I tend to agree, that giving the prize for something that hasn't actually been accomplished yet seems like a dubious way to go.
Here's what the Nobel committee says they awarded the prize for:
"for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea"
As noted in the piece above, the resolution of the conflict w/ Eritrea hasn't happened yet, and might never happen. Schadomsky seems to think giving the prize to Abiy might even make a future resolution less likely to happen.
I honestly think the rug needs to be pulled out from under the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. People should ignore the prize, the media should ignore it. The Oscars and the AP football poll are, of course, jokes and unrelated to reality, but they're not award systems that have the potential to do real damage, to impact world economies and the like. Too many people seem to think the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded with real authority, that recipients are being judged by people who speak for the entire planet. It isn't and they don't. But the consequences of this perception can be detrimental, as there is the potential to create situations like the one here, where one side feels like it is being disrespected. At least when Arafat received the prize, he did so jointly with Rabin and Peres. Imagine if Arafat had received it alone. Or imagine if the US was more vindictive when Gorbachev received the award. Or consider the stupidity of awarding it to Kissinger (albeit jointly) for supposedly ending a war he was effectively still prosecuting, with decisions that did real damage to Cambodia and other parts of Indochina (and to be fair to Kissinger, he didn't ask for the stupid prize).
Or consider the stupidity of awarding it to Kissinger (albeit jointly) for supposedly ending a war he was effectively still prosecuting, with decisions that did real damage to Cambodia and other parts of Indochina (and to be fair to Kissinger, he didn't ask for the stupid prize).
I think it was Tom Lehrer who said that Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize made political satire obsolete.
And true, Kissinger didn't ask for the prize, but he still accepted it. Le Duc Tho, the Vietnamese diplomat who won the award jointly w/ Kissinger, actually did refuse it.
It's Graeme Wood at the Atlantic calling for an end to the Nobel Peace Prize (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think), basically because someone seriously nominated Trump for the award.
It's such a whiny tantrum, and it's sooooo easy to mock, given that Wood offered no such argument in the past, despite the questionable history--even in recent years--of the award and the nominations for it. It's pathetic, imo. Trump is living rent-free in the heads of people like Wood, who consistently abandon critical thinking and any semblance of impartiality to blast Trump.
I actually agree w/ a lot of what he says in that piece (and I thought the David Foster Wallace reference was a nice zinger, as well.)
And fair enough, I dunno if Wood has offered similar arguments in the past--maybe he hasn't--but that shouldn't really matter too much, I don't think. The piece is hardly limited to Trump in terms of what its criticizing, right? But apparently some people have a hard time even noticing that. One example: someone on Twitter was complaining that Wood should've mentioned Obama as a questionable choice. Yet, Wood did mention Obama as a questionable choice. Funny stuff.
Oh, I agree with a lot of it, too. And I think giving Trump the award would be a massive joke.
But such a point of view--which I've held for literally decades--was fringy, up until Trump. And I'd bet good money that after Trump*, it will quickly return to fringy, i.e. Wood (and others) won't be making these arguments at all if Biden beats Trump.
* It occurs to me that we probably should reset the calendar (the whole 21st century stuff has gotten unwieldy, anyway) to BTE and ATE. If all goes well, we're 3 months or so from ATE 1.