9 ms·

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2014

144 points by linux_devil 12y ago

BetaCygni 12y ago
Should we still take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously? Obama winning it was a bit of a stretch in my opinion, though the Pax Americana is a real thing.
- erokar 12y ago
  We should not. It's nation branding and it's politicized (I'm Norwegian btw). The members of the committee are appointed by the Norwegian parliment and are mainly former politicians. We all knew they would never have the balls to give it to Snowden. To me, that proves the impotence of the prize.
  - aric 12y ago
    Gandhi didn't receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Snowden is in good company. It's company with the rest of the world at that.
    - q2 12y ago
      please, name is "Gandhi" not "Ghandi".
      - aric 12y ago
        Funny, I had edited it just before you said that. I know but it's muscle memory in typing Ghana.
    - Ar-Curunir 12y ago
      Churchill ensured that Gandhi never received it while he was alive, and he couldn't get it posthumously. I appreciate the efforts of the two recepients, but I don't think it's as great of an achievement to win this prize as the science Nobels. You can even see the political undertones with the statement about India and Pakistan in the official announcement.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        Well, to quote Wikipedia he did unofficially get it: "1948: Not awarded because "there was no suitable living candidate." (A tribute to the recently assassinated Gandhi, since the prize cannot be awarded posthumously.)"
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Of course it’s politicised. It’s about politics, after all. I do think it’s quite transparently political, both in intent and outcome. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Honestly, I’m not sure how you even think a non-political Peace Prize would be possible. Also, I really don’t think Snowden should get a Peace Prize. It’s not like this opinion of yours that Snowden would be a worthy recipient is some kind of objective truth or even self-evident.
  - Steko 12y ago
    So wait because your pet candidate didn't win it's a farce? Children's and girl's education rights are completely worthy of a prize.
    - erokar 12y ago
      The fact that Snowden didn't receive the prize obviously doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The problem is that we all (at least the people of Norway) assumed it would never happen becuase of the political consequences for Norway.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        Well, the committee gave China the middle finger. I'm not sure why it wouldn't do the same to the US. Besides, Snowden is at odds with the US while Malala is at odds with the pakistani Taliban. Pakistan has about the same population as Japan, so it's important. Snowden was supposedly a strong candidate, but there are valid reasons not to choose him.
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    That Snowden didn't face his charges in the states and instead fled to continue his days under the protection of (much more repressive) Vladimir Putin, who himself is a warmonger, and gave the dictator several public relations victories while hypocritically criticizing the US from abroad, severely diluted his moral authority. Had he stayed in the US after the leaks he might have deserved a peace prize, and made a much more profound statement, but he didn't.
    - 001sky 12y ago
      You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience. In general, on the topic of peace, there is never peace through weakness. Wether you need violence or not to exert (your) strength is a wholly different subject. Weakness is inherently unstable, and in a context of instability the ROI on "opportunistic violence" increases. There is plenty of empirical evidence outhere to support this if the logic isn't self evident.
      - shabda 12y ago
        All the major victories against repression in 20th century have come via peaceful means. There has been no "peace via war" in 20th century which can come close to the impact of Gandhi, MLK or Mandela.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        That's crazy talk. Nazi Germany much? Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.
        cmsefton 12y ago
        Mandela? Sorry, what? Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed. Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.
- PJDK 12y ago
  I've always felt they should give it out like the science prizes, wait 10-20 years before awarding it to see what/who really mattered.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    But that’s not why the prize is given. It is to encourage promising people to continue doing what they are doing. That’s a very clear pattern when you look at who received the prize. Implicit in that is that the prize might be given to people who turn out to be a disappointment. In many ways this is actually a very hard prize to award, but I’m ok with that. Sure, it will fail from time to time, but that’s just human.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      And it's in that context one should view the price to Obama: It was a signal to Obama, and the US, of the amount of contempt a lot of the world held Bush in, and an attempt at encouragement to put those years decisively in the past. While that award is ridiculed outside the US too, I think few Americans appreciate just how terrifying the thought of anything like a continuation of the Bush legacy was to many people the rest of the world. We were shocked when he was elected the first time, and even more so that he became president a second time (and it doesn't matter that it was close, anything but a landslide for Gore would have still shocked us). It seemed like America had gone totally of the rails and was firmly headed into a level of previously unseen craziness. After the election of Obama is the first time I've seen non-Americans in many larger European cities hold parties to celebrate the election of a US president. It didn't matter that whether you believed his campaign promises or his background or that he is still far to the right of most of Europe - he was still someone who at least appeared to people to have some measure of intelligence and restraint. Someone who would at least listen to foreign leaders instead of some voice he believed to be God. Merely by stemming the neocon tide, he was seen as a giant step forward (or backwards, to the saner era of e.g. Clinton, who was probably more popular in Europe than in the US, or even Bush senior; heck, we'd even take Reagan)
