|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Another important change that took place during the 20th century, is related to conflict locations. Before 1945, Europe was the most war-prone continent. Most significant in this respect were the two world wars. Many wars outside the continent also had European involvement. After 1945 this situation changed drastically, when most wars were fought in the less developed countries of Africa and Asia. There are two main reasons for this development. First, decolonisation and the wars of independence contributed to the increase of war in Africa and Asia. The second reason for this geographical shift can be related to the Cold War from 1945 to 1989. The emergence of the US and the Soviet Union as superpowers and nuclear protagonists deterred the two sides from engaging in direct, armed confrontation in Europe. On the surface there was therefore peace in Europe, but the tension between East and West was considerable. The nuclear threat did not stop the superpowers from intervening elsewhere in the world by conventional means. The Cold War was therefore cold only in Europe. The US participated in the Korean War (1950-1953) and prevented communist-led North Korea from taking control over the entire Korean peninsula. China was directly involved in the war, and made a large contribution of troops to the communist side. American participation in the Vietnam War (1965-1975) was less successful. Deployment of considerable US forces could not prevent victory for North Vietnam. Again, the communists received substantial military support from the Soviet Union and China. The USSR assisted anti-western regimes in the Middle East and supported communist movements around the world. In 1979, Soviet forces intervened in Afghanistan to secure continued communist rule in the country. The occupation lasted for ten years. The US provided considerable support for the non-communist Mujahedin forces. The Cold War reinforced the ideological dimension of several local conflicts that became an arena for indirect confrontation between the Soviet Union and the US. Superpower intervention may have contributed to a prolongation of these wars, therefore making them more severe. But there are also cases where the superpowers acted as a restraining force on the adversaries, thus preventing further escalation. This was the case during several crises in the Middle East. The end of the Cold War had little effect when it came to ending wars. In fact it marked the return of war to the European continent, with the disintegration of Yugoslavia followed by wars in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1992-1995. Some of the new states in Eastern Europe, created as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, have experienced continuous unrest since their independence. Georgia and Armenia are examples of this. The secessionist republic of Chechnya is involved in a war against the Russian army. Old conflicts that one thought would have been easier to solve after the Cold War are still going on, for example in the Middle East. In Africa, the 1990s brought new wars to Algeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. |
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and War |
|
Only a relatively small number of wars have ended as
a result of direct intervention by a Peace Prize
laureate. In some cases laureates have tried to end a
conflict but without success. We distinguish between
the mediators that have tried to reconcile the
conflicting parties, and the negotiators representing
the parties, but who sought to end the war by
negotiation rather than military means.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
| The six mediators who received the Peace Prize (from left): Theodore Roosevelt, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Ralph Bunche, Lester Pearson, Dag Hammarskjöld and Oscar Arias. |
Oscar Arias Sanchez, the
1987 laureate, arranged the Central American peace
plan that laid the basis for lasting peace and
stability in the region. By the early 1990s, the
civil wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador had ended and
elections were held. In Guatemala a peace agreement
was concluded in 1996.
Slightly different from the other mediators is the
1988 laureate, the UN Peace-keeping Forces.
Beyond actual mediation, they are charged with the
task of upholding cease-fire agreements and peace
treaties. Three previous laureates – Bunche,
Pearson and Hammarskjöld – were
instrumental in setting up the Peace-keeping Forces,
which by 1988 had become a powerful institution
within the UN system. It has been involved in more
than 50 operations, of which 15 missions are
currently ongoing.
Some prizes have been awarded
to parties in armed conflicts, which have sought a
negotiated settlement. The first prize of this type
was the joint award in 1973 to US Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger
and Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho (who declined
the prize). In an attempt to end the Vietnam War, the
two had signed a cease-fire agreement in January
1973, but this failed. Fighting continued throughout
1973, and the war did not end until North Vietnam had
secured a military victory in 1975.
