Another Nobel Controversy
This global physicians' movement was initiated in 1979 by Dr. Bernard Lown, a prominent American cardiologist deeply concerned about the spiraling nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union and what it portended for the future. Approaching the distinguished Soviet cardiologist, Dr. Evgenii Chazov, with whom he had had previous professional contacts, Lown sought to convince Chazov that they should build an international physicians' movement that would alert the world to the nuclear peril. Chazov was initially reluctant to involve himself in this venture, for it seemed likely to lead to the sacrifice of the modern hospital he was building and, worst of all, engage him in political difficulties with the Soviet authorities. Even so, he succumbed to Lown's pleas and, in late 1980, a small group of U.S. and Soviet physicians laid the groundwork for IPPNW, with Lown and Chazov and co-chairs.
Riding the wave of antinuclear protest during the early 1980s, IPPNW grew dramatically. By 1985, it had affiliates in 41 nations, with a membership of 135,000 physicians. Its U.S. affiliate was Physicians for Social Responsibility, which claimed some 37,000 members. As doctors were figures of considerable prestige, the reports, conferences, speeches, and lobbying by IPPNW, its affiliates, and its members on behalf of nuclear disarmament had considerable credibility and impact. As Chazov feared, he did draw a sour response from Soviet party conservatives. But he was shielded from their wrath thanks to his role as the personal physician to aging and ill Soviet government officials.
In October 1985, when it was announced that IPPNW had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the status of this global physicians' movement soared. Irate at this turn of events, conservative parties and portions of the Western communications media launched a blistering attack upon it, charging that Chazov and other Soviet doctors were agents of the Kremlin and that Western doctors were hopeless dupes. In an editorial headed "The Nobel Peace Fraud," the Wall Street Journal claimed that the Nobel committee had "hit a new low." Forbes magazine—which advertised itself as "Capitalist Tool"—charged that "these medicine men are more eager to pounce on Uncle Sam than on the Red Bear." It concluded: "The Norwegian Nobel committee blew it; this year they should've taken a powder." A headline in the New York Daily News proclaimed "Soviet Propaganda Wins the Prize," while the Detroit News assailed "Nobel Lunacies." Chazov, particularly, was charged with everything from torturing Soviet dissidents to inventing the AIDS virus.
The conservative governments of a number of NATO countries weighed in against IPPNW, with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl appealing to the Nobel Committee to rescind the prize. When Jakob Sverdrup, the secretary of the Nobel Committee, was asked on German national television if a government had ever before urged that the award be rescinded, he responded affirmatively. In 1935, he noted, Adolf Hitler had issued an appeal against giving the award to a German pacifist, Carl von Ossietzky, then imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. Deeply embarrassed, the West German government dropped the issue.
IPPNW leaders defended the organization's integrity, but the best rebuttal occurred at the Nobel ceremonies that December. Lown and Chazov were doing their best to respond to hostile questions at a crowded press conference when a Soviet journalist tumbled to the floor, felled by a cardiac arrest. Immediately, Lown, Chazov, and other doctors raced to the stricken man's side, taking turns pounding on his chest and giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Ultimately, they saved his life. When the press conference resumed, Lown, shaken but quick-witted, said: "What you have just seen is a parable of our movement. When a crisis comes, when life is in danger, Soviet and American physicians cooperate. . . . We forget ideology, we forget our differences." And "the big issue confronting humankind today is sudden nuclear death."
This dramatic incident rallied support for IPPNW, which pressed forward with its antinuclear campaign—a campaign that made a significant contribution to subsequent nuclear disarmament treaties signed by the major powers. By late 1988, IPPNW had grown to a federation of physicians' groups in 61 countries, with over 200,000 members. It continues its efforts today, as does its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
With this incident in mind, we should be wary before assailing the considered judgment of the Nobel Committee today, as it once again presents an award to a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament. Indeed, we might ask the conservative critics of awarding the prize to Obama what they have done for peace lately. And, if they have done nothing—or worse—we might well question their motives.
comments powered by Disqus
Arnold Shcherban - 10/16/2009
<Most rational people agree that the use of nuclear weapons is not a good thing, but equally true is the fact that America's nuclear umbrella shielded and protected the world from that horror fo some 50 years.>
Isn't it highly hypocritical and factually wrong to claim that the US
nuclear weapons protected the WORLD
when in FACT the ONLY COUNTRY IN THAT WORLD THAT HAD AND ACTUALLY USED THAT HORROR TWICE against CIVILIAN POPULATION was the US???!!!
