Breaking the Nobel code of silence
Geir Lundestad spent 25 years as secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, a post that afforded him an intimate glimpse into the inner workings of the famously secretive panel. But unlike his predecessors, and contrary to a 50-year Nobel code of silence, when Lundestad retired in 2014 he didn’t stay quiet — he sat down at his desk to write a new memoir, The Peace Secretary. The book has ignited anger in Norway, and among Nobel circles, by pulling back the curtain on one of the world’s most prestigious prizes — as well as those who have not received it, including Iraq weapons inspector Hans Blix and Pope John Paul II. National Post writer Joe O’Connor spoke with Lundestad this week from Oslo about Nobel secrets, conflicts of interest and how not to persuade a Norwegian.
Q How does one get the job as secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize committee?
A Well, I was a professor of history at the world’s northernmost university, the University of Tromso — and I come from the north of Norway — and the job was advertised, so I applied for it. Why? You get to meet these Nobel laureates. You follow them virtually every step they take when they come to Oslo. At the same time, I still had the time to continue with my academic work. So it was the perfect job. I even had it in my original job description that my office hours were 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. But we abolished that [laughs].
Q Is this actual peace prize committee made up exclusively of Norwegians?
A The committee is all Norwegians. They tend to be expoliticians.
Q Which past winners have generated the most debate among committee members?
A We had three years where members resigned from the committee, because they didn’t like the choice. This was the case in 1935 when the prize went to Carl von Ossietzky, who was a symbol of resistance against Hitler. The Norwegian foreign minister served on the committee and he knew that Hitler would become furious over the choice, so he stepped down, as did a former prime minister. King Haakon VII did not attend the awards ceremony. This was probably as controversial as it could get. In 1973 the prize went to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for the Paris Peace Agreement; two members left the committee over that. And in 1994 Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres shared the prize, and one member left the committee. So it has only happened three times in our 114-year history. Normally, the process is rather smooth.
Q So you have Arafat, a terrorist, being awarded a prize under your watch, as was F.W. de Klerk, an instrument of the South African apartheid state. Do these choices sit well with you today?
A Absolutely. In 1993 Mandela received the prize, but F.W. de Klerk was included. Not for his earlier defence of apartheid but because he changed. He was willing to give up power. In the 1980s, people were saying that South Africa could not be solved, that there would be a civil war, and the apartheid government could have con- tinued — but it didn’t. One major reason why was de Klerk’s attitude. Arafat and Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin didn’t get the prize because of their past, either. They got it for trying to transcend the past. They were trying to work out a compromise on this most difficult of all issues: the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians.
Q Some of the press around your book has focused on the notion that committee fears of angering Washington may have cost Swedish diplomat/ UN weapons inspector Hans Blix the 2005 peace prize.
A Well, you need to remember that we get 250 nominations a year. But we have given many prizes that were not well received in America. There was the prize to Linus Pauling in 1962 for his work against nuclear weapons. Not a single American representative showed up for the ceremony. Then, in 1997, we gave the prize to Jody Williams and the landmine campaign. Williams was very critical of Bill Clinton for not signing on to the landmine treaty. So there have been years when even the United States has responded negatively.
Q Obama won the prize in 2009. Since then we have had Syria, increased drone strikes and Guantanamo is still open. Was Obama a mistake?
A The effects of that prize were not as positive as one would hope. The short argument for awarding it was: Here comes a man, the most powerful man in the world, and his objectives coincided with the objectives that the Norwegian Nobel committee has worked for since 1901 — strengthening multilateral organizations, neutral disarmament, human rights, democracy and new environmental policy. If he were going to be even partially successfully, he would need support. And this is what the committee gave him.
Q Do countries lobby for their Nobel contenders?
A Most of the lobbying is to collect as many signatures of support for the candidate as possible. But if you know anything about Norwegian mentality, lobbying a Norwegian quickly becomes counterproductive. Q How so? A Nobody wants to be pushed. The Chinese government made it perfectly clear, in Liu Xiaobo’s (2010 peace prize) case, that they were against a prize to a dissident. Even the Norwegian foreign minister thought it wasn’t a very smart idea. But this had no effect on the committee.
Q How did the Xiaobo decision play out behind the scenes?
A There were many issues that were discussed, including whether we should make a big exception for China. We had awarded many prizes to human rights activists that had offended this power or that. But there were those that said the situation in China was getting so much better that we should not interfere. But the committee felt that we had to address the human rights situation. Then we spent time finding the right dissident. There were many possibilities. There was even disagreement within the dissident community itself, but the Chinese government solved a potentially difficult problem for us when they gave Liu 11 years in prison. He became the symbol for the struggle for human rights in China.
Q Your book has generated a great deal of controversy within Norway, and it even cost you access to your old office, post-retirement.
A The former committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland (a one-time Norwegian prime minister and current secretary general of the Council of Europe), responded negatively by saying I wrote in the book that I had written his speeches. But no, I only wrote that I had given input into his speeches. Overall the book reviews have been good and the sales brisk. Q But you still lost your office. A That’s not a problem.
Q Have you made peace with Jagland?
A I come from northern Norway. We are frank people. We speak our minds. We should have our discussions, but we should remain friends on a personal basis.
Q So you’re still friends with Jagland?
A I haven’t met with him. We’ll see.
Lobbying a Norwegian quickly becomes counterproductive