Nobel Peace Prize 2010

  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • #26
179
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
894
2
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.'
 
  • #28
179
0
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.
 
  • #29
1,497
4
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.
 
  • #30
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
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?
 
  • #31
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
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.
 
  • #32
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,807
10
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
279
0
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
183
1
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" [Broken].

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 definately 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 gonna happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Nobel Peace Prize 2010

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
42
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
247
Views
22K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Top