News Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall
AI Thread Summary
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama in 2009 has sparked significant debate regarding its timing and implications for the prize's credibility. Critics argue that the award was premature, as it was based more on Obama's potential and ambitions rather than concrete accomplishments in peacebuilding. Concerns were raised about the politicization of the award process, with some suggesting it risks diminishing the value of the Nobel Prize itself. The committee's decision has led to mixed reactions, with a notable portion of the public expressing skepticism about the justification for the award. Overall, the discussion highlights a broader concern about the criteria for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and its future relevance.
  • #151


OmCheeto said:
Ugh. I do not have time to read all 6,789,651,131 Tom, Dick, and Harry's opinions on the matter. I was supposed to be at the coast an hour ago. Please have someone have the graphs and pie charts ready when I get back tomorrow. Ciao.
So, what you're saying is that the only opinions that matter to you are those of world leaders, who for reasons of political expedience must not come out against it? Talk about confirmation bias! Jeez!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Hans de Vries said:
you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR


and as left wing:

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER
YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER


Regards, Hans
Have you considered that to a Scandanavian, much of the world communtiy is to the right of center? To an American, I doubt any of those could be considered right of center - much less "right wing"!

According to the wiki on her, Merkel is "center right", Sarkozy's party is "center right" and the General...well, he's a general in a military alliance.

But I suppose to someone far out on the left wing, someone near the center would appear "right wing".
 
  • #153
f95toli said:
"Right-wing" doesn't mean "far right" any more than left-wing means "communist" (or even socialist), it just means right of the centre.
Well perhaps this is just a definitions problem - in the US, "right wing" tends to be used synonomously with "far right".
 
  • #154


russ_watters said:
the only opinions that matter to you are those of world leaders
Yes indeed, that's obvious. Also, if you have forgotten, for instance France has not hesitated to stand up against your government in the past.
 
  • #155
russ_watters said:
But I suppose to someone far out on the left wing, someone near the center would appear "right wing".
Yes indeed, that is a matter of perception. But in this discussion, the perception of american citizens is not so relevant : the reason Obama was chosen is because of his contributions to international politics, which american media barely know even exist.
 
  • #156
russ_watters said:
Well perhaps this is just a definitions problem - in the US, "right wing" tends to be used synonomously with "far right".

Yes, I realize that; but historically that is incorrect and it is not what "right wing" means in Europe or -as far as I know- anywhere else in the world.
The difference in meaning is presumably simply a consequence of the fact that US politics is essentially liberal and therefore falls on the right on the political spectrum.
 
  • #157


humanino said:
Yes indeed, that's obvious. Also, if you have forgotten, for instance France has not hesitated to stand up against your government in the past.

We are talking about praise though. Specifically praise going to a praise worthy individual. While one may not agree with the extent of the praise it would not be very politik to argue the praise. It would be like having a person say "I have the most beautiful child in the world" and responding "Well its certainly cute but its no Adonis." It may have worked for Churchill, but... well he was Churchill.
 
  • #158


TheStatutoryApe said:
We are talking about praise though.
If they were strongly opposed, silence would have been quite appropriate. Besides, one can (as Hans suggested) read between the lines
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.
And Obama himself has made it straightforwardly clear what he himself thinks about his prize.
 
  • #159


In all fairness to Obama, he had it thrust on him. I'm sure he didn't see it coming. So hopefully he lives up to expectations - and perhaps exceeds expectations in the global diplomatic arena.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee is another matter, as are the behaviors of other world leaders.

Here it is 2009 and we're repeating the same behavior that's been going on for - well since recorded history and before.

The world seems be trapped in a perpetual cycle of violence and aggression.


And what have you done lately to change that?
 
  • #160


Astronuc said:
And what have you done lately to change that?

An interesting thing happened on the way home from my son's football game. My youngest daughter noticed a small dog rolling around in the busy street (dead animal on road) - then I noticed a little boy running towards the dog (crying). I stopped my vehicle (blocking traffic) and quickly removed both the boy and the dog from traffic. In spite of the situation, everyone in the cars/trucks I stopped appeared to be angry.

Then (of course) the boy's mother came running out and thought I was trying to do something bad to the boy (?). LUCKILY , someone explained my actions to the distraught mother.

As we drove away, my daughter commented that we should have just kept driving.

I wanted to be a smart arse, but instead I spent the next hour explaining why we would do it all again- that we did the right thing and that's what counts.
 