      - CWuestefeld 12y ago
- kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
  It's just a prize, an award. It's not supposed to be the unique trademark given to the greatest humans on Earth. It doesn't matter if you take it seriously, it may be an important milestone and encouragement for the laureates, though.
  - sanoli 12y ago
    You're right. People sometimes take it as being the official Humanity's Stamp of most noble person, or whatever. It's an award that some people choose to give every year. It has a lot (A LOT) of repercussion, it's highly political (in the case of the peace prize), but it's still a choice by a few.
- pavs 12y ago
  Obama winning Nobel Peace prize wasn't a stretch, it was a farce.
  - shabda 12y ago
    Mr. Kissinger has won the nobel prize. Its going to be hard to top that.
    - privong 12y ago
      And Yasser Arafat; there have been many contentious Peace Prize recipients[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism_of_individual_conferments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism_of...
    - echion 12y ago
      Kissinger won it jointly for a concrete agreement ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/index.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/... ). The rationale for Obama arguably had no such concrete achievement: "The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."' . The full rationale is at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/... .
      - shabda 12y ago
        Kissinger was awarded the NPP in 73. Bangladesh Liberation War happened in 71. Kissinger's support of Pakistan was a direct processor to and some would say the enabler of the atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#1971_India.E2.80.93Pakistan_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#1971_India.E2.8...) Some would say that this was due to real-politic, but its entirely reasonable to suggest that this was due to Kissinger's personal hatred of Indira Gandhi(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#cite_note-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#cite_note-33) More than a million civilians were killed and more than 30 million civilians were displaced during this genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide Kissinger's support to the Pakistan Army was in spite of the US's own officials aware of and dissenting to the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram All this was well known when Mr. Kissinger was awarded the prize. That award was unreasonable. "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize"
- dalke 12y ago
  It's hard to judge what you think, but certainly more seriously than the Academy Awards. Do you take the Wateler Peace Prize or the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize or any other peace prize seriously?
- ckarmann 12y ago
  I was a physicist before becoming an engineer, and I love to hear about all that science during the Nobel Prize season, but the Peace Prize is my favorite. I would even say it's the only one to be "useful" (is it really useful to award money to someone sometimes many years after (s)he has retired from doing any research?) The Peace prize is different, by nature it is always non-consensual, because there would be no reason to award a Peace Prize if there were not someone else who is waging a war, denying other people their basic rights or doing other Bad Things. Today it's the Taliban and the child exploiters who are the bad guys pointed out by the prize. Last year it was the Syrian dictatorship, in 2011 the Chinese government. When Obama was given the Peace Prize, I was also shocked in disbelief, and like most people I think it was not deserved. But then I saw that some people in the US were not simply shacking their head, they were foaming with rage. Coincidentally, they were the same people who supported, and sometimes continued to justify the disastrous foreign policy of the previous administration. And that make me think this prize was actually well awarded. It was not deserved by Obama, and I think the Nobel committee, by giving him the prize at the beginning of his presidency before he could actually do anything for or against peace, was almost explicitly saying that they didn't care that he didn't deserved it. This prize was a middle finger to the Bush administration and I think that middle finger was well deserved. The same goes for other polemical awards. Al Gore got it, and it made all the climate science deniers mad. Yasser Arafat got it and the Israeli political right got crazy. It's not always like this (The Red Cross got the prize a number of times, and nobody disagrees with it), but often, if you don't understand why a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded, look at who it pisses off.
  - lmg643 12y ago
    If we put away our personal politics, and try to see Obama's actions objectively, it seems he has continued, even expanded, America's intervention in governments around the middle east. Libya was overthrown, Egypt was overthrown, and we've been making attempts in Syria and Ukraine. And after failing to gin up support against chemical weapons, we're now bombing Syria because of some crazy rebels that are allied with groups we support. In the bigger picture, we are waging a crypto-war with between Russia over energy resources from Russia and the Gulf into Europe. Pope Francis recently had the courage to call it as such: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/13/us-pope-war-idUSKBN0H808L20140913 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/13/us-pope-war-idUSKB... So - to see Obama's peace prize as anything other than a partisan political joke (as you say, a "middle finger" to Bush) is a mistake. Obama's administration has put the world as close to a hot-war between nuclear powers as we've seen in some time. It should make us angry - he was elected to stop the madness, and it seems like he is running business-as-usual.
