The Nobel Peace Prize 2020(nobelprize.org)
nobelprize.org
The Nobel Peace Prize 2020
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2020/press-release/
122 comments
Very much in agreement with you.
In this day and age, a single person having this level of impact on the world is rare. They might be the figure head, but there is usually a team behind the figure head that finally implements it. The team also deserve the recognition.
In this day and age, a single person having this level of impact on the world is rare. They might be the figure head, but there is usually a team behind the figure head that finally implements it. The team also deserve the recognition.
In 1998 'United Nations Peacekeeping Forces' [1] won the peace prize; and this particular winner (org had people from multiple countries) is true embodiment of the point - "it takes much more than a single person..".
[1] aka 'The Blue Helmets' https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d-2uMYBSL68/maxresdefault.jpg
[1] aka 'The Blue Helmets' https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d-2uMYBSL68/maxresdefault.jpg
Don't know if this one really aged well considering how rapey the blue helmets turned out to be. It's more of an Aung San Suu Kyi type of example.
Totally agree. The European Union got the peace prize in 2012. Europa used to be most warn torn part of the world, and the origin of two world wars. Members states of the EU are expelled if they have armed conflicts with their neighbouring countries.
Not exactly - there's no mechanism to expel a member state from the EU.
Member states may have "certain [...] rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council" suspended, but "The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State." (Article 7 TEU)
The only way for a member state to cease being a member state is through the withdrawal process in Article 50 TEU (i.e. like Brexit).
Member states may have "certain [...] rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council" suspended, but "The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State." (Article 7 TEU)
The only way for a member state to cease being a member state is through the withdrawal process in Article 50 TEU (i.e. like Brexit).
The United States are still waiting for their peace prize on the same grounds. And the peace has lasted longer.
Was America a war torn region before the states united? As far as I know, not by a long shot.
Quite a bit of genocide occurred in the territories, but most of that calmed down before they reached statehood.
The genocide and marginalization against the native population continued well after the union, as far as I know.
Did the creation of the EU stop some war in Western Europe?
That is commonly believed, yes - it has brought together countries that had been in a bitter war less than 50 years earlier, and may well have preserved the peace.
Pure speculation. Just like the states haven't had a war because they're the United States. Imagine if the states would have become independent countries. I can imagine the endless warfare. Nobel in Peace as clearly deserved as the European States.
Sure, it's all speculation, not claiming otherwise. But this can be said about any historical event that was "prevented" - by definition, it didn't happen, so we can only assume that it could have happened if something didn't stop it.
Wasn't that the NATO instead?
> The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2020 to the World Food Programme (WFP) for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.
Good. Giving recognition to often overlooked efforts like this is completely deserved and worthy of this prize.
Good. Giving recognition to often overlooked efforts like this is completely deserved and worthy of this prize.
When I unexpectedly found myself responsible for feeding 100 people at imminent risk of starvation, half way around the world, WFP made it happen. Not only did they make an urgent delivery, they paved the way for a partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization to set up a sustainable way for the people to feed themselves long-term (chickens: eggs to eat and to sell to buy other food). When talking about food security, even small numbers like this have an enormous impact, and it is truly mind-boggling to consider the overall impact of their work.
How do you unexpectedly find yourself in a situation like that?
I was helping these people with a different type of need (non-life-threatening), then later the food security situation developed and nobody else seemed to be able/willing to help, so I changed my focus. As I imagine is often the case where WFP is concerned, the population was especially vulnerable due to pre-existing medical conditions.
One of the more deserving winners of this prize.
jansan(5)
Speaking of undeserved winners, I so hoped they would give it to the US president again...
Well, Obama got it for not being Bush so if Biden wins... They're gonna give him two?
Oh you can bet they will. I still don't know what Obama got it for. It is a joke!
