Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China's Influence Widens Nobel Peace Prize Boycott

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the friends-of-un-friends dept.

Government 360

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)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Creating own award (5, Informative)

Unoriginal Nick (620805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482740)

The AP is also reporting that China is creating a Confucius Peace Prize [yahoo.com] to be given out the day before the Nobel Prize.

Re:Creating own award (1)

holamundo (1914310) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482902)

I wonder what Confucius would think of this. Ignoring pleas of the people isn't exactly the kind of things he advocated. Seriously what China is going to achieve with the award? What will the award winners feel? Reminds me of raspberries, though they have different natures.

Re:Creating own award (4, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483048)

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.

Re:Creating own award (1, Funny)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483104)

I wonder what Confucius would think of this. Ignoring pleas of the people isn't exactly the kind of things he advocated.

Do you know how Confusion society treated women?!? They were only slightly better off than women in the strictest Islamic societies.

Re:Creating own award (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483552)

Do you know how Confusion society treated women?

I don't quite.. umm. Hrm. What do you... Huh. I think you're confused.

Re:Creating own award (4, Interesting)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483270)

Ignoring pleas of the people isn't exactly the kind of things he advocated.

Are you kidding me? Harmony of the state and living under a strict hierarchy are the linchpins of Confucious thought. The very idea that the "people" should be able to have a voice, let alone use it, would have been anathema to him and his contemporaries.

Confucius was a statist, pure and simple. Trying to paint him otherwise does a disservice to history and distorts the man's beliefs (however much I might disagree with them, I'm not going to deny he had them or that he was proud of them).

Re:Creating own award (2, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483332)

Let's be clear though, Confucius also advocated that the leaders of said hierarchy were thinking of everyone in the tree when doing anything. Not that I think it's right either way, but that's the way he thought. There was an obligation for the bottom to respect the top, and also for the top to respect the bottom.

Re:Creating own award (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482928)

...Which should be given to Assange, for the sake of symmetry.

Re:Creating own award (4, Insightful)

oWj9*7!7dsggh7 (1952478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483094)

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.

Re:Creating own award (2)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483440)

There's a reason Joss Whedon chose a mix of Chinese and English as the evolution of language in Firefly...

Chinese Diplomacy (2)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483442)

Clearly the Chinese need to read the US memos and bone up on their diplomatic skills. You are not supposed to openly do these things you hide it and attack anybody who might leak out your real activities.

Re:Creating own award (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483396)

The AP is also reporting that China is creating a Confucius Peace Prize to be given out the day before the Nobel Prize.

Like the Party's massive focus on Beijing Opera that mimicked the west while using a thin veneer of native culture as a pretense of not copying the west, the Chinese autocracy proves that they still suffer from a serious inferiority complex.

BOO FUCKING HOO (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483522)

Who cares

Re:Creating own award (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483688)

Ever notice the countries supporting China are always the "loser" countries ? Its the friends you keep mate...

And nothing of value was lost (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482744)

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

Re:And nothing of value was lost (4, Interesting)

girlintrainingpants (1954872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482826)

What about the USA?

Mr. Obama was elected and was immediately awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to make any change. I wouldn't call him a warmonger, but we're still at odds with the Middle East, and he/we appear to have no plan in sight to change that.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482866)

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

Re:And nothing of value was lost (3, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482974)

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.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483334)

Actually, the US does. And that's just counting the "official" ones.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483528)

Doesn't the 1962 war between China and India [wikipedia.org] count as aggression? Also, invasion of Tibet in 1950.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (2)

gustgr (695173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483032)

And yet, for the last 50 years they have been at war with one sixth of all humans -- their own population.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483072)

"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...)

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483170)

The funny thing about the Taiwanese is that they are, as a people, mostly willing to return to China. The government is very much not and alot of businesses aren't either. And for us in IT since Taiwanese motherboard makers make up nearly all the retail board makers in the world... Is probably best it not scoot back to China right now...

The people though generally support China, and not Hong Kong style China, but the mainland originally CCP government.

But taiwan is strange in general... Historically when they were the pirate port for Chinese goods over the seas, the Chinese government hunted them down and cut off their heads. Around a hundred years later when Manchuria invaded China and took over, the taiwanese sided with the Chinese government against the Manchurians... Only to have the Manchurians take a huge disliking to them to the point of harsh treatment including a scorched earth tactic on the mainland for around 15 years as they built a navy to sail to Taiwan to put them down. Then China looses Taiwan to Japan before the start of the 20th century as they fail to modernize. And after WW2 Taiwan plays a role again as the former dictatorship of China flees from the CCP and ends up in Taiwan as their new home.

Obviously just some highlights, but it's been an... interesting place...

Re:And nothing of value was lost (2)

readin (838620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483652)

"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...)

The Chinese do consider the Taiwanese "their own", but the Taiwanese are not too fond of slavery and being someone else's possession. Taiwan and China have a lot of common ancestry and culture, but only about the same as the Americas and Europe. They have a similar history two, with immigration from China to Taiwan starting in the 1600s and largely displacing and assimilating the natives.

After Taiwan was separated from the Empire of China back in 1895, back when the Russians had a czar, back before the Cubs last won the World Series, back when Queen Victoria was on the throne, and back before Cuba and the Phillippine were separated from Spain. Since that Time, Taiwan and China have been under the same Chinese government for about 4 year. Right after WWII when the Phillippines were returned to the U.S., Vietnam to the French, and Hong Kong to the British, Taiwan was similarly re-colonized by the Chinese, resulting in the 2-28 massecre in which many thousands were killed.

The Chinese leadership that the Allies put in charge of Taiwan promptly lost their civil war in China, and fled to the island where they declared martial law and continued to imprison or kill too many Taiwanese. Only in recent years have the Taiwanese started to have a voice in government.

Calling them "China's own" offends many of them. Despite that Chinese government spending 45 years of unopposed propaganda telling the Taiwanese that they are really "Chinese", and continuing to do so even to day with control of most of the media, most Taiwanese still consider China a foreign country.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483388)

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

You mean recently. China's not exactly known for their peaceful past.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483520)

Unlike the united states, paragon of justice, democracy and peace which hasn't started any wars for it's own benefit, toppled regimes for their own benefit and what the heck nuked a city or two because who the hell cares about some yellows. Oh evil China how much do you have to learn.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482880)

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.

Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482996)

Mod parent up

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483728)

I assume you base your opinion on your extensive study of world history huh? Sounds more like fox conservative TV narrative to me. Read up a little you ignorant drone.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

carnalforge (1207648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482858)

Serbia?

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483598)

Is harmful to world peace? Hardly.

Maybe you meant something else, hard to interpret a one word comment.

I presume they are abstaining due to the fact that china supports their sovereignty over kosovo.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483148)

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.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

asher09 (1684758) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483380)

Well said. This reminds me in a creepy way of the boycott debate about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany (featuring the Nazi regime) except that this time, the "bad" guys are the ones boycotting. Scary...

Much ado about nothing. (4, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482754)

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.

Re:Much ado about nothing. (2)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482890)

Why? they where the one's that militarized China after the collapse of the Soviet Union, China is their closest ally and fast becoming Russia's bigger brother.

Re:Much ado about nothing. (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482932)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Much ado about nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483010)

Russia is already China's little lap dog. All China is interested in doing is to take Russia's (energy) resources and military knowhow.

Re:Much ado about nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483448)

BRIC? Why BRIC? Why not CRIB? Why put China last? You go now!

Fear (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482764)

On the one hand, I know the West tends to set up the "super bad guy" to use to rally its people against an external threat. On the other, China sure doesn't do a lot to make me comfortable with their new position in the world. And when looking at a lot of those countries, I wonder if we are going to end up with a semi-sphere vs semi-sphere block in the not-too-distant future.

We won't miss them (5, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482786)

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

Re:We won't miss them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482882)

US of A-hole is missing though.

Re:We won't miss them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483558)

What's this "We" stuff? -shifts a half step left-

Consequences (5, Insightful)

chebucto (992517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482792)

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.

Re:Consequences (2, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482856)

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?

Re:Consequences (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482912)

No. Let it die. Another form of peace recognition will take its place in time.

Re:Consequences (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483004)

Just how many peace prizes were created in the last couple of centuries? Of course, I'm somehow excluding "Confucius Peace Prize" [globaltimes.cn] - a strange association of a peace prize with words of bellicose connotations.

Re:Consequences (0)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483062)

What a bizarre sentiment.

Re:Consequences (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483182)

I know nothing (yet) about this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate...

His name is Liu Xiaobo. He is currently imprisoned in China. He advocates democracy. But that is not why he is in prison.

He also advocates abolition of the hukou [wikipedia.org] . That is why he is in prison.

Re:Consequences (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483362)

I know nothing (yet) about this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate...

His name is Liu Xiaobo. He is currently imprisoned in China. He advocates democracy. But that is not why he is in prison.

He also advocates abolition of the hukou [wikipedia.org] . That is why he is in prison.

A sincere thank you.

As usually, a good information creates more questions than answers, especially for an outsider or the system. Here would be 2 of them:

  1. why would it be that, being imprisoned for other reasons, is China's govt so upset for his contributions on other lines are recognized?
  2. what's so wrong with the abolition of hukou? (I'm not contesting China's right to create its own laws, by I'm on the principle that faulty laws create more troubles than solve).

Re:Consequences (2)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482876)

That really takes the cake, doesn't it?

The sad thing is - what if Obama actually does something to deserve one in the near future? (Leaving aside the question of just how likely this might be of course.)

They can't give it to him again - he's already used his up! So what they really did was they robbed Obama of the ability to earn the prize the honest way. Forever in the history books it will show he received the prize before doing anything of significance with the power he would wield.

The only possible interpretation is that the Nobel committee figured the time was right because his greatness was peaking. They must have estimated the chances were high that he would do something to make himself unworthy in the the future. Then they wouldn't be able to give it to him.

Re:Consequences (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482930)

The sad thing is - what if Obama actually does something to deserve one in the near future? (Leaving aside the question of just how likely this might be of course.)

They can't give it to him again - he's already used his up! So what they really did was they robbed Obama of the ability to earn the prize the honest way. Forever in the history books it will show he received the prize before doing anything of significance with the power he would wield.

Spin it.

Clearly, they gave it to him then because they can see into the future. You see, Nobel secretly invented a time machine. All of the questionable prize decisions will be shown correct eventually.

Re:Consequences (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482962)

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.

Re:Consequences (1)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483132)

You're a right-wing troll, but you're right. He's the Great Capitulator.

Re:Consequences (1, Interesting)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483140)

And never in my life have I witnessed such unwarranted vitriol, hatred and lying denigration towards an intelligent, well-meaning, decent man. Obama's no saint and he may never be ranked among the great Presidents, but idiots in the US voted in a corporate puppet who couldn't articulate two sentences in a row TWICE. Just about anyone would have looked pretty good after that.

The US, and the world, was ready for change and that's how Obama was perceived - a man of average circumstances, who, in his person, represented a bridging of cultural, religious and linguistic divides. 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.

Did ordinary civilians show up at Bush meetings carrying firearms? I don't recall any message from the President that he wants to revoke the Second Amendment.

I guess John Kerry got some ridiculously unfair treatment from the Swift Boaters but there did seem to be some legit questions about his war record and discarding his medals.
I'd love to see Time do an expose on the Koch brothers, who seem to be the real shadow power in America these last years.

Re:Consequences (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483296)

You suffer from psychological projection. I never said I hated the man. In fact, he's as much as a victim as we all are. But hey, he let himself be setup for the fall that was natural to come. And no, he hasn't done diddly squat in the way of policy to "bridge the divide" as near as I can tell.

Re:Consequences (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483430)

And no, he hasn't done diddly squat in the way of policy to "bridge the divide" as near as I can tell.

Off the top of my head:

1) Massive watering down of the healthcare bill - like removal of the public option.
2) Looks like he's going to continue the Bush tax cuts even for the highest income brackets.

My impression is that he does make policy changes that republicans want, but short of up and quitting his job, the GOP would never give him credit for a single compromise.

Re:Consequences (1, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483472)

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.

Re:Consequences (1)

jensend (71114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483676)

Uh- he didn't introduce those compromises as a "bridging the divide" type thing, he did those because there was absolutely no way a public option or a tax bill not extending the full Bush tax cut would have made it through Congress. Can't really credit him as a unifier for doing that when he only did so because circumstances forced him to --esp. the fact that not everyone in the Democratic caucus is on the far left*, the voters' rejection of the broader health care tack as manifest in the Scott Brown election and the loss of a filibuster-proof majority, and the imminent GOP House takeover.

Republicans aren't asking him to quit, just to come to the table and try to reach agreement *first* rather than only resorting to it when it's become apparent the legislation preferred by the left wing of his party can't be ramrodded down the nation's throat.

The level of political discourse has really dropped a lot over the past decade. The 2008 presidential debates and the petty partisanship of Congress over the last few years make even the 2000 Bush-Gore debates and the Clinton impeachment debacle look like Webster v Calhoun and the Constitutional Convention by comparison.

*I really think it's unfortunate that so many of the Blue Dog Democrats lost office in this election. The effect is to push the Democratic party further left at a time when it really needs to rethink the hard left turn the party took when Pelosi became Minority Leader. They were often replaced by Tea Partiers who seem to be frothing at the mouth- I think many of the principles the Tea Partiers claim to represent are worthy enough, but most of the politicians affiliated with it are total loons and an embarrassment to those principles.

Re:Consequences (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483700)

1) Massive watering down of the healthcare bill - like removal of the public option.

Changing a bill because not even enough members of your own party will vote to pass it isn't exactly bipartisanship. That's just politicking. Bipartisanship would be developing the bill with input from the other side from the BEGINNING, not giving in just enough to get your bill passed after failing to force it down people's throats. Even "massively watered down" the bill is still a terrifying monstrosity.

2) Looks like he's going to continue the Bush tax cuts even for the highest income brackets.

Only because, once again, not even enough members of his own party are voting to pass the version of the bill without the extensions. Extending the tax cuts for two years is also attached to continued unemployment funding, so this isn't so much compromising as trading favors. Props to him for at least doing something to get the bill passed, and I hope the payroll tax holiday idea comes to fruition. Won't help employment any, since it won't affect the employer's share, but at least it's passing some relief down to the taxpayers.

Re:Consequences (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483318)

I guess John Kerry got some ridiculously unfair treatment from the Swift Boaters but there did seem to be some legit questions about his war record and discarding his medals.

Yes, about that. I wish Kerry had stood by his anti-Vietnam War protest days. Because he was right. That was a horrible, pointless, war of atrocities which the USA should never have entered.

Kerry should have stood up proudly and said "Vietnam was wrong, Iraq is wrong, Afghanistan is wrong, Dubya is a war criminal, I'm an antiwar hero and proud of it, and if elected I'm pulling the USA out immediately, closing Gitmo and filing treason charges, you'd better believe it."

Would it have played to the 2004-era masses? Dunno, but it would have been the right thing to do. Politics shouldn't always be about lying to get elected. It should involve sometimes standing up and saying the truth.

Re:Consequences (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483452)

Except for that tiny little detail of him being on record supporting going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.....

Re:Consequences (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483630)

Before he was against them, of course...

Re:Consequences (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483444)

idiots in the US voted in a corporate puppet who couldn't articulate two sentences in a row TWICE.

Oh, come now. Bush managed to string together a coherent statement at least three--maybe even four--times in his eight years. Saying he couldn't manage to do it just twice is base libel.

Re:Consequences (1, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483650)

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?

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482892)

Agreed. Hearing they named Obama was like the first time as kid that I heard one of Time's boneheaded Person Of The Year awards; afterwards, the people in charge of it defend why the award was appropriate, and their defense is to make it clear that their standard for the award has nothing to do with what any sane person would have thought it would be. Thus, they successfully defend themselves by making it clear that their award isn't worthwhile.

Henry Kissinger (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482894)

The "peace" prize lost all value the day they handed it to Henry Kissinger. Everything else has been window dressing since then.

Re:Consequences (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482942)

He was the first President after Bush. Which is apparently good enough.

Re:Consequences (4, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483056)

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...?

Re:Consequences (-1, Troll)

bstender (1279452) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483386)

Liu Xiaobo is not about 'peace', he is a proponent of radical Capitalism, that's his crime. Personally I think we need a lot more of his ilk in jails here in the West, but they run the place!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GOW20101015&articleId=21467 [globalresearch.ca]

Re:Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483066)

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.

Obama's nobel, It was his price to stand aside and let current events unfold without pause, no intelligent man could stand aside and not see what is happening. Obama is an intelligent man, something had to be his price.

Re:Consequences (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483226)

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

Re:Consequences (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483228)

Dammit, pressed submit early.

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 all I can point out off the top of my head.

Re:Consequences (1, Troll)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483524)

Henry Kissinger actually worked out an agreement for peace for South Vietnam. The Congress pulled all support out from under the South Vietnamese and then thousands and thousands were slaughtered, the region plunged into darkness, and who knows how many were tortured and imprisoned.

Yay for simplistic peace activists!

Re:Consequences (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483536)

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

And boycotting Slashdot (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482806)

...for their slow, klunky Web 2.0 interfacial.

Re:And boycotting Slashdot (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482870)

Who's boycotting /.? China and which other countries?

Nobel=bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482836)

Everybody should have took a pass last year with the great Obama.

I'm waiting for the US to join in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482846)

All China has to do is threaten to stop financing the US Congressional spending spree and they'll get in line with the boycott. And yes I'm in the States, born and raised.

Nobel Peace Prize (1, Redundant)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482868)

They made ass out of themselves handing the prize out to Al Gore and Obama.

It's not what it used to be.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482898)

+1

Re:Nobel Peace Prize (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483174)

It's a good point. A prize/medal/honor of any sort, is only as good as the people who've won it. When you start giving out prizes not based upon what someone has actually *done* but what you think they will do in the future, the prize becomes meaningless. Obama was president for what, a month(?) when he was awarded the prize, and had done nothing other than get elected.

The Al Gore prize, I could *somewhat* understand - whether you (the reader) agree that Anthropogenic Global Warming (or whatever they call it this week), at least you could look and say that A) The Committee believes that AGW is a threat to world peace, and B) Al Gore had made a huge impact in getting more people around the world to be more aware of the issue, thinking and talking about it, to move towards change. Gore had done *something* (and, also, the prize was shared with the IPCC, which had done a lot of scientific work). Obama didn't even have that much.

However, it did still seem too early even for the Gore/IPCC award, because even though they had gotten people talking about the issue, it seemed like you would need the perspective of a decade or two of history (maybe even longer), to really evaluate whether Gore and the IPCC actually did have a meaningful impact on World Peace.

a good flex (3, Insightful)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482888)

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.

I wish my country was more like China. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482950)

Considering the Nobel prizes get more political in nature every year, I gotta say I'm with the Chinese on this one.

Good - I hope the world boycotts it (0)

moxley (895517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482986)

Giving it to Obama proved that it's totally meaningless. ....the ironic thing here though, is that it's packed with allegorical meaning in that that prize and the way it was given to Obama is the perfect example of what the US stands for now - a meaningless "peace" prize founded by an arms manufacturer given to the "leader" of a sole superpower country that talks peace more than any other, but does more to create war and show disdain for peace than any other country in the world right now. There's some meaning for you.

Considering that one thing we heard when the decision to give this to Obama was questioned worldwide was that "The decided to give it to him because he ended Bush's reign, and Bush had started 2 wars, tons of illegal prisons, authorized torture, etc - and the funny thing is that despite all of his talk, Obama is doing EXACTLY the same thing.

Re:Good - I hope the world boycotts it (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483022)

The same thing? Rubbish.

Which 2 wars has he started?

Did he not stop the torture?

Re:Good - I hope the world boycotts it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483078)

He ended bush reign? I thought there was an election, not a coup. Also Bush did not run for a 3rd term, for some reason.

Re:Good - I hope the world boycotts it (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483154)

America is not the sole superpower. In the shape the US is in right now, they're no match, with support from their allies, for China

Re:Good - I hope the world boycotts it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483260)

lol

China is pressuring India.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483024)

China is pressuring India to boycott, the Chinese Premier comes to India on a state visit days after the ceremony.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article929177.ece

This should put the US on notice (1, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483070)

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).

With China and other foreign countries holding more that half of the US debt, such a development should put the US on notice. It appears that those countries that 'boycotted' the ceremonies have seen the writing on the wall: China matters, and matters big time.

Over in these United States, our politicians keep bickering about how to 'handle' the massive deficit all the while making it worse with every regime/administration.

Sad indeed. Just the other month, China and Russia plotted to dump the US currency. [ibtimes.com] If this comes to fruition, all hell will break lose. Trust me on this.

Re:This should put the US on notice (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483714)

> With China and other foreign countries holding more that half of the US debt

The US has a lot of debt, and China owns a lot of that, but it's not half. Wikipedia has a fairly elaborate breakdown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_debt [wikipedia.org]

Of a total 13.56 trillion dollars of debt, 9 trillion is publicly held (the rest is debt different parts of the government owe other parts of the government). 4 trillion is held by foreigners. 847 billion is held by China - just a little more than Japan. That's six percent. If you add in Hong Kong (apparently still counted separately; I guess the finances haven't been merged yet?) and even add in Taiwan too, that's eight percent.

Definitely worry about the total size of the debt (ugh, damn near 100% of GDP). Don't worry much about the sliver of it owed to China.

> Just the other month, China and Russia plotted to dump the US currency. If this comes to fruition, all hell will break lose. Trust me on this.

Read the whole article. The talk was about for trade between China and Russia, not all trade. Why would you go out of your way to inflate the amount of US money China has, then go out of your way to say China's going to destroy the value of that same money it's holding?

One weight, two measures (1)

gustgr (695173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483100)

I remember when Obama got the prize and a lot [slashdot.org] of readers were really supportive of him. Now that he's not that mystical figure any longer, the consense seems to be that China is right in her position mainly because the peace prize has lost its meaning, and as an example of this decadence a lot of readers are citing Obama as one of the examples of decandece of the Nobel peace prize.

Humans are really amusing.

Re:One weight, two measures (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483454)

Ummm...I don't know what thread you read, but I see an awful lot of taking the piss out of the Nobel committee over that one.

Julian Assange for next year's prize? (2)

peterindistantland (1487953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483152)

This would cause even more drama. I can't wait until that happens... Though his rape charges may prevent him from getting the prize.

Re:Julian Assange for next year's prize? (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483274)

Yeah, too bad they couldn't give Assange the prize before the accusations crawled out of the woodwork, like they did with Gore.

Nobel prize doesn't mean anything anymore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34483164)

Ex: Barack Hussein Obama II won one for "hoping". A far cry from men that actually did something and won the prize....

China's govt demonizes like US with Assange (read) (2, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483166)

wow, talk about a rogue's gallery (2)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483238)

Of the 18 countries that turned down the invite, I don't know enough about Columbia, the Philippines, Tunisia, or Morocco. OTOH, the rest have fairly poor reputations for their treatment of dissidents. It isn't difficult to see why they wouldn't want to be seen at this year's ceremony.

Re:wow, talk about a rogue's gallery (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483278)

I don't think Columbia, and the other three you mentioned are particularly bad countries, I suspect mostly they are too small and dependent on China to risk reprisals. But I agree, most of the rest in the list seem a bit like a brotherhood of dictators. Good to see all the autocrats standing together.

The Nobel committee jumpted the shark... (2, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483392)

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

LK

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?