6 ms·

The prize is supposedly awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing arm

• jansan 3y ago
  > the Peace Prize has been very strange of late in general. Remember when a man received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush?
  • A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
    You could at least make the case that Obama promoted -- indeed, in a sense, embodied -- "fraternity between nations," for he was incredibly popular with most of America's allies. (See, e.g., his "rock star" reception in Germany.) Even its enemies were at worst ambivalent towards him personally, and at best they were hopeful that he'd bring about positive change. In this sense, he, at minimum, shored up the self-image of the Western world. So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it. But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.
    • parthdesai 3y ago
      > So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it. Not if you happened to be a person in Libya/Syria/Afghanistan or a few other middle eastern countries.
      • suoduandao3 3y ago
        If I recall correctly though, Obama won the peace prize shortly after winning the election and ran from a much more doveish platform than he governed from.
        • LanceH 3y ago
          He won the prize before actually doing anything more than campaign promises. If we're awarding prizes based on campaign promises...well, there will be some interesting awards, indeed.
    • dmbche 3y ago
      I think they might be refering to Al Gore instead of Obama?
      • barry-cotter 3y ago
        Both of them got it for not being Bush.
      • jansan 3y ago
        OP here, I meant Obama. I totally forgot that Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. Dear Lord, that prize has really lost its meaning.
    • screye 3y ago
      The mishandling of the entire middle-east is hard to ignore. If anything, Trump's only consensus wins came from cleaning up the mess in the middle east. > shored up the self-image of the Western world Which tells you everything you need to about the Nobel Peace Prize.
      • mrguyorama 3y ago
        >cleaning up the mess in the middle east. Pray tell, how did Trump clean up anything in the middle east?
  • wheelerof4te 3y ago
    Oh, yea, I remember. Remember when he started droning civilians all over the Middle East anyway, just because they might have been linked to Al-Qaeda? The same Al-Qaeda US supported and trained a couple decades before that.
    • rammer 3y ago
      Yep. US has been at the root of a lot of this century's problems..
    • Paradigma11 3y ago
      Afaik US funding went to the afghan mujahideen not arab volunteers. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > The same Al-Qaeda US supported and trained a couple decades before that. Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US did not support and train al-Qaeda as such.
      • parthdesai 3y ago
        If you're going to make claims with such authority, please have the correct information. Sure Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal, but it consisted of very members that US and Pakistan (ISI) helped in their fight against Soviet union, including Osama Bin Laden. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Afghan_Arabs https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Afghan_Arabs
  • webmobdev 3y ago
    Obama getting the Nobel peace price was when I realised what a big political joke the whole thing is (and I admire Obama!). It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon. The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.
• michaeltimo 3y ago
  "Since World War II, the Peace Prize has principally been awarded to honour efforts in four main areas: arms control and disarmament, peace negotiation, democracy and human rights, and work aimed at creating a better organized and more peaceful world. In the 21st century the Nobel Committee has embraced efforts to limit the harm done by man-made climate change and threats to the environment as relevant to the Peace Prize." [0] Narges is one of the most inspiring women in confronting the inhumane regime of the Islamic Republic, which never stops committing crimes. A regime that sent a 16-year-old girl into a coma just a few days ago because of her hijab [1]. Narges spent most of her life in the most dangerous prisons in Iran for her activities, and I think this award was not only for her, but also for the all oppressed women in Iran in the last four decades. [0] https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/about-the-nobel-peace-prize/ https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/about-the-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/iran-activists-say-16-year-old-girl-hospitalised-by-police-over-hijab-rules https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/iran-activists...
  • ReptileMan 3y ago
    But the world is just as peaceful (or peaceless) as before her activism. Now if she actually overthrew or forced the government to reform - it would be different. But award should be given for results not efforts.
    • nicce 3y ago
      Results are important because many are giving a lot of effort or even more than her but just haven't got the publicity. Publicity can lead to results but can it be measured in this case?
    • no-reply 3y ago
      On the basis of effort, we could probably hand out awards to a large number of dead people
      • bannedbybros 3y ago
        Why make the award reasonable when it can be a feel-good self-congratulatory propaganda fest?
• nemetroid 3y ago
  The same could be said of Martin Luther King.
  • ReptileMan 3y ago
    Martin Luther King won. Iran is still the same. Subtle difference.
    • UncleMeat 3y ago
      MLK was killed. Key parts of the US are still extremely heavily segregated. Major portions of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act have been undone by the courts. Antidiscrimination legislation and jurisprudence is being more often leveraged to prevent policies that MLK would have supported like affirmative action than it is being used to continue the project of desegregation. Teaching core parts of MLK's belief system can get you fired in some states. I don't think "MLK won" is a complete story.
