I just further browsed the List of Nobel Laureates for the Peace Prize at wikipedia. Some of the earlier choices are really great, like the Red Cross societies. Others are just as wrong as the newest ones. For example, really, the International Labour Organisation? I mean they work for a class engagement between "Kapitalists" and "Labour". They are not pro-peace, they are actually part of the seperation and opposition between these two artificial entities.
Then there is Willy Brand from Germany. Really, Willi Brandt? The Chancellor who helped ruin Germany and whose inner hearted wanted to see the FR of Germany to become more like the DDR? He also was part of the Socialist Internationale, which was a group that actually liked the Soviet Union and thus turned a blind eye towards the massacres occuring in Soviet Russia and its satelite states.
Also, Kissinger, while negotiating peace treaties, also was a friend of oppressive regimes in South America. As a politician again a bad choice.
Yes, I understand that people are never ideal and thus we will probably never find a nobel laureate who didn't have its wrongs. The problem with politicians is that they act as a representative of the state and thus of the government. This link gives them power to coerce people to do something and so they have also to bear the responsibilities that come with it. They inherit and are guilty of the things they do while in office. They are certainly a lot (not only evil people), but by their power (which is more than their subjects have) they are not fit for a peace prize. Their position and power is a very act of aggressiveness that shouldn't be part of the peace prize.
Another one: United Nationas Peace-keeping forces. Despite its name, they are a FORMAL Army, which is a tool to wage war for those in power. So, how can they get the peace prize without ridiculing the prize itself???