- chippy 12y ago
  People voted Obama in. He was Change and Hope personified. Americans actually loved him when he was elected. Of course people can change their minds, but you must remember not to rewrite history
  - 27182818284 12y ago
    I caucused for him back then, and still thought he was a completely foolish choice for the prize. As did my other Obama-supporting friend, my other Obama-donating friend, and my other political science studying friend, etc. I can honestly say I don't know a person that wasn't surprised by the decision to award him that prize and by most indications Obama himself was surprised by their decision. It isn't rewriting history, even his fans were confused by that decision back then.
- pknerd 12y ago
  This girl is also a kid, of same age group of Malala but she is not highlighted because she on other side of the fence. http://oi59.tinypic.com/9zrbco.jpg http://oi59.tinypic.com/9zrbco.jpg
- seccess 12y ago
  I don't personally agree that Obama should have received it, but this article presents an interesting position as to why he did [0]. The author argues that giving the president the prize at the beginning of his presidency may have been motivation for him to make more peaceful decisions while in charge. [0] http://controversialtruths.com/node/8147 http://controversialtruths.com/node/8147
- aestra 12y ago
  Maybe I am missing something but I still can't understand why Nelson Mandela won the peace prize when he founded Umkhonto we Sizwe.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- Blahah 12y ago
  That's what made it a joke? A 17 year old can contribute to world peace just as much as anyone. What's a joke is a warmongering president being awarded a peace prize.
  - chippy 12y ago
    People voted him in. He was Change and Hope personified.
    - wangweij 12y ago
      Then the prize should have been awarded to the voters.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
tokenadult 12y ago
I did some looking up on pages of the linked website here to see what the criteria are for choosing winners of the Nobel Prize for world peace. First, one must be nominated by an eligible nominator:[1] "Who may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize? "According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories: "Members of national assemblies and governments of states "Members of international courts "University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes "Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) "Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee" Then there is a process for choosing a prize winner or prize winners for the year from among the list of nominees:[2] "At the first meeting of the Nobel Committee after the February 1 deadline for nominations, the Committee's Permanent Secretary presents the list of the year's candidates. The Committee may on that occasion add further names to the list, after which the nomination process is closed, and discussion of the particular candidates begins. In the light of this first review, the Committee draws up the so-called short list - i.e. the list of candidates selected for more thorough consideration. The short list typically contains from twenty to thirty candidates. "The candidates on the short list are then considered by the Nobel Institute's permanent advisers. In addition to the Institute's Director and Research Director, the body of advisers generally consists of a small group of Norwegian university professors with broad expertise in subject areas with a bearing on the Peace Prize. The advisers usually have a couple of months in which to draw up their reports. Reports are also occasionally requested from other Norwegian and foreign experts. "When the advisers' reports have been presented, the Nobel Committee embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates. In the process, the need often arises to obtain additional information and updates about candidates from additional experts, often foreign. As a rule, the Committee reaches a decision only at its very last meeting before the announcement of the Prize at the beginning of October. "The Committee seeks to achieve unanimity in its selection of the Peace Prize Laureate. On the rare occasions when this proves impossible, the selection is decided by a simple majority vote." With that in mind, it's actually remarkable to me how often non-politicians and non-jurists have won the Nobel Prize for world peace. Each year, the committee has a lot of nominees to consider from a lot of different sources. During the process of investigating nominees and seeking unanimity, a lot of names fall out of consideration. [1] http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_intro/nomination_criteria/ http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_intro/nomination... [2] http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/
mef 12y ago
Interesting that the section of the press release about Malala doesn't mention that she was shot in the face for her activist work, and kept doing it regardless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai
- varjag 12y ago
  Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be results-oriented, it's not an award for personal heroism.
  - discardorama 12y ago
    Tell that to those who gave it to Obama.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    I agree. However I will say in this specific case personal heroism helped the result.
elastine 12y ago
It is hard to justify this prize as anything but a popularity prize.
sremani 12y ago
I am still unable to understand what Malala is doing and why is she so great. Of course she is way better than an average teenager but I just do not understand the whole hoopla, she is safe and warm far away from SWAT valley in UK, and get to rub shoulders with powerful people who are interested in photo-op. Her ability to attain access is great but is it Nobel Peace Prize worthy. Nobel Peace Prize lost shine for me. I still think their pure sciences awards are the gold standard, on the border on economics and completely disappointed in the peace prize.
- Kalium 12y ago
