By Fredrik S. Heffermehl
OSLO, Jun 24 2015 (IPS)

When he died at the age of 80 on Jun. 18 in Oslo, Fredrik Fasting Torgersen had divided Norway for 56 years and the “Torgersen case” had attracted international interest in forensic science circles, among them the U.S.-based Innocence Project.

The case has a lot to tell us about evaluation of evidence, and how to avoid wrongful convictions.

At 24, Torgersen was convicted as the murderer of a 16-year-old woman found brutally killed in a basement in the house where she lived. He served 16 years in jail, but always insisted on his innocence and enjoyed a wealth of support.

Fredrik S. Heffermehl

Norway’s chief prosecutor (Riksadvokaten) and the judiciary have time and again turned down appeals for a reversal, but they are increasingly alone in their view; criticism from scientists, authors and the general public has grown steadily.

Torgersen had a prior record with the police when, just after midnight on Dec. 6, 1957, he was arrested in the centre of Oslo, suspected of having stolen a bicycle. During interrogation, the police station received a report of a young woman found dead in the same area. The police immediately suspected Torgersen and, in the coming weeks and months, collected everything that could appear to prove their theory.

The police were so convinced of his guilt that obvious exculpatory evidence, such as the lack of blood splatter on Torgersen´s clothing, was ignored.

Today, it is generally recognised that police must not focus on one suspect too early, and that material deemed “uninteresting” by the police must be made available to defence attorneys and the court.

Yet, the aspect of the case that seems to call for a revolution, in no way limited to Norway, has to do with evaluation of evidence. Courts lack training essential for assessing probabilities correctly.“Judges (and defence attorneys) must be trained in basic scientific methodology, logics and elementary statistical principles. Only then will they be able to unmask apparently impressive expert testimony not underpinned by empirical research on the real world and its variations”

At the original trial of Torgersen in 1958, the prosecutor presented three forms of technical evidence and a series of experts who told the court that unique aspects of this evidence (a bite mark, traces of faeces, and some spruce needles) amounted to total probability, indisputable proof, that Torgersen had been at the crime scene and left a bite mark on the breast of the murdered woman. The court relied on “likenesses” as conclusive evidence against him.

It applies all over the world – courts fail to see the difference between similarities and probabilities.

A bite mark tells that the killer had teeth, meaning it could be anyone. Unique traits are needed. When a dentist testifying against Torgersen told the court that the teeth had met “edge-to-edge” and that this clearly pointed to Torgersen, the defence attorney asked: “How unusual, one in two, in ten, in fifty, or one in a thousand?” The dentist could not tell, but the court did not understand what was at issue.

If the court had understood, this type of question would have been asked not only once, but again and again in the case, in all other cases in all courts, everywhere. Likeness in itself tells nothing. To draw conclusions about probability and uniqueness, one always needs to know normal frequencies.

This was the key discovery made in 2001 by the Oslo professor of criminal law, Ståle Eskeland, who, after 20 years on the case, leads a very broad effort for reversal of the Torgersen conviction.

Eskeland has explained this elementary rule of conclusions theory to the courts repeatedly, but they seem unable to grasp it. Courts have continually upheld the Torgersen conviction without even the smallest comment on the probability argument.

In a recent debate, a leading defender of Torgersen, Professor Per Brandtzæg, Norway´s most internationally quoted scientist, supported Eskeland. In a rebuttal, the former director of the Norwegian Courts Administration, Tor Langbach, insisted that the courts are critical, they ask questions.

He seems to miss the point. Not only must the courts ask the experts questions, says a professor of law in Oslo, Leif Petter Olaussen, they must ask the right questions.

To do so, judges (and defence attorneys) must be trained in basic scientific methodology, logics and elementary statistical principles. Only then will they be able to unmask apparently impressive expert testimony not underpinned by empirical research on the real world and its variations. 

