The Norwegian Nobel Committee has done it again. With the press proclaiming Pope John Paul II as a runaway favorite, and Vaclav Havel, leader of the "velvet revolution" against the communist state, also a possible choice, the Committee surprised Peace Prize watchers by choosing Shirin Ebadi, a Muslim woman of Iran, "for her efforts for democracy and human rights," concentrating "on the struggle for the rights of women and children."

The Pope had been a 5 to 2 favorite in the books of an Australia-based betting agency, and the odds on Havel were 7 to 1. On nominees President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, the odds were 100 to 1, and no bettors. The long odds on Shirin Ebadi , who was little known outside her own country, were 21 to 1.

This short account of why the Nobel Committee selected her rather than the Pope is based, as much history is, on some fact and much speculation. The Committee makes public the number of nominees, in 2003 a record 165, but not their names. The press release, its only public document on the decision, which the chairman reads in announcing a prize, gives the reasons for it. Members seek consensus, so that all can sign this statement, but no report is made of a divided vote. How the discussion went in this Committee, currently three women and two men, each from one of Norway's leading political parties, we cannot know. Regulations forbid the taking of minutes, and members are pledged to silence, most always keeping this pledge.

Consequently, disagreement in the Committee has become known only rarely Space permits only a few examples. We learned much later from a member's diary that in 1919 there was opposition to a prize for Woodrow Wilson because of the punitive Versailles Treaty, and the prize was postponed. In 1920 he was awarded the 1919 prize but only by a 3-2 vote. In 1973 the prizes for Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam were also approved by 3-2. The two who had wanted Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil resigned when the Committee chair gave the press the impression that the decision had been unanimous, and one of them published an article about this in later years, breaking his pledge. In 1994, the vote for Arafat, Peres and Rabin was 4-1. and the member who was pro-Israeli and against Arafat resigned. Last year when the chairman told the press that the Jimmy Carter prize was intended as a criticism of the Bush administration, two Committee members declared publicly that the Committee had not agreed to such an interpretation.

In the present case, Chairman Ole Mjoes told the press that it had been an "easy decision," probably meaning reached by consensus. If a Committee cannot reach agreement, or if it needs more information, that prize can be reserved for the next year. A Committee has two fundamental alternatives, either to reward a past achievement or to engage in peacemaking by honoring an on-going peace process.

We can only speculate as to why the Committee did not choose the Pope for his noteworthy achievements for peace. During his long reign the Pope opposed totalitarianism, sought understanding between religions and promoted peaceful resolution of international and national conflicts, including the Iraq war. In view of his declining health, this would probably have been his last chance.

The London Times cited Vatican sources as saying that two weeks before the announcement the Nobel Committee had asked if the Pope would accept the prize if chosen and go to Oslo for the award ceremony. Such a rumor may have circulated among wishful thinkers in the Vatican, but it is not likely that the Nobel Committee would have done this. Hopes were high at the Vatican, and disappointment was much evident there when the prize went elsewhere.

The Committee may have been influenced by many critics of Pope John Paul II who feel that his strong advocacy of traditional doctrine has prevented the Catholic Church from responding effectively to the needs of today's world. Or in a time of conflict in the Muslim Middle East, a prize for the head of a Western-based religion might not have seemed timely. It is also known that a former influential Committee member had been much opposed to the Pope's candidacy. The Committee has never been accused of anti-Catholicism. Previous prizes have gone to Mother Teresa, the Dominican Father Pire and the Bishop Belo of East Timor.

For whatever reason, reward for achievement was trumped by possible peacemaking, as was the case for Havel. Havel's major achievement was many years ago. Moreover, although his eloquent voice had long been raised for democracy and peace, and he recently had won the Gandhi Peace Prize, as president of the Czech Republic he was not considered to have played a major role for peace.

Peacemaking by promoting human rights, a basic foundation for an enduring peace, has increasingly been a Committee choice in recent years. From 1960 to 2002 there have been fifteen such prizes, with three since 1991. Also in that period reference to human rights was made in six other prizes in the announcement or in the presentation address at the award ceremony in December.

For peacemaking, an award to Shirin Ebadi was most attractive. She is currently in the midst of the struggle for democracy and human rights in a country in a major area of conflict, and as a Muslim reformer, she represented an opportunity to strengthen positive forces in her own country and in the entire Islamic area, as well as to promote more tolerant understanding in the West of the followers of Islam.

President Bush placed Iran in the "axis of evil" in his "with-us or-against-us" war against terrorism. He has led the United States into a war with Muslim Iraq and he eyes Muslim Iran's atomic development with great suspicion, while Iran itself has to be alarmed by the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.

In the midst of this volatile situation, to choose Shirin, which means "sweet" in her own language, would have seemed to the Nobel Committee like a "sweet" prize. She has a small replica of the Statue of Liberty on her desk, but she has criticized United States intervention in Muslim countries, as has a majority of Norwegian public opinion, and she believes that the reformers in Iraq can succeed without such compromising help. The Nobel Committee declared, "She sees no conflict between Islam and fundamental human rights. It is important to her that the dialogue between the different cultures and religions of the world should take as its point of departure their shared values." Thus she conceives of no fatal "clash between civilizations," and as the Committee noted, "She has consistently supported nonviolence."

The Committee not only found a Muslim in Iran significantly working for human rights, but another woman laureate, the fourth woman prize winner since 1991, although the total since 1901 is only eleven.

When Ebadi returned to Iran from Paris, where she had first heard the news, more than ten thousand supporters welcomed her at the airport. The votes are with the reformers, but the power is with the conservative clerics. Ebadi's biography released by the Nobel Committee tells us that she "argues for a new interpretation of Islamic law, which is in harmony with vital human rights such as democracy, equality before the law, religious freedom and freedom of speech." A committed Muslim, she has shown her willingness and ability to cooperate with secular reformers.. She has a normal family life, with a supportive husband and two grown-up daughters. As a lawyer she has worked for the legal rights of women and children and courageously defended victims persecuted by the clerics, spending time in prison for her actions. As the Committee recognized, she "has never heeded the threats to her own safety." She has explained, "Any person who pursues human rights in Iran must live with fear, but I have overcome this fear."

In its conclusion the Committee expressed the hope that the prize for Shirin Ebadi "will be an inspiration for all those who struggle for human rights and democracy in her country, in the Muslim world, and in all countries where the fight for human rights needs inspiration and support." A peacemaking prize indeed!

The New York Times of October 11 had two pictures of Shirin Ebadi, one of a grim faced Shirin, in the required Islamic garb with head scarf after her release from prison in July 2000, the other of the joyous Shirin in Paris after learning of her prize, her hands triumphantly in the air, clothed in a black suit open at the neck with her short brown hair uncovered and well coifed. It is the hope of those of us who rejoice at her Nobel prize that such a photograph of her could one day be taken in her own country.