  The Peace Prize has pretty much always been about trying to aid the efforts of a person or organization rather than a recognition of achievement.
  - disputin 12y ago
    Sounds like it needs to be renamed. It has a serious image problem as it is.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pknerd 12y ago
  You should ask same question for past Noble Peace Winners do :)
- huu 12y ago
  Someone tried to assassinate Malala and you're saying it's a knock against her that she's being kept safe?
sanoli 12y ago
Given all the talk about Obama winning the Peace Prize some time ago, here's an explanation: http://superitch.com/images/2010/10/Sorensen1.jpg http://superitch.com/images/2010/10/Sorensen1.jpg
enlightenedfool 12y ago
Good that they got their focus back to real people who really worked for peace instead of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, grandiose politicians.
soneca 12y ago
If you won any other Nobel Prize (including the literature) is because you deserve it. If you won the Peace Prize, is only partially because you deserve it, but also because you need it. Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics in their own countries/communities. They need an international prestigious stamp to show that they are on the right side of history and have international support. But also you need to deserve it. Malala has the perfect balance of both. She is incredibly smart, self-conscious, has a natural sense of dignitiy and integrity that protect her from the traps of ego and fame - something very hard to do for any human being, let alone a teenager. She is making quite an impact on girl's education. But also she needs it badly. Her life is constantly in danger and this stamp and support from the Nobel Prize will protect her life and her struggle. More people in her community will consider that she might be right. Red Cross is another example of both deserving and needing the prize. They must enter the worst war zones, and all sides must believe they are not spies for the enemy. Their brand is the most important brand in the world. Then you have Obama. His prize is controversial because he obviously didn't deserve it. But the commitee thought he needded it, and I agree. Not because he needed more power or validation, like Malala. But he could use a "nudge" to improve peace in the world. Sure, it was a risky move - and didn't pay well. But it is part of the goal of Nobel Peace Prize as I see it: help the laureates to do the right thing toward peace. So I don't think it was a necessarily bad move. But it surely hurts its brand. I think the commitee should be more conservative about who deserves its prize; but I agree that is also important to find who need it.
- desireco42 12y ago
  Pretty much agree with your analysis, I think you explained Obama's prize very well. It is not only case and they made several very controversial awards recently, which did hurt it's brand. I personally think Nobel prize lost it's prestige and became very political, and not only for peace one. I don't care any more who gets one, it's not important. It's role like ultimate prize is very positive thing and I think world needs something like this, just not Nobel any more.
- MichaelApproved 12y ago
  To understand why Obama won the prize, you need to understand about the history of the prize. The prizes were created because Nobel was upset that his invention of TNT caused so much destruction in the world. At the time, TNT was a WMD. Obama's worked to reduce nuclear weapons while in the US Senate. That effort would've made Nobel proud. Further, Obama recently removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile. If he didn't earn it before this, he definitely earned it now. This is directly at the heart of why the Nobel prize was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.
tiatia 12y ago
What is so great about the Nobel peace prize if even a war criminal extraordinaire like Churchill can get it? Besides the death of thousands of German civilians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_... http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+Doc-History-WW2Period/MassMurdererChurchillHandsBackPrisonersToStalin.htm http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+D... The only odd thing about this picture is: One guy is missing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Yalta_summit_1945_with_Churchill%2C_Roosevelt%2C_Stalin.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Yalta_sum...
- tiatia 12y ago
  So, after Churchill and Yasser Arafat, I see Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro as serious contenders. Osama Bin Laden is out of the question since you have to be alive to receive the prize.
- kryptiskt 12y ago
  Churchill got the literature prize, not the peace prize.
rverghes 12y ago
I think they should put a 10-20 year waiting limit on the Peace price. Give history some time to see what actually happened. Not to denigrate Malala, she sounds like an amazing young women. But I don't see that she has actually accomplished anything yet. Maybe in 20 years the quality of life and education for women in Islamic countries will have gone up notably, and she will have been identified as the catalyst for that. Then she will definitely deserve the prize. But right now it sounds like feel-good wishful thinking. I think that giving the prize to the people who contributed the most for peace in 1994 or earlier would give us some perspective, some confirmation that what they actually did worked and led to a better, more peaceful world.
dismal2 12y ago
Just a reminder that there are baddies/evil-doers over there, keep the drone war over Pakistan raging!
simplekoala 12y ago
It is a shame that Indian government never even conferred a Padma award to Kailash Satyarthi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Shri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Shri) but was bestowing these awards in abundance to corrupt and classless politicians and journalists (Rajdeep Sardesai, Burkha Dutt) Govt of India and Indian media was probably caught off-guard by this development.
- simplekoala 12y ago
  Check out his list of awards on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailash_Satyarthi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailash_Satyarthi. None from India?