  • #161
I've noticed something of a trend with awards. If you HAVE to make a choice - sometimes there aren't any deserving parties - other times you might have to choose between 2 excellent choices.

Maybe prestigious awards should only be given when deserved, not because of a date on a calendar?
 
  • #162


Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.
 
  • #163
WhoWee said:
I've noticed something of a trend with awards. If you HAVE to make a choice - sometimes there aren't any deserving parties - other times you might have to choose between 2 excellent choices.

Maybe prestigious awards should only be given when deserved, not because of a date on a calendar?

I agree, WhoWee. But is it really true that there is such a dearth of deserving candidates, the award can't be given every year?

How about Greg Mortenson? A guy who builds schools for girls...in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson" , really exceptional. You might even say deserving.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #164


Evo said:
Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

I think Obama did the right thing in accepting the award and saying he hadn't yet earned it. They've put him in a very difficult position - a classic rock and a hard place.

Hopefully he'll be able to wave it around when negotiating with the "difficult states" and tell them the world expects them to work things out. (I'm a businessman - I look for the leverage in every deal)
 
  • #165


humanino said:
If they were strongly opposed, silence would have been quite appropriate. Besides, one can (as Hans suggested) read between the lines
Note the rest of what I posted. I did not suggest that they were "strongly opposed" in which case I think the appropriate response would have been to say so.

Humanino said:
And Obama himself has made it straightforwardly clear what he himself thinks about his prize.
Yes, he pretty much said that he does not deserve it but that he will accept it any way, though in a more politik fashion. Which is Russ's whole point, as far as I can tell, that these politicians are simply reacting (publicly) in the most polite and politically correct manner they can.

Considering what he said about Kanye in private I can only imagine what Obama may have said about the Peace Prize committee.
 
  • #166


Evo said:
Obama has done nothing so far to deserve this prize. It would appear that the commitee that made the decision decided to take it upon themselves to use the prize to goad Obama into taking certain actions. Ok, so put pressure on him. But what they didn't seem to think about was the negative affect that awarding him this prize would have on the people that he has to deal with. The Nobel committee has thrown a huge roadbloack before Obama in his dealings with the people that he needs to come to terms with in order achieve peace. Now they have yet another reason to dismiss him.

Obama should have rejected the award. He's done nothing to deserve it, and it can hurt critical negotiations going forward. I'm sure the award was a well meant, stupid, mistake.

Already well over 30 years ago, a perceptive previous prime minister of Norway, Trygve Bratteli, characterized the young Jagland as "dangerous".

Because Bratteli thought him to be a well-meaning idiot with loads of ambition.
 
  • #167
lisab said:
I agree, WhoWee. But is it really true that there is such a dearth of deserving candidates, the award can't be given every year?

The Nobel committee has skipped awarding the Peace Prize several times - for example, during WW1 and WW2, and most recently in 1972.
 
  • #168
  • #169
lisab said:
How about Greg Mortenson? A guy who builds schools for girls...in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortenson" , really exceptional. You might even say deserving.
Absolutely! So write to Obama or head of state in one's nation, and one's national legislature representative (e.g., Congress person, Senator, . . . ) and request that they nominate Greg Mortenson for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 (or until he receives the award) for his "humanitarian work and advocation of literacy in neglected areas of the world", specifically N. Pakistan and Afghanistan. His organization, Central Asia Institute, is also looking at project in Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. CAI sponsors schools and teachers to educate both boys and girls up to at least grade 5. The schools are built by the local people/community who have a vested interest in education and literacy of their children. In addition, CAI sponsors health centers/clinics and women's centers.

www.ikat.org - one can also donate here.
https://www.ikat.org/projects/cai-programs/
https://www.ikat.org/projects/regional-map/ - showing where programs are in place

Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack has been a long time supporter of Mortenson, and she and 4 other congresspersons publicly stated their nomination of Mortenson for the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
  • #171
arildno said:
Another worthy candidate would have been Messaoud Boulkheir, who for 40 years has campaigned against ongoing slavery in Mauretania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messaoud_Ould_Boulkheir
Certainly a much better choice than say Al Gore and IPCC.

There are many others who seem to go unnoticed.
 
  • #172
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #173
Hans de Vries said:
you can classify as right-wing:

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY
ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR...
By EU standards maybe, not by US standards.
 
  • #174
mheslep said:
By EU standards maybe, not by US standards.
Yes, and the Nobel committee indeed acts by EU standards, not by US standards.
 
