Skybird
11-19-10, 08:21 AM
China has tried to intimidate states so that they will not send representatives to this year's peace Nobel prize, and it seems that at least five states, amongst them Russia, will not join the festivity indeed, for whatever the reason is, Chinese pressure or other. The price is being rewarded to political activist and dissident Liu Xiaobo, locked in prison since years for criticising the regime in Bejing. Since the decision of the Nobel committee, his wife is under house arrest, too.
Now, I certainly do not express sympathy for the Bejing regime to lock away Xiaobo. But I must say that although they are firing their criticism not for honest, but opportunistic reasons, they have a very valid point when saying the original intention of Nobel when founding the Peace Nobel prize is completely forgotten and distorted today. You can see that also in the long list of totally misled nominations for the pörize over the past many years.
Because Nobel did not meant the prize to be a reward or recognition of civil right movements, social reforms and taming of ethnic conflict, but precisely and exclusiovely for substantial acchievements on behalf of demilitarisation in the world. This and nothin g else was - and is - the exlcuisve intention of the prize. Now reflect some of the names that have received the prize nevertheless.
Let'S look back on just the last ten years.
2000 Kim Dae Yun was the winner, for "for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular". Was Nobel's intention to reward demilitarisation met? No.
2001, it was the UN and Kofi Annan, for "for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world". Not onmly does the UN fail it'S own inetention, it also fails regarding Nobel's definition of the prize'S criterion.
2002 Jimmy Carter, for "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." Acchieved Demilitarisation? Fail.
2003 Shirin Ebadi, for "for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children." Total and complete failure, these themes have nothing to do with arms reduction and demilitarisation. Fail.
2004 Wangari Mutha Maathai for "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". Fail. This has nothing to do with the intention of Nobel of rewarding acchievements regarding demilitarisation.
2005 the International Atomic Energy Agency and El Baradei, for "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way". Now, here we have a prize winner who by his aim and goal at least tries to fit into the category of "demilitarisation", but a prize is not given for hoped future develoepments, but for already acchieved imporvements. That the Agency was in any way successful to prevent proliferation and hinder states of getting access to nuclear weapons, not to mention to achieve the reduction of such arsenals, is open for debate.
2006 Muhammad Yunus, for "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work". The Nobel Peave Prize is not meant to award social work and social improvements. Fail.
2007 Al Gore, for "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Environmental protection agendas and demilitarisation are two different things. Fail.
2008 Maathi Ahtisaari, for "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts". Did he succeed in acchieveing demilitarisation? That is at least qustionable, I mark him mostly for his Israel-hostile basic attitude profound Islamophilia. Thus I tend to see hiom as a Fail, but okay, leave his award open for debate. If somebody can show where he succeeded in acchieveing demilitarisation or arms arsenals - feel invited to post it.
2009 Barak Obama, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Fail. He voiced an inention of "no nukes worldwide". Whether he meant it serious, or that is realistic, is something different, nor has he acchieved anything. The prize is no reward for cooperative diplomacy and intentions.
2010 Liu Xiaobo, for "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". Fail. The Nobel Peace prize is no human rights award.
Wik,ipedia holds a list of all Nobel winners, and the reason for their wins. Judge yourself how many of them fulfill the criterion of having achieved real demilitarisation, or showed sufficient intention and dedication for acchieving it. As I see it, most names are complete failures. The criterion of "demilitarisation" is not open for interpretation, as I see it. Only to what degree not only acchievements, but also just ongoing attempts and dedication for this goal could be considered sufficient, can be debated.
Now, a Norwegian lawyer named Heffermehl seems to have stirred up a controversy in Norwegian, when having attacked the misled practices of the Award committee in a book, calling the Nobel Peace Price a "Norwegian Parliament Price".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Heffermehl
I read aboiut him one or two weeks ago in a German essay. Ironically, I must agree with a Chinese article that summarises his agments like this:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has no respect for founder Alfred Nobel's will and the Peace Prize has actually been turned into the "Norwegian Parliament Prize," said Norwegian lawyer Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who has been studying the laureates and Nobel's will, to Xinhua.