144 points by linux_devil 12y ago

Should we still take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously? Obama winning it was a bit of a stretch in my opinion, though the Pax Americana is a real thing.

erokar 12y ago
We should not. It's nation branding and it's politicized (I'm Norwegian btw). The members of the committee are appointed by the Norwegian parliment and are mainly former politicians. We all knew they would never have the balls to give it to Snowden. To me, that proves the impotence of the prize.
- aric 12y ago
  Gandhi didn't receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Snowden is in good company. It's company with the rest of the world at that.
  - q2 12y ago
    please, name is "Gandhi" not "Ghandi".
    - aric 12y ago
      Funny, I had edited it just before you said that. I know but it's muscle memory in typing Ghana.
  - Ar-Curunir 12y ago
    Churchill ensured that Gandhi never received it while he was alive, and he couldn't get it posthumously. I appreciate the efforts of the two recepients, but I don't think it's as great of an achievement to win this prize as the science Nobels. You can even see the political undertones with the statement about India and Pakistan in the official announcement.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Well, to quote Wikipedia he did unofficially get it: "1948: Not awarded because "there was no suitable living candidate." (A tribute to the recently assassinated Gandhi, since the prize cannot be awarded posthumously.)"
- arrrg 12y ago
  Of course it’s politicised. It’s about politics, after all. I do think it’s quite transparently political, both in intent and outcome. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Honestly, I’m not sure how you even think a non-political Peace Prize would be possible. Also, I really don’t think Snowden should get a Peace Prize. It’s not like this opinion of yours that Snowden would be a worthy recipient is some kind of objective truth or even self-evident.
- Steko 12y ago
  So wait because your pet candidate didn't win it's a farce? Children's and girl's education rights are completely worthy of a prize.
  - erokar 12y ago
    The fact that Snowden didn't receive the prize obviously doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The problem is that we all (at least the people of Norway) assumed it would never happen becuase of the political consequences for Norway.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Well, the committee gave China the middle finger. I'm not sure why it wouldn't do the same to the US. Besides, Snowden is at odds with the US while Malala is at odds with the pakistani Taliban. Pakistan has about the same population as Japan, so it's important. Snowden was supposedly a strong candidate, but there are valid reasons not to choose him.
- Aqueous 12y ago
  That Snowden didn't face his charges in the states and instead fled to continue his days under the protection of (much more repressive) Vladimir Putin, who himself is a warmonger, and gave the dictator several public relations victories while hypocritically criticizing the US from abroad, severely diluted his moral authority. Had he stayed in the US after the leaks he might have deserved a peace prize, and made a much more profound statement, but he didn't.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    You don't enhance your moral authority by adopting a position of weakness and subservience. In general, on the topic of peace, there is never peace through weakness. Wether you need violence or not to exert (your) strength is a wholly different subject. Weakness is inherently unstable, and in a context of instability the ROI on "opportunistic violence" increases. There is plenty of empirical evidence outhere to support this if the logic isn't self evident.
    - shabda 12y ago
      All the major victories against repression in 20th century have come via peaceful means. There has been no "peace via war" in 20th century which can come close to the impact of Gandhi, MLK or Mandela.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        That's crazy talk. Nazi Germany much? Also, one of the major incentives to maintain a strong defense is to keep from having to use it. Of course this principle, like anything else, can be taken too far.
      - cmsefton 12y ago
        Mandela? Sorry, what? Read his autobiography. He makes no apologies for the fact that he embraced guerrilla warfare, and actively waged war against the state. Initially, yes, he and the ANC adopted peaceful means, but when the South African state shutdown and outlawed all the peaceful means at their disposal (e.g. strikes, demonstrations, etc.), he supported, encouraged and actively participated in fighting against the State. Hell, he co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, after the Sharpville massacre. Even after his release from prison, he refused to disarm the ANC since the same apartheid state apparatus that he fought against still existed. Mandela is undoubtedly a great man of peace, and he did manage to bring about an incredible transformation in South Africa, but to say he did it through peaceful means is just incorrect.
PJDK 12y ago
I've always felt they should give it out like the science prizes, wait 10-20 years before awarding it to see what/who really mattered.
- arrrg 12y ago
  But that’s not why the prize is given. It is to encourage promising people to continue doing what they are doing. That’s a very clear pattern when you look at who received the prize. Implicit in that is that the prize might be given to people who turn out to be a disappointment. In many ways this is actually a very hard prize to award, but I’m ok with that. Sure, it will fail from time to time, but that’s just human.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    And it's in that context one should view the price to Obama: It was a signal to Obama, and the US, of the amount of contempt a lot of the world held Bush in, and an attempt at encouragement to put those years decisively in the past. While that award is ridiculed outside the US too, I think few Americans appreciate just how terrifying the thought of anything like a continuation of the Bush legacy was to many people the rest of the world. We were shocked when he was elected the first time, and even more so that he became president a second time (and it doesn't matter that it was close, anything but a landslide for Gore would have still shocked us). It seemed like America had gone totally of the rails and was firmly headed into a level of previously unseen craziness. After the election of Obama is the first time I've seen non-Americans in many larger European cities hold parties to celebrate the election of a US president. It didn't matter that whether you believed his campaign promises or his background or that he is still far to the right of most of Europe - he was still someone who at least appeared to people to have some measure of intelligence and restraint. Someone who would at least listen to foreign leaders instead of some voice he believed to be God. Merely by stemming the neocon tide, he was seen as a giant step forward (or backwards, to the saner era of e.g. Clinton, who was probably more popular in Europe than in the US, or even Bush senior; heck, we'd even take Reagan)
    - CWuestefeld 12y ago
kachnuv_ocasek 12y ago
It's just a prize, an award. It's not supposed to be the unique trademark given to the greatest humans on Earth. It doesn't matter if you take it seriously, it may be an important milestone and encouragement for the laureates, though.