  • #175


cristo said:
So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:

That's what it seems like. A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.

I agree with the sentiments that he should decline it. He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere. If he accomplishes any of his goals, they can award it later when it's been earned.
 
  • #176


Moonbear said:
A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.
Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?
 
  • #177
humanino said:
Obama soundes genuinely and appropriately incredulous.

And I know this isn't one of our many Fox news threads, but shouldn't there be some irony in MSNBC replaying Foxnews clips so much? Or at least shouldn't there be some royalties in it for Fox?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #178
humanino said:
Yes, and the Nobel committee indeed acts by EU standards, not by US standards.
Well, no, the Nobel committee acts by Norwegian standards. It has been my perception that Norway is to the left of center for Europe.
 
  • #179


cristo said:
So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush? :confused:
Moonbear said:
That's what it seems like. A bowl of mashed potatoes might be equally qualified under those standards. And just having hope and ambition for world peace would mean every Miss America and Miss Universe contestant should win the Nobel Peace Prize too.
A bowl of mashed potatoes can't openly criticize Bush, but yeah, after that, the list gets pretty long. Regardless, since Carter won his peace prize for the same thing, it makes you wonder just how many people can earn a peace prize for the same thing!
I agree with the sentiments that he should decline it. He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere. If he accomplishes any of his goals, they can award it later when it's been earned.
Europeans like him and that's fine - I get it, they felt marginalized and ignored by Bush. But making speeches and talking a good game in your opening tour isn't something worthy of an award. Yeah, I know this is getting repetitive, but oh well: the award is suppoosed to be given for accomplishments and he's accomplished nothing yet (on the "peace" front).
 
  • #180


humanino said:
Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?
Whoa, lighten up!

I may not always agree with Moonbear, but I know what she's saying here. Obama, even by his own words, does not diserve this award.

I voted for Obama, and I still have hope that he can achieve some of the things he promised. To be honest, Obama is in office because people feared Palin. A lot of influential Republicans came out near the end saying that they could not back Palin, she was just too crazy. If McCain had chosen a viable vice president, it's very likley that Obama would have lost. It was that close.

Obama should have turned down the award. His speech saying that "I am not qualified or deserving, but I'm going to take it anyway" was appalling, IMO. He lost my respect. Unless he manages to pull something big out of his a$$ in the next few years, this is going to bite him in the butt in the next election.
 
  • #181
I'm wondering where George HW Bush's and Ronald Reagan's peace prizes are. Reagan's carrot-and-stick approach helped end the cold war. Bush pulled together an unprecidented international coalition (which included Russia!) to kick Iraq out of Kuwait and helped finalize a treaty that cut the worlds' nuclear weapons count in half.
 
  • #182


humanino said:
Quite honestly, I had a better opinion of PF. I can not believe what I just read. How is it helpful to come up with such insulting comparisons ?
What is to be gained by playing along with the farce? The prize committee has overspent whatever political capital they might have had as dispensers of a prize allegedly recognizing achievement -- they've earned their mockery.
 
  • #183


Hurkyl said:
What is to be gained by playing along with the farce?
What is to be lost in failing to support a Nobel peace prize recipient ?
What if the most influential nation let's their best (for the rest of the world at least) outcome in a decade down ?
 
  • #184


humanino said:
What is to be lost in failing to support a Nobel peace prize recipient ?
:confused:

I just want to be clear here -- you do realize that the primary focus of this thread is to condemn the Nobel prize committee for their appalling behavior?

Sure, there has been some criticism of world leaders going along with it, Obama has received some sympathy for having been put in a difficult position and some criticism for accepting -- but these are tangential to the central topic in this thread.
 
  • #185


Hurkyl said:
you do realize that the primary focus of this thread is to condemn the Nobel prize committee for their appalling behavior?
Is that so ?
Evo said:
He lost my respect.
 
  • #186
The Nobel Peace Prize would have lost my respect if I had any respect for it. But Obama's acceptance doesn't bother me; it's a 'rock-and-hard-place' situation for him.
 
  • #187


I think http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html" would have approved of the nomination and award:


Alfred Bernhard Nobel said:
I, the undersigned, Alfred Bernhard Nobel, do hereby, after mature deliberation, declare the following to be my last Will and Testament with respect to such property as may be left by me at the time of my death:

...

The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows:

...

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.