Oh, I know, I know... it was during the war and it prevented million of American casualties, etc., but I bet my life that if the USSR or CHINA would do the exact same thing during the war against non-nuclear Western or pro-Western nation that attacked them, to also prevent half of their population being exterminated, they would have been desecrated in pieces by the Western propaganda as THE MOST HORRENDOUS WAR CRIMINALS.
When, at last, this country's historians, intellectuals, and brainwashed by them ignorant folks stop using vicious double standards in analyzing "our" and "their" actions?
Let me also claim something that would
much more likely to happen, if the other countries - first and foremost - USSR would not obtain WMDs. The latter country (along with China) would be devastated and millions of its citizens killed by the US/NATO nuclear strikes.
I could offer dozens factual reasons why my claim is incomparably better grounded, but knowing that on HNN noone has ever defected from his/her views despite any amount and quality of the opposing arguments, I say: finita.
Donald Wolberg - 10/14/2009
Mr.Wittner excellent reciew, reminding us of the work of the IPPNW and its lofty goals unfortunately has little or nothing to do with the award to Mr. Obama. Most rational people agree that the use of nuclear weapons is not a good thing, but equally true is the fact that America's nuclear umbrella shielded and protected the world from that horror fo some 50 years. Bad things are sometimes necessary in a less than rational world or dealing with depressingly awful people such as Stalin or Mao and a host of minor characters.
Unfortunately, the award to Mr. Obama was not only not deserved, it must have been more indicative of selecting someone perceived as being "different" from the main stream of American exceptionalism and defining leadership, and someone prepared to redefine the American character. There is no evidence that the award was presented for any accomplishments--Mr. Obama's career has been largely devoid of substantive accomplishments. There is no evidence that the award was presented for any accomplishments in office: names were presented in February apparently, just as Mr. Obama was taking office. There is no evidence that the award was presented for any significant life experience, writings, philosophical influence, economic insights, etc. Mr. Obama has no accomplishments in these realms.
Of course, a review of other recipients of the award: Mr. Arafat, the corrupt terrorist; the very peculiar Mr. Carter and Mr. Gore's efforts to save the world while never doing well in science, and while finding financial gain in doom and gloom, does shed light on the difficulty many have with the award process and significance. Mr. Obama might surprise us all and decide that he does not really deserve the award and refuse to make another wasted trip at taxpayer's expense. Similarly, he could even donate the million dollars or so prize money to the Wounded Warriors fund that helps fallen soldiers. This would be meaningful, given Mr. Obama's inability or unwillingness to provide the additional resources needed to protect the troops in Afghanistan, the war he said was the "right" war. But then, this would be another irony of the "Peace Prize" selection.
Arnold Shcherban - 10/13/2009
really has a poor history. And in the latest case, I would be if not the first, then not the last to point out
that President Barack Obama, quite OBVIOUSLY, did not deserve it from any pertaining standpoint. In fact, hardly any US president, the recipient of this highest international award, has ever deserved it.
The author of the article, however, is absolutely right in regard to strong ideological and political bias and conspicuous double standards used in justification analysis of the award, coming from the far right side of the political specter.
- David Rosand, an Art History Scholar Whose Heart Was in Venice, Dies at 75
- NYT interviews Rick Perlstein about his book
- OAH issues a statement in support of the AP standards
- Daniel Pipes says in interview that the absence of anti-Israel protests in Muslim countries is highly significant
- A historian who studies China has discovered an overlooked angle in the debate about the Middle East. Could he have figured out a key reason for Iraq’s failure to defeat ISIS?