- sanoli 12y ago
  You're right. People sometimes take it as being the official Humanity's Stamp of most noble person, or whatever. It's an award that some people choose to give every year. It has a lot (A LOT) of repercussion, it's highly political (in the case of the peace prize), but it's still a choice by a few.
pavs 12y ago
Obama winning Nobel Peace prize wasn't a stretch, it was a farce.
- shabda 12y ago
  Mr. Kissinger has won the nobel prize. Its going to be hard to top that.
  - privong 12y ago
    And Yasser Arafat; there have been many contentious Peace Prize recipients[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism_of_individual_conferments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Criticism_of...
  - echion 12y ago
    Kissinger won it jointly for a concrete agreement ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/index.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/... ). The rationale for Obama arguably had no such concrete achievement: "The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."' . The full rationale is at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/... .
    - shabda 12y ago
      Kissinger was awarded the NPP in 73. Bangladesh Liberation War happened in 71. Kissinger's support of Pakistan was a direct processor to and some would say the enabler of the atrocities committed during the Bangladesh Liberation War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#1971_India.E2.80.93Pakistan_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#1971_India.E2.8...) Some would say that this was due to real-politic, but its entirely reasonable to suggest that this was due to Kissinger's personal hatred of Indira Gandhi(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#cite_note-33 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#cite_note-33) More than a million civilians were killed and more than 30 million civilians were displaced during this genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide Kissinger's support to the Pakistan Army was in spite of the US's own officials aware of and dissenting to the policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram All this was well known when Mr. Kissinger was awarded the prize. That award was unreasonable. "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize"
dalke 12y ago
It's hard to judge what you think, but certainly more seriously than the Academy Awards. Do you take the Wateler Peace Prize or the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize or any other peace prize seriously?
ckarmann 12y ago
I was a physicist before becoming an engineer, and I love to hear about all that science during the Nobel Prize season, but the Peace Prize is my favorite. I would even say it's the only one to be "useful" (is it really useful to award money to someone sometimes many years after (s)he has retired from doing any research?) The Peace prize is different, by nature it is always non-consensual, because there would be no reason to award a Peace Prize if there were not someone else who is waging a war, denying other people their basic rights or doing other Bad Things. Today it's the Taliban and the child exploiters who are the bad guys pointed out by the prize. Last year it was the Syrian dictatorship, in 2011 the Chinese government. When Obama was given the Peace Prize, I was also shocked in disbelief, and like most people I think it was not deserved. But then I saw that some people in the US were not simply shacking their head, they were foaming with rage. Coincidentally, they were the same people who supported, and sometimes continued to justify the disastrous foreign policy of the previous administration. And that make me think this prize was actually well awarded. It was not deserved by Obama, and I think the Nobel committee, by giving him the prize at the beginning of his presidency before he could actually do anything for or against peace, was almost explicitly saying that they didn't care that he didn't deserved it. This prize was a middle finger to the Bush administration and I think that middle finger was well deserved. The same goes for other polemical awards. Al Gore got it, and it made all the climate science deniers mad. Yasser Arafat got it and the Israeli political right got crazy. It's not always like this (The Red Cross got the prize a number of times, and nobody disagrees with it), but often, if you don't understand why a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded, look at who it pisses off.
- lmg643 12y ago
  If we put away our personal politics, and try to see Obama's actions objectively, it seems he has continued, even expanded, America's intervention in governments around the middle east. Libya was overthrown, Egypt was overthrown, and we've been making attempts in Syria and Ukraine. And after failing to gin up support against chemical weapons, we're now bombing Syria because of some crazy rebels that are allied with groups we support. In the bigger picture, we are waging a crypto-war with between Russia over energy resources from Russia and the Gulf into Europe. Pope Francis recently had the courage to call it as such: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/13/us-pope-war-idUSKBN0H808L20140913 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/13/us-pope-war-idUSKB... So - to see Obama's peace prize as anything other than a partisan political joke (as you say, a "middle finger" to Bush) is a mistake. Obama's administration has put the world as close to a hot-war between nuclear powers as we've seen in some time. It should make us angry - he was elected to stop the madness, and it seems like he is running business-as-usual.
chippy 12y ago
People voted Obama in. He was Change and Hope personified. Americans actually loved him when he was elected. Of course people can change their minds, but you must remember not to rewrite history
- 27182818284 12y ago
  I caucused for him back then, and still thought he was a completely foolish choice for the prize. As did my other Obama-supporting friend, my other Obama-donating friend, and my other political science studying friend, etc. I can honestly say I don't know a person that wasn't surprised by the decision to award him that prize and by most indications Obama himself was surprised by their decision. It isn't rewriting history, even his fans were confused by that decision back then.
pknerd 12y ago
This girl is also a kid, of same age group of Malala but she is not highlighted because she on other side of the fence. http://oi59.tinypic.com/9zrbco.jpg http://oi59.tinypic.com/9zrbco.jpg
seccess 12y ago
I don't personally agree that Obama should have received it, but this article presents an interesting position as to why he did [0]. The author argues that giving the president the prize at the beginning of his presidency may have been motivation for him to make more peaceful decisions while in charge. [0] http://controversialtruths.com/node/8147 http://controversialtruths.com/node/8147
aestra 12y ago
Maybe I am missing something but I still can't understand why Nelson Mandela won the peace prize when he founded Umkhonto we Sizwe.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Blahah 12y ago
That's what made it a joke? A 17 year old can contribute to world peace just as much as anyone. What's a joke is a warmongering president being awarded a peace prize.
- chippy 12y ago
  People voted him in. He was Change and Hope personified.
  - wangweij 12y ago
    Then the prize should have been awarded to the voters.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

