Losing its lustre 黯然失色的獎章

An anti-poverty campaigner and a bank in Bangladesh have won this year』s Nobel Peace Prize. The purpose of the prize has become muddled. It may be better to withhold it next time
今年，一位孟加拉反貧困活動家和一家銀行成為諾貝爾和平獎得主。這使得這一獎項的目的變得模糊起來。下一次，空缺，或許是一個更好的選擇。

BRAVERY is a characteristic shared by most winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. On Friday October 13th, the Norwegian part of the Nobel Institute (a Swedish body that dishes out the other coveted prizes, for science and literature) named the recipient of the 2006 peace award. An unofficial shortlist included a pair of Irish rock stars who have received a lot of attention for trying to promote development in Africa, a Finnish diplomat who works at the UN and who has lobbied for peace in Indonesia and a Vietnamese Buddhist. In fact the award was given to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen bank in Bangladesh, which promotes lending to the poorest, especially women.
勇敢，是絕大多數諾貝爾和平獎得主一個共同的特性。在10月13日周五這一天，挪威諾貝爾學院宣布了今年諾貝爾和平獎的得主（其他科學和文學獎項由瑞典諾貝爾學院頒發）。早前，非官方的候選人名單上，既有因致力於非洲發展而廣受矚目的一對愛爾蘭搖滾歌星；也有來自芬蘭而就職於聯合國並為印尼和平奔走呼籲的外交家；還有一位來自越南的佛教高僧。然而這個獎項卻最終頒給了孟加拉國的穆罕木德.尤那斯以及格萊美銀行，褒獎他們向赤貧人群，尤其是婦女提供信貸。

But the Nobel committee could have made a braver, more difficult, choice by declaring that there would be no recipient at all. That might ruin a good party—each year the lucky winner (who also gets a cash prize of $1.3m or so) is honoured with a lavish award ceremony in Oslo, Norway's capital, given a commemorative medal, and attention is shone on his particular good cause. Some recent examples include a campaign to ban landmines; the promotion of peace in Northern Ireland; efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar (which used to be called Burma).
可是，諾貝爾委員會應當可以作出一個更大膽、也更困難的選擇，即，宣布今年此獎項得主空缺。這樣一來，一場豪華盛宴會因此而遭到破壞，因為，每一年度，在挪威首府奧斯陸盛大的頒獎典禮上，幸運得主都會在這裡接收榮耀，獲贈一枚紀念獎章（同時獲得大約130萬美元現金獎勵），其不凡的業績被聚焦和歌頌，比如近幾年來的掃雷運動；北愛爾蘭的和平進程以及緬甸的民主進程。

Withholding the prize for a year, or possibly five, might seem rather callous. But the institute would not be suggesting that the world has become sufficiently peaceful now. Some do argue that wars are generally in decline. Last year a think-tank in Canada released a 「Human Security Report」 which noted that 100-odd wars have expired since 1988. Their study found that wars and genocides have become less frequent since 1991, that the value of the international arms trade has slumped by a third (between 1990 and 2003), and that refugee numbers have roughly halved (between 1992 and 2003). Yet, despite all that, there are clearly enough problems today—Darfur, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, international terrorism—to keep the hardest-working peace promoters busy.
將這個獎項扣押一年，甚或五年，看起來似乎不近情理。可是，諾貝爾學院就會承認世界已經足夠太平了嗎？有一些人會辯解，總的說來，戰爭是在減少。去年，加拿大的一個智囊團還發布了一份「人類安全報告」，提及自1991年以來，大大小小已經有100個戰爭停火，國際軍火交易額度削減了三分之一（1990年到2003年之間），難民人數也已經減少了一半（1992年到2003年之間）。但是，儘管如此，今天的世界依然問題多多――達爾福爾（蘇丹），斯里蘭卡，索馬利亞，阿富汗，伊拉克，國際恐怖主義，凡此種種，令和平家們馬不停蹄，四處奔波。

The reason for the institute to withhold the prize, instead, would be to preserve its value. There is a risk that its worth is being eroded as the institute scrambles to find an eye-catching recipient every year. There is the problem of Buggin's turn, an expectation (as with some other prizes) that the award should rotate between regions of the world. This year it is Asia, last year the recipient was from the Middle East, the year before from Africa.
提及扣留這個獎項的原因，則非維護其價值莫屬。殊不知，為發現一個吸引眼球的獲獎人，諾貝爾學院每年倉皇出尋，使得這個獎項正面臨著貶值的危機。在布根獲獎時，就有一個期望，那就是這個獎項應當在世界各地之間輪流頒發。今年亞洲，去年中東，前年則是頒給了非洲。

Some recipients seem less than deserving. Vietnam』s Le Duc Tho declined the award in 1973 when he was asked to share it with America』s Henry Kissinger. The two had signed a ceasefire agreement that year, but fighting continued in Vietnam for another two years. The recent decision to give the prize to a Kenyan environmentalist, Wangari Maathai, was also odd: she has done a lot to plant trees in Kenya, but not much to promote peace. Worse, she holds bizarre views on AIDS, suggesting that HIV was created by evil scientists to kill black people. This year』s winner is an admirable anti-poverty campaigner, but it is a stretch to call him or the Grameen bank peacemakers.
有一些獲獎者似乎人非所值。1973年，越南領導人黎德壽與美國國務卿基辛格同獲和平獎，但是，黎拒絕領獎。時年，雖然越美雙方已經簽署了停火協議，但是，在越南，炮火依然持續了兩年之久。奇怪的還有，最近，肯亞的環保主義者旺加里·馬塔伊獲頒和平獎，代之以致力於對和平的更多促進，她不過是在肯亞植起了大片樹林。更有甚者，她對艾滋病的看法奇異非常，宣揚HIV是邪惡的科學家所炮製，用於殘殺黑人。而今年，站在領獎台上的不過是一位令人仰慕的反貧困的活動家，可是他以及這家格萊美銀行卻被人們推崇為和平的使者。

In searching out individuals to praise for a variety of good deeds, to make celebrities of the well-meaning in various walks of life, is to confuse the purpose of the prize: to promote peace. The organisers could recall that on 19 occasions since the prize was first given out in 1901, the institute declared that it could find no fitting winner. During much of the first and second world wars, for example, no winner was named. But the last time the institute dared to do that was in 1972. What has changed since then, one might suspect, is that the institute has found it has a great need—for marketing purposes perhaps—to give out the prize. The challenge, for the next few years, will be to find the bravery to hold back.
對人們各式各樣的善行義舉進行篩選予以褒獎，以及推出各行各業意義非凡的名流達人，無異於模糊了和平獎的目的：促進和平。組織者或許還能回憶起在1901年開始頒發此獎后的第19屆典禮上，學院宣布獲獎者空缺。再比如，在第一次世界大戰和第二次世界大戰期間的大部分年份，均沒有人獲得這個獎項。但是，學院最近一次宣布空缺卻是在1972年。你不能不懷疑，從那以後，到底發生了什麼，是不是學院已經發現了一個極大的必要――推銷這個獎項。換言之，今後的幾年，學院將面臨著一個挑戰，那就是，找到勇氣，將和平獎留下！