The Integrity of Merit

What rational conclusions could one ascertain about a world where its highest honor (conceivably) is awarded on potentiality rather than actuality?

Nobel. Peace.

How do we define Peace anyway?

Dictionary.com defines it like this:

1. the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
2. (often initial capital letter ) an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups, etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism: the Peace of Ryswick.

No, I didn’t pick and chose the definitions from a long list to suit my purpose—these are actually number one and two. Strange, no? Stranger yet may be the Nobel Foundation’s reasoning:

"…for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

No, I don’t make this stuff up. Isn’t the nation that he represents currently warring on TWO different fronts? Have hostilities been abstained upon…and somehow nobody got the news except the Nobel Foundation?

Perhaps if I reword the statement it will help me understand:

“He attempted (in a fashion beyond some unspecified regular baseline)
to make strong in an unspecified quantity of nations, the ability of said unspecified quantity of nations to negotiate with tact and skill and also conclude unspecified agreements between unspecified individuals within the unspecified quantity of nations.

Please feel free to leave your own deciphering of the Nobel committee's justification based on your own logical interpretation of definition.

At any rate, I guess congratulations are in order.