tokenadult 12y ago

I did some looking up on pages of the linked website here to see what the criteria are for choosing winners of the Nobel Prize for world peace. First, one must be nominated by an eligible nominator:[1] "Who may nominate candidates for the Peace Prize? "According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories: "Members of national assemblies and governments of states "Members of international courts "University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes "Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) "Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee" Then there is a process for choosing a prize winner or prize winners for the year from among the list of nominees:[2] "At the first meeting of the Nobel Committee after the February 1 deadline for nominations, the Committee's Permanent Secretary presents the list of the year's candidates. The Committee may on that occasion add further names to the list, after which the nomination process is closed, and discussion of the particular candidates begins. In the light of this first review, the Committee draws up the so-called short list - i.e. the list of candidates selected for more thorough consideration. The short list typically contains from twenty to thirty candidates. "The candidates on the short list are then considered by the Nobel Institute's permanent advisers. In addition to the Institute's Director and Research Director, the body of advisers generally consists of a small group of Norwegian university professors with broad expertise in subject areas with a bearing on the Peace Prize. The advisers usually have a couple of months in which to draw up their reports. Reports are also occasionally requested from other Norwegian and foreign experts. "When the advisers' reports have been presented, the Nobel Committee embarks on a thorough-going discussion of the most likely candidates. In the process, the need often arises to obtain additional information and updates about candidates from additional experts, often foreign. As a rule, the Committee reaches a decision only at its very last meeting before the announcement of the Prize at the beginning of October. "The Committee seeks to achieve unanimity in its selection of the Peace Prize Laureate. On the rare occasions when this proves impossible, the selection is decided by a simple majority vote." With that in mind, it's actually remarkable to me how often non-politicians and non-jurists have won the Nobel Prize for world peace. Each year, the committee has a lot of nominees to consider from a lot of different sources. During the process of investigating nominees and seeking unanimity, a lot of names fall out of consideration. [1] http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_intro/nomination_criteria/ http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/nomination_intro/nomination... [2] http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

mef 12y ago

Interesting that the section of the press release about Malala doesn't mention that she was shot in the face for her activist work, and kept doing it regardless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

varjag 12y ago
Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be results-oriented, it's not an award for personal heroism.
- discardorama 12y ago
  Tell that to those who gave it to Obama.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  I agree. However I will say in this specific case personal heroism helped the result.

elastine 12y ago

It is hard to justify this prize as anything but a popularity prize.

sremani 12y ago

I am still unable to understand what Malala is doing and why is she so great. Of course she is way better than an average teenager but I just do not understand the whole hoopla, she is safe and warm far away from SWAT valley in UK, and get to rub shoulders with powerful people who are interested in photo-op. Her ability to attain access is great but is it Nobel Peace Prize worthy. Nobel Peace Prize lost shine for me. I still think their pure sciences awards are the gold standard, on the border on economics and completely disappointed in the peace prize.