Olaussen refers to an example of the horrific consequence of not asking the right question. Ten years ago a court found an employee in a kindergarten guilty of sexual abuse. Some rumours had circulated (children are fanciful) and, based on testimony from two doctors about unusual red marks around the vaginas of the small girls, the court concluded that improper conduct had occurred. Someone must have done it, and the most likely was Mr. NN (!), who was then whisked off to jail.

The court should have inquired about the research basis for calling red marks unusual. There was no such research at the time, only ten years later. Red marks are normal. The judgment was reversed.

Torgersen died in peace, he felt acquitted by both public and experts and knew that a solid group would continue to take his case forward. Just one week before he died, a new request for reversal was submitted by two heavyweight attorneys, Cato Schiøtz and Pål W. Lorentzen.

After 64 years, the file is enormous, but the case is still very simple – the lawyers found no valid evidence against Torgersen, but a whole lot that exculpates him.

One day, Norway and the world will thank Torgersen for a lifelong effort in the service of justice. (END/COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

By Fredrik S. Heffermehl and Tomas Magnusson
OSLO, Apr 10 2015 (IPS)

The Nobel Peace Prize is about to bow out to critics. As of Jan. 1, the Oslo-based Norwegian Nobel Committee that selects the winners has a new secretary, Olav Njølstad, who announced that “changes loom” in a recent interview.

However, Njølstad added, the changes “will not be dramatic”, making it unlikely that they will satisfy the full makeover demanded by The Nobel Peace Prize Watch, a newly-formed advocacy group wishing to reverse and undo international militarism.

Fredrik S. Heffermehl

In a letter sent in February to the Nobel Prize awarders, the group pointed to the purpose Alfred Nobel actually had in mind and presented a selection of candidates among the 276 nominated for the 2015 prize who are actually qualified to win. The Nobel Prize awarders have promised to respond to the letter, which, along with the valid candidates, is posted on the group´s website.

The group has chosen to ignore the wishes of the Nobel Committee that has a policy of strict secrecy around candidates and the selection process. By publishing, for the first time, the full nominations of the 25 “valid candidates”, the group has made it possible for everyone to see what types of peace work Nobel actually intended the prize to promote and its “imperative urgency” in the current period.

For over one hundred years, the secrecy rule has shielded the awarders from being held responsible for its neglect of the true Nobel “champions of peace” and they have been able to get away with assertions that the winners Nobel had in mind no longer exist.

According to the group this is untrue. It says that the committee ignores the simple, indisputable – and never disputed – evidence showing that when he designated his prize to the “champions of peace”, Nobel “meant the movement and the persons who work for a demilitarised world, for law to replace power in international politics, and for all nations to commit to cooperating on the elimination of all weapons instead of competing for military superiority.”

Tomas Magnusson

To make the prize comply with its actual purpose will require a dramatic change of the award policy. The Nobel Peace Prize Watch therefore doubts that the impending changes, described as “undramatic”, will be sufficient to satisfy the legislation on wills and foundations and the decisions of two public agencies in Sweden tasked with overseeing that foundations spend their funds in accordance with the law.

Even if the nominations are secret, The Nobel Peace Prize Watch was able to identify 24 names properly nominated for the 2015 prize. The list of valid candidates for 2015 is dominated by Americans and by people involved is nuclear disarmament, with nominees like Japanese hibakusha (nuclear survivors) Samiteru Taniguchi and Setsuko Thurlow; U.S. lawyer Peter Weiss and the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), David Krieger and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Further candidates are David Swanson, the U.S. activist for full disarmament; whistleblowers Kathryn Bolkovac, Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, all from the United States; veteran organisers of a law-based world order, such as lawyers Benjamin Ferencz and Richard Falk, also from the United States; and the Womens´ International League for Peace and Freedom, formed during the First World War.

It seems as if Norwegian politicians, imbued in Western militarism and loyalty to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), are unable to understand Nobel´s idea of peace: to liberate the nations of the world from weapons, warriors and war. The idea to be supported by his will was that all nations must cooperate on disarmament.

