Slashdot Mirror


China's Influence Widens Nobel Peace Prize Boycott

c0lo writes "Not only did China decline to attend the upcoming Nobel peace prize ceremony, but urged diplomats in Oslo to stay away from the event warning of 'consequences' if they go. Possibly as a result of this (or on their own decisions), 18 other countries turned down the invitation: Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco. Reuters seems to think the 'consequences' are of an economic nature, pointing out that half of the countries with economies that gained global influence during recent times are boycotting the ceremony (with Brazil and India still attending)."

26 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. And nothing of value was lost by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I think of countries contributing to global peace, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. don't come to mind in the first place.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:And nothing of value was lost by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never said that countries that are NOT in the list are peaceful; I merely said that the ones that ARE in the list don't strike me as such.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:And nothing of value was lost by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Point well made. Not that I would consider China "freer", but they haven't waged war with just about everything like the US.

      They haven't had the power. And the US doesn't wage wars all that often even as the global policeman.

    3. Re:And nothing of value was lost by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I would consider China "freer", but they haven't waged war with just about everything like the US."

      No, the Chinese prefer to simply bludgeon their own (Tibet, Tienanmen Square, and constantly threatening war over Taiwan...)

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After the 2009 award to Mr. Obama, Nobel lost any meaning it had. Nothing against the man, but he simply hadn't done anything to warrant that kind of acknowledgment, yet. Nobels are about as meaningful as Oscars, now. They can fade away.

    5. Re:And nothing of value was lost by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> Point well made. Not that I would consider China "freer", but they haven't waged war with just about everything like the US.

      > They haven't had the power. And the US doesn't wage wars all that often even as the global policeman.

      Sorry.. what ?
      The US has had less than one complete year of peace (e.g. not at war with anybody at all) since the end of World War 2. In the same period there has been only 22 days of world peace - and the USA were in fact involved in more wars with more nations than any other country on the planet ! In fact, 75% of all the other wars since then were civil wars (of which the vast majority happened in African countries). The country that since the last world war has made war on more nations, more of the time than any other is still the USA.
      Global policeman is the least of it. In a far greater number of those wars you deposed democratically elected leaders who thought their own people's welfare should be rather more important than the profits of American corporations in order to replace them with puppet dictators who weren't so stubborn. Brazil, Nicaragua... the list is endless, hell in Panama you actually made a CIA spy the president of the country !

      I despise what China is, if I had to choose I'd live in the US over China for sure - but you're both near the BOTTOM of my list of places I would most like to live. China for how it treats it's own people, the USA for how you treat everybody else. You survived the great depression thanks to a war economy and you've kept that war economy going ever since by basically being at war non-stop.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:And nothing of value was lost by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >They haven't really entered into (open) conflicts that willingly, since their general populace tends to disapprove of them.

      They did do all you say- but this line is just plain wrong, they've done it all too often and more-over been involved in just about every war any other western nation has fought as well !

      As for this:
      "Seriously? You think it's bad that there have only been 22 days of world peace since WW2? How many days of world peace do you think there have been since the dawn of history? I'd be surprised if it was more than 40..."

      That is an example of the naturalist fallacy. Defined as stating that "the way something is, is the way it ought to be/ the only way it could be". Just because mankind has never managed to be peaceful does not mean that it's not a worthwhile goal.
      Many other things that were once considered too normal to change HAVE changed. Slavery is now illegal in virtually every country on earth -once there was no country that didn't practice. Hardly any religions practice human sacrifice anymore - once the Aztecs sacrificed 26 thousand people in three months.
      In short... the next great achievement our species needs is peaceful coexistence, and any suggestion that this is impossible is not only historically ignorant but reliant on a recognized fallacy. Fallacies are not valid arguments.
      Now it's not going ot happen in a week, I'm pretty sure it won't happen in 5 years (sorry for the 5YP guys) - most of those other changes took 50 or 100 years to do... but they all happened. This one can happen too. Right now - the most important thing we can do about it is to complain everytime somebody orders people to war.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Much ado about nothing. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only one in that list that even raises an eyebrow is Russia.

    As for half of the countries that gained global influence during recent times, that's just a veiled reference to the "BRIC" countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Yes, two of the four BRIC countries aren't attending. But it's not like they're a statistical sample.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Much ado about nothing. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fast becoming? You have the tense wrong.

      China: 1.2 Billion people and a GDP of 5.0 Trillion dollars.
      Russia: 0.14 Billion people and a 1.2 Trillion dollar GDP.

      sources

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  3. We won't miss them by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That list is almost a Who's Who of world assholes.

  4. Consequences by chebucto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IMHO this is the consequence of turning the peace prize into a political too. Kissinger? Arafat? Bad enough to have warmongers who happened to make peace. But the Obama prize was the worst. I like Obama myself, but he did _nothing_, good or bad, to deserve that prize. It completely discredited the institution. At this point I wouldn't be too sorry to see it go.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Consequences by c0lo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At this point I wouldn't be too sorry to see it go.