"Prizes awarded no longer respect Nobel, who wished to support global disarmament," Heffermehl said. "On the contrary, the prizes (now) reflect the attitudes of Norwegian politicians who believe in military strength, loyalty to NATO, and subservience to the United States of America."
On October 8 the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo. Heffermehl said it was not a courageous move by the Nobel Committee.
"Again this year, even reminded of its legal obligation, the Nobel Committee did not dare to confront the force most powerful in world affairs – the military-industrial juggernaut," he said.
Nobel's will stipulates that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
"Very long ago, the committee forgot that Nobel made a fundamental choice of approach to peace, between two opposing ideas of security," Heffermehl said. "Instead of relying on strength and threats, Nobel wished nations to develop a deep mutual trust and abolish their military forces and arms industry."
Heffermehl accused committee members, which he said comprised of retired lawmakers, of ignoring the indisputable evidence of Nobel's will and the rule of law.
In his most recent book, "The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted," Heffermehl writes that the committee is free to make decisions without any instructions from Norwegian authority, but because most are retired politicians with a "Cold War mindset," they lack understanding of how Nobel wanted to promote peace. He criticizes Norwegian politicians and the Norwegian Nobel Committee's attitudes toward democratic ideas.
"The mission of the Nobel Committee is to help achieve a new level of civilization and rule of law on the international level and free humanity from the deadly grip of militarism," Heffermehl insisted. "I am sure that Norwegian lawmakers will soon realize that it is a legal obligation to appoint a committee of people dedicated to Nobel's ideas."
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-10/16/content_21138688.htm
I stress again, I do not sympathise with the Chiense regime and quote it for that reason. But the way he is summarised here matches exactly he has been quoted and reported about in German media as well. You will note the indication that he has a slightly wider understanding of the Prizes' intention, than I have expressed before. If he would use my criterion, he would need to become even more biting in his criticism.
The two major books by Heffermehl are "Peace is possible" from 2000, and "The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel really wanted", from 2010.
As I see it, the Nobel Peace Prize is abused in two ways: not only is the original intention behind it violated in case of most nominations and winners, but also has it become a prgmatic tool of trying to push wanmted poltical agendas in given parts of the world, that way it is a strtaegy of action, not a reward for acchieved merits (whioch became painfully clear last year when the declared Obama the winner - for having acchieved nothing.
Nobel would turn in his grave.
Now, I certainly do not express sympathy for the Bejing regime to lock away Xiaobo. But I must say that although they are firing their criticism not for honest, but opportunistic reasons, they have a very valid point when saying the original intention of Nobel when founding the Peace Nobel prize is completely forgotten and distorted today. You can see that also in the long list of totally misled nominations for the pörize over the past many years.
Because Nobel did not meant the prize to be a reward or recognition of civil right movements, social reforms and taming of ethnic conflict, but precisely and exclusiovely for substantial acchievements on behalf of demilitarisation in the world. This and nothin g else was - and is - the exlcuisve intention of the prize. Now reflect some of the names that have received the prize nevertheless.
Let'S look back on just the last ten years.
2000 Kim Dae Yun was the winner, for "for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular". Was Nobel's intention to reward demilitarisation met? No.
2001, it was the UN and Kofi Annan, for "for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world". Not onmly does the UN fail it'S own inetention, it also fails regarding Nobel's definition of the prize'S criterion.
2002 Jimmy Carter, for "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." Acchieved Demilitarisation? Fail.
2003 Shirin Ebadi, for "for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children." Total and complete failure, these themes have nothing to do with arms reduction and demilitarisation. Fail.
2004 Wangari Mutha Maathai for "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". Fail. This has nothing to do with the intention of Nobel of rewarding acchievements regarding demilitarisation.
2005 the International Atomic Energy Agency and El Baradei, for "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way". Now, here we have a prize winner who by his aim and goal at least tries to fit into the category of "demilitarisation", but a prize is not given for hoped future develoepments, but for already acchieved imporvements. That the Agency was in any way successful to prevent proliferation and hinder states of getting access to nuclear weapons, not to mention to achieve the reduction of such arsenals, is open for debate.
2006 Muhammad Yunus, for "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work". The Nobel Peave Prize is not meant to award social work and social improvements. Fail.