Five laureates from the Middle East were parties in
the Arab-Israeli conflict, and were awarded prizes
for their efforts to reach a viable solution for the
region. Menachem
Begin, Israeli prime minister, and Anwar al-Sadat, Egypt's
President, were honoured jointly in 1978, as an
encouragement to continue the rapprochement initiated
by Sadat's journey to Jerusalem in 1977. Aided by US
president Jimmy Carter, the two statesmen concluded
the Camp David Accords in 1979. It was a virtual
peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, much more
far-reaching than the cease-fire agreements of 1949,
1956 and 1967. Egypt formally recognised Israel as a
state, and Israel ceded the Egyptian territory it had
occupied during the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
One of the core issues in the Middle East conflict is
the Palestinian question. The war following the
establishment of Israel in 1948 caused a huge refugee
problem among the Palestinian population, of whom
800,000 fled Israeli territory and settled in refugee
camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Israeli repression,
Palestinian guerrilla warfare and terrorism seemed to
lock the parties in an endless circle of violence.
The vicious circle was, for a short time, broken by
the three Peace Prize laureates of 1994: Yasser Arafat, chairman
of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO);
Shimon Peres,
Israeli foreign minister; and Yitzhak Rabin, prime
minister of Israel. Secret negotiations between
Palestinians and Israelis in Oslo had laid the
foundation for a possible peace process. However,
after the assassination of Rabin in 1995, extremists
on both sides gained in influence, and subsequent
efforts to keep the process on track were not
successful. Today, there is little left of the
optimism from 1994, as Palestinian extremist groups
like Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue to attack
Israel, and a Likud-dominated Israel under prime
minister Ariel Sharon strikes out against Palestinian
civilians and the Palestinian Authority led by
Arafat.
The South African experience is an example of a peace
process with an unambiguously positive outcome.
Although there was no actual war between the
apartheid regime and the African National Congress
(ANC) opposition, there was much political violence,
particularly between 1989 and 1993. The 1993 Nobel
laureates, Nelson
Mandela and Frederik Willem de
Klerk, both played a central role in the peaceful
transition to democracy in South Africa. In February
1990, de Klerk announced Mandela's release from
prison after 27 years. Along with several reforms in
the country's racist legislation, this indicated that
dramatic changes were about to take place. After
years of difficult negotiations, elections were held
in 1994. Nelson Mandela became the first president of
a democratic South Africa. The new government
achieved a reasonable degree of reconciliation
between the victims of the apartheid regime and the
former oppressors, but there are still enormous
challenges to be faced in the fields of law and
order, social justice and public health, particularly
in limiting the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
![]() |
| Some of the negotiators who represented parties in a conflict (from left): Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Frederik de Klerk, John Hume and David Trimble. |
The laureates from 1998, John Hume and David Trimble, were crucial to the Good Friday Agreement that brought the conflict in Northern Ireland closer to an end. Since the award, further progress in the peace process has been made, although there have been setbacks and the conflict between Protestant Unionists and Catholic Republicans is far from resolved.
Mediation and negotiation are only two types of peace work considered by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, but these prizes are often among the most controversial.4 For instance, the attempts to encourage the negotiators in the Vietnam War and the Middle East were widely criticised. Critics argue that the Nobel Committee should not interfere in peace processes, particularly where the outcome is still uncertain, and there is no guarantee that these laureates will refrain from violence in the future.
During the first century of the Nobel Peace Prize, there were 107 laureates from different parts of the world. Alfred Nobel's intention was to create an international prize, a wish that was upheld by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. However, it took the committee a long time before it started to look beyond the western world for suitable candidates. Globalisation of the prize was a very slow process. From 1901 to 1975 only four laureates did not come from Western Europe or North America.
![]() |
![]() |
Chart 1: Geographical distribution of Peace Prize laureates 1901-2000. |
Carlos Saavedra Lamas was the first Latin American to receive the Prize, in 1936. Not until 1960 was an African, Albert Lutuli, awarded the Prize. It took 73 years before a person from Asia was awarded. Vietnam's Le Duc Tho declined the prize in 1973, and Eisaku Sato, the 1974 laureate, was therefore the first Asian to actually receive it. To some extent this can be explained by the distribution of nominees. Most of the candidates were North Americans, Europeans or international organisations. During the first 25 years of the Peace Prize, only 10 per cent of the nominees were "non-western". Between 1926 and 1950 the figure was 17 per cent.
![]() |
![]() |
Chart 2: Geographical distribution of nominees, 1901-2000. |
From 1975 onwards, the record of the Nobel
Committee has greatly improved when it comes to a
more even geographical distribution of the laureates.
