Liu Xiaobo Wins 2010 Nobel Peace Prize

[Astronuc]

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has awarded Liu Xiaobo the 2010 Peace Prize for his "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China".

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/xiaobo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo

He has been detained, arrested, and sentenced repeatedly for his peaceful political activities, including participation in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

He certainly seems worth of the prize.

 

[DR13]

And the kicker is that he is in prison right now serving an 11 year sentence for his political dissidents! China needs to get its act together

 

[Astronuc]

As expected, the Chinese government didn't take the news well. They are a bit pissed.

Chinese dissident Liu wins Nobel Peace Prize
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nobel_peace_prize

The award ignited a furious response from China, which accused the Norwegian Nobel Committee of violating its own principles by honoring "a criminal."

Chinese state media immediately blacked out the news and Chinese government censors blocked Nobel Prize reports from Internet websites. China declared the decision would harm its relations with Norway — and the Nordic country responded that was a petty thing for a world power to do.

. . . .

Clearly, they need to lighten up. :tongue2:

See also - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/world/09nobel.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101008/ap_on_re_us/us_chinese_dissident_s_wife

 

[arildno]

Not to infuriate Americans, but this year's award is rather less embarassing than the award yesteryear.


Actually, I wrote this comment mostly in order to formulate a sentence in which the word "yesteryear" felt natural to use. I've never used that word before, so I grabbed the opportunity as fast as I could..

 

[G037H3]

Not to infuriate Americans, but this year's award is rather less embarassing than the award yesteryear.


Actually, I wrote this comment mostly in order to formulate a sentence in which the word "yesteryear" felt natural to use. I've never used that word before, so I grabbed the opportunity as fast as I could..

Nobel Prize=not worth much

it is now a political/mainstream approval award, more than anything else

 

[Gokul43201]

I hope this year's discussion is less embarrassing than the one yesteryear!

 

[DR13]

Nobel Prize=not worth much

Actually, it is worth $1.4 million (amount awarded last year, the exact amount changes) :P

 

[G037H3]

Actually, it is worth $1.4 million (amount awarded last year, the exact amount changes) :P

money !=value

:/

 

[DR13]

The award ignited a furious response from China, which accused the Norwegian Nobel Committee of violating its own principles by honoring "a criminal."

Right...a criminal...
Yeah, I hate it when the government allows our streets to be overrun by people campaigning for basic rights and freedom...

 

[DR13]

money !=value

:/

it could be worth a "get out of jail free card" (hopefully)

 

[czelaya]

Not to infuriate Americans, but this year's award is rather less embarassing than the award yesteryear.


Actually, I wrote this comment mostly in order to formulate a sentence in which the word "yesteryear" felt natural to use. I've never used that word before, so I grabbed the opportunity as fast as I could..

Well this American is not infuriated. Last years award, however, was embarrassing. In addition, it’s left a real bad taste on the merits of receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. Since I’ve read on who has been awarded and nominated, and I’m astonished on many of the winners (Yassar Arafat, Al Gore[the creator of the internet]:uhh:, Le Duc Tho). Clearly, I don’t understand how people are nominated.

At least, from reading the articles the OP posted, this gentleman is deserving.

However, I'm still astonished to learn that Gandhi never received the peace prize. I believe he was nominated several times also.

 

[waht]

I thought the requirement for a Nobel Peace Prize was getting elected for office. Liu didn't get elected for any office, except for a cell in jail, how come he got the Prize?

 

[Gokul43201]

Gandhi died a year after India won its independence. If he had lived a few years longer, he would almost certainly have won the prize.

 

[Gokul43201]

I thought the requirement for a Nobel Peace Prize was getting elected for office. Liu didn't get elected for any office, except for a cell in jail, how come he got the Prize?

I don't recall reading of any such explicit requirement. Do you have a reference?

The actual stated requirements (improving relations between countries, reducing standing armies, promoting peace negotiations) do make it easier for an elected official to win the Prize than a private citizen. The Prize committee has often pushed back against these criteria and appears to have used a more broad set of conditions for awarding the Prize, often recognizing effort over achievement. For instance, in Mr Xiaobo's case, he has probably achieved nothing (yet) in terms of convincing/forcing the Chinese Govt to grant the freedoms he has been fighting for, but he has fought bravely, and it is that bravery that is being recognized.

 

[arildno]

Furthermore, technically, the Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person who did most for world peace yesteryear.

This technicality has largely been ignored, but was the one Chairman Jagland depended on to justify yesteryear's award to President Obama.


(Wow! Two, no, THREE "yesteryears" in a single post! I'm getting the hang of this! )

 

[G037H3]

Furthermore, technically, the Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person who did most for world peace yesteryear.

This technicality has largely been ignored, but was the one Chairman Jagland depended on to justify yesteryear's award to President Obama.


(Wow! Two, no, THREE "yesteryears" in a single post! I'm getting the hang of this! )

you can stop now. lol.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Crud, I was hoping Obama would get it.

 

[Borek]

Crud, I was hoping Obama would get it.

I know it is a cheap shot, but he won it yesteryear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I know it is a cheap shot, but he won it yesteryear.