Laureates like U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009 and the European Union in 2012 both believe in military means and clearly are not the type of winners to whom Nobel dedicated his award.

If the world succeeded in realising the Nobel peace plan, this would release enormous funds to cater to human needs. It would cost only a tiny fraction of the world´s military expenditure to secure everyone access to food, clean water, housing, education, health care. It would become possible to secure decent circumstances for all people, all over the globe, poor and rich, East and West, North and South – and make them more secure in the bargain.

To a realist it must be obvious that a world filled with weapons and warriors, even nuclear weapons, is inherently an unsafe world.

In the letter requesting changes, The Nobel Peace Prize Watch refers to basic rules of law regarding wills and foundations and furthermore invokes decisions passed by two Swedish public agencies during the last few years.

The authorities expect the purpose of the Nobel testament to be respected and also that the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm will keep its Norwegian sub-committee for the peace prize under strict and effective supervision and also refrain from paying the prize amount to a winner outside the purpose Nobel actually had in mind.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, elected by the Parliament of Norway, now has until Apr. 17 to decide whether it will serve the great mandate that Nobel entrusted to it, to illuminate and promote the vision of preventing future war by what Nobel in his will called “creating the brotherhood of nations”.

Governments and citizens all over the world should unite in demanding that Norwegian parliamentarians respect Nobel and help liberate us all from the very dangerous common enemy called militarism. (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris    

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

* Fredrik S. Heffermehl is a Norwegian lawyer, former Vice President of the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and author of Peace is Possible and The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted. Tomas Magnusson is a Swedish civil servant in immigration and integration issues, and former president of the International Peace Bureau (IPB). The two are founding members of the Lay Down Your Arms Association and organisers of The Nobel Peace Prize Watch

Excerpt:

By Fredrik S. Heffermehl
OSLO, Dec 9 2013 (Columnist Service)

A March 2012 decision by the Swedish authority supervising foundations is a ticking box of dynamite under the Nobel Peace Prize. Even presented in an official, open document, the decision has not reached the general public and become the news story it actually is.

The order implies that the decision to award the 2013 Nobel to the bureaucrats enforcing the ban on chemical weapons, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), is illegal.

It is true, as the citation of OPCW mentions, that disarmament was important to Alfred Nobel. But why is it the secretive committee’s best-kept secret that Nobel´s will included a recipe for a weapons-free world?

Nobel did not believe in civilising war, reducing a weapon here and an army there; he was quite specific when, in his 1895 will, he described a prize for “the champions of peace” seeking to abolish all weapons in all nations, as an alternative to militarism and military forces. With terms like the “brotherhood of [disarmed] nations,” he used language that anyone familiar with the history of the peace movement will recognise.

Fredrik S. Heffermehl

Even though its secretary is a historian, the Norwegian Nobel Committee chooses to ignore that the kind of recipients Nobel had in mind were the Austrian baroness Bertha von Suttner, author of the bestseller “Lay Down Your Arms”, and her political friends.

In the last years of his life Nobel joined Suttner´s Society of Friends of Peace and gave substantial financial support to this Austrian society and the (still existing) International Peace Bureau, and – very important to understanding his purpose in setting up a peace prize – promised Suttner to “do something great” for her movement.

My book, “The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted”, (available in English, Chinese, Finnish, Swedish and Spanish) contains solid documentation of Nobel´s actual intentions, and shows that the Norwegian Parliament has misused the task Nobel entrusted to it: to appoint a five-member committee of persons devoted to Nobel´s peace plan.

For years, Norwegian politicians have used the prize to pursue their own ideas and purposes. Last year´s prize that went to the European Union, the 2009 prize for U.S. President Barack Obama, the 2010 prize for Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, the 2011 prize for Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf – almost all of the prizes awarded in the last two decades have failed to respect Nobel´s will.

