Where is the PEACE?

The guidelines of the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation are generally governed by Alfred Nobel's will. Nobel wished that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that the person who "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” shall have part of the total prize. This year’s Peace prize was awarded to Shirin Ebadi of Iran "for her efforts for democracy and human rights." Without taking away from her efforts and achievement, this article is intends to appraise the decision by the highly secretive judges.

For more than two years, the world has been faced with the challenges of violence in the form of terrorism, wars, and civil strife. The universal community is now in need for peace more than any other time in the short history. Throughout these trying times, there has been one constant voice of wisdom, respect for life, and appeal for peace. That voice was that of Pope John Paul II. However, the judges awarded this year’s prize to Iranian lawyer and activist Shirin Ebadi. Some students and members of the public had contacted me after the announcement asking me if I am familiar with her work given my interests in Iranian studies especially in the area of human rights and Islam. I was not embarrassed at all however; to respond that I knew little about her because it seems no one else even from the Iranian scholars I talked to knew more than I did. In the current internal struggle in Iran for reform, human rights, and democracy, there are quiet many other names that will come to mind. There are many individuals who are still facing death penalty sentences and death threats for speaking for tolerance, reform, and democracy but Ms Ebadi is not the representative of those activists. I think that she was privileged enough to avoid some of the mistreatment and consequences that are faced by other individuals who are better served by not even mentioning them in here. I do not believe that any of them ought to receive the prize instead of her; rather, I am suggesting that neither her not any of them should have received it this year because of the presence of a bigger activist and a more deserving advocate of peace who have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and who "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” as mandated by Alfred Nobel's will; and that is the Pope.

This Pope consistently spoke against violence and wars. He spoke in favor of the Muslims of Bosnia, he spoke against the genocide in Rwanda, he spoke against the Middle East violence, he pressed the Sudanese to work for peace with rebels in the south, and he spoke against the illegal war against Iraq. The stance against the war on Iraq may be one of the main reasons that caused him the prize.

Any informed person however, could have predicted it. In the recent years, the Foundation has considered politics before merit. There was no serious attempt to research the history and qualification of the nominees. Possible criticism was averted by simply allowing the opposites to share the prize. For example, Nelson Mandela, who was incarcerated at Robben Island Prison off Cape Town from 1964-1982 then at Pollsmoor Prison from 1982-1990 would share the Nobel Peace Prize Fredrik Willem De Klerk who was part of the apartheid system. Similarly, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin were all awarded the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize just like the 1978 Prize given to Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat an Menachem Begin; a peace that is yet to be achieved. Politics has played a major role then and now and that indeed undermines the credibility of a Foundation that was supposed to promote peace.

The other obstacle that stood in front of awarding the Pope the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize is the Foundation’s outstanding history of prejudice against religious leaders. The committee has awarded only three prizes to individuals who would qualify as religious figures (Mother Teresa in 1979, Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1984, and the Dalai Lama in 1989) out of the total 96 prizes awarded in its 102-year history. This unofficial policy juxtaposed against this year’s decision would clearly send the wrong message especially to the citizens of the Muslim world. Could Muslim activists work for peace within their Muslim tradition, or must they adopt a secular discourse in order to establish justice and the rule of law?

Despite the committee’s contention that Ms. Ebadi "sees no conflict between Islam and fundamental human rights," and that "it is important to her that the dialogue between the different cultures and religions of the world should take as its point of departure their shared values”, the selection of Ms Ebadi over John Paul II, who preached the same values and worked hard for establishing critical dialogue with other religions raises more doubt about the ideological inclination of the Foundation.

Indeed Iran needs to improve its human rights record just like many other states around the world. However, Amnesty International and many other human rights organizations have indicated that there have been improvements and that the current government is more willing to work on some of the outstanding issues. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Algeria have far worse human rights records (the first two for mistreating and not protecting women and the latter for its gross abuse of civilians and political prisoners); yet the activists from those nations are not supported by an award like this one. It is only reasonable then to see the selection of Ms. Ebadi as an attempt to influence the political debate over how to deal with Iran in regards to the issue of whether or not it is developing nuclear weapons. Conservatives in the Iranian government are already using this perception in order to weaken the reformist movement. It did not take long for the conservative media in Iran to pick on this perceived double standard: “we believe the Nobel Peace Prize is being used to suit political objectives," said Amir Mohebian, an editor Resalat newspaper. "This prize carries the message that Europe intends to put further pressure on human rights issues in Iran as a political move to achieve its particular objectives," he said. The Western pressure must be seen as working in favor of bolstering the conservative rhetoric that is stirring national pride in the face of the threat of outside intervention that can be understandably seen as humiliating.

With all due respect to the achievements of Ms Ebadi, this year’s Nobel Prize award is clouded by politics and it will not be long before some real deserving activist turns down the prize in order to maintain his or her own integrity. Although John Paul II may not live another year to collect the Prize, but if he does, may be he ought to refuse it. Even if the Pope may be seen as having forfeited his chances for the Prize by engaging in politics, there are still many more individuals and organizations, like International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International, that are more deserving of the Prize in this time of war.