Yeah, but he's just that good. In fact, we should just call it the Obama award.

 

[jobyts]

Gandhi died a year after India won its independence. If he had lived a few years longer, he would almost certainly have won the prize.

I remember reading somewhere, the Norwegians tried three times to give Nobel peace prize to Gandhi. Each time the British opposed it under the table, for obvious reasons. He would have got it after India's independence, if he hadn't died.

 

[Ken Natton]

Firstly, I confess to knowing nothing of Liu Xiaobo until recent news stories about the Chinese government’s attempts to twist the arm of the Peace Prize committee against granting him the award. So I do not profess to be in a position to make any judgement about his worthiness for the award. Yes, I can spend some time investigating the links others have provided on this thread, to become better informed. But at the moment, rather than making any attempt to pass judgement, it is more a point of order I am seeking to make.

Yes, this award does have something of a history of political and diplomatic considerations that don’t necessarily have any obvious connections with the promotion of peace. Surely Kissinger was one of the most controversial winners of the award. Last year, as some other wag pointed out, it wasn’t so much The Obama Award as the Not George Bush Award.

Absolutely, if Liu is the right person for the award then it is important that the Chinese government’s attempts to intimidate the committee are shown to be utterly ineffective. But, is there perhaps a legitimate question mark over whether the award is correct or not. That is not, in any way, to question whether his cause has been perfectly noble, his means perfectly justified, and his achievements significant and important. But have they actually been about the promotion of peace? This is not supposed to be the Nobel Prize for the heroic facing down of a brutish and inhumane regime. It’s supposed to be the Nobel Prize for the most significant contribution to removing tension, easing conflict, promoting conditions for long-term peace. Is this perhaps another demonstration of the fact that this prize is not, in fact, what it purports to be.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well, what do you know... I suppose even a broken watch is right twice a day.

 

[Norman]

Firstly, I confess to knowing nothing of Liu Xiaobo until recent news stories about the Chinese government’s attempts to twist the arm of the Peace Prize committee against granting him the award. So I do not profess to be in a position to make any judgement about his worthiness for the award. Yes, I can spend some time investigating the links others have provided on this thread, to become better informed. But at the moment, rather than making any attempt to pass judgement, it is more a point of order I am seeking to make.

Yes, this award does have something of a history of political and diplomatic considerations that don’t necessarily have any obvious connections with the promotion of peace. Surely Kissinger was one of the most controversial winners of the award. Last year, as some other wag pointed out, it wasn’t so much The Obama Award as the Not George Bush Award.

Absolutely, if Liu is the right person for the award then it is important that the Chinese government’s attempts to intimidate the committee are shown to be utterly ineffective. But, is there perhaps a legitimate question mark over whether the award is correct or not. That is not, in any way, to question whether his cause has been perfectly noble, his means perfectly justified, and his achievements significant and important. But have they actually been about the promotion of peace? This is not supposed to be the Nobel Prize for the heroic facing down of a brutish and inhumane regime. It’s supposed to be the Nobel Prize for the most significant contribution to removing tension, easing conflict, promoting conditions for long-term peace. Is this perhaps another demonstration of the fact that this prize is not, in fact, what it purports to be.

Implicit in your final paragraph and statements about the award is the assumption that he is not promoting peace, but by your own words, you have no knowledge about his actual work. How can you make any statement about his worthiness to receive the award then?

 

[lisab]

I know it is a cheap shot, but he won it yesteryear.

Maybe he'll get the Chemistry one, for research he'll do in the coming years .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, the back-seat drivers of the world.

 

[Ken Natton]

Implicit in your final paragraph and statements about the award is the assumption that he is not promoting peace, but by your own words, you have no knowledge about his actual work. How can you make any statement about his worthiness to receive the award then?

I make no assumptions whatever about what he did or did not do, I made it clear that I do not know. Neither do I make any statements about his worthiness to receive the award. I questioned the motivations for giving him the award based on the news reports of its circumstances. My comment was not on Liu Xiaobo. It was on the award.

 

[Norman]

I make no assumptions whatever about what he did or did not do, I made it clear that I do not know. Neither do I make any statements about his worthiness to receive the award. I questioned the motivations for giving him the award based on the news reports of its circumstances. My comment was not on Liu Xiaobo. It was on the award.

OK, sorry I misunderstood. You are questioning whether his human rights work can be considered valid under a strict interpretation of the peace prize 'rules.'

This was discussed previously in the thread. It seems the committee takes a fairly liberal interpretation of the 'rules.'

 

[Ken Natton]

No, that's not really it either. Liberal interpretations of the rules were not what was in my mind, I lay no greater claim to any knowledge of the rules either. What is in my mind is very much the spirit of the thing. By the very existence of this award, and taking it upon themselves to bestow it each year, the Peace Prize committee set themselves up to some lofty ideals. Based on more than just this year's award, I wonder how well the committee has lived up to those ideals. I perfectly well allow the possibility that, if I were to have a deep knowledge and understanding of all that Liu Xiaobo has done, I would wholeheartedly support the notion that he deserved the award. Even if that were the case, it would not remove my question about the committee's motivations, and my question is brought about by what I have read about the precise circumstances, which do not suggest to me that the promotion of peace was the over-riding consideration.