Instead of appointing a committee dedicated to the peace ideas described in the will Parliament is, with few exceptions, using the coveted seats as a bonus to reward retired parliamentarians. In Norway attitudes have shifted away from Nobel’s aims. Politicians strongly loyal to the U.S. and NATO are obviously unsuited to manage a prize for peace by disarmament, and the members ought to resign.

After six years I have to state that my conclusions are indisputable – and they have not in fact been disputed. But it is of little consequence. Norwegian politicians behave as if they were above the law and feel confident that the courts, as well as public authorities and the media, will let them get away with their mischief.

This is clearly illustrated by the fate of a complaint I lodged with the Swedish authority that supervises foundations. The Norwegian politicians did not like the idea of being scrutinised and told the Swedish authorities to back off, since “the Nobel Committee is independent and shall take orders from no one.”

The Swedish authority responded that this view was clearly incorrect, and in its order placed the Norwegian peace prize committee under Swedish control. It further expected the Swedish Nobel Foundation to supervise in order to ensure that its Norwegian subsidiary complied with the will. A sensational decision, in my view, that so far has not received any public attention.

My research makes it clear that the Norwegian awarders have never spent much time brooding over what Nobel must have intended. The description of the mandate in the will has been entirely forgotten. The secrets of the private diaries of Gunnar Jahn, a former committee chair (serving from 1942 to 1966), a unique and most revealing crack in the tight secrecy surrounding the committee´s work, confirm this.

Entries in the diaries, published for the first time in my book, show that all of Jahn´s attempts to remind the committee of Nobel and of the purpose of the prize fell flat, and that, despite a couple of threats to resign, Jahn put up with this for 24 years.

A 2001 article by the powerful committee secretary, Geir Lundestad, confirms that the committee feels full freedom to develop its own prize and even make its own definition of “peace” – obviously unaware of the legal obligation to check Nobel´s own description of who should be recipients of his prize!

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has many opportunities that permit unopposed dissemination of a falsified version of Nobel´s visionary prize. When challenged to debate the purpose in public, in the media, they do not respond or they refuse to offer honest arguments; it is either silence or nonsense.

One can only conclude that the Norwegian awarders (Parliament and the Nobel Committee) are adamantly unwilling to respect the law and Nobel´s intentions.

This experience affects my impression of Scandinavian democracy, of its media, public debate, and the integrity of our public authorities and the rule of law. It is a paradox of sorts that these are the very values that the Nobel Committee chair, Thorbjørn Jagland, has the primary responsibility for promoting in Europe as the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

The Norwegian government, always happy with the misuse of Nobel´s prize, is now seeking a new term for Jagland in the Council of Europe. When approached in the campaign for reelection, member countries should ask Jagland two vital questions.

First, does he acknowledge that by law a will is a binding legal instrument?

Second, what does he think about Nobel and does he understand that he intended his prize to support a new system of international relations, one without national armies?

They are not likely to hear expressions of regret. Whether Jagland continues to refuse to respond, or gives untrue answers, the member countries should draw their own conclusions.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

A public authority in Sweden recently issued orders that the Stockholm-based Nobel Foundation must rein in and discipline the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, which is tasked with selecting the Nobel peace laureates. This announcement followed a four-year-old dispute over Norwegian misuse of the peace prize, established by the 1895 will of Swedish inventor and industrialist Alfred Nobel, for those who “confer the greatest benefit to mankind.”

The Swedish authorities opened an investigation based on evidence and research in my books on the peace prize (which are available in five languages, among them Chinese, English and Swedish).

It is a widespread misconception that the Swedish investigation ended without criticism.

