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.

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..[/size]

 

[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..[/size]

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..[/size]

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], 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?