The Handwriting on the Wall, from Aaron Swartz:
> I recently attended a talk at Stanford by Walter Bradford Ellis, a too-little-known activist and writer on the issue of global poverty and world hunger.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/handwritingwall
> I recently attended a talk at Stanford by Walter Bradford Ellis, a too-little-known activist and writer on the issue of global poverty and world hunger.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/handwritingwall
And Modi regime in India wasted 1500 tons of food grains https://thewire.in/government/food-corporation-of-india-godo...
WFP needs ‘systemic overhaul’ to limit abusive behaviour: external review
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2019/10/14/WFP-Unite...
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2019/10/14/WFP-Unite...
Donald Trump signed multiple peace deals this year
ecommerceguy(2)
shripadk(1)
Frankly if Obama won it, so should Trump.
One-upping Obama seems to be a primary motivation for Trump, but it’s not how awards work. Just because Obama got the peace prize when he shouldn’t have doesn’t mean Trump should also get it when he shouldn’t have. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.
Trump is far more deserving. He has been far more anti-war than Obama.
With more peace deals to come, by the way. Also he did not start any new wars, and started withdrawing US forces from the idiotic endless wars started by previous administrations. Donald Trump has done more for world peace than any US president since Reagan. It'd go further back than that, but Reagan defeated communism, which is pretty huge in itself.
Somehow more forces in all the places he said he would withdraw forces from than the beginning of his term = withdrawal of forces?
The only genuine force withdrawal he did was in Syria, which will damage the US dramatically going forward because they completely abandoned their allies because Erdogan was able to sweet talk Donald Teump.
And the “peace deals” are a joke because they were signed between Israel and countries that were never hostile towards each other in the first place. UAE and Bahrain? It was simply Trump paying UAE/Bahrain your tax dollars for them to formally announce something that has always been the case, and Bibi doing the same so that Trump could continue to allow him to annex Palestinian land in peace to satisfy the most orthodox people in his country who are keeping him in power and saving him from prosecution.
And yeah, supplying arms to the Saudis so they can continue slaughtering the Yemenis and unilaterally breaking a peace deal so Iranians can die in massive numbers are not starting a war, but is causing civilian death tolls that are extremely high.
And sure, creating massive instability and allowing China to run free in most of Asia and Africa is also not starting a war, but is completely weakening the US and emboldening China in ways we couldn’t have imagined 5 years ago (for all his anti China talk, Trump has been remarkably weak against them, which isn’t surprising considering that until January the highlight of his tenure was gonna be a joke of a trade deal with China, and that he spent years without touching trade with China but slapping tariffs on all the US’s allies).
And of course, dismantling treaties with Russia, such as the open skies treaty for example, which was a completely one sided treaty in favor of the US and its allies only served to increase the risk of war.
And how about jumping into peace talks between S Korea and N Korea (S Korea’s new President was elected on the explicit platform of trying to restart peace discussions with N Korea) and derailing the entire process, by giving Kim exactly what he wanted...a photo op with the US president which he could promote within his own country, without getting anything in return (I guess the love letters from Kim to Donald Trump was something).
And we haven’t even gotten to the part where he and his have explicitly and implicitly supported and emboldened white supremacists in the US and Europe.
Donald Trump is best looked at as someone who never boiled the water, but definitely turned up the temperature so it’s hitting close to 190. He has taken decades of goodwill and trust, and burned it so he could claim minor victories which hurt the US massively but can be something for him to crow about.
It requires an extremely narrow way of looking at the world (at basically the PR level) to think Donald Teump is even close to being net positive for world peace.
The only genuine force withdrawal he did was in Syria, which will damage the US dramatically going forward because they completely abandoned their allies because Erdogan was able to sweet talk Donald Teump.
And the “peace deals” are a joke because they were signed between Israel and countries that were never hostile towards each other in the first place. UAE and Bahrain? It was simply Trump paying UAE/Bahrain your tax dollars for them to formally announce something that has always been the case, and Bibi doing the same so that Trump could continue to allow him to annex Palestinian land in peace to satisfy the most orthodox people in his country who are keeping him in power and saving him from prosecution.