 

[waht]

I don't recall reading of any such explicit requirement. Do you have a reference?

The actual stated requirements (improving relations between countries, reducing standing armies, promoting peace negotiations) do make it easier for an elected official to win the Prize than a private citizen. The Prize committee has often pushed back against these criteria and appears to have used a more broad set of conditions for awarding the Prize, often recognizing effort over achievement. For instance, in Mr Xiaobo's case, he has probably achieved nothing (yet) in terms of convincing/forcing the Chinese Govt to grant the freedoms he has been fighting for, but he has fought bravely, and it is that bravery that is being recognized.

It meant to be a sarcastic comment. Yesteryear's award was JUST for getting elected, this year's it's for resisting human oppressing and spending most of one's life in prison for it. Sound's like a quantum leap.

 

[Gokul43201]

Even if that were the case, it would not remove my question about the committee's motivations, and my question is brought about by what I have read about the precise circumstances, which do not suggest to me that the promotion of peace was the over-riding consideration.

Would you less concerned if it were a "Peace and Human Rights" Prize instead?

 

[Gokul43201]

It meant to be a sarcastic comment. Yesteryear's award was JUST for getting elected, this year's it's for resisting human oppressing and spending most of one's life in prison for it. Sound's like a quantum leap.

The basis (even if not strictly adhered to) for the Nobel Prizes is spelled out in Statute #1 of the Nobel Foundation charter, and the portion relevant to the Peace Prize is:

...and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.​

In last year's thread, one of the participants <cough> listed the following contributions (of the top of his head) that seemed relevant to the criteria spelled out above:

1. Fraternity between nations:

Egypt speech; interview with Al-arabiya; reopening talks with Syria; restarting negotiations with Iran (and possibly gaining the biggest enrichment related concession from them yet); denouncing expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territories yet pressing forward towards a roadmap via Clinton, Mitchell, Gates, Jim Jones (NSA) et al; aiding in the final phase of the normalization process between Turkey & Armenia; improving relations with Russia and China, lifting restrictions on Americans visiting relatives in Cuba...

2. Abolition or reduction of standing armies:

I don't see very much here in terms of reducing the size of the operating US military, but that may partly be from my ignorance. One thing that comes to mind is his rejection of expanding the F-22 inventory. And indirectly, the work towards easing up the Turkey-Armenia conflict may be the best chance yet for a troop reduction in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, the rethinking of the European missile defense program is no doubt a huge de-escalating factor for military force in the Eastern Europe-Russia-Ukraine-Belarus region, and has also led to improved relations between NATO and Russia. Also, in terms of not taking actions that would cause a troop escalation, you can put down the smart decision of not jumping on the "Georgia good, Russia bad" bandwagon during the conflict in Georgia/S. Ossetia, in which we now know Georgia (the state, not its people) was no innocent victim.

3. Holding and promotion of peace congresses:

Calling for and chairing the UNSC meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, leading to resolution 1887.

Not aware of any other "peace conferences" other than the Summit of the Americas meeting that happened earlier - and I don't recall anything noteworthy about it, but that too may just be a result of my ignorance of the proceedings.

From my reading of that list, it seems like the recipient managed to do a little more than JUST get elected.

 

[Chi Meson]

Gandhi died a year after India won its independence. If he had lived a few years longer, he would almost certainly have won the prize.

The Nobel is not to be awarded posthumously. The Nobel peace prize was not awarded in the year after Gandhi was assassinated. That's as close as they could come to a posthumous prize.

And regarding these latest two prizes from Oslo: who would have thought that Chinese Communists would ever agree with American Conservatives?

 

[G037H3]

And regarding these latest two prizes from Oslo: who would have thought that Chinese Communists would ever agree with American Conservatives?

>And regarding these latest two prizes from Oslo: who would have thought that Chinese nationalist corporatists would ever agree with American nationalist corporatists?

 

[mugaliens]

I probably have some Norwegian ancestry, so I'll applaud along with those from Oslo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101210/ap_on_re_us/nobel" .

Couple of comments on excerpts from the article:

"China was infuriated when the 54-year-old literary critic won, describing the award as an attack on its political and legal system."​

Oh, boo-hoo. If your system wasn't in need of a radical overhaul, it wouldn't be attacked. However, in the free world, even systems which aren't in need of a radical overhaul are often attacked. Thus, yours may simply not be a free system.

"In China, both CNN and BBC TV channels went black at 8 p.m. local time for nearly an hour, exactly when the Oslo ceremony took place."​

Oops! My bad. Make that "yours is definitely not a free system."

"The Chinese Foreign Ministry described the award as a "political farce" and said it reflected Cold War mentality and infringed upon China's judicial sovereignty."​

We see a lot of this out here in Colorado, although we try not to step in it as the Chinese Foreign Ministry just did with their comment about free speech, freely exercised in free nations, somehow infringing upon China's "judicial sovereignty" when such sovereignty STOPS at it's non-free borders.

Quit trying to fool the free world, China. Ain't going to happen.