Liu Xiaobo Wins 2010 Nobel Peace Prize

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Liu Xiaobo was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent struggle for human rights in China, despite being imprisoned at the time. The Chinese government reacted strongly, labeling him a "criminal" and censoring news about the award. This incident highlights the ongoing tension between the Chinese state and international human rights advocacy. The Nobel Committee's decision reflects a broader interpretation of the criteria for the Peace Prize, recognizing efforts for peace even when immediate results are not evident.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Nobel Peace Prize criteria and history
  • Knowledge of Liu Xiaobo's activism and its implications for human rights in China
  • Familiarity with the political landscape in China, particularly regarding dissent
  • Awareness of international relations between China and Norway
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the history and criteria of the Nobel Peace Prize
  • Examine Liu Xiaobo's writings and activism for human rights
  • Investigate the impact of international awards on political prisoners
  • Explore the relationship between China and Norway post-2010 Nobel Prize award
USEFUL FOR

Human rights activists, political analysts, historians, and anyone interested in the intersection of politics and international recognition of human rights efforts.

  • #31
what said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Gokul43201 said:
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?
 
  • #33
Chi Meson said:
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?
 
  • #34
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 247 ·
9
Replies
247
Views
28K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K