[A_D_E_P_T]

The prize is supposedly awarded to those who 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."

Hmmm. Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill, but the Peace Prize has been very strange of late in general.

By its own lights, I don't see a single person or entity who would deserve the prize this mad year. Maybe there's some ethicist somewhere...

[michaeltimo]

"Since World War II, the Peace Prize has principally been awarded to honour efforts in four main areas: arms control and disarmament, peace negotiation, democracy and human rights, and work aimed at creating a better organized and more peaceful world. In the 21st century the Nobel Committee has embraced efforts to limit the harm done by man-made climate change and threats to the environment as relevant to the Peace Prize." [0]

Narges is one of the most inspiring women in confronting the inhumane regime of the Islamic Republic, which never stops committing crimes. A regime that sent a 16-year-old girl into a coma just a few days ago because of her hijab [1]. Narges spent most of her life in the most dangerous prisons in Iran for her activities, and I think this award was not only for her, but also for the all oppressed women in Iran in the last four decades.

[0] https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/about-the-...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/03/iran-activists...

[Luctct]

The people who call out the "inhumane regime" of Iran are usually exactly the same ones who openly hate America (where women can do whatever the hell they want) and display sky high levels of admiration for Barack Obama, who gave a metric ton of American taxpayer money to Iran.

I am posting this again because my first post has been shadow banned.

[ReptileMan]

But the world is just as peaceful (or peaceless) as before her activism. Now if she actually overthrew or forced the government to reform - it would be different. But award should be given for results not efforts.

[nicce]

Results are important because many are giving a lot of effort or even more than her but just haven't got the publicity.

Publicity can lead to results but can it be measured in this case?

[no-reply]

On the basis of effort, we could probably hand out awards to a large number of dead people

[bannedbybros]

Why make the award reasonable when it can be a feel-good self-congratulatory propaganda fest?

[screye]

It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.

Truth is, the most peaceful transitions are usually military coups. 'Peacefully' won transitions are often the bloodiest. Fear is a terrible thing, but it does lead to effective peace.

With the Nobel Peace Prize, it's usually a coin toss between moral martyr, future genocider and someone who did impactful work towards peace. The best example of their schizo-ness is Gandhi. They didn't award Gandhi when he lead a peaceful resistance. But, awarded it posthumously in the aftermath of the bloodiest & nastiest population exchange in the history of humanity.

[vijayr02]

Gandhi was never awarded the peace prize. He was nominated in the year he was assassinated. The actual prize was not awarded that year.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/mahatma-gandhi-the-...

[AlbertCory]

> It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.

I'm not seeing the problem here. Some non-Western regimes seem to think it's fine to deny people their human rights, e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan, China. There is no moral equivalence between Western and those.

[screye]

2/4 of those were in better conditions before the US invaded them for oil interests.

Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition. Venezuela while a basket case now, is still a "what if" in a world without CIA interreference and unilateral sanctions.

China is odd. It is an autocratic repressive regime with their recent founder having the 2nd highest body count of any leader. But, it is also the most impressive story of raising an slice of humanity from poverty into a strong middle economy.

Western countries think about peace & human rights in isolation. What recent democratic nation has managed to elevate itself from abject poverty to being a strong middle economy, with no natural resources ride to infinity. India might have something to show over the next 30 years, but as of today, they started off richer than China at independence and find themselves miles behind. All of Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand & Japan had their growth occur under incredibly repressive govts. They might seem peaceful countries today, they certainly weren't that during their growth.

> moral equivalence

Moral equivalence can only exist when all other variables are the same. Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.

[AlbertCory]

> Norway might claim moral high ground on account of being an egalitarian nation, but its entire economy is oil. Remove the oil, and you might see their claimed unwavering morals waver.

apparently you were born after 1980. Who cares about their oil?

> Venezuela's bloodiness is in part because of CIA funded violent opposition.

Oh, I see. So Chavez & Maduro are because of the CIA? What a world we live in, where the CIA has such awesome power such that everything "bad" is their fault. I suppose now they're powerless until Maduro is finally gone, and then it'll be their doing.