Even though past prizes were not criticised, the recent announcement was a substantial rebuke, specifying a number of measures that the Nobel Foundation must take to get the awards right, in due conformity with Nobel’s intentions, for the future. Not least that the Foundation undertake a proper analysis of the original purpose of the peace prize and develop instructions. The prize has been awarded since 1901 without this precaution which the authority now calls necessary to avoid the risk that \”compliance will stray from the original intention over time.\”

Nobel intended his peace prize to benefit not “peace” in general but “the champions of peace.” This is not a mere subtlety in language; it contains the difference between two fundamentally different approaches to security. The Norwegians have handed the prizes out in all directions for anything that can be termed peace, in the widest possible sense, in stark contrast with the specific peace vision Nobel wished to support – namely, that in order to thrive, prosper and survive, humanity must demilitarise international relations. Nobel wished to lift civilisation, i.e. the rule of law and a prohibition against violence, to the global level. A good idea in 1895, this has become a mandatory necessity in the nuclear age of 2012.

The most probable reason why Nobel entrusted this prize in the hands of a five-member committee to be appointed by the Norwegian parliament was that Norway at the time was a leading supporter of the peace movement. In his description of future peace laureates, the champions of peace, Nobel mentioned individuals committed to a reduction or abolition of the military, and “to creat(ing) a brotherhood of nations” based on trust, cooperation, international law and disarmament treaties. Nobel also confirmed whom he had in mind in a letter to Bertha von Suttner, the preeminent protagonist of peace of the period and a friend during the last 20 years of Nobel’s life.

The only thing clearer than the kind of winners Nobel intended the prize to benefit is that the Norwegian trustees have taken total liberty to use Nobel’s name and prestige for whatever they like, with no visible respect for Nobel’s particular vision for peace. At the end of four years I find one thing certain: the Norwegians show absolutely no interest in Nobel and do not wish to learn anything about the specific peace vision he had in mind.

The Swedish authority expressed its condemnation of the hitherto flawed process in a subtle way; it blew the trumpet but kept the sound on mute when it requested the Nobel Foundation to analyse and develop new guidelines to secure the quality of all five subcommittee decisions and ensure enduring respect for what Nobel must have intended.

In addition the Foundation must describe and formalise division of responsibilities and criteria as well as routines for quality control.

The case also has clarified that the final responsibility for the quality of all decisions rests with the Foundation Board in Stockholm, which should introduce advance screening of a short-list of potential winners, since it would be unfortunate for the Board to have to withhold prize money if the subcommittees should make selections not within the mandate from Nobel.

The tradition has been to consider the five awarding committees as fully independent. The Norwegian Nobel peace prize committee repeated an old claim that in deciding on winners it is independent and shall take instructions from no one. This view was clearly rejected by the Swedish authority, which noted that, under Swedish law, the Stockholm-based Nobel foundation must ensure that prizewinners meet the stated purpose of the will.

Nobel clearly wished the awarding committees to be specialists in their respective fields. For instance, the Caroline Hospital awards the Medicine prize, the Academy of Science the Science prize, the Swedish Academy the Literature prize and must have hoped the Norwegian parliament would appoint specialists in his idea of a global peace order.

The Swedish authority has suggested that there may be persons better qualified to select the “champions of peace” -in the sense that Nobel understood this- than the present parliamentarians. The Nobel Foundation may have to order the Norwegian Parliamentarians to pick specialists in international law and disarmament – instead of placing themselves in the coveted seats. The current arrangement in which it serves a private foundation indeed puts Norway’s Parliament in peculiar situations.

The Nobel legacy is an object of national pride in Scandinavia, and there is a long tradition of coveting fake Nobel honor. The Swedish administrative authority must also have been hesitant to offend the daunting line of winners, from Albert Schweitzer to Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, and Barack Obama. It chose to solve the dilemma by making clear demands for the future work with the Nobel prizes while avoiding criticism of past performance.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Fredrik S. Heffermehl, Norwegian lawyer and author. Latest title: The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel Really Wanted, http://www.nobelwill.org

By Fredrik S. Heffermehl
OSLO, Jul 26 2011 (IPS)

Norway is a small nation and its people are in shock after the callous act of political violence of unprecedented cruelty that occurred just days ago. There is a tangible atmosphere of quiet everywhere, of subdued voices, sadness, and national grief, which is fortunately alleviated by the compassion and concern that flows from friends all over the world. We are also grateful to our national leaders, government, police, and emergency and rescue personnel for reacting with admirable composure, compassion, and efficiency.