Kalium 12y ago
The Peace Prize has pretty much always been about trying to aid the efforts of a person or organization rather than a recognition of achievement.
- disputin 12y ago
  Sounds like it needs to be renamed. It has a serious image problem as it is.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pknerd 12y ago
You should ask same question for past Noble Peace Winners do :)
huu 12y ago
Someone tried to assassinate Malala and you're saying it's a knock against her that she's being kept safe?

sanoli 12y ago

Given all the talk about Obama winning the Peace Prize some time ago, here's an explanation: http://superitch.com/images/2010/10/Sorensen1.jpg http://superitch.com/images/2010/10/Sorensen1.jpg

enlightenedfool 12y ago

Good that they got their focus back to real people who really worked for peace instead of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, grandiose politicians.

soneca 12y ago

If you won any other Nobel Prize (including the literature) is because you deserve it. If you won the Peace Prize, is only partially because you deserve it, but also because you need it. Nobel Peace Prize laureates are usually taking a stand on controversial topics in their own countries/communities. They need an international prestigious stamp to show that they are on the right side of history and have international support. But also you need to deserve it. Malala has the perfect balance of both. She is incredibly smart, self-conscious, has a natural sense of dignitiy and integrity that protect her from the traps of ego and fame - something very hard to do for any human being, let alone a teenager. She is making quite an impact on girl's education. But also she needs it badly. Her life is constantly in danger and this stamp and support from the Nobel Prize will protect her life and her struggle. More people in her community will consider that she might be right. Red Cross is another example of both deserving and needing the prize. They must enter the worst war zones, and all sides must believe they are not spies for the enemy. Their brand is the most important brand in the world. Then you have Obama. His prize is controversial because he obviously didn't deserve it. But the commitee thought he needded it, and I agree. Not because he needed more power or validation, like Malala. But he could use a "nudge" to improve peace in the world. Sure, it was a risky move - and didn't pay well. But it is part of the goal of Nobel Peace Prize as I see it: help the laureates to do the right thing toward peace. So I don't think it was a necessarily bad move. But it surely hurts its brand. I think the commitee should be more conservative about who deserves its prize; but I agree that is also important to find who need it.

desireco42 12y ago
Pretty much agree with your analysis, I think you explained Obama's prize very well. It is not only case and they made several very controversial awards recently, which did hurt it's brand. I personally think Nobel prize lost it's prestige and became very political, and not only for peace one. I don't care any more who gets one, it's not important. It's role like ultimate prize is very positive thing and I think world needs something like this, just not Nobel any more.
MichaelApproved 12y ago
To understand why Obama won the prize, you need to understand about the history of the prize. The prizes were created because Nobel was upset that his invention of TNT caused so much destruction in the world. At the time, TNT was a WMD. Obama's worked to reduce nuclear weapons while in the US Senate. That effort would've made Nobel proud. Further, Obama recently removed Syria's declared chemical weapon stock pile. If he didn't earn it before this, he definitely earned it now. This is directly at the heart of why the Nobel prize was created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize In 1888, Nobel was astonished to read his own obituary, titled The merchant of death is dead, in a French newspaper. As it was Alfred's brother Ludvig who had died, the obituary was eight years premature. The article disconcerted Nobel and made him apprehensive about how he would be remembered. This inspired him to change his will.

tiatia 12y ago

What is so great about the Nobel peace prize if even a war criminal extraordinaire like Churchill can get it? Besides the death of thousands of German civilians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_... http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+Doc-History-WW2Period/MassMurdererChurchillHandsBackPrisonersToStalin.htm http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+D... The only odd thing about this picture is: One guy is missing: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Yalta_summit_1945_with_Churchill%2C_Roosevelt%2C_Stalin.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Yalta_sum...

tiatia 12y ago
So, after Churchill and Yasser Arafat, I see Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro as serious contenders. Osama Bin Laden is out of the question since you have to be alive to receive the prize.
kryptiskt 12y ago
Churchill got the literature prize, not the peace prize.

rverghes 12y ago

I think they should put a 10-20 year waiting limit on the Peace price. Give history some time to see what actually happened. Not to denigrate Malala, she sounds like an amazing young women. But I don't see that she has actually accomplished anything yet. Maybe in 20 years the quality of life and education for women in Islamic countries will have gone up notably, and she will have been identified as the catalyst for that. Then she will definitely deserve the prize. But right now it sounds like feel-good wishful thinking. I think that giving the prize to the people who contributed the most for peace in 1994 or earlier would give us some perspective, some confirmation that what they actually did worked and led to a better, more peaceful world.

dismal2 12y ago

Just a reminder that there are baddies/evil-doers over there, keep the drone war over Pakistan raging!

simplekoala 12y ago

It is a shame that Indian government never even conferred a Padma award to Kailash Satyarthi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Shri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padma_Shri) but was bestowing these awards in abundance to corrupt and classless politicians and journalists (Rajdeep Sardesai, Burkha Dutt) Govt of India and Indian media was probably caught off-guard by this development.

simplekoala 12y ago
Check out his list of awards on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailash_Satyarthi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailash_Satyarthi. None from India?