FOR PUBLICATION
A PREMATURE PRIZE � FOR AN IMMATURE LAUREATE
by William M. Lafferty
William M. Lafferty is Professor of Political Science at the
University of
Oslo and Director of the Programme for Research and Documentation
for a
Sustainable Society (ProSus) under the Research Council of Norway.
He has
previously served on the Board of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee
for Human
Rights, and is a frequently used commentator on Irish affairs in
Norway.
Born in the United States, he has been living in Norway since
1968.
At the end of a week of honors and prizes for the British-Irish
peace
process, it is worth taking stock on their effect. Do they help?
Or do they
disturb and possibly even hinder the business at hand?
Of particular note in this regard is the difference in profiles
between the
prizes bestowed in the United States and the BIG prize bestowed in
Oslo. The
American awards are less known and more inclusive. Nobody reacts
one way or
another on their bestowal. David Trimble didn�t clap for Gerry
Adams, and
Gerry Adams didn�t come to a reception held by the British embassy
in
Washington � but both of them were at least involved in the week
of
recognition.
Not so in Oslo. For reasons which only the Nobel Committee itself
is privy
to, the prize this year had to be limited to only two
representatives � and
it had to be �balanced�. Neither criterion is essential to the
Nobel-Prize
procedure. In many of the earlier �political� prizes (i.e. those
awarded in
connection with specific conflicts), the prizes have pointedly
been given to
one or more representatives of the �underdogs�. Albert Lutuli of
the
�outlawed� ANC in 1960; Lech Walesa in 1983; Demond Tutu in 1964;
Aung San
Suu Kyi in 1991; Rogoberta Mench� in 1992; Carlos Belo and Jos�
Ramos-Horta
in 1996. As to balance, the Committee had no problem giving the
prize for
the Middle-East conflict in 1994 to two Israelis (Peres and
Rabin), along
with one Palestinian (Arafat).
Why then the exceptional need for balance in the case of Northern
Ireland?
Given the fact that the documentation of the Committee�s
deliberations are
held secret for 50 years, we can only guess. We don�t have to
guess,
however, as to the effects of the result. Though history may yet
redeem the
Committee�s judgement on the matter, the view from Oslo in the
aftermath of
pomp and rhetoric is hardly encouraging.
Let us assume that the Nobel Prize has at least four major
functions: (1) to
create publicity for the promotion of peace and human rights in
general; (2)
to provide financial awards for specific individuals and
organisations working
for peace; (3) to endow specific individuals and organisations
with a very
special type of �universal� moral approval; and (4) to promote or
directly
influence specific processes of conflict resolution.
There can be no doubt that this year�s award to John Hume and
David Trimble
achieved the first two purposes. The international media coverage
of the
events in Oslo were clearly at an all-time high, and the prize of
a million
dollars is, in David Trimble�s words, a �gift-horse� indeed.
Yet these are the most rudimentary of functions. What about moral
endowment
and effective intervention? Has the prize also succeeded here?
In my view, the answer must clearly be �nei�. Had the Committee
made a
determined effort to portray the award as a symbolic award for all
participants, the issue of moral endowment might have been
non-problematical. But they did not. On the contrary, it was said
on
numerous occasions, by both the Chairman of the Committee, Francis
Sejersted, and Norway�s Foreign Minister, Knut Volleb�k, that the
prize was
awarded to the two men who had done most for peace in Northern
Ireland. The
point was made most explicitly by Sejersted in his impressive
opening speech
when he quoted George Mitchell to the effect that: �Without John
Hume, no
peace process; without David Trimble, no peace agreement�.
Good rhetoric � but poor and biased analysis. Without in any way
denigrating
the importance of the two men in the process, the epithet does not
hold.
Clearly the crucial contributions to the current joint
accommodation lie
elsewhere: first and foremost, with Tony Blair and his cabinet;
thereafter,
with the leaders of militant republicanism. Were the peace process
dependent
on Hume and Trimble, they might have collected their medals in
Oslo long
ago. No, the cutting edge of the conflict has not gone between
moderate
nationalism
and official unionism, but between republicanism and the British
government.