    • klyrs 3y ago
      This sounds a lot like Trump's dismissal of John McCain. A true coward's take.
      • mardifoufs 3y ago
        Rather be a coward than a blood thirsty war hawk like McCain was.
• lancebeet 3y ago
  There have been quite a few laureates who were awarded the prize for their activism against apartheid, some of whom also spent time in prison due to their revolutionary tendencies. Would you consider these prizes equally unjustified?
  • ReptileMan 3y ago
    Yes. You have time man of the year for that kind.
    • galangalalgol 3y ago
      Choosing to face injustice with articles and signs and peaceful gatherings instead of masks and high explosives furthers the goals of peace. Unless her articles explicitly called for violence, I have not read them.
      • ReptileMan 3y ago
        But she has not changed anything. It is irrelevant what method you use if the status quo is not moved.
• zvmaz 3y ago
  > Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill Oppressive regimes like to use these sorts of rhetorical ploys to discredit social movements. Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency? Or are they just puppets to foreign machinations?
  • wheelerof4te 3y ago
    "social movements." LOL, try harder. NGOs paid by the westerners are a thing, but you sure know that. If these people did not get free money for their actions, they would be silent. "Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency?" "Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party. Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.
    • thriftwy 3y ago
      Unfortunately, this is very true. If we look at public opposition to authoritarian regimes, we will see layers upon layers of NGO pets and very few independent figures. It is so apparent that they actually discredit the idea of opposing authoritarianism. Democracy is a tough sell if you know your local democratic movement is paid for by other countries which do not have your country's well-being, or existence, as a motivation. So there are a lot of people discontent with lack of options and restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, but they do not have a voice. People who have a voice are universally paid agents of NGOs. They get good money to film expensive produced youtube videos and get cited by world press all the time. There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime.
      • wheelerof4te 3y ago
        "There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime." That is by nature. You can't make every person in a country happy. There are millions of homeless people, discontent people, depressed people all around the West. These people have been mercilessly oppressed by the cruel practices of neo-liberalism and profit-oriented capitalism. Imagine what world-wide sanctions and isolation would do to them. Are there any NGOs that promote their plight? Of course not, since other countries either can't pay or are not interested in them. In the best case, there is a few under-paid organizations that are (cleverly) not getting the media attention.
• pipo234 3y ago
  The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been surrounded by the kind of ambivalent feelings you allude to. To name one: Hume & Trimble (1998) was considered ironic because it was viewed as kind of reward for ceasing violence they initially caused. Similar remarks were made in 1993 about Mandela and De Klerk. It can even be argued that Gorbachev and Carter had blood on their hands before becoming saints. Maybe this kind of ambiguity is simply rooted in the fact that the monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel. ' Guess "contribution to peace" is less about ethics and more of a political concept.
  • tgv 3y ago
    My newspaper had an interview with a former judge, and he said something along the lines of: if it doesn't chafe, it will become irrelevant. So tend to prefer somewhat controversial figures over safe choices.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    While De Klerk certainly participated in it, neither Mandela nor De Klerk started the system of violent racial oppression in South Africa. Neither of them started the armed resistance against it, either, though Mandela obviously participated in that.
  • selimthegrim 3y ago
    When did Hume’s party cause any violence?
  • KMag 3y ago
    > monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel. Note that net-net, the invention of dynamite probably saved many lives. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite invented by Nobel isn't very useful for military purposes, and has never been in wide military use. It can't be safely stored for long periods or in hot conditions, making it ill-suited for battlefield logistics. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite is primarily used in mining and earth-moving. Properly stored, dynamite is both much safer and more powerful than the black powder or liquid nitroglycerine that were primarily used in mining and earth-moving before the invention of dynamite. Much later, "military dynamite", a more stable dynamite substitute devoid of nitroglycerine and more suited to military use was developed. While more stable, it's more expensive, and less commonly used. I don't believe Nobel had anything to do with the development of military dynamite.
• redeeman 3y ago
  [flagged]
• tonmoy 3y ago
  Plenty of human rights activists have won the Nobel peace prize in the recent past, this is nothing new.
• demondemidi 3y ago
  Fomenting
• oh_sigh 3y ago
  Anything that leads Iran towards secularization and away from religious extremism could probably be viewed as a giant win for world peace.
• 1024core 3y ago
  You could say the same about Ang San Suu Kyi. Or Nelson Mandela, for that matter.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]