Yet they still can't get rid of Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union, keep the Shah in power, or stop 9/11. They're only powerful when something you don't like happens.

Maybe you should move to one of those people's paradises. It sounds like you'd be happier there.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Not all peaces are equal. One peace might be that of some idyllic utopia where all are content, healthy, and safe. Then there is the peace of the death camp which has completed its mission and has no victims left to murder. And countless peaces in between those two extremes, some better and less violent, some gruesome and traumatizing even just to describe.

I cannot say which peace the Nobel awards, or even if it awards to the same sort of peace year to year. But if anyone can do something about the Iranian government, then maybe they do deserve the thing. I doubt he ever meant it to become the "successful eternal subjugation of humanity" award.

[RegnisGnaw]

There is always the Confucius Peace Prize for those that want a 'Eastern moral prize'.

[ReptileMan]

It's worse. She obviously deserves a western moral prize, but peace Nobel in last decades is "Moral wank to make westerners feel good about themselves"

[lostlogin]

> It does feel more like the 'Western moral prize' rather than a Peace Prize.

Iran, China, Afghanistan et al are welcome to start their own prize.

I see that China’s Confucius price seems to be disbanded after getting offside with their government.

Recipients include Putin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius_Peace_Prize

[pipo234]

The Nobel Peace Prize has historically been surrounded by the kind of ambivalent feelings you allude to.

To name one: Hume & Trimble (1998) was considered ironic because it was viewed as kind of reward for ceasing violence they initially caused. Similar remarks were made in 1993 about Mandela and De Klerk. It can even be argued that Gorbachev and Carter had blood on their hands before becoming saints.

Maybe this kind of ambiguity is simply rooted in the fact that the monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel.

' Guess "contribution to peace" is less about ethics and more of a political concept.

[KMag]

> monetary price is paid by the deeply ironic invention of dynamite by Alfred Nobel.

Note that net-net, the invention of dynamite probably saved many lives. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite invented by Nobel isn't very useful for military purposes, and has never been in wide military use. It can't be safely stored for long periods or in hot conditions, making it ill-suited for battlefield logistics. Nitroglycerin-based dynamite is primarily used in mining and earth-moving.

Properly stored, dynamite is both much safer and more powerful than the black powder or liquid nitroglycerine that were primarily used in mining and earth-moving before the invention of dynamite.

Much later, "military dynamite", a more stable dynamite substitute devoid of nitroglycerine and more suited to military use was developed. While more stable, it's more expensive, and less commonly used. I don't believe Nobel had anything to do with the development of military dynamite.

[1024core]

Don't forget Obama. He was given the prize before he even did anything.

And then he proceeded to bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Syria, etc.

[vkou]

Obama got it for being not-Bush (What a bar to clear!). It was a large middle finger raised by world, as a rebuke to 2001-2008 US foreign policy.

It was disappointing, but unsurprising that 2009-20?? has gone down more or less the same road.

[dragonwriter]

While De Klerk certainly participated in it, neither Mandela nor De Klerk started the system of violent racial oppression in South Africa.

Neither of them started the armed resistance against it, either, though Mandela obviously participated in that.

[tgv]

My newspaper had an interview with a former judge, and he said something along the lines of: if it doesn't chafe, it will become irrelevant. So tend to prefer somewhat controversial figures over safe choices.

[selimthegrim]

When did Hume’s party cause any violence?

[zvmaz]

> Well. I don't quite see how formenting revolution fits the bill

Oppressive regimes like to use these sorts of rhetorical ploys to discredit social movements. Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency? Or are they just puppets to foreign machinations?

[wheelerof4te]

"social movements."

LOL, try harder. NGOs paid by the westerners are a thing, but you sure know that. If these people did not get free money for their actions, they would be silent.

"Do people under authoritarian regimes have any agency?"

"Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party.

Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.