If it is really the case that the prize had to be given without a
more
specific recognition of these vital actors � then there is clearly
something
wrong with the rules of the Nobel game.
The proof of this lies, I believe, in an analysis of the
consequences of the
prize itself. On the positive side, we witnessed a highly deserved
recognition of, and support for, the peace process itself. The
highly
prestigious Norwegian peace establishment has bestowed its
blessing on the
significant progress made to date, and tried to imbue the actors
with the
moral courage necessary to carry on towards a successful
conclusion. This is
obviously both good and worthy, and there can be little doubt that
the world
desperately needs more rather than less of the type of ethical
symbolism
broadcast from Oslo.
But what about the �downside�? What are the costs of this year�s
prize?
First, the very choice of criteria for providing the (seemingly)
necessary
�balance�. By focusing solely on the religious nature of the
conflict �
choosing a Catholic and a Protestant � the Committee deflects
years of
academic analysis which portrays the underlying nature of the
conflict in
terms of historical constitutional issues and human rights. It
has, to my
knowledge, been the studied purpose of both peacemakers and
academics over
the past years to firmly place the religious aspect of the problem
in a more
holistic and potentially fruitful context. The �balanced� profile
of the prize
undermines these efforts, and confuses the rest of the world as to
what the
nature of the conflict � and any possible solution � actually
involves.
Second, the profile of the prize contributes to a serious
disruption of the
very finely balanced nature of the peace process itself. Everyone
knows how
long and tortuous the negotiations leading up to the Belfast
Agreement have
been. The heroic efforts of all parties to the conflict to be as
inclusive
and fair as possible in allowing all sides to be heard, and
recognised as
legitimate, has constituted the very essence of the process
itself. By
singling out just two of the crucial actors � and by giving them a
moral
�pulpit� of exceptional status and visibility � the Nobel
proceedings have
clearly intervened in what now appears to be a relatively reckless
and
premature way.
Finally, there is the very obvious negative effect resulting from
David
Trimble�s use of the Oslo pulpit. His laureate address was by
turns flippant
with respect to the prize itself; implicitly critical and
demeaning of John
Hume�s speech and life�s work; politically self-serving in it�s
choice of
main theme; and embarrassingly atavistic and destructive in its
attack on
republicanism. And he did not stop there. Both before and after
the
ceremony, he indulged in continuous pro-unionist polemics and
personal snide
attacks on Gerry Adams personally. I cannot remember, in my 30
years of
local contact with the Nobel ceremony, a less �noble� laureate
performance.
Can there be any doubt that this has served the peace process
poorly?
The role of the killjoy is never attractive. One would so much
rather follow
John Hume�s admonition in Oslo to accentuate the positive and
eliminate the
negative. But John Hume is not a citizen of Norway � and the Nobel
prize is
not the prerogative of a single sitting committee. The moral
prestige and
publicity surrounding the prize have become so massive that its
actual
effects must be subjected to continuing evaluation. The official
position of
the Nobel Institute is that the Committee should �take risks� and
�be
controversial� in awarding the prize. This has resulted in some
highly
controversial awards � particularly to individual laureates like
Henry
Kissinger and Menachem Begin � but I doubt that any previous prize
has been
so instrumentally �risky� as this year�s award.
Everyone realises that the Nobel prize came at an extremely
crucial point in
the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. The Committee
apparently
believed that the risk of upsetting the fine-tuned balance in the
process
was worth the need for publicity and recognition now. I strongly
disagree.
Given the political misuse of the award by David Trimble, we are
left with
both a premature prize and an immature laureate. The dignity and
vision of
John Hume will remain, but they have been with us for decades, and
could
have been recognised on their own long ago. The fact that the
torchlight
procession held for the laureates was in fact arranged to
celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the United Nation�s Declaration on Human Rights,
attains in
retrospect a deeper symbolism. Accolades can wait � the intricate
and
painful business of reconciliation cannot.
end
==============
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
As vilified, slandered and attacked by One Nation
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html
