Selection for Nobel Peace Prize is impartial and unbiased - Do you agree?
Selection for Nobel Peace Prize is impartial and unbiased - Do you agree?
This year’s Noble Peace Prize brought cheers to Indian faces. While most people are jubilant and describing the occasion as a proud moment for the country, others suspect that these awards are biased towards Americans and Europeans. This has questioned the credibility associated with this prestigious award and its ability to bring about actual change in the ground reality. We need to analyze whether these apprehensions hold ground or not.
No:
-Though entitled to promote peace at global level, in past this award has been given to people like Ex USA President Kissinger who ordered use of chemical weapon in Vietnam War.
-Norway itself is a member of NATO Allies and as a responsible ally on many occasions people who waged wars have been awarded with this prize.
-Mahatma Gandhi, who was the pioneer leader in preaching non violence and peace to the world didn’t get Noble because Norwegians didn’t want to draw Britain’s objection.
-Europeans have been given clear preference since the inception of this award. Russian President Mr. Putin in spite of his commendable role in averting a war in West Asia didn’t receive Nobel.
-Owing to this biasedness, countries like China have opposed this award. Therefore, when Dalai Lama was awarded in 1989, China suppressed the Tibetans protest with more aggression.
Yes:
-Many peace prize winners are from poor and developing countries of African and Asian continents.
- Through this prize, issues affecting the most marginalized section of world have been highlighted. For instance Younis Khan was awarded for micro finance using which he empowered the rural population of Bangladesh.
-Controversy is a part of most of the prizes and Nobel peace prize is no exception. That doesn’t undermine the purpose and credibility of this esteemed prize.
-Most importantly, throughout the last many decades Nobel Peace Prize has been at the forefront in promoting peace and harmony and no other prize has ever matched its prestige.
Conclusion:
Peace has a wide meaning which depends on individual’s interpretation. At a time, there may be many deserving contestants of this prize, but only one can be awarded. Also, nobody can deny Nobel Committee’s biasness owing to its membership. But leaving these controversies behind we should focus more on the ideology of peace and harmony preached by this prize.
Discussion
- RE: Selection for Nobel Peace Prize is impartial and unbiased - Do you agree? -Lucky (10/16/14)
- Dimensions of peace are changing in the present context.Therefore when the contribution and relevance is not very tangible,it leads to greater room for criticism.
Quite often the nobel peace prize seems to drive with itself an opinion for the world to follow.Every opinion has an opposite view in the world.
The fact that nobel prize in other fields are much beyond the comprehensions of the common man, it is nobel peace prize which faces the maximum scrutiny.
But this fact cannot be denied that the nobel peace prize has lost the place of zenith in present days due to huge complexities and some very glaring mistakes in the recent past. - RE: Selection for Nobel Peace Prize is impartial and unbiased - Do you agree? -Deepa Kaushik (10/16/14)
- Noble Peace Prize is by far the only biggest prestigious award which is having an unmatched pride throughout the world. Suspecting an unfair play in this honourable event of pride couldn't be accepted all that easily. Anybody in to the management of any field can very well understand the difficulties in recognizing, enlisting, appreciating, analysing and selecting an appropriate candidate without discrimination, even in the smallest of the organization.
Any selection criteria is always followed by some or other form of criticism. When the same is done on a grand scale universally, one can ubderstand the extent of analysis required. The selection committee need to make sure of every new development and invention that has hit in the year. And selection of the candidates is undoubtedly a tedious task require immense mental lobour and pressure.
Some sort of biasness within the selection committee for the member countries is understandable. Humans are not godly. The judges at the selection committee too are human beings with same inceptions as anyone else. But that one simple reason, it would be incorrect to label the whole scenario as biased.
It is always our perception that gives us the outlook. Those whom we find to be potent and deserving might not be the same for others, and so is the perception of selection committee. Hence, it would not be all that apt to blame the Nobel Peace Prize selection committee for being partial and biased