As we see from Chart 2, a substantial share of the
nominees still came from Western Europe and North
America. Nevertheless, the most dramatic shift over
the last century occurred with the reduced number of
nominees from Western Europe. Although it is still
one of the largest categories, the reduction is
striking when compared with the period 1901-1925,
when 68 per cent of the candidates and 74 per cent of
the laureates were Western Europeans.
Another important tendency is the increased number of
nominations from Asia during the last 30 years. In
1971-1980, Asian candidates accounted for about 10
per cent of the nominees. Between 1991 and 2000, this
had risen to 25 per cent. The result was more
laureates from this region. However, a high
proportion of nominees is no guarantee for a prize.
During the last 20 years, the number of North
American candidates remained fairly high, but during
the same period there have been only two laureates
from this region (Elie Wiesel and Jody Williams).
Africa has always had a low number of nominees, but
still accounts for six peace laureates: Albert
Lutuli, Anwar al-Sadat, Desmond Tutu, Nelson
Mandela, Frederik de Klerk, and Kofi Annan. Less than
ten per cent of the nominees during the 1990s were
Africans, but three of the six African laureates were
awarded in the last decade. The fact that four of the
laureates were from South Africa indicates that the
Nobel Committee had a particular interest in the
struggle against apartheid.
Eastern Europe has been a small category both in the
number of laureates and nominations. Its percentage
of nominees was particularly low during the Cold War.
The communist regimes in this region viewed the Nobel
Prize as an instrument for the western powers, and on
the whole did not encourage nominations. The three
laureates from Eastern Europe were all closely linked
to Cold War issues. Andrei Sakharov (1975)
was a dissident in the Soviet Union, and the award
represented a clear criticism of the Soviet
government's neglect of basic human rights. Lech Walesa (1983) was
the leader of the illegal Polish trade union
Solidarity, which opposed the communist regime.
Because of government repression, neither was able to
leave for Oslo to receive the prize in person. The
third laureate, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev
(1990), was crucial in ending the Cold War.
![]() |
![]() |
Chart 3: Nominees 1961-2000 by decade. |
In general, we can state that the Peace Prize has
changed from being a prize for Western Europeans and
North Americans to become a global prize. This is
largely reflected in both the number of nominees and
the number of laureates from each region. This
development is connected to some of the general
trends in 20th century world politics. During the
first half, Europe was the most powerful and
influential region. Consequently, the focus of the
Nobel Committee was for a long time on Western
Europe. World War II was a major turning point, after
which Europe's power and influence rapidly declined.
It took some years before this decline was reflected
in a decrease in Western European nominees and
laureates.
In the course of the last twenty years, and
particularly since the end of the Cold War,
globalisation has made the world smaller. It is
easier for the less powerful regions to influence the
agenda of world politics, but this development has
also created new challenges regarding distribution of
wealth, environmental problems and international
security. The Nobel Committee has been influenced by
this development, and the globalisation of the Peace
Prize that started in the 1970s and gained strength
during the 1980s has really accelerated during the
1990s. It is possible that this process is to some
extent self-reinforcing, so that when the Committee
decides on a laureate from Latin America, for
instance, this may trigger nominations in favour of
new candidates from that region. Today, there is a
more even geographical distribution of laureates and
nominees than ever before. Although Africa and Latin
America are still underrepresented in terms of
nominations, they have held up better in the choice
of laureates. As the Nobel Peace Prize moves into its
second century, it has become a truly global
prize.
![]() |
![]() |
| Chart
4: Nominees in 2001. |
|
In 2001 North America was the largest group, with 25 per cent of the candidates, closely followed by Asia and Western Europe. Eastern Europe and Latin America accounted for 8 and 10 per cent, respectively. This corresponds largely to the situation between 1991 and 2000. Nominees from Africa represented only 2 per cent of the total last year. However, Kofi Annan, who shared the Prize with the UN, is indeed African This illustrates the fact that there is no clear correlation between the number of nominees from one region and the Nobel Committee's decisions.
1. Cited by Sven Tägil, "War and Peace in the Thinking of Alfred Nobel".
2. See "Excerpts from the will of Alfred Nobel".
3. See also Eric Hobsbawm, " War and Peace in the 20th Century". Video of his presentation at the Nobel Peace Prize Centennial Symposium, December 2001.
4. See "Controversies and Criticism", by Øyvind Tønnesson.
By Dag Axel Kristoffersen, The Norwegian Nobel
Institute
Illustrations by Jonas Anderson
First published 12 April 2002