Sir,
I agree with Vikram Muthanna's column "Yes you can... say NO" where he says that the Nobel Peace Prize has lost its prestige due to the award of Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama. But it is not the first time the Committee took controversial and unexplainable decisions in selecting the nominees for the Peace Prize.
The first such decision was taken in 1994 when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Yasser Arafat who was the Chairman of Palestinian Liberalisation Organisation (PLO) and known as an 'unrepentant terrorist'. He later declared that the PLO renounced terrorism and supported "the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to live in peace and security, including the State of Palestine, Israel and other neighbours".
Rabbi Shmuley, who wrote in Jerusalem Post, remarked that Arafat's 'lasting legacy is not lasting peace with Israel but the army of suicide bombers he launched against the Jewish State to dismember pregnant women and disembowel helpless children.'
Kaare Kristiansen, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee member, resigned from the Committee after it awarded the Peace Prize to Arafat.
The controversy again rose after the Peace Prize was awarded to Mohamed El Baradei in 2005, the Director of United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, who was famously called both the 'nuclear Policeman and salesman.' He was also criticised for being 'soft' on Iran's nuclear policies.
There are many such controversial nominations which has made the public worldwide lose their earlier reverence towards the Nobel Peace Prize. And now, by honouring Obama, who is yet to deserve the prize, the Committee has again baffled the world. Its reason for the award can only be known after 50 years and by that time, no one really cares. Were there no deserving candidate among the 205 nominations received?
— Shwetha Pangannaya
0 comments:
Post a Comment