And yeah, supplying arms to the Saudis so they can continue slaughtering the Yemenis and unilaterally breaking a peace deal so Iranians can die in massive numbers are not starting a war, but is causing civilian death tolls that are extremely high.
And sure, creating massive instability and allowing China to run free in most of Asia and Africa is also not starting a war, but is completely weakening the US and emboldening China in ways we couldn’t have imagined 5 years ago (for all his anti China talk, Trump has been remarkably weak against them, which isn’t surprising considering that until January the highlight of his tenure was gonna be a joke of a trade deal with China, and that he spent years without touching trade with China but slapping tariffs on all the US’s allies).
And of course, dismantling treaties with Russia, such as the open skies treaty for example, which was a completely one sided treaty in favor of the US and its allies only served to increase the risk of war.
And how about jumping into peace talks between S Korea and N Korea (S Korea’s new President was elected on the explicit platform of trying to restart peace discussions with N Korea) and derailing the entire process, by giving Kim exactly what he wanted...a photo op with the US president which he could promote within his own country, without getting anything in return (I guess the love letters from Kim to Donald Trump was something).
And we haven’t even gotten to the part where he and his have explicitly and implicitly supported and emboldened white supremacists in the US and Europe.
Donald Trump is best looked at as someone who never boiled the water, but definitely turned up the temperature so it’s hitting close to 190. He has taken decades of goodwill and trust, and burned it so he could claim minor victories which hurt the US massively but can be something for him to crow about.
It requires an extremely narrow way of looking at the world (at basically the PR level) to think Donald Teump is even close to being net positive for world peace.
> It requires an extremely narrow way of looking at the world (at basically the PR level) to think Donald Teump is even close to being net positive for world peace.
This checks out - pretty much everything being posted by Trump fans in this thread is a rewording of the PR spin we see Twitter bots spamming everywhere.
This checks out - pretty much everything being posted by Trump fans in this thread is a rewording of the PR spin we see Twitter bots spamming everywhere.
No matter what he did it's a bad idea to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone so divisive.
Well....
Politicians like to be recognized as "great" and a the Nobel Peace Prize does appeal to many. Trump's desire is a good example. If you avoid controversial figures, you avoid using the prize as a motivator exactly where you need it.
For example, Begin/Sadaat and Arafat/Rabin. The first peace worked out. The second one didn't. But, all four of these people led a pretty violent life as militaristic and nationalistic leaders. They're all extremely controversial in the middle east, and in their own countries.
I definitely don't think avoiding divisive political figures is a good. thing. That said, I don't think he's earned one.
Politicians like to be recognized as "great" and a the Nobel Peace Prize does appeal to many. Trump's desire is a good example. If you avoid controversial figures, you avoid using the prize as a motivator exactly where you need it.
For example, Begin/Sadaat and Arafat/Rabin. The first peace worked out. The second one didn't. But, all four of these people led a pretty violent life as militaristic and nationalistic leaders. They're all extremely controversial in the middle east, and in their own countries.
I definitely don't think avoiding divisive political figures is a good. thing. That said, I don't think he's earned one.
Try listening to his addresses and speeches over the last couple years, and look at the policies he's implemented. Look at all the dishonest coverage, and yes his blunt way of talking doesn't help, but it's still hard not to conclude that the media is the primary source of him being considered divisive.
I've seen a bunch of his speeches and many if not most of his speeches made my blood boil and I don't even live in the US, I don't read/watch much US media and my local news though allegedly left leaning only reports factual news on him and US politics in general.
Can you give an example of him being respectful or understanding of democrat policy or politicians?
Can you give an example of him being respectful or understanding of democrat policy or politicians?
The only way the media is making Trump look divisive is by reporting his words.
