I took a special interest in the Nobel Peace Prize nomination process this year because for the first time as Editor-In-Chief of Defence and Intelligence Norway, I felt compelled to recommend someone.
I am not an accredited nominator – my recommendation, with the documentation at the end of this article, was made to an accredited nominator whose decision, to nominate or not, shall remain secret in compliance with the procedures of the Nobel Foundation.
By Jan H. Kalvik
We have all seen how the Nobel Peace Prize has been influenced by politics and personality over time. From Henry Kissinger, who sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks, to Barack Obama who did nothing of note during his ten days of qualifying period, to Malala Yousafzai whose own country and public question all aspects of her story , to the competition between the US and Russia to declare (or block) the Ukrainian President as the nominee in 2015, the process appears to have moved far from the intent of its founder, Alfred Nobel. As one critic has stated, “The Nobel Peace Prize has become a cruel joke.”
Indeed, a law suit was filed in 2015 against the Noble Foundation for awarding the prize to the European Union, not a person and hardly a champion of peace, in violation of the terms of the will of Alfred Nobel.
As the cycle has closed for 2017, the Nobel Peace Prize is again being politicized, with some favoring the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as the best candidate by which to “rebuke” Donald Trump for his travel ban. This is a perfect example of how the Nobel Peace Prize has been seized upon as a political “statement.” It is supposed to be, according to the terms of the will of Alfred Nobel, awarded under the following terms:
…the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.
…one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
By this standard, both those being recommended for a body of work over a lifetime are excluded, as are those who have for whatever reason been singled out for media attention as a cause celebre. Organizations are explicitly excluded by the terms of the will.
Based on my own direct experience this past six months, I have identified four areas where a useful public discussion could be held toward the end of improving the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize process:
First, the Committee must either adhere to the terms of the will and consider only those who have promoted peace in a substantive manner in the preceding year, or obtain some form of parliamentary or legally valid expansion such that a body of work can be partially considered.
Second, the Committee should consider seeking a parliamentary or legally valid end to the secrecy that surrounds the nominations. For so many who are nominated, the mere fact of their being nominated would be sufficient to increase their influence as a force for peace. The world has changed – openness and transparency are peace enablers hence the Committee could and should lead the way in this respect.
Third, the Committee must do a much better job of soliciting nominations from across its accredited nominators who are mostly parliamentarians, government ministers, and professors. There should be thousands of nominations, not a few hundred. It is absurd to suggest that in today’s vibrant world where so many struggle to contain inter-state conflict, civil war, genocide, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, there are only 200-300 viable candidates.
Fourth and finally, the Committee would do well to consider information-era criteria for its nomination this year and going forward into the future. An examination of all Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to date finds that none have been awarded for local to global scale information and intelligence endeavors – for information peacekeeping or peacekeeping intelligence that empowers the peace-loving public while constraining war-mongering banks and governments.
It was this final realization that compelled me to recommend one of our authors, Robert David Steele, for nomination by one of our Norwegian Ministers, for the Nobel Peace Prize. We do not expect him to be selected – or even placed on the short list – but in our view as editors, he is qualified both for helping to prevent World War III this past year, publicly confronting the lies being told by his own national intelligence community with respect to the Russians hacking the US election, and for his body of work in the preceding year and over time, as summarized here:
For leadership in redirecting the craft of intelligence (decision-support) away from spies and secrecy enabling war and waste, toward open sources and methods favorable to peace and prosperity.
I met Robert David Steele when he came to Oslo in April 2016 as part of a trip funded by the Danish government, with his side trip to Oslo funded by a Norwegian interested in the information funded by Denmark – he is a person, not an organization, and both his efforts to counter the lies about the Russians hacking the election, and his work for Denmark, occurred in the prior year. No matter what happens going forward, I am pleased to have the good ideas of this individual to place before the public. The three documents supporting my recommendation that he be nominated can be accessed in full-text online and also printed as individual documents.
- Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE) – A Nordic Manifesto
- Open Source Everything Done Right – Lecture to the Royal Danish Defence College
- Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize – Robert David Steele
With this manifesto of my own, I seek to both urge the restoration of the standard for the Nobel Peace Prize as set by Alfred Nobel, restoring the integrity of the prize, and also the utility of the prize as a means of promoting peace over time instead of devaluing the prize for short-term political effect.
 Paul Craig Roberts, “The Nobel Peace Prize Has Become a Cruel Joke,” Paul CraigRoberts.org, 7 October 2016. Related critical commentary includes Whitney Webb, “Why the Nobel Peace Prize is a Complete Joke,” TrueActivist.com, 21 October 2016; Editors, “From War Criminals to Despots, 5 of the Most Undeserving Nobel Prize Winners,” TelesurfTV.net, 5 October 2016; and Frank Carson, “10 Most Controversial Nobel Peace Prize Winners,” CheatSheet.com, 25 December 2014.
 Malread Maguire et al, “Nobel Prize: Lawsuit against the misappropriation of funds,” Transnational.org, 9 October 2015. It is noteworthy that the official web page for the Nomination and Selection of Peace Prize Laureates fails to include the actual criteria as specified by Alfred Nobel in his will.
 AFP-JIJI, “Nobel Peace Prize hopefuls include roster of Trump opponents,” JapanTimes.com, 2 February 2017 where Kristian Berg Harpviken of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo is quoted, “A peace prize to the ACLU would certainly be understood as a criticism of President Trump.” He goes on to cite the ACLU’s long-standing role in fighting for civil rights. Here again, I must note the ACLU is not a person as called for in the will of Alfred Nobel.
 Steele, Robert with Lance Schuttler, “CIA Spy Speaks Out After 30 Years of Censorship – Is It Time to Listen?” The Mind Unleashed, 31 January 2017; Steele, Robert. “What Can Countries Do to Advance Peace?,” Russian International Affairs Council, 27 January 2017; Steele, Robert with Sean Stone. “Can Trump Overcome w/Robert David Steele,” Russia Today (YouTube, 11:46), 23 January 2017; Steele, Robert. “Trump Intelligence: Sometimes really big lies are good – when seen to be lies!,” Defence and Intelligence Norway, 18 January 2017; Steele, Robert. “The Soft Coup Collapses – CIA Bluffing, Russia Did Not Hack, Blackmail Revealed – What Next?,” Global Research, 9 January 9 2017; Steele, Robert. “The Russians Did Not “Hack” the US Election – a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy,” Defence and Intelligence Norway, 31 December 2016.