Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

[B. Elliott]

 

[OmCheeto]

Our http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-nobel-peace" have spoken:

The committee chose Obama to send a clear signal to the world that it want to advocate for international diplomacy, strengthen international institutions and work for a world without nuclear arms, Norwegian Nobel Committee President Thorbjørn Jagland said at the press conference to announce the Peace Prize winner. Jagland, who is also secretary general of the Council of Europe, added that the committee hopes the award will "enhance a little bit" Obama's peace efforts.

 

[arildno]

The credibility of Mr. Thorbjørn Jagland (chairman of the Nobel committee) is crumbling fast:

1. In the days after the announcement, Jagland has rushed about in Norwegian newspapers telling how unanimous the Committee's support behind the prize was.
Not so. In today's papers, 3 of the 5 members refute that allegation, and says that they had very strong reservations about giving the prize to Mr. Obama, but that they (pathetically) gave into Mr. Jagland's demands.

It is very rare that Nobel Committee members express themselves in public about the internal discussions that led up to the voting; only on two occasions that I know of has this happened before: In 1973, the conservative members refused to recognize the prize given to Henry Kissinger, and in 1993, Mr. Kåre Kristiansen refused to give his assent to awarding Yasser Arafat the Nobel peace prize.

Mr. Jagland has been shown to exhibit truthiness, rather than truthfulness by this admission from other members of the Committee.

2. In "AdelaideNow" of the 12/10, previous Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer (in officio: 1996-2007) comments on the prize in general, and upon his own experiences with Jagland in particular.
Those comments are not very flattering, and he ends his excellent piece with " You cannot help a fool.":
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26196226-5006301,00.html

 

[mheslep]

...
Nice title by the way Arildno.

Agreed.

...Those comments are not very flattering, and he ends his excellent piece with " You cannot help a fool.":
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26196226-5006301,00.html

Thus the Peace Prize has now become the product of a fool. As in his 2AM phone call to the Australian minister, I expect Jagland in reality feels the remarks supplied with the Prize are not merely encouragements, but demands and orders to the US President.

 

[arildno]

Agreed.

Thus the Peace Prize has now become the product of a fool. As in his 2AM phone call to the Australian minister, I expect Jagland in reality feels the remarks supplied with the Prize are not merely encouragements, but demands and orders to the US President.

Even as early as the 70's, a perceptive previous Prime Minister from the Labour Party, Trygve Bratteli, recognized Jagland (then leader of the Labour Youth movement) for what he is:
"A very dangerous person".

Bratteli perceived Jagland to be a well-meaning idiot with inflated ego, who would readily use his good intentions to pave the road to hell.

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like emotionally charged reaction trumps calmly collected thought again.

It may be hard to defend the assertion that Obama "deserved" the Prize any more than Dr Mukwege of the Congo, Mortenson, Cordoba, Tsvangirai, Jingsheng or perhaps even Liu Xiaobo, but it seems even harder to defend the claim that he deserved it no more than any T, D & H, or Fred the dog, or a bowl of mashed potatoes. This thread seems to be crammed with almost deliberately unthoughtful posts.

Take this one, for example:

Well, tell that to the Copts in Egypt.

Obama had a golden chance in Cairo this year to condemn the then-ongoing harassment of the Copts, where the livelihoods of many were stripped away by the Government's insane decision to kill off all the pigs in the country.

You've repeated this accusation - of Obama failing to condemn the treatment of the Coptic community - a few times now. Perhaps you should listen to the speech first?

Here, scroll the slider forward to 41 minutes in and listen for about half a minute:



And from the same post...

You might also ask why the US Government has recently pressured the Armenians to make a treaty with Turkey without Turkey being pressured to recognize the massacres of Armenians under the late Ottoman Empire.