He has called fascists good people. He has called Mexican immigrants rapists. He has called other countries shitholes. He has recognized the illegal move by Israel to have Jerusalem as their capital (one of the only countries in the world to do so!). He refuses to endorse BLM, one of the largest popular movements in decades, and has sent armed forces to crash peaceful protests. He has escalated deportations even more. He has continued and increased Obama's assassination programs in the middle east, even assassinating a high foreign dignitary on another country's soil. He has repeatedly downplayed and refused to manage the greatest medical and economic emergency in almost 100 years, with consequences that will be visible for the next 20 years.
He has called fascists good people. He has called Mexican immigrants rapists. He has called other countries shitholes. He has recognized the illegal move by Israel to have Jerusalem as their capital (one of the only countries in the world to do so!). He refuses to endorse BLM, one of the largest popular movements in decades, and has sent armed forces to crash peaceful protests. He has escalated deportations even more. He has continued and increased Obama's assassination programs in the middle east, even assassinating a high foreign dignitary on another country's soil. He has repeatedly downplayed and refused to manage the greatest medical and economic emergency in almost 100 years, with consequences that will be visible for the next 20 years.
He has called fascists good people. He has called Mexican immigrants rapists
I'm not a fan of Trump's personality, but on HN, can't we be intellectually honest about politics?
The statements above are not in fact what he said if you allow him any honest amount of context.
I'm not a fan of Trump's personality, but on HN, can't we be intellectually honest about politics?
The statements above are not in fact what he said if you allow him any honest amount of context.
Maybe the fascists one is a little ambiguous. I believe that he meant exactly what I said, but I admit that other rational people can believe otherwise.
But for the second one he has stated 'When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.' I don't know how you can read this other than as a statement that most Mexican immigrants are drug delaers/users, criminals or rapists.
But for the second one he has stated 'When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.' I don't know how you can read this other than as a statement that most Mexican immigrants are drug delaers/users, criminals or rapists.
Not a Trump fan but by "...rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" he no doubt meant some were rapist not all, which is factually correct. Trump says so much bad stuff that twisting his words only really weakens the opposition case.
That expression clearly implies that MOST immigrants are drug dealers, criminals, or rapists - and that he can only assume that a few of them must also be good people (he can't know for sure that any are, though, he can only assume it - implying he has only seen the drug dealers, criminals, and rapists).
Didn’t he call other countries shitholes?
For example someone like Obama...?
Just because your politics only has 2 sides doesn't mean any criticism of one side is automatically in favour of the other.
When did obama say anything devisive? When did he actively intended to enflame tense situation? When did he say anything outright disrespectful to his opposition ?
Obama may not have been perfect but he was always respectful, always kept his cool.
Comparing Trump's hateful rhetoric of his opposition to How obama conducted himself is a bad joke.
Comparing Trump's hateful rhetoric of his opposition to How obama conducted himself is a bad joke.
You din't find it divisive becauee you agree with a lot of what he says. A lot of people found it divisive and the result was Trump.
metalliqaz(3)
One thing a lot of people don't realise is that Trump is the first president in a long time that hasn't invaded a country. Sure he's authorised bombings, which president hasn't?
But I can't remember the last time a president didn't put troops somewhere. Ironically he's getting a lot of hate for pulling out of Syria/Germany.
But I can't remember the last time a president didn't put troops somewhere. Ironically he's getting a lot of hate for pulling out of Syria/Germany.
Out of curiosity, please list these recent peace deals.
If the UAE/Baharin normalization with Israel is on that list, them remove it. Getting two countries, who are not in conflict, to acknowledge each other and begin a formal relationship is definitely not a peace deal. A peace deal needs to involve the warring parties, which this did not.
If the UAE/Baharin normalization with Israel is on that list, them remove it. Getting two countries, who are not in conflict, to acknowledge each other and begin a formal relationship is definitely not a peace deal. A peace deal needs to involve the warring parties, which this did not.
