I was wrong on a Peace Prize for Yunus

In a previous post, I lauded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize award:

Last year, the choice was inspired, selecting Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank, which has done Bangladesh in particular and the Indian subcontinent in general a great service by proving that wealth can be created among the world’s poor through peaceful trade, without pouring billions down bureaucratic black holes. Today’s award exactly contradicts the philosophical basis and spirit of last year’s prize.

Having thought about it, in the light of Darren’s intelligent analysis over at commentary.co.za, I fear I have to change my mind on this. If Al Gore’s prize has nothing to do with the original charter of the prize, then to be consistent I’d have to say neither does the award to Mohammad Yunus. He may be an inspiring person who has done great things, and he’s a shining example of exactly the kind of economic theory I support, but, like Al Gore (and a whole lot of other recipients in the last few decades), one can’t exactly describe him as “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”