      Won't it be better to be restored at its normal signficance (instead of seeing it go)?
      I know nothing (yet) about this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate... is it not a step in the good direction?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Consequences by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greatness? Greatness?! What are you going on about? Obama is just another politician that became a product of the media. Never in my lifetime have I ever witnessed the ignorant swooning of the masses over this guy. At a global level at that. He's nothing special. He has done NOTHING special. Get over it. Please.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Consequences by macshit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But in fact, this years prize seems to actually go in the other direction, of rewarding somebody who truly took personal risks to advance the cause of peaceful political evolution.

      Of course China's amazing degree of freak-out about it simply drives the point home.

      I'm a bit curious about the reasoning of the various countries that are "not attending" though -- which ones did it to curry political favor with China (at little perceived cost), and which ones did it because they're also busy killing/imprisoning anybody who makes a stand for democratic freedoms...?

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    4. Re:Consequences by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Peace Prize has ALWAYS been political. Five years after it was first awarded (1906), Teddy Roosevelt got one for essentially bullying Japan into accepting worse terms than they should have after winning the Russo-Japanese War. 1973, Henry Kissinger got a Peace Prize essentially for just quitting a war. There's probably more, but that's

    5. Re:Consequences by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So if I'm on a path to utterly destroy this nation with bad policy, why should I be given praise and positive recognition when I only move back in the other direction ever so slightly? He's a Jimmy Carter Part II. He'll get my applause when he leaves office. I bet he's a fun guy to party with though.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Consequences by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is impossible to award a peace prize that isn't political. the process of peace is inherently about human conflict and the resolution of that conflict. that very process is called politics. you cannot separate the concept of politics and the concept of peace, making peace is nothing more than good politics, by definition

      in other words, the more contentious and disputed the peace prize, the more valid the peace prize. because interests vested against a peace will be angered at the symbolism in the prize. and the greater those interests, the greater the conflict, and therefore the greater the potential peace at hand. so the awards committee chose very well this year

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:Consequences by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And, despite the political polarisation of present-day America, he has tried to reach across the aisle but the opposition are holding the voters hostage to their elitist agenda.

      Do you seriously believe that? Is saying your opponents need to get in the back of the bus reaching across the aisle? Is calling those who disagree with you 'enemies' reaching across the aisle? Those are just the two most recent examples I can think of... What exactly can you hold up as his efforts at bipartisanship?

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  5. a good flex by __aaeuwj6541 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it would appear that china is starting to flex a little more of that intimidating political Muscle it has, just to see who would fall in line with said flexing, when you are a nation close to a nation like china you can hardly argue if you want to keep trading with that nation. and avoid being invaded by a large military force that makes even the American military stop and say "hang on these guys have got some big guns", last time i checked china isn’t exactly a forgiving kind of nation.

  6. Re:Creating own award by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What will the award winners feel?

    Nervous dread? Blinding pain as they are led out into bright sunlight for the first time in months? The cold, wet embrace of cement being poured around their ankles? The anguish of knowing your entire family has been imprisoned? Cold metal against the back of their neck?

    The possibilities really are limitless.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  7. Re:Creating own award by oWj9*7!7dsggh7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's true that the Nobel Peace Prize has been unreasonably politicized — not so much with Liu Xiaobo, but certainly with Gore and Obama. Then again, international events are intrinsically political and always have been.

    I don't know what to say about the Confucius Peace Prize, though. Confucius was not about either peace or war — he was about extreme social conservatism. I suspect that one of these days, the world is going to stop finding China cute and see it for what it is: a first world colonialist culture with a high developed traditional theory of realpolitik and a chip on its shoulder about not being treated with sufficient respect. China will then be a much more interesting foil to the United States than it is now.

    I mean, assuming the United States and China both still exist and haven't destroyed each other or merged into some horrible monster.

  8. The Nobel committee jumpted the shark... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When they voted to give Obama the prize after three weeks in office.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  9. obama got it last time made it a joke by chronoss2010 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    enough said

  10. Re:Creating own award by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reality is- we changed it because it doesn't work. China hasn't learned that yet, but if history is anything to go by - they will.

    I think you ignore the fact "if history is anything to go by" China has had emperors for thousands of years.

    This democracy thing is quite "untested" in comparison.

    There were countries with democracies in the past and they too collapsed or were destroyed.

    India is a democracy, it's not proven that it will do significantly better than China in the long run.

    --
  11. Re:Good - I hope the world boycotts it by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >meaningless "peace" prize founded by an arms manufacturer

    That last bit is not really accurate. Nobel invented dynamite. Dynamite literally means "safe explosive" - it's invention was NOT intended as a weapon - but as a safer explosive for mining. Compared to Nitro-glycerine dynamite was a major advance.
    The truth is that strictly speaking Nobel's invention has saved millions upon millions of lives - not soldier lives, the lives of ordinary people who work in a mine, people with families just doing their job - by making mining hugely safer than it had been prior.

    Now of course in retrospect it was pretty much inevitable that dynamite would become a weapon as well - the ability of controlled detonation for warfare was far to irresistible to the kind of people who think warfare is a good thing, but it's quite a slur on Nobel to pretend that this was his intention. Nobel invented a device to SAVE lives, and indeed every day it still does exactly that. It can also be used to take lives, but that wasn't HIS fault.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *