Butcher of the year
It might be considered esteemed by most, but the Nobel Peace Prize is on a fast-track to irrelevancy.
While the prize money may not amount to much, the sparkling ring of ‘Nobel laureate’ still has the ability to woo crowds and congresses equally.
But the Prize, and the remarkable work it stands for, are at risk of ridicule thanks to another misguided nomination – that of Russian President Vladimir ‘Butcher of Grozny’ Putin.
The International Academy of Spiritual Unity and Cooperation of Peoples of the World have put the murderous dictator’s name forward for the 2014 award – one of the select few organizations allowed to do so.
While the shirtless hunts, fighter jets, and goose-encouragements for which he has become caricatured are farcical, Putin’s actions as leader of Russia are far more sinister.
Parallels to Stalin’s bloody reign should not be considered trivial.
The consistent, unrelenting scorched-earth policy enacted in Chechnya in the early 2000’s leveled the nation’s capital to the ground in near-Biblical proportions (an analogy I’m sure Mr. Putin himself would enjoy). Systematic rape, torture, imprisonment, barbarism, and slaughter of civilians existed fulsomely under his divinely-inspired leadership.
(It must be insisted that Chechan separatists are uniformly guilty of similar crimes against humanity, though thankfully none of them have been nominated for the Prize)
Ironic, then, that we find a similar conflict supported by Putin: the Syrian Civil War.
It is precisely Putin’s handling of the supposed detente with the West at the United Nations regarding Bashar al-Assad’s possession and use of Sarin gas that prompted the Nobel nomination.
How obscene it is, given a heinous record in both Chechnya and Georgia, for Putin to proselytize on the world stage against “foreign intervention” and enforce the “sovereignty of nations”. How disgusting it is that he reaches for a glorious title with one hand, while funneling arms to terrorists with the other. And for this, he should be rewarded? Only a man equally as foolish would consider this a decent achievement.
This is no ‘one-off’, either. The Nobel Prizes of recent decades have been handed out like piñata sweets to those whose names simply appear in print more often than those who might have truly earned it.
Dare I mention the raging old Albanian bat Agnes Bojaxhiu, otherwise known as Mother Theresa? Or dare I conjure up the dribbling giblets of one Mr. Henry Kissinger, professional carpet-bomber and Machiavelli made incarnate?
Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, both equally culpable in the perpetuation of oppression and murder on both sides of the West Bank Barrier, alongside the flaccid hick negotiator Jimmy Carter are gloating recipients, too.
Lest we forget Barack Obama. Nominated on the basis of race and a hypocritical campaign slogan, it stands that given revelations of mass surveillance, his beloved ‘disposition matrix’, and continued abuses at Guantanamo Bay, the award might not be placed in his quivering hands today.
Some tough questions must be asked of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. How transparent and considered is the process by which the recipient is chosen? And how soon should we judge the actions of the powerful after their supposed works of wonder? And further, will they continue to blight the name of Alfred Nobel and the very decency which the prize represents by the obscenities it inflicts every few years?
Until the above questions are answered in full, the Prize will continue a slow descent towards the mockery it draws upon itself.
