Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks, Internet Nominees For Nobel Peace Prize
Hugh Pickens writes writes "WikiLeaks and the Internet are among a record 241 nominations for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize that also includes Afghan rights advocate Sima Samar, the European Union, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Cuban dissident Oswaldo Paya Sardinas, Russian rights group Memorial and its founder Svetlana Gannushkina. 'Looking at the long term, we can say interest in the prize is strong and growing along with the number of candidates,' says Geir Lundestad, a non-voting member of the Nobel panel. WikiLeaks grabbed the world's attention and angered a number of governments by publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, while pundits say the Internet or social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which have been used to help organize dissent in countries with oppressive governments, could be rewarded. Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Thorbjoern Jagland, the Nobel panel has not shied away from bold decisions — first picking Barack Obama just months after he became US president, and last year awarding the prize to jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo."
Who can accept an award on behalf of the Internet?
Al Gore, of course!
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize for having done absolutely nothing to earn it. The combination literally means everyone on earth has earned a Nobel prize. Sadly, the prize has become something of a sad joke and isn't respected by anyone with a brain. Worse, in modern times, they've been attempting to use it to shape politics rather than reward high ethics and peaceful politics, making it all the more pathetic.
The Nobel Peace Prize is absolutely meaningless at this point in time.
What about Rachid Ammar, the Tunisian General who :
- denied a direct order to shoot on civilians,
- put Ben Ali on a place with a kick in his ass,
- protected the people from armed militia ?
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are at least 2 counterarguments to this being somehow illegitimate:
1. "Terrorist" is an extremely hard word to define, because almost everything that people generally considered terrorists do, governments also do. For instance, the US government has blown up apartment buildings in Yemen to try to influence Yemeni policy. All too often, "terrorist", like "communist" 50 years ago, just means "some guy a government doesn't like".
2. Known terrorists can in fact make peace. The IRA were terrorists, yet they made peace with the UK. The ANC were at times terrorists, but Nelson Mandela made peace with the South African government.
I am officially gone from
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Yassir Arafat.
Arafat jointly won the Nobel Prize along with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres for their part in the Oslo Peace Accords. Arafat was not a terrorist at the time of winning. He had just negotiated and signed the Peace Accords - which formally renounced violence and recognised the state of Israel. He led a secular organisation, and fought against Hamas and Islamist influence in Palestine. He was seen as a traitor by some of his people for conceding too much in the negotiations, was sidelined by Israel and the West, which ultimately enabled Hamas to seize power.
Arafat's fate wasn't as bad as that of Rabin, who was also viewed as a traitor to his people for signing the Peace Accords, was condemned to death by some Jewish religious scholars for the crime of "treason", and then assassinated by someone who believed in that verdict.
It's too bad that both were seen as traitors for pursuing peace; the failure of the Peace Accords was probably the biggest squandered opportunity for regional peace in the last few decades.
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Bitching about who was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize because the process "has become so political" is therefore absurd, because the very purpose and existence of this award is political. Wars are political, relations between nations are political, acts between states are political. Therefore, by it's very nature, it's quite obvious that the purpose of this award, and the only purpose it has, is to praise a specific type of political action, which is in itself a political act.
As a consequence, it's stupid to try to downplay the Nobel Peace Prize by complaining that it "has become so political". It's stupid because this sort of accusation reflects the ignorance of those who reiterate it regarding the Nobel Peace Prize, and it demonstrates a failure to understand it's intended purpose, as set by Alfred Nobel.
More depressing than this, this sort of accusation actually is meant to convey the following complaint: "I don't like the person who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his award means that what he does or represent has been publicly praised to a world-wide audience, and as I don't like that person then I feel I'm forced to resort to pettiness to try to downgrade that achievement". After all, you don't complain that the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless. Instead, your complains boil down to
So, to sum things up, the Nobel Peace Prize is, and always was, political in nature. And nothing other than that. So bitching about it being political is just like bitching that the water is wet.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.