Forgot about this one already?
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1978/ceremony-speech...
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1978/ceremony-speech...
At the time that was given, Egypt and Israel had been formally in a state of war for over 30 years, and just a few years previously there had been a war in which thousands had died. It's not really a comparable situation.
Also, it was, quite reasonably, given to Sadat and Begin, not Carter.
Also, it was, quite reasonably, given to Sadat and Begin, not Carter.
Sure it's a comparable situation. If UAE/Bahrain had been independent countries in 1948 they'd have in an official state of war with Israel up until now as well.
Man, people are really buttmad because Trump didn't turn out to be as much of a warmonger as, say, Obama. Count your blessings; he's done fine on foreign policy where it counts.
Man, people are really buttmad because Trump didn't turn out to be as much of a warmonger as, say, Obama. Count your blessings; he's done fine on foreign policy where it counts.
Not listening and getting rid of Bolt? Anyone who was alive during Bush administration all around the world, and want world peace, cheered for the decision.
So by your logic there would always have to be wars for there to be a Peace prize? What about keeping the peace? Preventing a war?
No. Your leap of logic is unreasonable. He was talking about Trump's supposed list of peace deals.
We’re talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. There is sustained and ongoing armed conflict between two or more groups. So yes, to win the peace prize for solving the Israeli-Palestine situation you have to have actually stop the conflict. There is no peace to maintain, and impossible to prevent a war that has already happened.
You're talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other people are talking about the wider Israeli-Arab conflict, which has been closer to a cold war in the last couple of decades (modulo various training/funding for proxy operations), but just as real as the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. And worth defusing just like that one, though obviously it didn't have the "possible nuclear holocaust" issue going on.
That's a ridiculous amount of hair splitting. The normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and major powers in the Middle East is a huge win for anyone who cares about peace.
It's astounding to me that people hate Trump so much that they refuse to recognize the historicity of this moment. We're seeing a fundamental change in the dynamics of a conflict that has been ongoing for generations, and there's no denying that a huge impetus for that change has been a rethinking of how to solve the problem by the Trump administration.
It's astounding to me that people hate Trump so much that they refuse to recognize the historicity of this moment. We're seeing a fundamental change in the dynamics of a conflict that has been ongoing for generations, and there's no denying that a huge impetus for that change has been a rethinking of how to solve the problem by the Trump administration.
There have been many different attempts to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict and its many associated issues. Every US president has a go and having yet another attempt doesn’t win anyone awards until real results & a resolution between the parties involved in the conflict is achieved.
There was no big win here, Bahrain & UAE already had relationships with Israel, they were not in conflict. At best it can be described as possibly a small contributing factor to a future solution, if many other, much bigger and more relevant arrangements can be made. In reality not much has progressed. If anything, the few handshakes and promises made were a smokescreen for the unhappy status quo to go on as it was before.
There was no big win here, Bahrain & UAE already had relationships with Israel, they were not in conflict. At best it can be described as possibly a small contributing factor to a future solution, if many other, much bigger and more relevant arrangements can be made. In reality not much has progressed. If anything, the few handshakes and promises made were a smokescreen for the unhappy status quo to go on as it was before.
I suspect the crux of the disagreement is whether the conflict is "Israel/Palestine", as you label it, or "Israel/Arab", as I suspect crusso labels it. The UAE/Bahrain peace deals are a big step for the latter, and not directly relevant to the former. So if you focus on the former, you are right that "not much has progressed", but that's a matter of what sort of progress you care about.
For a long time the two conflicts were sort of interlinked, in that the Palestinians were used as both a rallying point and a pawn in the more general Arab/Israel conflict. Part of the significance of the UAE/Bahrain deals is an ongoing de-linking of the two conflicts.
