DM: The Nobel Peace Prize Committee consists of five people; it is selected by the Norwegian Parliament and appointed for six years. How exactly is the committee put together?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: All this is regulated in Alfred Nobel’s will of 1896. All the Nobel Prizes are based in Sweden and connected to Swedish institutions, with one exception, the Peace Prize, where Nobel decided that the Norwegian parliament should appoint five individuals to form the committee. This was accepted by the Norwegian parliament by a unanimous vote in 1899. And this is what the parliament still does. Since it is a parliament, everything in a parliament is political. So it's sort of decided between the most dominating parties in the parliament getting to appoint one individual to the committee, or perhaps two individuals, and it sort of divided according to parliamentary and power.
DM: All right, so you five members are connected to a party.
Berit Reiss-Andersen: The final decision is made by the parliament as such. But the fact that there is a certain division so that I am appointed by the Labour Party, who has, because of its parliamentary strength, two members in the committee. And this is also very important to understand how the committee works, because we belong to or are affiliated to different parties. And so, obviously, in this small committee we have different political opinions; we have different ideological basis, and I think this is an important factor of the unique cooperation in the committee in which you actually have to work with an understanding for another person's position, another person's point of view and for a decision. But I must emphasize, once we are appointed, there's no reporting back to the party that you belong to. We are only loyal to the will of Alfred Nobel and we are sworn to secrecy about our deliberations.
DM: What happens if the Norwegian public, who is allowed to vote, would go to one side or the other?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: We are not an official institution; we are not part of a political process. We execute Alfred Nobel's will and the parliament accepted to play a role in that part and that stands steadfast - however the composition of the parliament might change in the future. If you imagine an antidemocratic coup of some kind where the parliament is taken over, well, you are in one of those situations where the committee should refrain from continuing its work. But this is very imaginary. It has functioned rather well for more than 120 years. There has been some development though, because when the committee was still young in its first year, it was often ministers and very active politicians who were members of the committee. And this is no longer the case because there is a consensus that active politicians do better not participating in the Nobel Committee. So you can say we are elected by a political body, but there is a total independence between the committee and that political body.
DM: Why did Alfred Nobel give that section of his prize to Norway?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: This is a very good question and it's impossible to answer because it is an enigma. There's a lot of theories on it. One theory is that the Norwegian parliament in the 1880s was very active in parliamentary arbitration, which Nobel was very much in favour of. Another theory is we were at the time an independent nation under the Swedish king and we had no independent foreign policy. So that might have been a factor that we were not players on the international scene. But I don't really personally support that theory because there was already a strong movement for full national independency in Norway in 1896 when Alfred Nobel wrote his will, which did in fact happen.
DM: How many candidates are they usually per year - do you have five or six candidates or is it 60?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: There is a nomination process. This is set by laws who may nominate candidates and its parliamentarians, politicians, certain academic institutions, et cetera, et cetera. In the past year we received somewhere between 250 and 350 candidates. The only thing we publish about the candidates is the number of valid nominations. So when people sometimes put on their CV “nominated for the Peace Prize”, that is not information from us, and it's not always accurate information either. We only identify the winner.
DM: How are the candidates selected and what processes do you use to reach a result?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: The Noble Year starts February 1st every year, because that is the time limit for nominations of this year's Prize. And then our very small staff at the Noble Institute makes a list of all the nominations. In our first meeting that takes place sometime between February 1st and March 1st early in the year, we go through the entire list. That is when the committee sees the entire list of valid nominations. And we will have discussions of what does this year look like when it comes to world politics, peace efforts, regions of particular interest. We will have a sort of large-scale debate and we will look at the list to see if it reflects the issues that we identify, and we, the members of the Committee, may make additional nominations in that first meeting. And that's when you have to try and be almost clairvoyant and think, what can happen this year? What kind of issues might we be interested in addressing? And then looking at the list and seeing all the individuals and organizations that might be relevant for these issues on the list. And that's sort of our guideline for additional nominations in that first meeting.