2007 Al Gore, for "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Environmental protection agendas and demilitarisation are two different things. Fail.
2008 Maathi Ahtisaari, for "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts". Did he succeed in acchieveing demilitarisation? That is at least qustionable, I mark him mostly for his Israel-hostile basic attitude profound Islamophilia. Thus I tend to see hiom as a Fail, but okay, leave his award open for debate. If somebody can show where he succeeded in acchieveing demilitarisation or arms arsenals - feel invited to post it.
2009 Barak Obama, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Fail. He voiced an inention of "no nukes worldwide". Whether he meant it serious, or that is realistic, is something different, nor has he acchieved anything. The prize is no reward for cooperative diplomacy and intentions.
2010 Liu Xiaobo, for "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". Fail. The Nobel Peace prize is no human rights award.
Wik,ipedia holds a list of all Nobel winners, and the reason for their wins. Judge yourself how many of them fulfill the criterion of having achieved real demilitarisation, or showed sufficient intention and dedication for acchieving it. As I see it, most names are complete failures. The criterion of "demilitarisation" is not open for interpretation, as I see it. Only to what degree not only acchievements, but also just ongoing attempts and dedication for this goal could be considered sufficient, can be debated.
Now, a Norwegian lawyer named Heffermehl seems to have stirred up a controversy in Norwegian, when having attacked the misled practices of the Award committee in a book, calling the Nobel Peace Price a "Norwegian Parliament Price".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Heffermehl
I read aboiut him one or two weeks ago in a German essay. Ironically, I must agree with a Chinese article that summarises his agments like this:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has no respect for founder Alfred Nobel's will and the Peace Prize has actually been turned into the "Norwegian Parliament Prize," said Norwegian lawyer Fredrik S. Heffermehl, who has been studying the laureates and Nobel's will, to Xinhua.
"Prizes awarded no longer respect Nobel, who wished to support global disarmament," Heffermehl said. "On the contrary, the prizes (now) reflect the attitudes of Norwegian politicians who believe in military strength, loyalty to NATO, and subservience to the United States of America."
On October 8 the Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo. Heffermehl said it was not a courageous move by the Nobel Committee.
"Again this year, even reminded of its legal obligation, the Nobel Committee did not dare to confront the force most powerful in world affairs – the military-industrial juggernaut," he said.
Nobel's will stipulates that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
"Very long ago, the committee forgot that Nobel made a fundamental choice of approach to peace, between two opposing ideas of security," Heffermehl said. "Instead of relying on strength and threats, Nobel wished nations to develop a deep mutual trust and abolish their military forces and arms industry."
Heffermehl accused committee members, which he said comprised of retired lawmakers, of ignoring the indisputable evidence of Nobel's will and the rule of law.
In his most recent book, "The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted," Heffermehl writes that the committee is free to make decisions without any instructions from Norwegian authority, but because most are retired politicians with a "Cold War mindset," they lack understanding of how Nobel wanted to promote peace. He criticizes Norwegian politicians and the Norwegian Nobel Committee's attitudes toward democratic ideas.
"The mission of the Nobel Committee is to help achieve a new level of civilization and rule of law on the international level and free humanity from the deadly grip of militarism," Heffermehl insisted. "I am sure that Norwegian lawmakers will soon realize that it is a legal obligation to appoint a committee of people dedicated to Nobel's ideas."
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-10/16/content_21138688.htm
I stress again, I do not sympathise with the Chiense regime and quote it for that reason. But the way he is summarised here matches exactly he has been quoted and reported about in German media as well. You will note the indication that he has a slightly wider understanding of the Prizes' intention, than I have expressed before. If he would use my criterion, he would need to become even more biting in his criticism.
The two major books by Heffermehl are "Peace is possible" from 2000, and "The Nobel Peace Prize. What Nobel really wanted", from 2010.
As I see it, the Nobel Peace Prize is abused in two ways: not only is the original intention behind it violated in case of most nominations and winners, but also has it become a prgmatic tool of trying to push wanmted poltical agendas in given parts of the world, that way it is a strtaegy of action, not a reward for acchieved merits (whioch became painfully clear last year when the declared Obama the winner - for having acchieved nothing.
Nobel would turn in his grave.