This is another point you repeat here - of Obama shoving normalization down the Armenian throats. I guess Obama was pressuring the Armenians (and shoving the idea down their throats) to normalize relations with Turkey back in Sept 2008, when Armenian President Sarkisian invited Abdullah Gul to visit Armenia and the two engaged in direct diplomatic talks - talks that never, reportedly, discussed the genocide issue? Besides, Turkey was almost certainly arm-twisted into shelving the issue of Armenian troops in Nagorno-Karabakh and ignoring the Azeri threats to stop exporting oil to Turkey.

Turkey President in Armenia Trip, Sep 2008
Armenia Thanks US for Help in Normalizing Turkey Relations, Oct 2009
Azerbaijan Threatens Turkey Over Armenia Agreement, Oct 2009

Sad!

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like emotionally charged reaction trumps calmly collected thought again.

It may be hard to defend the assertion that Obama "deserved" the Prize any more than Dr Mukwege of the Congo, Mortenson, Cordoba, Tsvangirai, Jingsheng or perhaps even Liu Xiaobo, but it seems even harder to defend the claim that he deserved it no more than any T, D & H, or Fred the dog, or a bowl of mashed potatoes. This thread seems to be crammed with almost deliberately unthoughtful posts...

Sad!

It's called hyperbole and humor to emphasize of the absurdity of the prize. If The Daily Show can be the most trusted news source in America, clearly Americans respond to such literary devices.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's called hyperbole and humor to emphasize of the absurdity of the prize. If The Daily Show can be the most trusted news source in America, clearly Americans respond to such literary devices.

I guess... but for me, the exact same joke repeated over and over again in the same thread starts to get lame pretty soon.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess... but for me, the exact same joke repeated over and over again in the same thread starts to get lame pretty soon.

If you say so, but I'm still going to make BJ jokes about Clinton and others will still wag their fingers in the air, shake their cheeks like Donald Duck and proclaim "I am not a crook"!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's called hyperbole and humor to emphasize of the absurdity of the prize. If The Daily Show can be the most trusted news source in America, clearly Americans respond to such literary devices.

What a bunch of nonsense.

The lost forum.

 

[seycyrus]

What a bunch of nonsense.

The lost forum.

It *is* a bunch of nonsense. The Obama cheerleaders who yell and scream no matter how absurd the cause.

 

[Gokul43201]

It *is* a bunch of nonsense. The Obama cheerleaders who yell and scream no matter how absurd the cause.

Care to point out all this yelling and screaming from the side you claim is doing it? Or else, you could just retract that statement.

As for the so called absurdity and sheer nonsense of the decision, how about every one of those that have been dumbfounded by said absurdity produce a list of maybe 50 more deserving people off the top of their heads? Not an unreasonable request, is it, given how absurd this supposedly is?

 

[mheslep]

Care to point out all this yelling and screaming from the side you claim is doing it? Or else, you could just retract that statement.

As for the so called absurdity and sheer nonsense of the decision, how about every one of those that have been dumbfounded by said absurdity produce a list of maybe 50 more deserving people off the top of their heads? ...

Top of my head:

• FDNY and NYPD
• Burmese Monks
• Ayatollah Sistani
• Colin Powell
• Rev John Dear
• ISF troops in Afghanistan
• Bibi Netanyahu
• Tienanmen Square survivors, all
• Irainian opposition, all those that marched in the street.
• All those that Obama himself made oblique reference to in his Oct 9 speech.
• Petraeus and Crocker

From the http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp" : Sima Sama, Ingrid Betancourt, Dr Denis Mukwege, Handicap and Intl Cluster Munition Coalition, Hu Jia, Wei Jingsheng

 

[Hans de Vries]

All the warmongers, proponents of war and apologists of war making childish ridicule
about the decline of the Nobel Peace price...

I'm "impressed" by how "seriously" concerned they are...

 

[Gokul43201]

Top of my head:

• FDNY and NYPD
• Burmese Monks
• Ayatollah Sistani
• Colin Powell
• Rev John Dear
• ISF troops in Afghanistan
• Bibi Netanyahu
• Tienanmen Square survivors, all
• Irainian opposition, all those that marched in the street.
• All those that Obama himself made oblique reference to in his Oct 9 speech.
• Petraeus and Crocker

From the http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp" : Sima Sama, Ingrid Betancourt, Dr Denis Mukwege, Handicap and Intl Cluster Munition Coalition, Hu Jia, Wei Jingsheng

I appreciate the response, but fail to see how many in the top-of-head list satisfy the (specifically underlined) requirements that they, "during the preceding year ... shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Now that (failure) may just be my ignorance at work, so if you say that they do satisfy these requirements, I'll take your word for it.

 

[Moonbear]

I appreciate the response, but fail to see how many in the top-of-head list satisfy the (specifically underlined) requirements that they, "during the preceding year ... shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Now that (failure) may just be my ignorance at work, so if you say that they do satisfy these requirements, I'll take your word for it.

Why would you limit it to "during the preceding year?" That's not stipulated in the Nobel Prize requirements. If there was nobody eligible, they didn't have to pick someone randomly. They are allowed to skip a year.

 

[Evo]

Why would you limit it to "during the preceding year?" That's not stipulated in the Nobel Prize requirements. If there was nobody eligible, they didn't have to pick someone randomly. They are allowed to skip a year.

They have skipped the award for many years, as was previously posted.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why would you limit it to "during the preceding year?" That's not stipulated in the Nobel Prize requirements. If there was nobody eligible, they didn't have to pick someone randomly. They are allowed to skip a year.

I was quoting from Nobel's will, which is cited in Statute #1 of the Nobel Foundation, as the basis of the prizes (underlines added by me). And the "preceding year" requirement is indeed stipulated in it, though it seems that this particular requirement has been swept under the rug a number of times by different committees.

§ 1.
The Nobel Foundation is established under the terms of the will of the engineer Dr. Alfred Bernhard Nobel, drawn up on November 27, 1895, which in its relevant parts states:

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prize for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not."

http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/statutes.html#par10

 

[arildno]

Sure, Gokul.

And that archaism has never been observed, neither in the scientific prizes or elsewhere.

Furthermore, Morgan Tswangerai did more than Obama last year as well.

 

[Hessami]

When I first read about this weeks ago, and how one of the local politicians in Australia said that it should have been given to someone more deserving, like Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe for his recent peace efforts, the first thing that popped into my head was the image of said politician superimposed onto Kanye West's body...

"Imma let you finish, but MORGAN TSVANGIRAI is one of the best spreaders of peace of ALL TIME!"

This made me lol.

 

[mheslep]

I appreciate the response, but fail to see how many in the top-of-head list satisfy the (specifically underlined) requirements that they, "during the preceding year ... shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Now that (failure) may just be my ignorance at work, so if you say that they do satisfy these requirements, I'll take your word for it.

I didn't review any of the specifics, not that I discount the original ones as you've listed after; they're admirable though not followed. I listed simply 'off the top of my head' using the accomplishments of past winners that I highly respect (Martin Luther King, etc) as a basis, my own general concept of what the prize should be, and a general knowledge of the actions of those in my list. This, in response to the more https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2405628&postcount=222". I hope the President is able to make some notable action to earn such a prize. Jagland et al, and Obama's acceptance, have robbed him of that chance now.

 

[seycyrus]

shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[/i]

Emphasis mine.

How much was *done* ?

Cheerlead away!

 

[Count Iblis]

Emphasis mine.

How much was *done* ?

Cheerlead away!

1) Obama made it clear to Israel before he was in power that the Gaza offensive had to be concluded by the time he was president.

2) The US has decided to negotiate seriously with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. The US will not boss Iran around with threats to make it do exactly what it wants. So, in principle, the US can allow Iran to have an industrial scale enrichment capability, provided it is verifiably not for military purposes.

3) The US successfully negotiated a peace deal between Turkey and Armenia.

4) The US made diplomatic progress in dealing with North Korea.

5) The US implemented a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq.

6) The US agreed to change the rules for dealing with terror suspects, bringing them in line with International Law.

7) The US has asked Israel to stop building settlements in occupied territories. This is an important step in the Mid East peace process.

8) Relations between the US and Russia have been reset. The US has agreed to stop building the missile defense shields, dodging criticism from the Right that a pawn against Russia has been voluntarily given up.

9) Obama has pledged to implement tough policies to fight climate change. Climate change is a political issue for which Al Gore and the IPCC have previously been awarded the Nobel Prize for.

10) The US has changed course on nuclear disarmement. The US is now willing to drastically cut its nuclear arsenal.

 

[mheslep]

Could you please source just one or two of these?

...

9) Obama has pledged to implement tough policies to fight climate change. Climate change is a political issue for which Al Gore and the IPCC have previously been awarded the Nobel Prize for.

10) The US has changed course on nuclear disarmement. The US is now willing to drastically cut its nuclear arsenal.

Nor will your not find 'willing', 'pledged' or other such conditionals in Nobel's will.

 

[seycyrus]

Items 1-10

As has been mentioned previously, they only got his name in like two weeks before the deadline.

Eh, cmon despite what the cheerleaders say, it's obvious he got it because he is "not bush".

Would he have won if he had not been elected? His accomplishments that would have been in consideration would have been the same. (none)

 

[mheslep]

...5) The US implemented a timeline for US troops to leave Iraq.

The status of forces agreement was agreed to on November 16, 2008 under Bush, specifying the 2011 withdrawal.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/11/iraq-a-new-sofa.html"

 

[mheslep]

...

6) The US agreed to change the rules for dealing with terror suspects, bringing them in line with International Law.

NYT, August 24, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html"

 

[mheslep]

3) The US successfully negotiated a peace deal between Turkey and Armenia.

Yes, with Swiss in the lead, and the help of French, Russian and U.S. officials over the past two years.. Secretary Clinton took some notable last minute action to hold the deal together on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/10/AR2009101002300.html" , the day after the 2009 peace prize was awarded.

 

[Gokul43201]

Emphasis mine.

How much was *done* ?

Cheerlead away!

You know, if you have nothing of substance to add, there's a much easier way to do it.A top-of-my-head list of efforts towards:

1. Fraternity between nations:

Egypt speech; interview with Al-arabiya; reopening talks with Syria; restarting negotiations with Iran (and possibly gaining the biggest enrichment related concession from them yet); denouncing expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territories yet pressing forward towards a roadmap via Clinton, Mitchell, Gates, Jim Jones (NSA) et al; aiding in the final phase of the normalization process between Turkey & Armenia; improving relations with Russia and China, lifting restrictions on Americans visiting relatives in Cuba...

2. Abolition or reduction of standing armies:

I don't see very much here in terms of reducing the size of the operating US military, but that may partly be from my ignorance. One thing that comes to mind is his rejection of expanding the F-22 inventory. And indirectly, the work towards easing up the Turkey-Armenia conflict may be the best chance yet for a troop reduction in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, the rethinking of the European missile defense program is no doubt a huge de-escalating factor for military force in the Eastern Europe-Russia-Ukraine-Belarus region, and has also led to improved relations between NATO and Russia. Also, in terms of not taking actions that would cause a troop escalation, you can put down the smart decision of not jumping on the "Georgia good, Russia bad" bandwagon during the conflict in Georgia/S. Ossetia, in which we now know Georgia (the state, not its people) was http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113354827 .

3. Holding and promotion of peace congresses:

Calling for and chairing the UNSC meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, leading to resolution http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9746.doc.htm.

Not aware of any other "peace conferences" other than the Summit of the Americas meeting that happened earlier - and I don't recall anything noteworthy about it, but that too may just be a result of my ignorance of the proceedings.

---

And how many pages must a thread run down before we see any sign of substantiation for the assertion that the selection of Obama was so dumbfoundingly ill-deserved that anyone who calls it merely "hard to defend" ought to be labeled a "cheerleader"? Where are all the resumes that outstrip the above list by such an overwhelming margin that the expressions of disbelief prevalent in this thread be justified? It's the least one can do.