As we progress, the list is become shorter and shorter. We have alternative candidates until the last minute, because we also know that the world is in constant movement, that new issues can pop up anytime. So it is important for us to keep the final decision open as late as possible.
DM: Since you've been with the Committee for quite a while, have you been surprised once or every once in a while on how the future developments of a candidate?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: Actually, what we reward is what the person or the organization has achieved at the time of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously, we cannot foresee how future developments will be, but not sure, particularly when it comes to individuals. We do, first of all, evaluate the person's peace efforts, but we do also try to look closely at the candidate. Is this person worthy of carrying the Nobel Peace Prize? Does he or she have the character that is necessary to be bestowed with such an award? So we try to reflect on that, as best as we can.
DM: Have you ever felt disappointed that you gave the prize because there is no longer peace or because the prize-winners acted against peace?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: Of course, we follow all our laureates closely, and of course we have been disappointed at times. We don't usually comment on statements or activities of our laureates because they are entrusted with their future life and carrying the Peace Prize. But in exceptional cases, in my time, I had commented on Aung San Suu Kyi and requested her very passive position when it came to the Rohingya situation. And I have also commented on Abiy Ahmed. But in both cases, I really would like to emphasize that I still defend that Aung San Suu Kyi was fully worth the Peace Prize when she received it, and she has again become the leading voice of the democracy movement in Myanmar and she is in prison for the exact same reason as before. But it is also important we can never revoke the Prize. But of course it's obvious that we hope that Peace Prize laureates continue throughout their lives to contribute to peace.
DM: The Nobel Peace Prize is the most prestigious of all prizes given out worldwide. Why is it so prestigious?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: I've reflected on that issue many times. And I think the reason that the Nobel Peace Prize, I would also say all the Nobel Prizes, are extremely prestigious, is the integrity of the Prize that we still have somehow, committee after committee. It's like a long chain of individuals that have handed down the work to the next person, and the next person performed with great integrity. In Alfred Nobel's will it is stated that it is an international prize. It's not a Scandinavian prize, it's an international prize. We always had the duty to look worldwide. Now it was much more difficult looking worldwide when the first Nobel Prize was handed out in 1901. And I think it has been able to change with the time in identifying new continents, new peoples, of bringing its attention to important conflicts and peace efforts of its time. For instance, I think in the sixties the committee made a very important effort in identifying apartheid and all racial discrimination as a lack of fraternity between not only nations, but peoples, took up very sensitive issues. I can also mention the Prize to Carl von Ossietzky in 1937 that made Hitler and created furious protests in Norway. That it is the only time that the Norwegian royal family has not been present for the ceremony. But the committee stood its ground under enormous pressure and that's what we do. And I think looking at history and recognizing the very heavy tradition of integrity that you are bound to by being member of this committee is we have over 120 years managed to build that up.
DM: How do you feel the pressure, because when you're presenting, not everybody would naturally be happy with your decision?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: Well, there's pressure from people, organizations and individuals who are lobbying for their cancandidates. For instance, Aung San Suu Kyi it was a result of a campaign that she won the prize, but it was also identified by the committee as very much worth it. There's diplomatic pressure. World powers follow our work very closely and we know I cannot speak about this in detail, but that there has been interferences, I can confirm that we are aware of it.
DM: Where do you get your information from and how do you avoid fake news?
Berit Reiss-Andersen: Well, we don't avoid fake news because nobody avoids fake news. We have to identify it. So we are very much aware that information that we build our decision on has to be vetted and how we work. Well, we get our information where everybody else gets their information from newspapers, platforms. But we have a committee of consultants that are academics, all in different fields - historians, political science, international relations, etc. We had a sort of academic team making reports for us. When we get to the point of a very shortlist of possible realistic candidates, we also go to international institutions to get opinions and get second opinions. So you can say we work in a way with journalistic methods or legal methods. We have sources, we double check our sources and deliberately go on an issue. Let's say in the Middle East, even among academics, there can be different fractions. Have we tried to go to different institutions? Yes. To get all the angles of an issue to protect our integrity.
Interview Christian Barth