intrigued by the scientific improbably of the buildings collapsing in such a seemingly controlled way and charges by engineering professors who call the final report "fraudulent or deceptive". As a Middle East expert, he also finds the letter allegedly written by Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian hijacker- murderer "weird", surely a forgery.

  • While UN peacekeeping has done little to calm the world's troubled waters, the UN's other mandate -- development -- has had some success despite its many problems, argues Eric Walberg

    30/8/7 -- The debate over how to achieve peace revolves around two poles: world peacekeeping and disarmament vs economic and social development. The latter argument goes: busy literate hands and full stomachs obviate the need for war, just as the improvement of women's status leads to reduced family size.

  • With its largest peacekeeping mission planned in Sudan, Eric Walberg considers the UN's track record in the first of two articles
     

    16/8/7 -- Founded amidst the rubble of World War II -- well, actually in untouched San Francisco, with delegates spirited in by United States military planes, and nursed and spied on by a US determined to make the most of its new unrivalled world hegemony -- the United Nation started out with much more potential than its stillborn predecessor, the League of Nations, precisely because the US was committed. Even the Republicans were onboard, and all the major powers were present and willing. However, this US blessing was a two-edged sword and the UN's history is one of ups and downs with few political highpoints.

Eric Walberg


'Connect with Eric on Facebook or Twitter'

Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-West relations since the 1980s.

He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, Al-Jazeerah and Turkish Weekly, and is a commentator on Voice of the Cape radio.