Few can grasp the scale of sheer devastation that one derailed ubermensch was able to cause. Motivated by white supremacy, he blamed a conspiracy of politicians and media for cultural marxism and assisting an Islamic invasion of Europe. As a fervent anti-socialist, the killer chose to target the next generation of Labor Party politicians by murdering everyone at their youth camp, kids as young as 14 or 15 from municipalities all over the country. He had taken drugs to boost his self-confidence and subdue all inhibitions as he embarked on shooting teenagers at a rather small island in a cold lake.

The youth camp was the main target; the car bomb set off in the center of Oslo one hour earlier was intended to create chaos, draw the police, and secure the maximum time possible for undisturbed slaughter of the labor party youth. Though meant as a diversion, the bomb caused extreme havoc and damage. International media stated that the explosion was “near the prime minister’s office” but it was much worse. Placed in the middle of the government compound, the bomb damaged almost all surrounding office buildings, several beyond repair. With few exceptions, Norway’s ministries will need to work from makeshift offices for at least two years.

One particularly evil and cruel aspect of the massacre was the killer’s use of a police uniform. The young people of the camp, having fled in all directions from the attack of this deranged man in a police uniform, were desperately scared when the real police finally came to their assistance an hour later: were these officers just pretending to help in order to get near enough to shoot and kill?

The perpetrator, a smart and exceptionally well organised loner who grew up in affluent suburbia, had been a member of the extreme right-wing party before he concluded that democracy could not protect Europe from being conquered by Islam. For 9 years he planned the rollout of his Big War on multiethnic, multicultural Europe, isolating himself from family and friends to make sure nobody would find out and try to stop him.

We can no more protect ourselves against such a megalomanical madman than against a natural catastrophe. But this gun-swinging religious fanatic is the product of our militarised culture with its high tolerance for violence.

Peter Weiss, an attorney in New York and president of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms, made this remark: “What can be done with such people? Maybe nothing. But engaging in dialogue with extremists, unpromising as that may seem, would be better than waiting for the next Utoya to happen.”

The mass murder of future politicians on the island was made possible with modern military kill technology -ostensibly produced for our “security”. Einstein said, and Nobel would have agreed, that in the nuclear age true security can be built only on justice, co-operation, and compassion, acknowledging all as fellow members of the human family and forgetting borders and religious and ethnic divides.

Norway is in a special position to promote global peace through global law and institutions since this was the idea Alfred Nobel wished to promote through his prize for the champions of peace. The response to the atrocities must not be more power-wielding and violence. Instead we must create a global culture of peace and non-violence.

In the flow of dramatic stories one stands out, about a member of the Labor Party youth group, a teenage girl of Indian or Sri Lankan extraction who was forced by friends to swim with them to safety. A bad swimmer, in frigid water, with 600 meters to go and bullets ringing around her head when she set out, the odds were high that she would join the many who drowned. But the girl made it to shore and said, when asked by a TV crew about her feelings toward the killer: “I feel pity for him. If this man had enjoyed a good friendship with just one colored immigrant, this disaster might never have happened.” (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Fredrik S. Heffermehl, author of “The Nobel Peace Prize; What Nobel Really Wanted” is a lawyer and board member of IALANA, the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.

Excerpt:

By Fredrik S. Heffermehl
OSLO, Jul 26 2011 (IPS)

Norway is a small nation and its people are in shock after the callous act of political violence of unprecedented cruelty that occurred just days ago. There is a tangible atmosphere of quiet everywhere, of subdued voices, sadness, and national grief, which is fortunately alleviated by the compassion and concern that flows from friends all over the world. We are also grateful to our national leaders, government, police, and emergency and rescue personnel for reacting with admirable composure, compassion, and efficiency.

Few can grasp the scale of sheer devastation that one derailed ubermensch was able to cause. Motivated by white supremacy, he blamed a conspiracy of politicians and media for cultural marxism and assisting an Islamic invasion of Europe. As a fervent anti-socialist, the killer chose to target the next generation of Labor Party politicians by murdering everyone at their youth camp, kids as young as 14 or 15 from municipalities all over the country. He had taken drugs to boost his self-confidence and subdue all inhibitions as he embarked on shooting teenagers at a rather small island in a cold lake.

The youth camp was the main target; the car bomb set off in the center of Oslo one hour earlier was intended to create chaos, draw the police, and secure the maximum time possible for undisturbed slaughter of the labor party youth. Though meant as a diversion, the bomb caused extreme havoc and damage. International media stated that the explosion was “near the prime minister’s office” but it was much worse. Placed in the middle of the government compound, the bomb damaged almost all surrounding office buildings, several beyond repair. With few exceptions, Norway’s ministries will need to work from makeshift offices for at least two years.

One particularly evil and cruel aspect of the massacre was the killer’s use of a police uniform. The young people of the camp, having fled in all directions from the attack of this deranged man in a police uniform, were desperately scared when the real police finally came to their assistance an hour later: were these officers just pretending to help in order to get near enough to shoot and kill?

The perpetrator, a smart and exceptionally well organised loner who grew up in affluent suburbia, had been a member of the extreme right-wing party before he concluded that democracy could not protect Europe from being conquered by Islam. For 9 years he planned the rollout of his Big War on multiethnic, multicultural Europe, isolating himself from family and friends to make sure nobody would find out and try to stop him.

We can no more protect ourselves against such a megalomanical madman than against a natural catastrophe. But this gun-swinging religious fanatic is the product of our militarised culture with its high tolerance for violence.

Peter Weiss, an attorney in New York and president of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms, made this remark: “What can be done with such people? Maybe nothing. But engaging in dialogue with extremists, unpromising as that may seem, would be better than waiting for the next Utoya to happen.”

The mass murder of future politicians on the island was made possible with modern military kill technology -ostensibly produced for our “security”. Einstein said, and Nobel would have agreed, that in the nuclear age true security can be built only on justice, co-operation, and compassion, acknowledging all as fellow members of the human family and forgetting borders and religious and ethnic divides.

Norway is in a special position to promote global peace through global law and institutions since this was the idea Alfred Nobel wished to promote through his prize for the champions of peace. The response to the atrocities must not be more power-wielding and violence. Instead we must create a global culture of peace and non-violence.

In the flow of dramatic stories one stands out, about a member of the Labor Party youth group, a teenage girl of Indian or Sri Lankan extraction who was forced by friends to swim with them to safety. A bad swimmer, in frigid water, with 600 meters to go and bullets ringing around her head when she set out, the odds were high that she would join the many who drowned. But the girl made it to shore and said, when asked by a TV crew about her feelings toward the killer: “I feel pity for him. If this man had enjoyed a good friendship with just one colored immigrant, this disaster might never have happened.” (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Fredrik S. Heffermehl, author of “The Nobel Peace Prize; What Nobel Really Wanted” is a lawyer and board member of IALANA, the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.

Excerpt:

By Fredrik S. Heffermehl
OSLO, Sep 6 2010 (IPS)

There never was a greater gift to the world. None of Nobel’s five prizes could have conferred more to “the greatest benefit of mankind”. It is the world’s most prestigious and coveted award. And yet, the Nobel peace prize today has little to do with the deep reform of international relations that Alfred Nobel intended it to bring about.

Today the prize is Nobel’s in name only. In reality it is the peace prize of the Norwegian parliament. Nobel’s vision was to support the peace movement’s struggle to break a vicious circle and to replace distrust, arms races, and military power games with cooperation, justice, and international law.

The sad truth is that despite the impressive roll call of recipients, Nobel’s prize has been sadly mismanaged. The more the cash award grows, the more famous and pompous the winners are, the less the prize will accomplish to stop militarism and prevent wars. Nobel’s idea is in ruins. The Peace Prize no longer seeks to change the world.