As a concrete example of a substantive changes that will actually affect the lives of a number of people that have happened recently in the larger Arab/Israel context, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are now generally allowing flights from Israel through their airspace. This and the other recent liberalization steps are worth considering in the context of the situation described in https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-peace-deal-is-a-big-de..., where quite recently references to Israel were routinely censored in textbooks and encyclopedias in the UAE.
It's a big change from that to where we are now, and importantly it's a lot harder to sustain hostility against people you interact with on a daily basis than against a mysterious and vilified "other" that you never experience in person. So to the extent that easier travel leads to the travel actually happening, a practical effect of the sort of normalization of relations we are seeing could be a reduction in hostility "on the ground". Though that's likely to take a generation or three; these things are slow to change.
Now how much credit _Trump_ should get for any of this, I dunno; I wasn't in those conversations. But I also don't think people should claim that the changes here are not important just because they (for excellent reasons!) dislike Trump.
For a long time the two conflicts were sort of interlinked, in that the Palestinians were used as both a rallying point and a pawn in the more general Arab/Israel conflict. Part of the significance of the UAE/Bahrain deals is an ongoing de-linking of the two conflicts.
As a concrete example of a substantive changes that will actually affect the lives of a number of people that have happened recently in the larger Arab/Israel context, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are now generally allowing flights from Israel through their airspace. This and the other recent liberalization steps are worth considering in the context of the situation described in https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/the-peace-deal-is-a-big-de..., where quite recently references to Israel were routinely censored in textbooks and encyclopedias in the UAE.
It's a big change from that to where we are now, and importantly it's a lot harder to sustain hostility against people you interact with on a daily basis than against a mysterious and vilified "other" that you never experience in person. So to the extent that easier travel leads to the travel actually happening, a practical effect of the sort of normalization of relations we are seeing could be a reduction in hostility "on the ground". Though that's likely to take a generation or three; these things are slow to change.
Now how much credit _Trump_ should get for any of this, I dunno; I wasn't in those conversations. But I also don't think people should claim that the changes here are not important just because they (for excellent reasons!) dislike Trump.
I have a fear the de-linking of the Israel/Palestine and the Israel/Arab conflicts will lead to Israel completely crush Palestine.
Which will be very unpalatable for the wider Arab community, and suddenly we will be back to square one.
I see no realistic solutions, unfortunately.
As for Trump, I know many who can acknowledge that thankfully he has not started any wars, yet see him as incredibly dangerous to the US, and by extension, the world. When the US shrugs, the world trembles.
Which will be very unpalatable for the wider Arab community, and suddenly we will be back to square one.
I see no realistic solutions, unfortunately.
As for Trump, I know many who can acknowledge that thankfully he has not started any wars, yet see him as incredibly dangerous to the US, and by extension, the world. When the US shrugs, the world trembles.
no it is not. the deal was specifically a hedge for Israel's leadership against an unknown future for the trump administration in the US. they may as well have got Texas to sign a deal with Massachusetts.
Lost all credibility to me when they gave it to Obama despite him not doing anything.
And people like Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres before that. I agree, this prize is a nonsense.
But then it's lacked credibility from the start. Nobel only funded it to help rebrand his anticipated legacy, to offset being remembered as "le marchand de la mort".
But then it's lacked credibility from the start. Nobel only funded it to help rebrand his anticipated legacy, to offset being remembered as "le marchand de la mort".
It seems more like the Time magazine “Person of the year” cover.
Stalin and Hitler both graced the cover at various points in time.
Stalin and Hitler both graced the cover at various points in time.
Time Person of the Year does sound like a prize, and I'd guess most people do think of it as a honour, but it's explicitly not that. The "Person of the Year" is some person, group, idea, or thing that Time Magazine decides "for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year)
That's exactly my point, it's not actually based on any given accomplishment but more on "influence".
This is decidedly not true. You can do your own research as to why he was given it, as well as the process involved. To suggest he did nothing is a flat out lie.
> To suggest he did nothing is a flat out lie.
The deadline for nominations was eleven days after his inauguration. What did he do in those eleven days — other than not being Mr. Bush — that made him merit the prize?
Seriously, when I saw the headline here on HN I thought, 'oh sheesh, what now?' and was pleasantly surprised to see it go to a deserving organisation this year. That is how poor their decision 11 years ago was: over a decade later and I view the award with suspicion.B
The deadline for nominations was eleven days after his inauguration. What did he do in those eleven days — other than not being Mr. Bush — that made him merit the prize?
Seriously, when I saw the headline here on HN I thought, 'oh sheesh, what now?' and was pleasantly surprised to see it go to a deserving organisation this year. That is how poor their decision 11 years ago was: over a decade later and I view the award with suspicion.B
Why don't you point out something he did rather than claiming it is a lie? If your claim is that he did something to deserve it, then the onus is on you to prove it.
Here is the first link I get returned for Obama Peace Prize"
https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/why-obama-got-a-nobel-peace-pr...
It even says: “It is true, Obama did not do much before winning,” Lundestad, 74, a member of Norway’s Nobel Committee until 2014, told The Post.
Second link I got returned is this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
"Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize"
Here is the first link I get returned for Obama Peace Prize"
https://nypost.com/2019/11/02/why-obama-got-a-nobel-peace-pr...
It even says: “It is true, Obama did not do much before winning,” Lundestad, 74, a member of Norway’s Nobel Committee until 2014, told The Post.
Second link I got returned is this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
"Nobel secretary regrets Obama peace prize"
Yasser Arafat - still the only person to hijack a plane and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
So far...
The prize going to political leaders has been a mixed bag. Aung San Suu Kyi didn't turn out, for a recent example. The Arafat/Rabin choice seems poor in retrospect, but ATT it would have seemed like a similar choice to Begin/Sadaat a few years earlier. The latter peace did work out.
None of these people were pure white snow. All four were aggressive, militaristic nationalists for all their life. They all made peace though, or tried.
These are the kinds of choices that make the Peace Prize actually active. Politicians seek recognition, usually. I think venerating them for peacefulness does actually motivate. Trump wants one, for example. If an opportunity was there, I think he might have actually taken it just to get the prize.
The prize going to political leaders has been a mixed bag. Aung San Suu Kyi didn't turn out, for a recent example. The Arafat/Rabin choice seems poor in retrospect, but ATT it would have seemed like a similar choice to Begin/Sadaat a few years earlier. The latter peace did work out.
None of these people were pure white snow. All four were aggressive, militaristic nationalists for all their life. They all made peace though, or tried.
These are the kinds of choices that make the Peace Prize actually active. Politicians seek recognition, usually. I think venerating them for peacefulness does actually motivate. Trump wants one, for example. If an opportunity was there, I think he might have actually taken it just to get the prize.
[deleted]
Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel
Is the Peace Prize now just a grant program? When did that start?
What are you on about...?
always has been
When did that start?
The Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded to an institution in 1904 - https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1904/summary/ - so, to answer your question, 116 years ago.
The Nobel Peace Prize was first awarded to an institution in 1904 - https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1904/summary/ - so, to answer your question, 116 years ago.
I think he's talking about it being a grant program. Probably tongue in cheek as well.
I believe JumpCrisscross is suggesting that the World Food Programme winning the Nobel Prize is effectively the Nobel Foundation giving them 9m SEK to carry on their work (eg a grant) rather than awarding them the prize for the work they do to promote peace (eg a prize). I didn't read the comment as tongue in cheek at all. I read it as JumpCrisscross saying WFP didn't do enough to deserve the prize, presumably because tackling poverty and starvation isn't enough in JumpCrisscross's opinion.
That's precisely the reason why it was meant to be awarded for recent work/discoveries, and cannot be awarded posthumously. It is, and always has been, a grant program.
Hence the sarcasm. Jeesh
Malala does seem to be handling it well, so what do I know.