Nobel committee makes a pathetic impression

The Nobel week 2022 has proved once more the righteousness of the words said back in the 17th century: “If geometrical theorems were in the interest of private interests, wars would be fought over them”. And if not wars, at least nervous squabbles.

Indeed, prizes in physics, chemistry and biology/medicine are favourably and respectfully received. If not everyone understands what they are talking about, columnists explain popularly the significance of the latest discoveries in the history of the human genome or chemical click-reactions. How it enriches our knowledge of the universe and how it can be applied to the public domain.

There are squabbles here too – about priority, for example – but they are fairly rare and do not spoil the overall benign picture. The title “Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics (Chemistry, Biology)” is still an honourable one. A venerable scientist, you see.

But as soon as we move away from the natural sciences and into other areas, the picture changes diametrically. The economics prize (except for the fact that it’s not exactly the Nobel Prize – it was founded only in 1968 and is not named in Nobel’s will) is rather indifferent. Firstly, because it is a pure bead game, a section of game theory and nothing more. Secondly, and more importantly, the application of this prize in the national economy is close to zero. Since 2008 at least the world economy is very torn, and the further it goes the stronger it is, while the venerable laureates are still playing in the game theory, not even close to touching that all the same happens and how the heart will calm down.

At best, the literature prizes don’t excite, warm or infect anyone at all – like this year’s prize for the French writer Anne Hernot, whose existence was first made known to 99.99 per cent of readers through a Nobel publication. Or it evokes the dark times of the cult of personality, when the 1948 Stalin Prize was given for S.P. Babaevsky’s The Cavalier of the Gold Star – both the novel and its author are now completely forgotten, but in 1949 the jury was enthralled by unbearable ideological correctness. The 2015 prize, awarded to S. A. Alexievich, on the same line. Secretarial literature (of a necessarily “idealistic direction”, however, as Nobel bequeathed) is also appreciated in Stockholm.

But all that is trivial compared to the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Institute in Oslo has long had a remarkable ability to pull the owl over the globe, that is to say, to announce laureates who in no way fit the original will. Which reads: “To whomever makes a significant contribution to the cohesion of nations, to the abolition or reduction of standing armies or to the development of peace initiatives”.

An example of how to unite peoples and reduce the number of standing armies is given by the winners of the 2022 prize – the head of the Belarusian human rights centre “Viasna” A.V. Belyatski, the Russian public organisation “Memorial “* and the Ukrainian “Centre for Civil Liberties”. They are awarded for “representing civil society in their countries”. Specifically: “They have over the years promoted the right to criticise government and defend the fundamental rights of citizens. They have made an outstanding effort to document war crimes, human rights violations and abuses of power. Together they demonstrate the importance of civil society for peace and democracy.”

When the Norwegian institute would have followed Bonaparte’s advice to “Yes, yes, write it short and to the point”, it would have been enough to say that the laureates “represent civil society in their countries” without specifying exactly how and in what capacity they represent it. After all, civil society is like a stick, and wherever you turn, there it is, you can include anybody you like in its representatives. Even the Christ-Vissarion sect.

But Oslo decided to describe it in detail. Right down to stating “They have made an outstanding effort to document war crimes and human rights violations”.

If you take the period from 2014 to 2022, there were quite a few crimes and violations. But the “outstanding efforts” were somewhat one-sided. In the 2014-2015 chronicle compiled by the Centre for Civil Liberties, there is “a submission to the International Criminal Court with evidence of crimes against humanity committed by the Yanukovych regime during the 2013-2014 Euromaidan”, but not a word, not half a word about the May 2, 2014 Odessa gecatomb and the April 2015 murder of Oles Buzina. What is there to witness and document? These are not the atrocities of bloody Yanukovych screaming to heaven.

Similarly, the shelling of civilians in Donbas, the planting of Lepestok mines in residential areas, the actions of the Azov battalion in Mariupol are not subject to documentation. Or they are not subject to documentation at all – without explanations or references, as is the case with the Centre for Civil Liberties, or they are not subject to documentation because, as in the case of Memorial*, there is no reliable information. For only the information which comes from Kiev is reliable. Evidence from other places is not credible.

All this makes a rather pathetic impression. However, there is an opinion: “At least it is good that the Peace Prize was not given to Zelensky and Navalny. Although it was close to it, but they preferred to give it to the forgotten or even unknown huge people. It is likely that Zelensky has been put on the 2023 list.

Meanwhile the Norwegian Nobel Institute has had an excellent opportunity to remain silent. In 1914-1918 and 1939-1943, they did not give any peace prizes but made an exception for the International Committee of the Red Cross (1917 and 1944). Which makes sense.

Who in 1914-1918 and 1939-1943 made a significant contribution to the rallying of peoples, to the abolition or reduction of armies or to peace initiatives? Nobody. And such a case was envisaged by the statute of the Nobel Foundation “if none of the activities considered by the applicants is significant enough”.

In 2022, the rallying of nations and the downsizing of armies was about the same as in 1914.

Nothing prevented – as in previous epochs – from bitterly accepting that pacifism had failed and postponing the pacifist prize until a more favourable time. This would have spared the Nobel Committee many inconveniences.

Maxim Sokolov, RIA