In a just-published book on its history, “The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted” (Praeger, 2010), I have interpreted Nobel’s will in what is apparently the first legal analysis ever of its content. My clear conclusion is that the intent of the will was to support the pro-peace ideas that were powerful in European politics at the time, with Norway leading the way. To Nobel, the Norwegian parliamentarians must have seemed like the best allies he could find. How wrong he was!

To construe a will is not a matter of literal reading and legal quibbling over words. In a contract between two parties the words are all-important. Wills, however, are one-party instruments where all that matters is the intent of the testator. If the words conflict with the testator’s demonstrable intention, the latter wins. Amazingly, the Nobel Committee has never heeded even the most elementary principles of interpretation.

Most Norwegian politicians are defense-friendly and NATO-loyal and supremely unsuited to award a prize for peace activists, having spent their entire lives fighting for the opposite side. Rather than having a beneficial influence on Norwegian foreign policy, Nobel’s prize has been used to serve Norwegian political and, since the 1990s, commercial interests.

Nobel used the expression “champions of peace” to indicate the intended recipients. The Nobel Committee has thus committed a major blunder by awarding the prize for “peace” in general. Both the Swedish word that Nobel used for peace (fredsforfaktare) and the three other expressions he chose -“the confraternisation of nations, the reduction or abolition of standing armies, and the promotion of peace congresses”- clearly point in the direction of members of the peace movement as the legitimate recipients of the award.

Like this movement, of which he was a member, Nobel wished to attack the core of the problem by cutting the heart out of the war machine. His prize was meant to curtail and end militarism.

Nobel’s idea may seem utopian in today’s world, in which all live beneath the scourge of one massively-armed and belligerent superpower, but we do not have to go far back to find a time when Nobel’s dream was still alive. Swedish premier Olof Palme many years later promoted Nobel’s idea in his concept of “Common Security”. The United Nations (2001) was a most deserving laureate. Some 30-40 years ago the concept of “general and complete disarmament” was alive in diplomatic discourse, though not much encouraged by the NATO-loyal Norwegian politicians on the committee.

In what I would consider a properly-functioning democracy based on the rule of law, my first newspaper article critical of the peace prize, in August 2007, should have sufficed to stimulate change. But, it is not easy to challenge sacrosanct national pride, especially when parliamentarians unite across party lines to defend a common interest. Who can then stop them, and how? Instead of heeding my appeal to respect the will, the Nobel committee and Norwegian parliament stonewalled my arguments.

The fact that the majority of Norwegian politicians denied the peace movement -a dissenting political view- and misdirected the money and honour that Nobel intended to give them is a serious matter. If the executors of any ordinary will did this, they would be either sued or prosecuted, Bruce Kent, a leading British champion of peace, said recently.

This is a matter of democracy. The new book analyzes the battle over the peace prize as a case study of the chances of a struggling minority (pro-peace) to prevail against an overwhelming political power (pro-military).

For a democracy under the rule of law it is vital that those elected to office listen and respond to criticism. Democracy cannot function without a certain level of truth-seeking and honest debate, based on facts, fair argument, and a will to draw necessary conclusions and to act upon them.

If we allow the political debate to be distorted by manipulation and spin, democracy is finished. One of the first things I learned as a law student was that in ancient Rome, one of primary demands of the people was written laws in order to prevent arbitrariness and abuse. Today we have all sorts of written law, but when politicians develop a flexible attitude to it, the result is arbitrariness and the denial of justice.

The present chair of the Nobel committee, Norwegian Thorbjorn Jagland, is also the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, where his main function is to promote democracy and the rule of law. He should be the first to understand how irreconcilable his management of the Nobel Peace prize is with principles of fair governance. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Fredrik S. Heffermehl, a lawyer and peace activist, is author of The Nobel Peace Prize.

Excerpt: