WikiLeaks, Internet Nominees For Nobel Peace Prize 202
Hugh Pickens writes writes "WikiLeaks and the Internet are among a record 241 nominations for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize that also includes Afghan rights advocate Sima Samar, the European Union, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Cuban dissident Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, Russian rights group Memorial and its founder Svetlana Gannushkina. 'Looking at the long term, we can say interest in the prize is strong and growing along with the number of candidates,' says Geir Lundestad, a non-voting member of the Nobel panel. WikiLeaks grabbed the world's attention and angered a number of governments by publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, while pundits say the Internet or social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which have been used to help organize dissent in countries with oppressive governments, could be rewarded. Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Thorbjoern Jagland, the Nobel panel has not shied away from bold decisions — first picking Barack Obama just months after he became US president, and last year awarding the prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo."
Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (Score:4, Informative)
It just so happens that Liu Xiaobo was/is an ardent supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which probably gave the USA even more cause to support him. I don't understand how on earth you can give a peace prize to someone who supports war. What a joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo#Political_views [wikipedia.org]
Re:Chinese anger and WikiLeaks redemption? (Score:4, Informative)
Its not a misunderstanding. The Chinese know full well the prize committee is not an agent of the government, they just choose to spin it that way for their population.
What they really think about it is that it is an outgrowth of Western culture and political theory. The Chinese government believes that it has the best interests of its people at heart, and that a state like theirs is best for China. They know the the West does not share that opinion, so the Chinese government will use whatever means it has to discredit the prize committee when it conflicts with them. The best way of doing that is to spin it as a political tool.
As for the problems with trade, they are not punishing Norway for awarding the prize, they are punishing Norway for failing to spy on the committee, and then to for failing to intervene, exert influence and prevent such a candidate from being awarded the prize simply because China is bigger and more powerful. They are trying to bully the Norwegian government into acting in a manner contrary to its people's expectations and more in line with China's. China expects that other governments will do special things to stay friendly with China, and if they don't, they will make sure that the transgressor will pay for their lack of vision.
In short, China won't care if Wikileaks wins, they only care that they were thwarted before and they do not like to be thwarted. The only thing that will mollify China is if their hand-picked candidate wins due specifically to Chinese power. This isn't a matter of balance, its a pure dick waving contest.
Re:The nomination of Wikileaks (Score:4, Informative)
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it. The combination literally means everyone on earth has earned a Nobel prize.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Rendered meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Yassir Arafat.
Arafat jointly won the Nobel Prize along with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres for their part in the Oslo Peace Accords. Arafat was not a terrorist at the time of winning. He had just negotiated and signed the Peace Accords - which formally renounced violence and recognised the state of Israel. He led a secular organisation, and fought against Hamas and Islamist influence in Palestine. He was seen as a traitor by some of his people for conceding too much in the negotiations, was sidelined by Israel and the West, which ultimately enabled Hamas to seize power.
Arafat's fate wasn't as bad as that of Rabin, who was also viewed as a traitor to his people for signing the Peace Accords, was condemned to death by some Jewish religious scholars for the crime of "treason", and then assassinated by someone who believed in that verdict.
It's too bad that both were seen as traitors for pursuing peace; the failure of the Peace Accords was probably the biggest squandered opportunity for regional peace in the last few decades.
Re:I'd love to meet this Internet guy (Score:2, Informative)
Really? You don't remember that whole Bosnia-Croatia-Kosovo thing? The EU couldn't keep the peace 300 miles from Rome. The NATO/Russian lead Dayton Accords ended the war in Bosnia after three years of failed EU attempts.
I also remember IFOR in Bosnia having alot of American units, in fact Task Force Eagle's US Army units made up the bulk of the ground forces there in Bosnia.
100,000 people died in Bosnia because of the EU's successful peacekeeping. 10,000+ dead in Kosovo and another 120,000 dead in the break up of Yugoslavia.
If we are talking about keeping the peace in Europe, why didn't the US Army, BAOR/British Forces Germany and Soviet Guard Armies get nominated? They are the forces that kept Europe from blowing up from 1945 to 1991, then the Russians, British, Americans and French rolled down to fix Bosnia.
Re:Hopelessly political (Score:5, Informative)
The Nobel Peace Prize [nobelprize.org] is awarded to those who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Bitching about who was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize because the process "has become so political" is therefore absurd, because the very purpose and existence of this award is political. Wars are political, relations between nations are political, acts between states are political. Therefore, by it's very nature, it's quite obvious that the purpose of this award, and the only purpose it has, is to praise a specific type of political action, which is in itself a political act.
As a consequence, it's stupid to try to downplay the Nobel Peace Prize by complaining that it "has become so political". It's stupid because this sort of accusation reflects the ignorance of those who reiterate it regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, and it demonstrates a failure to understand it's intended purpose, as set by Alfred Nobel.
More depressing than this, this sort of accusation actually is meant to convey the following complaint: "I don't like the person who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his award means that what he does or represent has been publicly praised to a world-wide audience, and as I don't like that person then I feel I'm forced to resort to pettiness to try to downgrade that achievement". After all, you don't complain that the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. Instead, your complains boil down to
So, to sum things up, the Nobel Peace Prize is, and always was, political in nature. And nothing other than that. So bitching about it being political is just like bitching that the water is wet.