[cderpz]

>"Authoritarian regimes" usually have popular support since a huge majority supports the ruling party.

This argument makes about as much sense as the following one:

>Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.

The defining characteristic of an authoritarian regime as opposed to a democratic one is that it does not derive its power and legitimacy from the people - i.e. popular support. It may be stable and "popular" and still terrible, North Korea comes to mind. But as out of touch as you seem to be, you probably belong to that strange group of people who think NK is actually an anti Western paradise.

[AlbertCory]

There's a simple test of"a huge majority supports the ruling party":

Have a fair election, where both sides are permitted to make their case to the voting public. No candidates or supporters would be imprisoned or legally harassed, before or after the election.

Then have another one a year or two later, since "your vote actually counts" would be a teaching moment for people who aren't used to it.

[wheelerof4te]

"No candidates or supporters would be imprisoned or legally harassed, before or after the election."

You mean, like currently in the "most democratic country" in the world.

So yeah, please do have a fair election. No vote stealing either, and no voting dead.

[thriftwy]

Unfortunately, this is very true. If we look at public opposition to authoritarian regimes, we will see layers upon layers of NGO pets and very few independent figures.

It is so apparent that they actually discredit the idea of opposing authoritarianism. Democracy is a tough sell if you know your local democratic movement is paid for by other countries which do not have your country's well-being, or existence, as a motivation.

So there are a lot of people discontent with lack of options and restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, but they do not have a voice. People who have a voice are universally paid agents of NGOs. They get good money to film expensive produced youtube videos and get cited by world press all the time. There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime.

[thriftwy]

So it turned out just this week that the prominent democratic opposition figure, the guy behind the anti-authoritarian icon Pussy Riot and the anti-war, pacifist often-cited media Mediazona, brags that he is enlisted in Armed Forces of Ukraine.

So he is non-Russian, non-democratic, non-pacifist non-journalist.

He is just a proud Ukrainian fighter all along the way. Great for him. Have we got any Russian opposition? Give me a name, I challenge you.

I also wonder how great it for low-level activists who were supplying Mediazona with information in order to raise awareness of Russian soldier deaths on Ukrainian fronts, that they are now liable to get high treason charges for offloading that data directly in hands of an enlisted AFU fighter.

[wheelerof4te]

"There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime."

That is by nature. You can't make every person in a country happy. There are millions of homeless people, discontent people, depressed people all around the West. These people have been mercilessly oppressed by the cruel practices of neo-liberalism and profit-oriented capitalism. Imagine what world-wide sanctions and isolation would do to them.

Are there any NGOs that promote their plight? Of course not, since other countries either can't pay or are not interested in them. In the best case, there is a few under-paid organizations that are (cleverly) not getting the media attention.

[zaphirplane]

You are arguing the work done is good, which doesnt mean it should win or be included in every category. Keep hammering how horrible dictators are or child illiteracy is just shouting think of the children meme.

Would it surprise you if she won Nobel prize for chemistry for advocating freedoms ? It would surprise me

[lancebeet]

There have been quite a few laureates who were awarded the prize for their activism against apartheid, some of whom also spent time in prison due to their revolutionary tendencies. Would you consider these prizes equally unjustified?

[ReptileMan]

Yes. You have time man of the year for that kind.

[galangalalgol]

Choosing to face injustice with articles and signs and peaceful gatherings instead of masks and high explosives furthers the goals of peace. Unless her articles explicitly called for violence, I have not read them.

[ReptileMan]

But she has not changed anything. It is irrelevant what method you use if the status quo is not moved.

[oh_sigh]

Anything that leads Iran towards secularization and away from religious extremism could probably be viewed as a giant win for world peace.

[jansan]

> the Peace Prize has been very strange of late in general.

Remember when a man received the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush?

[A_D_E_P_T]

You could at least make the case that Obama promoted -- indeed, in a sense, embodied -- "fraternity between nations," for he was incredibly popular with most of America's allies. (See, e.g., his "rock star" reception in Germany.) Even its enemies were at worst ambivalent towards him personally, and at best they were hopeful that he'd bring about positive change. In this sense, he, at minimum, shored up the self-image of the Western world.