I really don't think a bowl of mashed potatoes, people who promote schools, anyone who isn't Bush, San Francisco, nor Fred the dog qualify.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #188
I suppose you're right: he would have approved of the award if the other nominees were a bowl of mashed potatoes or Fred the Dog. But I tend to doubt he would have approved of Obama over someone who has actually done something.

Either way, it's a pretty sad state the world political community is in if "the most or best" is someone who thus far has done nothing beyond give a handful of speeches! Is it any wonder the US is the political leader of the world, when that's all it takes?!
 
  • #190


humanino said:
What is to be lost in failing to support a Nobel peace prize recipient ?
What if the most influential nation let's their best (for the rest of the world at least) outcome in a decade down ?

Well, tell that to the Copts in Egypt.

Obama had a golden chance in Cairo this year to condemn the then-ongoing harassment of the Copts, where the livelihoods of many were stripped away by the Government's insane decision to kill off all the pigs in the country.

You might also ask why the US Government has recently pressured the Armenians to make a treaty with Turkey without Turkey being pressured to recognize the massacres of Armenians under the late Ottoman Empire.
 
  • #191
Just to play devil's advocate, if not President Obama, who else "during the preceding year" has "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 your opinion?

Again, I'm not agreeing with their decision, but is there someone else who was nominated that you believe should have won?

I ask this merely to broaden my knowledge of who was in the running and what they have accomplished. (AGAIN, not that Obama has accomplished all that much)
 
  • #192
Of course that's a trick question Hepth, because the list of nominees is not released until at least 50 years after the prize is given out :p
 
  • #193
I wish to congratulate the Nobel committee for their inspired and insightful decision to award President Obama this prestigious award. Never before have we seen a political leader who can inspire the people of all nations as Obama has. But more than that, Obama changed the wayward course of the most powerful nation on Earth virtually overnight. His first act was to reach out to all people of the world. He made it clear that we offer and open hand rather than a clenched fist. He changed the tone of the global conversation in order to create an atmosphere in which peace is possible.

Obama has ended the use of torture and closed the CIA’s secret prisons. He is also working hard to close Guantanamo. Through these acts he demonstrates that America is not hopelessly lost; that once again we will strive to meet the standards of decency that we expect not only of ourselves, but of all nations. He spoke honestly and earnestly to the people of the Middle East and admitted that we have made mistakes. He dropped the self-righteous pretense that the US in infallible. He showed the world that we are willing to change. He also made it clear that all nations bear the burden of history; that we must all admit to our faults and move on.

The significance of these acts alone cannot be overstated. Under Bush we showed the world that we are a nation of fear and reactionaries. We showed that we are to be feared, not trusted. We showed that even invading a country on false pretense carries no liability. We showed that we are reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous.

The Nobel committee clearly recognizes that in order for peace to be possible on any number of fronts, the US must be engaged as a trusted member of the global community. They also recognize that as a once-in-a-lifetime leader, Obama’s efforts will be well-served though this special recognition. While Obama hasn’t yet parted the Red Sea or walked on water, no reasonable person expected that he could change the world overnight. However, through his dedication and brilliance, during his two terms of office he will almost certainly change the world in ways that are profound and lasting.

A number of people have been mentioned who may be worthy of this award. But along with deeds and desires of individuals is the global significance of their efforts. Perhaps someone working to bring peace to some little corner of the world is deserving of a Nobel Prize, but the significance of their efforts is limited in the global sense. Clearly this matters or an award would be given every year. Obama has the potential to affect all people of all nations. He has the ability to change the world and he is working hard to do so. For this reason he cannot be compared to all who work for change and peace. He is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. For this reason, Obama matters more than the others mentioned.

So in recognition for what Obama has done and for what he is working to do, I applaud this award whole heartedly. I also applaud the Nobel committee for recognizing greatness. But I think the Nobel committee did miss the target. I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.
 
Last edited:
  • #194
He made it clear that we offer and open hand rather than a clenched fist.
Did he offer that open hand to the Copts, who had their livelihoods destroyed by a bigoted Egyptian government?
 
  • #195
Ivan Seeking said:
While Obama hasn’t yet parted the Red Sea or walked on water, no reasonable person expected that he could change the world overnight. However, through his dedication and brilliance, during his two terms of office he will almost certainly change the world in ways that are profound and lasting.

So now you're calling comparing Obama to a god? Wow! Sure, he seems a good leader, but all the things you mention that he's done thus far are things that any other leader of a western democracy would do. The US should not have allowed secret torture prisons in the first place. Giving him a nobel prize to close them should be accompanied with giving nobel prizes to leaders of every other democratic country for not opening them in the first place.