PS: I've only thrown in links for what I think may be the less well-known claims. I think others are either well-known or easy to look up, but I will provide links for any specific statements upon request (or retract them if I can't).

 

[seycyrus]

You know, if you have nothing of substance to add, there's a much easier way to do it.

I add more to this thread in two sentences than you do in 14 paragraphs of your RAH RAH RAH.

He had been in office for only a couple of weeks at best, before the nominations were closed.

You refuse to recognize this simple fact.

Rah Rah Rah!

 

[turbo]

And how many pages must a thread run down before we see any sign of substantiation for the assertion that the selection of Obama was so dumbfoundingly ill-deserved that anyone who calls it merely "hard to defend" ought to be labeled a "cheerleader"?

Much of the anti-Obama material seems to me to be on no more lofty a level than Kanye West's rants about Taylor Swift's VMA award.

I could go on and on about her achievements at age 18-19, but Wiki has a pretty good run-down.

According to Nielsen SoundScan, Swift was the biggest selling artist of 2008 in the United States with combined sales of more than four million albums. Swift's Fearless and her self-titled album finished 2008 at number three and number six respectively, with sales of 2.1 and 1.5 million.[6] She was the first artist in the history of Nielsen SoundScan to have two different albums in the Top 10 on the year end album chart.[6] Fearless has topped the Billboard 200 in 11 non-consecutive weeks.[7] No album has spent more time at number one since 1999-2000. It also was the first album by a female artist in country music history to log eight weeks at #1 on The Billboard 200. In mid-January 2009, Swift became the first country artist to top the 2 million mark in paid downloads with three different songs.[8] As of the week ending February 8, 2009, Swift's single "Love Story" became the country song with most paid downloads in history and the first country song to top the Mainstream Top 40 chart.[9][10] Swift then subsequently went onto replicate the feat, reaching #1 again on the Mainstream Top 40 in September 2009 with "You Belong With Me", making it just the second country song in the chart's history to reach the top. [11] According to the 2009 issue of Forbes, Swift is ranked as the 69th most powerful celebrity with over $18 million in earnings this year.[12]

Now, she hasn't earned any "life-time achievement" awards, but she has been incredibly popular and influential in her field, and at a very young age. Most musicians would be proud and happy for her, but not Kanye. He hadn't the insight, the maturity, nor the class to graciously acknowledge her accomplishments and the fact that she just "might" have earned that award.

 

[seycyrus]

Much of the anti-Obama material seems to me to be on no more lofty a level than Kanye West's rants about Taylor Swift's VMA award.

If this isn't the one of the greatest derailments of a thread in the history of PF...

Yeah, so now if you think that Obama winning the peace prize when he had only been in office for a couple of weeks is fishy, you're just like Kanye!

Someone tag this post to the thread about the decline of PF.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sure, Gokul.

And that archaism has never been observed, neither in the scientific prizes or elsewhere.

If you read a little carefully, you will note that the "archaism" isn't the only phrase that I underlined.

Furthermore, Morgan Tswangerai did more than Obama last year as well.

And even if you didn't read too carefully, you'd have noticed that I mentioned Tsvangirai in a more-than-one-person-long list in my earlier post, of deserving candidates. And if you wanted to make a coherent argument, couldn't you, at the very least, take the trouble of enumerating what it is that Tsvangirai did more of, last year, than Obama?

 

[seycyrus]

..enumerating what it is that Tsvangirai did more of, last year, than Obama?

Since you are talking about *last year*... What did Obama do last year besides run a winning campaign?

 

[Gokul43201]

Yeah, so now if you think that Obama winning the peace prize when he had only been in office for a couple of weeks is fishy, you're just like Kanye!

If this isn't one of the greatest misrepresentations of the word "week"...

And I obviously meant, "during the past year". But at least you have now graduated from making no contribution at all, to nitpicking language errors. Congrats!