Hacker News Reader

Comment by wat10000 | Hacker News Reader

The Peace Prize seems somewhat hit or miss. I'm sure we all remember when it was given to Barack Obama for his lifelong work of not being George W Bush. And of course it was given to Henry Effin' Kissinger.

Maybe this speaks to the difficulty of peace in general. One asshole warmonger can destroy thousands of lives on a whim, but ending or preventing war takes long, steady efforts by large numbers of people. It's not very amenable to an individual prize.

View on HN

I think the best recipients tend to be those who are involved in "structural" work to advance the cause of peace, rather than those who have been involved in helping settle specific conflicts.

For example, consider the difference between the first five recipients (all for founding various influential peace organisations) vs the sixth (for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War).

In that respect, Pillay seems one of the better laureates of recent years.

Looking at the history it was awarded to organizations a decent number of times in the past, (even up to Nihon Hidankyo in 2024 which focuses on impact from Nagasaki/Hiroshima and anti-atomic weapon advocacy)....

which to your point does seem to make more sense than singling out an individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laur...

I think people are making a mistake when they view the Peace Prize as an evaluation of a person's character or their entire career. Often it's targeting specific negotiations or treaties, which in retrospect were failed attempts at peace. This applies to Kissinger in the case of the Paris Peace Accords, Begin/Sadat for the Camp David Accords, Arafat/Peres/Rabin for the Oslo Accords, etc.

I can’t comment on the others, but this perspective doesn’t really make Kissinger’s case any better. Even his co-winner thought it was ridiculous and refused the prize.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com