So in recognition for what Obama has done and for what he is working to do, I applaud this award whole heartedly. I also applaud the Nobel committee for recognizing greatness. But I think the Nobel committee did miss the target. I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.

There were far more deserving candidates, some who actually endured a risk to their life to try and avert evil, who were overlooked. It's quite clear that this was a political award!

Sorry Ivan, but your post comes across as that of an American who believes that his country is the centre of the world-- it is not. As for congratulating 'yourselves', well, that's just amazingly vain!
 
  • #196
Ivan Seeking said:
...He is also working hard to close Guantanamo...
That's rename (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111855836" ), not close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #197
Ivan Seeking said:
...The significance of these acts alone cannot be overstated...
Yes it is difficult, but you should not be deterred; someone must try to overstate none the less. If adjectives won't get 'er done, perhaps try linking in some background http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/archive/Classical/Romantic-Period/Entry-of-the-Gods-into-Valhalla-from-Das-Rheingold/281712" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #198
Ivan Seeking said:
I think the award should have gone to the 69,456,897 Americans who elected Obama; thus changing the destiny of not only this nation, but also the destiny of the world. Congratulations to us.

Dreadful idea Ivan. Even limiting us to 30 seconds apiece, it would take over 66 years to get through all the acceptance speeches. Not to mention the administrative costs of us each donating our 2 cents to charity would probably run into the trillions. :-p
 
  • #199
He may be doing a decent job as president, but that's all he's done so far, nothing extraordinary or special, and nothing that has brought peace to anyone anywhere.

Obama has done a lot. Perhaps it is because the Americans don't care about the relevant issues that they don't see this. E.g.:

1) An unprecendented move toward nuclear disarmement has been made. For many many years the US rejected such suggestions. This makes it possible to strengthen the NPT.


2) The US has reset relations with Russia and China. The US will not boss these countries around by exploiting other issues. E.g. the missile shield in Poland has been scrapped for pragmatic reasons. The Bush administration always made it clear that it was meant against the Iranian missile threat, yet when Obama scrapped it because that threat wil not materialize anytime soon, the criticism against this decision from the Right was that the US has now lost a pawn against Russia that the US could have used to make Russia vote "the right way" in the UNSC.


3) Point 2) means that the US sees Russia and China as equal partners in solving World problems diplomatically. E.g., in case of Iran, the US will participate on he basis of the commonly agreed principle that Iran should not produce nuclear weapons. The US will not pursue its own domestic agenda of imposing more restrictions on Iran. E.g. Obama has stopped talking about this issue like Bush did: "Iran must stop to enrich uranium". Instead Iran is now invited to make the proposals itself that will allow the World to verify that their program is peaceful.

This makes a war against Iran extremely unlikely if Iran is not persuing nuclear weapons. The dynamics that led to the Iraq war that were at play here are gone. Under the Bush admistration, war against Iran was a likely outcome regardless of whether or not Iran had a nuclear weapons program, because Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium.


These are such huge things that you would almost forget some "lesser results" that in their own right would be worthy of a Nobel Peace prize, such as:


4) Armenia and Turkey signed a peace deal after US brokered mediations.
 
  • #200
Count Iblis said:
Obama has done a lot. Perhaps it is because the Americans don't care about the relevant issues that they don't see this. E.g.:

1) An unprecendented move toward nuclear disarmement has been made. For many many years the US rejected such suggestions. This makes it possible to strengthen the NPT.
Exceedingly naive.

The Cold War powers were highly effective in preventing nuclear proliferation to other countries.

Our problem today is precisely uncontrolled nuclear proliferation to a variety of unstable regimes. There is no longer any USSR to have gradual, controlled de-armament policies with, but the danger of proliferation has increased, not decreased, and uni-lateral de-armament is not an effective strategy on this point.


4) Armenia and Turkey signed a peace deal after US brokered mediations.

Forced down the throat of the Armenians, rather, since Turkey wasn't required to make any concessions whatsoever in even recognizing the massacres on Armenians by the late Ottoman empire.


Just to highlight two of your points whose merits are highly debatable.
 

Similar threads

News Three feminists share Nobel Peace Prize
Replies
18
Views
4K
News CIA rigged at least one Nobel Prize
Replies
2
Views
5K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
Replies
14
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top