So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.

But this year's prize will apparently do nothing but increase enmity and discord, which strikes me as odd and counter to the prize's intended purpose. The Iranian regime isn't going to look at this prize and see the light; it's going to react indignantly and perhaps violently.

[parthdesai]

> So I thought it was weird, sure, but I could somehow rationalize it.

Not if you happened to be a person in Libya/Syria/Afghanistan or a few other middle eastern countries.

[suoduandao3]

If I recall correctly though, Obama won the peace prize shortly after winning the election and ran from a much more doveish platform than he governed from.

[LanceH]

He won the prize before actually doing anything more than campaign promises. If we're awarding prizes based on campaign promises...well, there will be some interesting awards, indeed.

[dmbche]

I think they might be refering to Al Gore instead of Obama?

[jansan]

OP here, I meant Obama. I totally forgot that Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. Dear Lord, that prize has really lost its meaning.

[barry-cotter]

Both of them got it for not being Bush.

[screye]

The mishandling of the entire middle-east is hard to ignore. If anything, Trump's only consensus wins came from cleaning up the mess in the middle east.

> shored up the self-image of the Western world

Which tells you everything you need to about the Nobel Peace Prize.

[mrguyorama]

>cleaning up the mess in the middle east.

Pray tell, how did Trump clean up anything in the middle east?

[wheelerof4te]

Oh, yea, I remember.

Remember when he started droning civilians all over the Middle East anyway, just because they might have been linked to Al-Qaeda?

The same Al-Qaeda US supported and trained a couple decades before that.

[dragonwriter]

> The same Al-Qaeda US supported and trained a couple decades before that.

Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US did not support and train al-Qaeda as such.

[parthdesai]

If you're going to make claims with such authority, please have the correct information. Sure Al-Qaeda was formed after the Soviet withdrawal, but it consisted of very members that US and Pakistan (ISI) helped in their fight against Soviet union, including Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Afghan_Arabs

[rammer]

Yep.

US has been at the root of a lot of this century's problems..

[Paradigma11]

Afaik US funding went to the afghan mujahideen not arab volunteers. Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?

[webmobdev]

Obama getting the Nobel peace price was when I realised what a big political joke the whole thing is (and I admire Obama!).

It is very clear that it is just another political tool used by the west - Gandhi did not get the award because the British government lobbied hard against him. Imagine, the man who advocated for peaceful political resolutions throughout his life, who was the architect of the non-violent political movement that inspired 100's of millions in his own country and other foreign leaders to embrace it too for their local political cause, is considered "not worthy" of the very thing that this "Peace" prize seeks to bestow recognition upon.

The founders of the Non-Aligned Movement also deserved the peace prize for refusing to get involved in the cold war politics (a very black and white way of looking at international politics). I am sure there are many more good examples, around the world, of people who deserved this prize but weren't seriously considered (or deliberately omitted) because of western politics.

[tonmoy]

Plenty of human rights activists have won the Nobel peace prize in the recent past, this is nothing new.

[nemetroid]

The same could be said of Martin Luther King.

[ReptileMan]

Martin Luther King won. Iran is still the same. Subtle difference.

[UncleMeat]

MLK was killed. Key parts of the US are still extremely heavily segregated. Major portions of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act have been undone by the courts. Antidiscrimination legislation and jurisprudence is being more often leveraged to prevent policies that MLK would have supported like affirmative action than it is being used to continue the project of desegregation. Teaching core parts of MLK's belief system can get you fired in some states.

I don't think "MLK won" is a complete story.

[klyrs]

This sounds a lot like Trump's dismissal of John McCain. A true coward's take.

[mardifoufs]

Rather be a coward than a blood thirsty war hawk like McCain was.

[1024core]

You could say the same about Ang San Suu Kyi. Or Nelson Mandela, for that matter.

[demondemidi]

Fomenting