The Daily Beast
.
Give War a Chance
October 11, 2014
 
P.J. O'Rourke
 
 
Up To A Point: What We Really Need  Is a Nobel War Prize
Sure, Malala is totally worthy. But most  of them haven’t been, because 
peace is elusive. War, however, is  clarifying.
At least this year’s Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t a howler like the 1973 award 
to  Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for making love, not war in Vietnam. Or 
the 1919  award to Woodrow Wilson for chopping Central Europe into an angry 
hash, helping  put the “vs.” in theVersailles,Treaty and screwing the pooch 
on U.S. membership  in the League of Nations. 
Then there was the 1978 Prize given to Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat and Menachem  
Begin for making sure everything was okey-dokey between the Arabs and the 
Jews.  And the 1994 Prize to Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres 
for making  double sure. 
In 2001 the United Nations and Kofi Annan got the NPP “for their work for a 
 better organized and more peaceful world.” And what a quiet, tidy planet it
’s  been since then. 
In 2002 it went to Jimmy Carter, presumably for his effort to end the Cold  
War by losing it. In 1990 the winner was Mikhail Gorbachev, who actually 
did  what Carter had merely tried to do. 
The 2005 Prize was bestowed upon the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
 its chief Mohamed ElBaradei, doubtless for their providing proof positive 
that  Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and thereby 
preventing the  2003 Iraq War.
 
 
The European Union was the 2012 recipient thanks to its “advancement of 
peace  and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe,” just in time 
for the  coup in Kiev, Russian annexation of Crimea, and Ukrainian civil 
war. 
Medaling in 2007 were the International Panel on Climate Change and Al 
Gore.  Al Gore? Yep, Al Gore. Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody 
does 
 anything about it. Al Gore, however, sold his Current TV channel to Al 
Jazeera,  which is funded by the royal family of famously carbon neutral Qatar. 
And what, exactly, do the International Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore 
 have to do with peace? About as much as the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize 
presented to  Barack Obama for showing up. 
Not that there is anything to be said against the 2014 Nobel Prize 
committee  honoring Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi. 
Ms. Yousafazi is a stalwart Pakistani 17-year-old who, two years ago, was  
shot in the head by a Taliban villain for the offence of being a girl 
attending  school. She recovered and put herself further in harm’s way by 
publicly 
 campaigning for the education of Muslim women. 
Mr. Satyarthi is a brave-hearted 60-year-old Indian who gave up his career 
as  a college professor to battle the scourge of indentured child labor in 
the rat  hole factories of Southeast Asia. 
But if the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize is to celebrate and assist  
courageous and resilient victims of brutality and valiant advocates of 
righteous  but unpopular causes, then the 1946 prize should have gone to 
survivors 
of Nazi  concentration camps instead of to Emily Greene Balch and John 
Raleigh  Mott—presidents, respectively, of The Women’s International League for 
Peace and  Freedom and the YMCA World Alliance. Free swim! And the 1905 prize 
should have  gone to Susan B. Anthony, not Bertha von Suttner, 
Austro-Hungarian author of the  war-is-naughty screed Lay Down Your Arms. 
Sometimes the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded as if encouraging courage were 
its  purpose. Elie Wiesel, who was involved with the Irgun Zionist 
underground, is a  1986 Peace Laureate. Lech Walesa won in 1983. So did Martin 
Luther 
King, Jr. in  1964. More power to them. 
But the stated purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, per Alfred Nobel’s  will, 
is that it be awarded to the person who in the preceding year “shall have  
done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the 
abolition  or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of 
peace  congresses.” 
I’m afraid Wiesel, Walesa, and King would have to say, as Jesus did,  
presumably with a deep and resigned sigh, “I came not to bring peace but a  
sword.
” 
Of the 128 gold medals for peace that have been handed out since 1901, 
maybe  six or seven have gone to people who actually made peace. 
President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated an end to the 1904-1905  
Russo-Japanese War in 1906 after Japan won. Argentina’s Foreign Minister Carlos 
 
Saavedra Lamas did the same in the 1932-1935 Chaco War between Bolivia and  
Paraguay after Paraguay won. 
President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias laid a calming hand on 1980s El 
Salvador,  Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama. There isn’t much armed conflict in 
Central  America any more, if you don’t count constant massive narco gang 
slaughter. 
Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk ended apartheid in South Africa 
 nonviolently when de Klerk bent over and the nation kicked him in the 
butt. 
Northern Irish pols, papist John Hume and prod David Trimble, did in fact 
get  Ulster’s Micks to quit shooting and bombing each other any more than 
absolutely  necessary, but it took them 500 years. 
At least 65 Peace Prizes have been awarded for wishful thinking. Sometimes  
the wishful thinking was done by institutions—Permanent International Peace 
 Bureau (1910), International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War  
(1985), Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (really, 1995). 
The  United Nations and its leadership have received ten gold medals, more 
than Mark  Spitz or Carl Lewis, and won with considerably less speed and 
effort. 
Sometimes the wishful thinking was done by well-known individuals—the Dalai 
 Lama and Ralph Bunche. More often it was done by individuals who have been 
 well-forgotten—Charles Albert Gobat, Tobias Asser, Ludwig Quidde, Lord  
Boyd-Orr. 
Then there are the Prizes given for patching up people during the absence 
of  peace—the American Friends Service Committee, Doctors Without Borders, 
the Red  Cross four times. All highly deserved, but none would have been 
awarded if it  hadn’t been for war. 
I propose a Nobel Prize for just that. The Nobel War Prize. There are, 
after  all, worthy and decent wars. What was America supposed to do after Pearl 
Harbor,  put the keys to the Golden Gate in an airmail envelope and send 
them to  Tojo? 
Peace creeps to the contrary, you can usually tell who’s right and who’s  
wrong in a war. Which is more than can be said during peace, witness 
peacetime  politics. 
There are always lots of wars going on so the Nobel Committee would never  
have to skip a year the way it did with its Peace Prize in 1914, 1915, 1916, 
 1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1948, 1955, 
1956,  1966, 1967, and 1972. 
Wars produce heroes widely recognized by the public. Nobel War Prizes could 
 have been given to Marshal Foch for the Battle of the Marne, Spanish Civil 
War  combatant George Orwell, Winston Churchill, the French Resistance, the 
U.S.  Marine Corps, the Tuskegee Airmen, Charles de Gaulle, FDR, Ike. This 
is an  improvement on the Permanent International Peace Bureau, Charles 
Albert Gobat,  and Ludwig Quidde. The Nobel Foundation’s P.R. profile would be 
considerably  raised. 
Then there’s what often comes after a war, which is usually less silly than 
 what comes after a Nobel Peace Prize. Look at the U.S. and Great Britain. 
Once  we got past that 1776 thing we’ve been—with a brief time-out for the 
War of  1812—road dawgs. 
The Southern States and the Northern States after the Civil War? We’re so  
close that we date-swapped the political parties that had been screwing us. 
The Europeans were at daggers drawn for more than 30 years. But look at 
them  after 1945, brothers from other mothers, living in each other’s pockets, 
Germany  lending to France to pay Greece to repay Germany, friends with 
benefits. 
And ever since we started passing notes on the deck of the battleship  
Missouri in Tokyo Bay, America and Japan have been Batman and Robin. 
If you want peace, have a war. Just make sure to have a good, prize-winning 
 one.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to